News   May 07, 2024
 149     0 
News   May 06, 2024
 592     1 
News   May 06, 2024
 1.2K     0 

Privatization - What should be?

How should Canadian governments proceed vis a vis privatization?

  • I will not rest until the Canadian Forces are privatized!

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Further privatization would be a net benefit for Canadians.

    Votes: 8 26.7%
  • The status quo represents a good balance between public/private

    Votes: 12 40.0%
  • Private interests have edged out the public good, action must be taken to address this

    Votes: 8 26.7%
  • Socialize the Banks! Storm the means of production! Power to the people!

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • Total voters
    30
Yeah Canada here has a great model of how business is working well with government oversight.

Anyone hear weird rumors about bank mergers.

Back when the stocks were sliding which was about a year ago, there was wide speculation Cibc was going to go under and be taken over by either Royal or TD...:confused:

Wonder if that was true.
 
Fannie and Freddie were actually "privatized" in the 70s or 80s...there are lots of articles in The Washington Post on this and their CEOs.

Technically they were government sponsored enterprises, which is a whole lot of weird.

It should be noted, though, that the reason Canadian banks are in decent-to-great shape is because of government involvement, regulation and oversight - the kind that wasn't there in the more 'privatized' US financial system.

That is popular but not entirely true. For starters, "banks" in Canada aren't "banks" in the USA. US regulations would never let the financial industry be condensed into 5, or even 50, companies. In terms of investment banking (an industry which has only passing ties to retail deposit banking), there really isn't a major difference between Canadian houses and US ones from a regulatory standpoint. It is true that Canadian brokerages tend to be departments of larger conglomerates, which may deter certain behaviors, but that is a case of less regulation on Canada's part not more. The Canadian housing market itself, the underlying cause of financial bubble, is in some ways more and less regulated. We may have had stricter minimum deposits for instance, but we had nothing like Fannie Mae flogging NINJA loans to people who clearly couldn't carry.

Not all regulations are created equal. In terms of pages of regulation, it is entirely plausible that the USA has more regulation than us. A good deal of that regulation was just poorly thought out and often counter productive. Super regulated banking industries in Germany have been spanked by just about everything possible, and even Canadian banks have historically shown no major qualms with screwing themselves (Enron, CIBC, cough).
 
Yeah Canada here has a great model of how business is working well with government oversight.

Anyone hear weird rumors about bank mergers.

Back when the stocks were sliding which was about a year ago, there was wide speculation Cibc was going to go under and be taken over by either Royal or TD...:confused:

Wonder if that was true.

CIBC is the bank people love to hate. I doubt it was in any danger of collapse. That would require catastrophic falls in Canadian real estate prices, and many foreclosures with homeowners with little to no net worth. Recourse mortgages make it much harder for a banking meltdown to happen in Canada like it did in the US.
 
The Canadian banks all had significant large write downs but because they are so large and are so few they were able to survive.
 
Technically they were government sponsored enterprises, which is a whole lot of weird.



That is popular but not entirely true. For starters, "banks" in Canada aren't "banks" in the USA. US regulations would never let the financial industry be condensed into 5, or even 50, companies. In terms of investment banking (an industry which has only passing ties to retail deposit banking), there really isn't a major difference between Canadian houses and US ones from a regulatory standpoint. It is true that Canadian brokerages tend to be departments of larger conglomerates, which may deter certain behaviors, but that is a case of less regulation on Canada's part not more. The Canadian housing market itself, the underlying cause of financial bubble, is in some ways more and less regulated. We may have had stricter minimum deposits for instance, but we had nothing like Fannie Mae flogging NINJA loans to people who clearly couldn't carry.

Not all regulations are created equal. In terms of pages of regulation, it is entirely plausible that the USA has more regulation than us. A good deal of that regulation was just poorly thought out and often counter productive. Super regulated banking industries in Germany have been spanked by just about everything possible, and even Canadian banks have historically shown no major qualms with screwing themselves (Enron, CIBC, cough).

Our financial regulations are more principle than rule based, which is a big difference. Rules tend to leave lots of loopholes that principles do not.
 
yeah that is also true when it comes to many Canadian Accounting rules and why many find Accounting here very difficult.
 
Rules and Regulations

Ok...

Some misconceptions in need of clearing up.

Our banks are in better shape, above all else because of 2 or 3 regulatory differences in Canada vs. not only the U.S. but much of the world.

1) Tier 1 Capital Ratios. Every country requires a capital ration of its banks. It is a measure of financial solvency.

