Posted on 08/26/2016 9:42:23 AM PDT by MeganC
Introducing a Bank Recapitalization “Bail-in” Regime
To protect Canadian taxpayers in the unlikely event of a large bank failure, the Government is proposing to implement a bail-in regime that would reinforce that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank’s risks—not taxpayers. This would allow authorities to convert eligible long-term debt of a failing systemically important bank into common shares to recapitalize the bank and allow it to remain open and operating. Such a measure is in line with international efforts to address the potential risks to the financial system and broader economy of institutions perceived as “too-big-to-fail”.
The Government is proposing to introduce framework legislation for the regime along with accompanying enhancements to Canada’s bank resolution toolkit. Regulations and guidelines setting out further features of the regime will follow. This will provide stakeholders with an additional opportunity to comment on elements of the proposed regime.
(Excerpt) Read more at budget.gc.ca ...
They misinterpreted it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-22/its-official-canadian-bank-depositors-are-now-risk-bail-ins
We are gonna need a bigger mattress.
Creditors is used. If I deposit money into a bank I am one of the bank’s creditors. I lent them money and I expect it back along with interest payments.
Stuffing it with cash that can be cancelled in a crisis won’t do any good. I’d suggest to have at least some silver and gold on hand for a ‘just in case’.
No, you and others with an agenda have misinterpreted it, either out of ignorance or intent.
I found too many errors on zerohedge to believe anything they say anymore. I stopped looking at their links months ago.
Got another?
Keep telling yourself whatever makes you happy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/banks-confiscation_b_2957937.html
From the comment section of your link ...
It says “convert long term debt” unless you have multi year CDs, your deposits are all short term. Most people would classify in short term even if depositors equaled creditors
He provides text to support his statement but the text does not reference deposits.
The bank “borrows” money from depositors, the deposits are liabilities with, under this scenario, them being unsecured creditors.
Depositors have always been creditors. Nothing new under recent clarifications/warnings.
Just because multiple propagandists repeat the same lie doesn’t make their story true.
"Under this approach, CDIC would be appointed as the receiver of the non-viable bank and would determine which of the bank’s assets and liabilities should be passed to the bridge institution (including, at a minimum, all insured deposits)"
https://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/tpbrr-rpcrb-eng.pdf
I've found that a quick search ALWAYS discredits the paranoid claims of zerohedge. Thanks for helping me affirm my opinion of them.
Whenever I see an outrageous thread title on FR, but then see zerohedge as the source, I skip it.
I recommend the same for you.
Nope.
Depositor accounts are assets. They are not creditors.
Creditors to a bank are typically other banks.
E.g., that’s what the LIBOR rate is, the short term rate at which banks loan money to each other.
They are nuts !
My guess is the use of personal security contractors will rise for any bankster in Canada.
I could get onboard with this policy, IF any sort of comprehensible information was available to average depositors so that they could shop around for the banks least likely to fail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
