“We should be proud of the performance of our financial system during the crisis,” said Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in an interview with The Associated Press.
He recalled visiting China in 2007 and hearing suggestions “that the Canadian banks were perhaps boring and too risk-adverse. And when I was there two weeks ago some of my same counterparts were saying to me, ‘You have a very solid, stable banking system in Canada,’ and emphasizing that. There wasn’t anything about being sufficiently risk-oriented.”
The banks are stable because, in part, they’re more regulated. As the U.S. and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries over the last 15 years, Canada refused to do so. The banks also aren’t as leveraged as their U.S. or European peers.
There was no mortgage meltdown or subprime crisis in Canada. Banks don’t package mortgages and sell them to the private market, so they need to be sure their borrowers can pay back the loans.
In Canada’s concentrated banking system, five major banks dominate the market and regulators know each of the top bank executives personally.
I would argue that through the Clinton-era (1994) initiative “The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream” is a more onerous regulation. One that forced banks to finance homes for people who could not afford them, and subsequently lead to the avalanche of foreclosures we are still working through today.
Via Business Week:
Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here’s an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.
Note the praise for “creativity.” That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: “It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments.”
The best plan is to get the politicians out of the private sector and let the people who understand the markets make the decisions.
