Не Кипрский вариант изыскания унутренних резервов в Канаде
Добавлено: 06 апр 2013, 05:59
неспроста наше правительство убеждает нас что у нас не будет как на Кипре.
Во-первых, непонятно зачем нас убеждать если таких планов нет в прынцыпе?
Во-вторых, если планы по изьятию обсуждаются но не по кипскому варианту - то по какому варианту?
Пилят, надо будет завести сейф, деньги снимать в банке в пятницу, класть в домашний сейф на выходные, затем в понедельник опять в банк.
Или купить чтонить дорогое и ненужное шоб взять кредит в банке, и потихоньку возврашать.
Всяко лучче если ты должен банку а не банк тебе.
Кста, с большим кредитом можно хорошо навариться в ситуации когда банку плохо.
Помница когда Сибирскому торговому банку пришел кирдык то знакомые очень хорошо наварились на кредите
скема такая
-ты должен банку, и банку кирдык. Но как честный человек - ты должен вернуть кредит
-другой чел имеет деньги в банке но взять не может, но может перевести деньги внутри банка
-другой переводит тебе скажем 100 рублей, ты погашаешь кредит
-ты отдаешь другому 10 рублей но реальными деньгами
Надо что-то придумать с РРСП.
У кого какие идеи?
Как пользовать РРСП самому? Не хочеца снимать их как доход - и так много налогов уплочено
кстати - правительство якобы гарантирует возврат депоситов до 100К, но нигде не сказано про в какой срок.
кто-то на работе говорил про 70 лет.
правда?
====
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/balan ... 29237.html
Ottawa clarifies Cyprus-style ‘bail-in’ language in federal budget
The federal government is trying to reassure Canadians that it isn’t making plans for a Cyprus-style cut into consumer bank accounts in the “unlikely event” of a bank collapse in Canada.
“The ‘bail-in’ scenario described in the budget has nothing to do with consumer deposits and they are not part of the ‘bail-in’ regime,” Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s press secretary Kathleen Perchaluk said in a statement.
The clarification came this week in response to the “bail-in” regime outlined in the recent federal budget. It understandably raised some eyebrows, particularly in the wake of what happened in Cyprus when money was taken from deposits to deal with the tiny European country's banking crisis.
A "bail-in" happens when an organization has to find money from within to solve a crisis. That's the opposite of a bailout – as we saw with American financial institutions and car companies during the 2008-09 financial crisis – when emergency capital come in from outside sources, such as government.
On page 141 of the recent federal budget it states: “The Government proposes to implement a ‘bail-in’ regime for systemically important banks. This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital.”
In the follow up statement this week, Perchaluk said Ottawa’s move is in line with recent international agreements, but that Canadians shouldn’t worry about losing their funds.
“Under a ‘bail-in’ arrangement, a failing financial institution has to tap into its own special reserves or assets (which it has been forced to put aside) to keep its operations going,” Perchaluk stated. “The ‘bail-in’ regime would only kick in during the extremely unlikely event that a major bank in Canada begins to fail. This keeps the financial institution intact, without putting taxpayers at risk.”
In the budget, Ottawa said it will consult with “stakeholders” on how best to implement a Canadian bail-in regime using timelines that, “will allow for a smooth transition for affected institutions, investors and other market participants.”
==================
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... banks.html
Neil Macdonald: Ottawa weighing plans for bank failures
Federal government looking at 'Cyprus solution'
Buried deep in last month's federal budget is an ambiguously worded section that has roiled parts of the financial world but has so far been largely ignored by the mainstream media.
It boils down to this: Ottawa is contemplating the possibility of a Canadian bank failure — and the same sort of pitiless prescription that was just imposed in Cyprus.
Meaning no bailout by taxpayers, but rather a "bail-in" that would force the bank's creditors to absorb the staggering losses that such an event would inevitably entail.
If that sounds sobering, it should. While officials in Ottawa are playing down the possibility of a raid on the bank accounts of ordinary Canadians, they chose not to include that guarantee in the budget language.
Canadians tend to believe their banks are safer and more backstopped than elsewhere in the world. The federal government enthusiastically promotes the notion, and loves to take credit for it.
It may well be true, even if Canada's six-bank oligopoly isn't terribly competitive, at least in comparison to the far more diverse American banking universe.