The capital ratio is the percentage of a bank's capital to its risk-weighted assets.

Tier 1 capital, consists largely of shareholders' equity. This is the amount paid up to originally purchase the stock (or shares) of the Bank (not the amount those shares are currently trading for on the stock exchange), retained profits and subtracting accumulated losses. In simple terms, if the original stockholders contributed $100 to buy their stock and the Bank has made $10 in profits each year since, paid out no dividends and made no losses, after 10 years the Bank's tier one capital would be $200.

Tier 1 capital ratio = Tier 1 capital / Risk-adjusted assets

Under OSFI (the Federal bank regulator)...

Canadian Banks must maintain a Tier One Capital rate of 7% minimum (most are well above this).

Most U.S. banks were at much lower levels by regulation (4%, as I recall)

Further, Canadian banks were not permitted to be anywhere near leveraged.

****

2) Mortgage lending

Let's look at key mortgage differences: (this is Canada)Mortgagors personally liable for loan
• Mortgage interest not tax deductible
• Most mortgages originated by banks for own balance
sheets and, as a result, higher underwriting standards
are applied
• Securitization of mortgages primarily for liquidity rather
than risk transfer

Banks required to have insurance on mortgages if
purchaser has loan‐to‐value ratio over 80%
• CMHC, a federal agency, has explicit sovereign
guarantee and is largest insurance provider
• Lenders relying on private mortgage insurers receive
government guarantee of losses (from insurer failure)
above 10% of original mortgage
• Canadian market for non‐prime mortgages has been
limited and ended for banks in 2008 when CMHC
ceased insuring such mortgages

It should also be noted that Canada has historically not allowed No-principal mortgages (ie, pay the interest only) and has not typically allowed mortgages over 30 years) (The Tories briefly changed this, then changed it back!)

**********

In summation, public regulation does have a lot to do with the healthier state of Canadian banks....

************

P.S......cough, it was 'known' that back in the early 80's two of Canada's big banks came......too close to the edge..........they were fine....But.....

Today's Bank CEOs....are almost all products of those years, when they were new hires....

Hence why most are also more cautious that the law requires.

***

No Canadian bank today is even remotely in difficulty by global standards.

Unlike U.S. and Euro Banks they are ALL generating net profits and the hits they took last year were quite absorbable.
 
Yes that really clears up things


Further, Canadian banks were not permitted to be anywhere near leveraged.

So you mean Canadian banks were not allowed to go past a certain Debt to Equity ratio??
 
The Canadian housing market itself, the underlying cause of financial bubble, is in some ways more and less regulated. We may have had stricter minimum deposits for instance, but we had nothing like Fannie Mae flogging NINJA loans to people who clearly couldn't carry.

IIRC it was CHMC that ended the 5% down-40 year mortgage. The banks were more than willing to promote/sell, securitize them and sell them off, as long as they did not remain on their own balance sheets. Yet no reasonable economist would have been able to argue that 15 years into a a real estate cycle (which typically last ten years), that these mortgages would not eventually end up underwater. So long as banks were able to sell these off, they would promote them, and leave others holding the bag.

Given the same regulatory environment, Canadian banks would have behaved in the same manner as US banks.
 
Not much into privatization, but I do see some things that could go from various levels of government: Ontario Place (Provincial) Convention Centres (Federal) and possibly, Garbage Collection (Municipal).

I would opt for a greater public role and a diminished self-governance role in areas like food inspection, drug approvals and other health and safety issues, where I think the model of having the companies themselves do much of the work and auditing their reports and inspecting much less frequently than in the past, is not working so well.
 
Ontario ponders sale of Crown corporations to beat down deficit

Province has hired two banks to look into prospect of privatizing government-owned businesses, including liquor and gaming companies

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...orations-to-beat-down-deficit/article1401807/
Published on Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009 8:57PM EST


The cash-strapped Ontario government is looking into the sale of all or part of its collection of Crown corporations, including the provincial lottery company and the retail monopoly on liquor sales, to raise cash to close a $24.7-billion deficit this year.

The Liberal government of Premier Dalton McGuinty recently hired two banks with experience in privatizations, CIBC World Markets Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and charged them with writing a blueprint for possible privatization of agencies, investment banking sources said. The sale candidates include icons such as Hydro One Inc., the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Ontario Power Generation, said the bankers, who asked to remain anonymous because the talks with the government are private.

