Thursday, May 3, 2012

Canada- "secret" bank bailouts? Canadian Bank scandals?

Yes, I am going long, because there is a lot to cover. A lot.
 Besides the taxpayer funded bank bailouts were going to read some news on two Canadian banks involved in some dirty,dirty dealings....
The Canadian media has been very quiet on these two banks and their scandals.
Not surprising really, given, their non-coverage of bank bailouts!
Hoping you noticed the recent news about bank bailouts in Canada. "Secret bailouts"???


Did Canadian banks receive secret bailouts
You may or may not be aware that the government "secretly" bailed the Canadian banks out?
It wasn't all that secret. But, it sure didn't get a lot of coverage!
One could say the Canadian main stream/ corporate media was quiet on the news.
Particularly in comparison to their constant propaganda for the NATO war agenda
Of course the bank bailouts were far more important to the average Canadian.
Since John and Jane taxpayer are on the hook for it all!

If you were a Canadian reader at this blog, you were made aware that  the banks were bailed out as far back as 2008.

Monday, October 20, 2008 - Canada's banks- Financial crisis, or NAU standardization ??


Moving along to today: Ottawa poised to bolster bank lending

"Ottawa is poised to guarantee loans Canada's banks extend to other financial institutions, a dramatic step aimed at ensuring the raft of multibillion-dollar bailouts around the world don't leave the banks at a competitive disadvantage.

The pledge to backstop interbank lending would cost the government nothing immediately, and the risk of ever being called on to bail out any of the banks is minimal because Canada's lenders have plenty of cash in reserve"

So, here is Ottawa, being so generous with taxpayers dollars and so enamoured of changing rules of ACCOUNTABILITY, for the banks. What is going on? 

Ottawa was poised to guarantee loans Canada's banks extend to other financial institutions?
December 11/2009: I covered the bailout again -Canadians and debt and banker bonus's tax free

Then, Flaherty claims Canadians didn't bail banks out, but actually Canadians did in a round about way... the taxpayers, took 25 billion dollars of mortgages off of the banks books. That happened in October 2008. That is a bail out. 

And there was more. I had another post on the topic with a link to the Government of Canada's website. I'll be damned if I can find that post!

However....Global Research had a good piece in 2009

Canada's 75 billion dollar bank bailout

The 64 billion dollar budget deficit should come as no surprise. 

"It is directly related to a 75 billion dollar bank bailout program for Canada's chartered banks, announced, virtually unnoticed,  four days before the October Federal election. 
The bank bailout received close to no media coverage; its budgetary implications were not analyzed. 
In a statement by Prime Minister Harper on October 10, the bank bailout was casually presented as a commitment by the Federal government to purchase an initial $25 billion in "secure" bank mortgages from the Canadian chartered banks. The transaction would be implemented through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp:
"Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) will purchase up to $25 billion in insured mortgage pools as part of the Government of Canada’s plan, announced today, to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada." (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Supports Canadian Credit Markets, CHMC Press Release, 10 October 2009)
The decision implies a money transfer into the coffers of Canada's financial institutions. The money is "fungible" and can be used by the banks as they see fit:  
"The federal government's [initial] $25-billion takeover of bank-held mortgages to ease a growing credit crunch faced by the country's financial institutions is not a bailout similar to recent moves made in the United States and other Western countries, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Friday.

"This is not a bailout; this is a market transaction that will cost the government nothing,"
he told reporters at a campaign rally in Brantford, Ont., ahead of Tuesday's federal election.

"We are not going in and buying bad assets. What we're doing is simply exchanging assets that we already hold the insurance on and the reason we're doing this is to get out in front. The issue here is not protecting the banks." (CBC News October 10, 2008, emphasis added)
The 25 billion dollar allocation was announced four days prior to the elections. Two days following the federal elections, the first mortgage purchase took place leading to an initial cash injection of 5 billion into the coffers of the chartered banks."

As mentioned by the Global research article this news of the bank bailouts received close to NO media coverage in Canada.

 It is also important to point out that none of the Canadian political parties made an issue of this. I simply can't imagine why?........ (facetious)

Background out of the way, the bailout news has finally hit the mainstream. Four years later. 

The Canadian Bankers claim that they were not given a bailout. Of course.--

 Group says Canadian Banks weren't bailed out


The Canadian Bankers' Association dismissed a report Monday that the country's major banks would have been in serious trouble if they hadn't received billions of dollars in support from the Canadian government and Bank of Canada during the global credit crisis. 

 Claim what they may. Claim what they might. Canadian Banks got bailed out, alright!

Wellington Financial Blog talked this topic Dec 2009. No Canadian Bank bailouts? Say's Who?

The blogger links us to  Gov of Canada website and the CMHC

At both of these places the reader can read, what is clearly, a bailout of the banks.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) will purchase up to $25 billion in insured mortgage pools as part of the Government of Canada’s plan, announced today, to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada.