But in the ever-more insecure world that has unfolded since the financial meltdown of 2008, it is also increasingly clear that nothing is safe anymore, not even blue-chip bank stocks and bonds or even, in the case of the Cyprus bail-in, private bank accounts.
And now, Canada is making a bail-in official government policy, too.
"The government proposes to implement a bail-in regime … designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability," says Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's March 21 budget, on page 144.
That would be done, the document says, through the rapid conversion of "certain bank liabilities."
Ottawa's budget document leaves the definition of "certain liabilities" to the reader's imagination.
Bank deposits?
There has been very little public debate about the plan to date, but Finance Department officials and the banks protest it should never be taken to mean small personal deposits would be seized.
Depositors wait to enter a branch of the Laiki Bank in Nicosia on March 28. Cyprus's banks had been closed for almost two weeks as the country's financial crisis mounted, and were only opened with tight controls on transactions to prevent a further run. (Bogdan Cristel / Reuters)
Deposits are insured by the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, up to $100,000, and the inviolability of that insurance is key to maintaining the crucial public trust.
"The risk of the Canadian government not honouring its insurance on deposits is as close to zero as you can get," says Craig Alexander, chief economist at TD Canada Trust.
Perhaps.
As the Cyprus meltdown proceeded, it became clear that Europe's finance ministers and central banks, encouraged by the International Monetary Fund, were not only willing to freeze and seize uninsured deposits over 100,000 euros, they were also initially willing to cancel deposit insurance and go after small depositors, too.
In the end, the plan was rewritten, and insured deposits were protected. But the signal had been sent: The Europeans and the IMF had been prepared to do the unthinkable.
Holland's finance minister then declared that bail-ins would be the template for all future bank rescues in Europe, and that he could not rule out seizure of deposits elsewhere.
"It was a monumentally stupid thing to do," says TD Canada Trust's Alexander. "I do not believe we would ever see that in Canada.
"I think the international community will have learned from their mistake. And it was a huge mistake."
High-risk bonds
So what does Canada have in mind with its proposed bail-in scheme?
The aim is virtuous: Canada wants to erase the enormous moral hazard created by the concept of "too big to fail."
Americans still burn with anger at the decision to reward irresponsible, even fraudulent bankers with trillions in public bailout money, while the rest of the country sank into recession. Canadian tax money was also used to prop up banks and the automotive industry.
In ruling out future bailouts, Ottawa's logic is simple: Make it clear there is no tax-funded safety net, and you discourage reckless behaviour, protecting taxpayers in the process.
That leaves the question, though, of how to save a sinking bank, something that would devastate the economy. (Although one has to assume that by the time a Canadian bank started sinking, the economy would already be in a nightmare.)
As things currently stand, if a big-six bank began to fail its shares would tank, and investors would lose everything. A run would begin, and the bank would flounder, desperate for capital. Credit markets would also likely freeze.
Without government intervention, the bank would be placed in receivership, and its bondholders would carve up what would be left of the bank's assets.
What Ottawa intends to propose — the concept has been discussed for a few years now in the rarefied circles of monetary experts — is the creation of a new type of higher-risk bank bond known as "contingent capital."
The bondholder would enjoy a higher-than-normal return, maybe even a much higher-than-normal return.
But it would be understood that in the event of a threatened failure, the bond would be converted to shares, meaning potentially a total loss for the bondholder, and a source of capital for the bank.
Think of it as a kind of pre-approved loan for the bank itself.
Trust in government
In a speech, Mark Carney, Canada's departing central banker, has called publicly for just such a system.
At TD Canada Trust, Alexander says this kind of system would make the banks stronger.
But he also notes that many Canadians believe, mistakenly, that their RRSPs and other holdings are safe and insured, too, up to the $100,000 threshold.
They don't often realize that government bonds as well as stocks and mutual funds are among the investments that don't qualify for CDIC insurance.
As to whether small, insured deposits are safe in the event of a failure, that boils down to a question of trust in government.
Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, was prepared to seize a portion of all deposits in Cyprus. So was the European Central Bank, and so were Europe's finance ministers.
Holland's finance minister, who led the euro-group effort, later "clarified," his statement about seizing deposits elsewhere, saying that Cyprus was clearly a "one-off" event.
But then so, supposedly, was the massive haircut imposed on the unfortunate holders of Greek sovereign bonds last year.