The planned time frame for the initial study is short, just a couple of months, and then the government can decide whether to go ahead with any sales.

“The politicians have said they are willing to look at anything, that they don't want to prejudge the outcome,” said one banker with knowledge of the government's plans. He said one concept being discussed is creating a “super-corporation” that would hold a number of provincially controlled companies, then selling a stake in that to public investors.

Ontario, like provinces across the country, is coping with a huge drop in government revenue because of the recession that has left it with the prospect of yawning deficits for years to come. Without a dramatic and unexpected pickup in economic growth, there are few palatable options for closing the budget gaps, leaving governments weighing a combination of service cuts, tax increases and asset sales.

The New Brunswick government recently agreed to sell most of the assets of its provincial power utility to Hydro-Québec for $4.8-billion. The controversial sale was billed as a way to reduce debt. But it appears to have backfired on the Liberal government of New Brunswick, with a poll showing the party's support is sliding.

The Ontario government is three months into a review of how to best deliver services and since the last budget update, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan has said the government is looking at how to best manage the assets it owns.

“These assets are worth billions and billions of dollars, and I think it's incumbent upon us to look at all of them and to make sure that we're maximizing them,” Mr. Duncan said in October after tabling the government's fall economic statement. “Don't draw conclusions at this point about that sort of undertaking.”

A spokesperson for Mr. Duncan declined to comment Tuesday on specific plans for Crown corporations.

Any plan to sell Crown corporations that touch the lives of every Ontario voter would likely run into opposition on a number of fronts, including from unionized employees. In 2001, Ontario's then-Conservative government planned a $5-billion initial public offering of Hydro One, which owns many of the power lines crisscrossing Ontario, but that was derailed, in part by a union-backed court challenge.

Bay Street sources said governments regularly look at asset sales without pulling the trigger and there is considerable skepticism among bankers that this time will be any different.

However, the potential paydays for the government could be huge should it move ahead. For example, the LCBO's valuation could top $10-billion, based on the trading prices of private liquor stores in Alberta. The government could also seek to keep control of some of the revenue streams from any assets it sold.

If Ontario does decide to sell Crown corporations, there will be no lack of buyers. The dependable infrastructure assets currently owned by provincial taxpayers are sought after by income-hungry individual and institutional investors, while the LCBO and gambling properties are viewed as steady businesses that are recession-resistant.

Sources say pension funds such as OMERS, which pays for the retirement of provincial employees, have already expressed an interest in the 604-outlet LCBO. The company made $1.4-billion in profit in 2008, almost all of which was handed over to the government in the form of dividends, and it has seen its profit rise for 15 straight years.

“The most attractive asset is Hydro One, if they do decide to sell, because it's clean, it's profitable and there's already a sense of familiarity with the business,” said one investment banker with close ties to the Ontario government.

The other assets are more problematic for buyers because each has perceived problems – though the flipside of that is they would be more attractive for the government to shed. The banker said Ontario Lottery and Gaming, or OLG, has “governance issues” in the wake of scandals, while Ontario Power Generation's three nuclear stations have hard-to-quantify legacy costs, and the LCBO is considered “too political” to sell outright, due to public concerns with control on sales of spirits and wine.

A source close to the provincial Liberals say Mr. McGuinty is disenchanted with OLG, and would welcome an elegant exit from the casino and lottery business as long as it guaranteed the province could continue to receive income from it. The agency put $1.7-billion into provincial coffers last year.

“There are all sorts of capable casino and racetrack operators,” the source said. “The Premier sees no reason to be in those businesses.”

If the sale of entire Crown corporations is deemed unacceptable, Ontario could also opt to sell minority stakes, sources say, or sell individual assets such as power plants or transmission lines out of a large utility. Ontario Power Generation already has joint ventures on plants with private-sector companies such as TransCanada Corp.

The banks hired to look into potential sales have a background in helping governments sell assets. Both CIBC World Markets and Goldman Sachs were involved in the scuttled initial public offering of Hydro One, and the two investment dealers have worked on a number of other government privatizations, including the sale of British government-owned utilities.
 
Last edited:
Both the LCBO and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation are a consistent source of revenue for the province. It would be unfortunate to take a one-time windfall and then lose those revenue streams for good.
 
^ But they are bad for the consumer. I'd rather they be privatized, opened to competition and the government simply tax booze heavily. Nothing says the government has to own the LCBO to make money off booze. Gambling though is probably a tricky beast to privatize and still make money off.
 

Back
Top