The banks transferred mortgage ownership to CMHC in exhange for funds. To ensure liquidity.

The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced the Government will purchase up to an additional $50 billion of insured mortgage pools by the end of the fiscal year as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada.

A bail-out, is a bailout, is a bailout. No matter what fancy name it is dress up with.

To conclude: The Canadian banks were bailed out on the QT. Now taxpayers are on the hook. It is a simple as that!

Here is some other bank news that has failed to garner any coverage of note in Canada! 

Royal Bank: RBC accused of illegal stock futures trades 

A top U.S. regulator is accusing Royal Bank of Canada of engaging in hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal stock futures trades to gain Canadian tax credits.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) alleged Monday that RBC "wilfully concealed and made false statements" in what it called a "wash sales scheme" between 2007 and 2010, in which the bank traded futures contracts with its own subsidiaries under non-arm's-length terms.
Not to be left out of bank scams and scandal TD/ Canada Trust seems to have been involved with some kind of scam

TD Bank ordered to pay $67 million for role in billion dollar Ponzi scheme

 MIAMI - A federal jury decided Wednesday that Toronto-based TD Bank owes an investment group $67 million for its role in a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme that was operated by a now disbarred attorney, Scott Rothstein.

The verdict came in a lawsuit filed by Coquina Investments, based in Corpus Christi, Texas. It was the first to go to trial of several pending lawsuits filed by wronged investors against the bank and others. Coquina attorney David S. Mandel said the jury "sent exactly the right message to TD Bank."

 

21 comments:

  1. Canadians are confused by the excellent propaganda we receive on a daily basis. The disconnect over the Canadian bank bailouts and what people think is huge.

    Smugness and vanity drive Canadians to constantly watch and condemn the many crimes of the USA. Too bad we were not half as vigilant with our own government. I guess we have outsourced our vigilance to CBC and gone to sleep. Amazing how so many think once Harper is gone we will all be OK.
    The silence of the NDP and Libs over these bailouts, while they occurred and now, speaks volumes about their corruptness, but no one is listening.

    I look forward to handing this article over to a few of my banking friends with whom I have argued for the past two years about the bailouts. All I had was the Globalresearch article which they dismissed as conspiracy. Even though this current media dump of bailout info was quick and quiet, it is on the record.
    You provided a nice summary of it all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glad you enjoyed it!
    Will it change anyone's mind?
    Sadly, if people want to "believe" they will, no matter what is obvious.

    Of course PM Harper has been reinforcing the big lie- the banks were solid through the "crisis" and they still are
    The big lie!
    When clearly they weren't and they still are not.
    Which makes me suspicious that a crash of the housing market is coming.
    An intentional crash. So the banks can grab the properties.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The disconnect is huge, but the many layers of situations are more complicated, Penny.

    The real estate market in Canada has been propped up enormously by rich immigrants, and Canada remains a safe haven country in the world. Especially so in times of war. Only because of rich immigrants in key areas, it appears from the outside that because of a hot real estate market, the fundamentals are good.

    But don't expect a dramatic crash per se - Canada will continue to harbour rich immigrants coming in to flee the trouble. Although, a dip will come for sure when the mortgage interest rates go up in the very near future - and mortgage approval rules just got changed, it will take a further hit. Still, there will be a constant influx of money into real estate - rich immigrants protecting wealth and assets the way smart resident Canadians should have been taught to do from the start (that is, actually owning a house, as opposed to owning 10% of a house while owing an enormous debt to the banks and brokers).

    And lastly, banks absolutely do want property Pen. It's a losing sum game for them. It makes the most money for them when they have a huge mortgage under their thumb that a lower middle class family can barely continue paying . . . that is where they make all the interest money, and where they further create money from having their debt on their books. So, it's not what they want.

    What the banks want is people getting bigger and bigger mortgages, and more and more credit - and be able to barely pay it off. The last thing they want s a default, collections, or a repossession.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry - meant to type, "banks absolutely do NOT want property".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey slozo:

    Generally, I would agree that banks do not want property.
    But, looking at the US, it was advantageous to the banks to take properties back (foreclose)
    because of the investment scandal that ensued

    Mortgage backed securities and MERS

    The people who owe are still on the hook for what is owed to the banks
    The banks or insurers have the property and can remortgage them again with new owners

    Or can keep them off the market to ensure that house prices do not fall so much that large mortgages are again not guaranteed
    Because of mortgage insurance....the banks win no matter which way it goes

    The government has made a move with CMHC I find strange and worrisome.
    Because if homeowners default and a lot of them will with just a 1% increase in rates

    CMHC has insured the mortgages- with the banks receiving the payments

    The banks have nothing to lose by foreclosing on the homes

    I think a move will be made soon

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whoever you are that answered me,

    The banks DO in fact lose (ie - make far less money, and often only break even, sometimes even actually losing money, if you can believe it) when foreclosing on homes. If you worked in the industry here in Canada, you would know. Educate yourself please, I cannot do it for you. Go find out what the process is - what the cost of foreclosure is, what is the total loss of revenue from interest and the capital of having a debt owed, as opposed to a money sucking property which makes zero money until sold, which they lose money on of course, big time (get well below market value). It goes on and on . . . but like I said, you need to educate yourself on it.