The fact is, if Ottawa is seriously contemplating the failure of a Canadian bank, ordinary Canadians might want to do the same, and govern themselves accordingly.
Во-первых, непонятно зачем нас убеждать если таких планов нет в прынцыпе?
Во-вторых, если планы по изьятию обсуждаются но не по кипскому варианту - то по какому варианту?
Пилят, надо будет завести сейф, деньги снимать в банке в пятницу, класть в домашний сейф на выходные, затем в понедельник опять в банк.
Или купить чтонить дорогое и ненужное шоб взять кредит в банке, и потихоньку возврашать.
Всяко лучче если ты должен банку а не банк тебе.
Кста, с большим кредитом можно хорошо навариться в ситуации когда банку плохо.
Помница когда Сибирскому торговому банку пришел кирдык то знакомые очень хорошо наварились на кредите
скема такая
-ты должен банку, и банку кирдык. Но как честный человек - ты должен вернуть кредит
-другой чел имеет деньги в банке но взять не может, но может перевести деньги внутри банка
-другой переводит тебе скажем 100 рублей, ты погашаешь кредит
-ты отдаешь другому 10 рублей но реальными деньгами
Надо что-то придумать с РРСП.
У кого какие идеи?
Как пользовать РРСП самому? Не хочеца снимать их как доход - и так много налогов уплочено
кстати - правительство якобы гарантирует возврат депоситов до 100К, но нигде не сказано про в какой срок.
кто-то на работе говорил про 70 лет.
правда?
====
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/balan ... 29237.html
Ottawa clarifies Cyprus-style ‘bail-in’ language in federal budget
The federal government is trying to reassure Canadians that it isn’t making plans for a Cyprus-style cut into consumer bank accounts in the “unlikely event” of a bank collapse in Canada.
“The ‘bail-in’ scenario described in the budget has nothing to do with consumer deposits and they are not part of the ‘bail-in’ regime,” Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s press secretary Kathleen Perchaluk said in a statement.
The clarification came this week in response to the “bail-in” regime outlined in the recent federal budget. It understandably raised some eyebrows, particularly in the wake of what happened in Cyprus when money was taken from deposits to deal with the tiny European country's banking crisis.
A "bail-in" happens when an organization has to find money from within to solve a crisis. That's the opposite of a bailout – as we saw with American financial institutions and car companies during the 2008-09 financial crisis – when emergency capital come in from outside sources, such as government.
On page 141 of the recent federal budget it states: “The Government proposes to implement a ‘bail-in’ regime for systemically important banks. This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital.”
In the follow up statement this week, Perchaluk said Ottawa’s move is in line with recent international agreements, but that Canadians shouldn’t worry about losing their funds.
“Under a ‘bail-in’ arrangement, a failing financial institution has to tap into its own special reserves or assets (which it has been forced to put aside) to keep its operations going,” Perchaluk stated. “The ‘bail-in’ regime would only kick in during the extremely unlikely event that a major bank in Canada begins to fail. This keeps the financial institution intact, without putting taxpayers at risk.”
In the budget, Ottawa said it will consult with “stakeholders” on how best to implement a Canadian bail-in regime using timelines that, “will allow for a smooth transition for affected institutions, investors and other market participants.”
==================
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... banks.html
Neil Macdonald: Ottawa weighing plans for bank failures
Federal government looking at 'Cyprus solution'
Buried deep in last month's federal budget is an ambiguously worded section that has roiled parts of the financial world but has so far been largely ignored by the mainstream media.
It boils down to this: Ottawa is contemplating the possibility of a Canadian bank failure — and the same sort of pitiless prescription that was just imposed in Cyprus.
Meaning no bailout by taxpayers, but rather a "bail-in" that would force the bank's creditors to absorb the staggering losses that such an event would inevitably entail.
If that sounds sobering, it should. While officials in Ottawa are playing down the possibility of a raid on the bank accounts of ordinary Canadians, they chose not to include that guarantee in the budget language.
Canadians tend to believe their banks are safer and more backstopped than elsewhere in the world. The federal government enthusiastically promotes the notion, and loves to take credit for it.
It may well be true, even if Canada's six-bank oligopoly isn't terribly competitive, at least in comparison to the far more diverse American banking universe.
But in the ever-more insecure world that has unfolded since the financial meltdown of 2008, it is also increasingly clear that nothing is safe anymore, not even blue-chip bank stocks and bonds or even, in the case of the Cyprus bail-in, private bank accounts.