    Banks, above and beyond anything, need more and more DEBT to keep the shell game going, and that is what they strive for. Debt creates money for them . . . and by its nature enslaves the people to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "whoever you are that answered me"
      what is that about?

      explain, if you wouldn't mind, how the banks lose money foreclosing on homes, when all mortgages are insured through CMHC as an example?

      I realize they need debt to keep the shell game going?

      But if mortgages are insured.... mortgagees are on the hook for money not recouped when house is sold
      and subsequent house buyers take on debt to purchase home
      how is there a loss to the banks???

      Along with the fact that they have been massively bailed by taxpayers... I fail to see the loss.

      IMO banks never lose, since they control every aspect of the game, so to speak.

      Delete
  7. Further to the ever expanding debt game
    mortgages aren't the only method to multiply dollars
    There are credit cards
    car loans
    student loans
    lines of credits
    etc.

    I hope when you respond, if you so chose, you won't come off quite as hostile.

    " If you worked in the industry here in Canada, you would know. "

    Not everyone works in the banking industry
    Which btw is a sort of "appeal to authority" And you know as well as I do, that is about a valuable as the fiat money really is
    ????
    I don't find that people who work in the banking industry are any more enlightened with the madness involved or surrounding the banking industry and it's debt enslavement then the general public

    Anyway slozo..... If you were having a bad day, hoping you have a better one today

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A mosquito lives a full life in a couple of days.
      Banks play in a different time zone than we do.
      Vacuuming up real estate is a game with short term losses and long term gains.
      When all the small farms in the American mid west went bust in the early 1980's, it was a result of banks manipulating loans, interest, foreclosure, and refinance options. Those worthless farms are now valuable land for Monsanto and ADM.

      The long term game is to reduce ownership of farms, homes or any land based asset of people and transfer it to corporate swine.
      A boat load of paper losses totaling billions to a crime syndicate that prints its own money is nothing, nothing.
      The land, our homes and ability to have some independence is what they are after, and they are winning.

      PS Penny, the Libya mission cost Canadian $350 million, not $50 million. Big news?
      The Canadian civil war that started a few months back continues to rage and grow. The media blackout on this story is sickening.
      Good video here.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL1Gd1qjqEg&feature=player_embedded

      Delete
    2. Hey Anonymous!

      I caught that news- regarding Libya
      the government knew what the figures would be...before they even undertook that slaughter of innocents and plunder of a nation.

      What about that "smoke bomb" in the Montreal subway
      "terror charges"? good grief
      I wish I had more time to cover all this nonsense
      HOw about the privatization of prisons??
      I saw that one coming, way back...
      Of course the gullible will go all "law and order"
      fools

      as for the banks, they have rigged the game, like a casino
      they can never really lose

      Delete
    3. Thanks for putting up that video Penny.
      My first instinct on smoke bombs was inside job, but who knows?
      Prison privatization, classic Harper, brutal. The closing of that one in Kingston now to "save us all money" will no doubt be a factor down the road in some sort of crisis lack of space to be solved by.................the Wackenhut/GEO group of course.

      Delete
    4. the smoke bombs in the subway were way to convenient.
      conveniently timed, placed
      etc.,
      My first instinct is inside jobs also

      as for the Wackenhut solution...
      nail meet hammer, hammer meet nail
      you hit it!

      Delete
  8. I don't find that people who work in the banking industry are any more enlightened with the madness involved or surrounding the banking industry and it's debt enslavement then the general public

    On the contrary, they are the most susceptible to believe their rationalisations. I worked several months for one of the big 5 consultant firms which audits regularly the banking sector here (remember, I work in Luxembourg a banking powerhouse compared actually to its real size). I had to attend a lot of training about the "banking industry". What I took away from it, and I have to tell that at that time I wasn't enlightend yet about the fiat money system, was that these people and the higher they were placed, believed everything they spew out.

    This not only applies to the banking industry, it applies in every bigger organisation. The higher up the people are, the more they repeat and believe the PR propaganda rationalisation. To add a bit of qualification to my observation, I mean the people that climb the hierarchy ladder up and come from inside the org. The top-level people don't live and play by the same rules anyway (and that's in fact what most conspiracy theories are about in reality, the unaccountability of the top levels in any organisation, private or public).