And now, Canada is making a bail-in official government policy, too.
"The government proposes to implement a bail-in regime … designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability," says Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's March 21 budget, on page 144.
That would be done, the document says, through the rapid conversion of "certain bank liabilities."
Ottawa's budget document leaves the definition of "certain liabilities" to the reader's imagination.
Bank deposits?
There has been very little public debate about the plan to date, but Finance Department officials and the banks protest it should never be taken to mean small personal deposits would be seized.
Depositors wait to enter a branch of the Laiki Bank in Nicosia on March 28. Cyprus's banks had been closed for almost two weeks as the country's financial crisis mounted, and were only opened with tight controls on transactions to prevent a further run. (Bogdan Cristel / Reuters)
Deposits are insured by the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, up to $100,000, and the inviolability of that insurance is key to maintaining the crucial public trust.
"The risk of the Canadian government not honouring its insurance on deposits is as close to zero as you can get," says Craig Alexander, chief economist at TD Canada Trust.
Perhaps.
As the Cyprus meltdown proceeded, it became clear that Europe's finance ministers and central banks, encouraged by the International Monetary Fund, were not only willing to freeze and seize uninsured deposits over 100,000 euros, they were also initially willing to cancel deposit insurance and go after small depositors, too.
In the end, the plan was rewritten, and insured deposits were protected. But the signal had been sent: The Europeans and the IMF had been prepared to do the unthinkable.
Holland's finance minister then declared that bail-ins would be the template for all future bank rescues in Europe, and that he could not rule out seizure of deposits elsewhere.
"It was a monumentally stupid thing to do," says TD Canada Trust's Alexander. "I do not believe we would ever see that in Canada.
"I think the international community will have learned from their mistake. And it was a huge mistake."
High-risk bonds
So what does Canada have in mind with its proposed bail-in scheme?
The aim is virtuous: Canada wants to erase the enormous moral hazard created by the concept of "too big to fail."
Americans still burn with anger at the decision to reward irresponsible, even fraudulent bankers with trillions in public bailout money, while the rest of the country sank into recession. Canadian tax money was also used to prop up banks and the automotive industry.
In ruling out future bailouts, Ottawa's logic is simple: Make it clear there is no tax-funded safety net, and you discourage reckless behaviour, protecting taxpayers in the process.
That leaves the question, though, of how to save a sinking bank, something that would devastate the economy. (Although one has to assume that by the time a Canadian bank started sinking, the economy would already be in a nightmare.)
As things currently stand, if a big-six bank began to fail its shares would tank, and investors would lose everything. A run would begin, and the bank would flounder, desperate for capital. Credit markets would also likely freeze.
Without government intervention, the bank would be placed in receivership, and its bondholders would carve up what would be left of the bank's assets.
What Ottawa intends to propose — the concept has been discussed for a few years now in the rarefied circles of monetary experts — is the creation of a new type of higher-risk bank bond known as "contingent capital."
The bondholder would enjoy a higher-than-normal return, maybe even a much higher-than-normal return.
But it would be understood that in the event of a threatened failure, the bond would be converted to shares, meaning potentially a total loss for the bondholder, and a source of capital for the bank.
Think of it as a kind of pre-approved loan for the bank itself.
Trust in government
In a speech, Mark Carney, Canada's departing central banker, has called publicly for just such a system.
At TD Canada Trust, Alexander says this kind of system would make the banks stronger.
But he also notes that many Canadians believe, mistakenly, that their RRSPs and other holdings are safe and insured, too, up to the $100,000 threshold.
They don't often realize that government bonds as well as stocks and mutual funds are among the investments that don't qualify for CDIC insurance.
As to whether small, insured deposits are safe in the event of a failure, that boils down to a question of trust in government.
Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, was prepared to seize a portion of all deposits in Cyprus. So was the European Central Bank, and so were Europe's finance ministers.
Holland's finance minister, who led the euro-group effort, later "clarified," his statement about seizing deposits elsewhere, saying that Cyprus was clearly a "one-off" event.
But then so, supposedly, was the massive haircut imposed on the unfortunate holders of Greek sovereign bonds last year.
The fact is, if Ottawa is seriously contemplating the failure of a Canadian bank, ordinary Canadians might want to do the same, and govern themselves accordingly.