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'On the contrary, they are the most susceptible to believe their rationalisations'

    Don't I know it!

    You should hear some of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of the branch employees I deal with

    Yikes.

    I always make comments like on line banking is insecure
    If everyone banks on line you won't have a job
    Hackings
    Banks being charged and involved in scandals

    And they all look at me with that "deer in the headlights" look
    As if some of the stuff I said, has never occurred to them
    Ever.

    One even told me she "trusts the bank"
    Yah, well good luck with that!

    ReplyDelete
  10. On rereading my comment I notice that I forgot someting:

    was that these people and the higher they were placed, believed everything they spew out.
    and even me as a lowly IT consultant could see the huge logical and physical flaws in the system they presented. When one has a physicists background, one get the laws of thermodynamics quite well, nothing is created out of thin air, nothing disappears completely (to cite Lavoisier « Rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée, tout se transforme ») and this applies to every system, even the economy. So if wealth is created on one side, it disappears somewhere else.
    What these guys described and completely believed was in fact the perpetuum mobile.


    *I studied maths and physics as majors, CS was the minor, my career as embedded C developer had only to do with the opportunities that IT offered, in maths and physics it would have been much more difficult to do a useful career.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks gallier.
    Physics is not my forte, at all.
    Perpetuum mobile?

    Is this perpetual motion?
    Curious?
    If you pop back in, leave a link to explain the difference in the two laws

    That would help me to understand the differences you are pointing out

    Merci-

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ok, I reread what I wrote and granted it's not really clear what I wanted to express (and on its own is even outright false).
    First, yes perpetuum mobile is the latin word perpetual motion and is often used as an example of an impossible thing, because in a mechanical system you will always have losses due to friction. Without adding some energy from outside, your system will always stop.
    In an economy, it's the same thing and there are only 2 true sources that add real value to the whole, raw material (mining and agriculture) and labour (a mason that built a house from rubble added wealth).
    The problem these guys had was that they did seem oblivious to this fact. They couldn't grasp that money is only a measure of value, not value itself. Money is a stand in for a commodity good or for a promise of labour, it is neither of both. This means that if you create money out of thin air, you do not create wealth but you dilute your money. Conversly if you don't dilute your money, you will lose money because some of it will be set aside and removed from the system.
    But what kills the system is the fundamental mathematical difference between the growth of these 2 things. The economical growth is linear or at best supra-linear (a wishy-washy term to say polynomial of an order between 1 and 2). The money supply that is built on debt uses interests, which are by definition exponential. Even high-school maths is sufficent to understand that an exponential always will trump a polynomial function.
    This means that there will always come a time where all the wealth of a nation will not be enough to repay the interests on the money supply.
    That was obvious from their explanations but they couldn't see it because they made the error of mixing up the terms currency and wealth.

    I know, economists will scream about my simplification above, but as a first order approximation it works quite well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "money is only a measure of value, not value itself. Money is a stand in for a commodity good or for a promise of labour, it is neither of both. This means that if you create money out of thin air, you do not create wealth but you dilute your money. Conversly if you don't dilute your money, you will lose money because some of it will be set aside and removed from the system.
      But what kills the system is the fundamental mathematical difference between the growth of these 2 things. The economical growth is linear or at best supra-linear (a wishy-washy term to say polynomial of an order between 1 and 2). The money supply that is built on debt uses interests, which are by definition exponential. Even high-school maths is sufficent to understand that an exponential always will trump a polynomial function."

      Ok, lets see if I am understanding what you are saying?

      money is a measure of value, but is not the VALUE itself.
      The value, true value, is in the labour, commodity or product.

      creating money: a measure of value- does not create real value (labour, product, commodity)

      money being like the life blood of the system
      It courses through the system oxygenating and revitalizing the system. Representing true value.

      Economic growth being linear, likely in line with the real value produced (product, commodity, labour)

      Money supplying growth being exponential....based on usary
      soon dilutes the true value economic growth

      Until it finally overtakes it-sucking the life out of the true value system and the system created exponentially collapses

      Is that about right Gallier?

      Delete
  13. What one can add to my "theory" is that, who controles the money supply can controle the labour part, but that would not be enough, because of barter, the labouring populace could live more or less unhinged. But if one controles commodity, it's a whole other story. This explains the bitterness in the pursuit of the gas and oil wars. The events in Syria are part of the gas wars as voltairnet today explained. remember nabucco? That's it.
    Sorry in french but google-translate is not that bad in en-fr.
    http://www.voltairenet.org/La-Syrie-centre-de-la-guerre-du

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey gallier2:
    been swamped the past couple of days, thanks for the link and yes, I recall Nabucco...
    Thinking I have several posts on that pipeline.
    Gonna check the voltaire out and see if it ties in with my old post

    Merci mon ami!

    (that's my ultra lame french skills in action!)

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS