全球正处在自大萧条以来最为严重的金融危机当中。在最近数周，各国政府都在加紧帮助银行应对由不良次级抵押贷款所造成的更多冲击。当前，加拿大政府也加入了这一行列。不过，加拿大的情况却比较特别。同七国集团的其他成员国相比，加拿大向银行提供援助的原因却是不大相同。在美国，英国和德国，各大银行则需要政府给予提供成百上千亿美元的援助资金。而加拿大的主要银行却是资金雄厚，具备偿付能力。即便不需要任何资助，加拿大银行也可安然度过次贷危机这一难关。

加拿大政府为何会同意向国内银行从其他银行所借贷的款项提供担保呢（此举可使银行的信贷业务具有流动性）？具有讽刺意义的是，在其他国家，陷入困境的非加拿大银行机构获得了政府注资，受到了贷款担保，但当前在涉及办理借款业务时，却需要获得政府批准而非按银行自身利益来开展业务。而这则令加拿大的主要银行，比如丰业银行，道明银行金融集团，皇家银行和帝国商业银行，在竞争中处于不利地位。因此，加拿大政府开始采取行动来确保公平竞争，而不是去资助陷入困境的银行。 

为何加拿大在经受全球次贷风暴上的表现要远远好于其他国家，加拿大银行体系可以为11月15日参加华盛顿峰会的7国集团和20国集团领导人提供一个借鉴模式吗？总部设在日内瓦的世界经济论坛（一个有影响力的智囊团）的年度会议吸引了诸如比尔-盖茨和托尼-布莱尔等重要人士的参加。在本月早些时候，世界经济论坛认为加拿大银行体系是全球最为健全的银行体系。美国则位列第40位，德国和英国分别为第39和第44位。（瑞士第16位，仅仅排在纳米比亚前面）。Genuity Capital Markets投资银行（总部设在多伦多）的分析师马里奥-蒙东卡(Mario Mendonca)表示，“对加拿大银行而言，拥有比世界任何国家都较高的资本金比例是令人感到骄傲的”。

加拿大国内六大银行的平均储备资金比例——定义为一级资本（普通股，留存收益和非累积优先股）风险调整资产——为9. 8％，比加拿大联邦银行监管机构所要求的7％要高出几个百分点。这比美国的主要商业银行，如美国银行，所持份额要稍微高一些，但却明显高于美国投资银行平均储备资金比例的4％和欧洲商业银行的3.3％。

另一个帮助加拿大银行制定金本位制度的因素是加拿大政府在80年代后期允许商业银行在加拿大金融中心多伦多海湾街收购投资企业。因此，作为商业银行，这些机构都受到了同样严格的法律管制，而美国投资商只是受到证券交易管理委员会的宽松监管。美国两大投资银行高盛和摩根士丹利成为银行控股公司的要求已获得美国联邦储备委员会批准，两大投资银行将会受到美联储的监管。

加拿大银行有时也会做出错误投资。总部设在多伦多的加拿大帝国商业银行，堪称加拿大最为冒进的大型银行。在加拿大帝国商业银行拿出35亿美元来抵御美国次贷危机时，加拿大联邦监管机构迅速涉入此事。但这里的区别在于：加拿大帝国商业银行最后的做法是在今年第一季度出售股票融资29.4亿美元，来达到稳定资金储备的目的。“政府和银行之间的关系是值得肯定的，”加拿大联邦财政部长吉姆-费海提如此表示。“我们有过多次讨论，定期召开过会议。共同的目标就是建立一个健全的金融体系。”

当然，加拿大的监管体制还存有另一面，在全球经济正运行良好时，加拿大银行抱怨不允许参与合并事宜，从而也无法成为更为重要的国际参与者。针对英国政府本月初实施过于雄心勃勃的银行救助方案，多伦多大学罗特曼管理学院财务分析专家劳伦斯-布斯表示，“在事后看来，（加拿大政府的）这一决定可能使加拿大成功避免了一个类似接管苏格兰皇家银行的难题，”。

财政部部长费海提说：“当前我们所面临信贷危机归根结底是由于不受约束的贪欲。我们需要对贪欲加以约束。”下月，世界各国领导人将召开华盛顿峰会。他们将在全球金融体系上商讨制定一个21世纪的新政，但新政可能只是借鉴加拿大银行管理模式而拼凑成的方案而已。

http://www.elanso.com/ArticleModule/Compare.aspx?ArticleID=SOPzUpKUKUHGNsJ2JNKzVwIi

In the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Canada has joined the ranks of governments that in recent weeks stepped up to help banks cope with more fallout from bad U.S. subprime mortgages. In Canada's case, however, the reason for the assistance is a little different from some of its G-7 partners. Unlike banks in the U.S., Britain and Germany, which needed to be bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars in new capital, Canada's major banks are solid and solvent. They don't need any help to work through their subprime exposure.

So why did Ottawa agree to insure the money they routinely borrow from other banks, a practice that keeps their credit operations liquid? Ironically, the troubled non-Canadian institutions that received capital injections and loan guarantees in other countries now carry a government seal of approval that tilts the playing field in their favor when it comes to borrowing. That leaves Canada's big banks, including Scotiabank, TD Bank Financial Group, RBC Royal Bank and CIBC, at a competitive disadvantage. So the government acted to level the field, not to aid troubled banks.

Why has Canada withstood the subprime tornado better than other countries, and should the Canadian banking system be a model for G-7 and G-20 leaders when they gather in Washington on Nov. 15? Consider that the Geneva-based World Economic Forum, an influential think tank whose annual conference attracts the likes of Bill Gates and Tony Blair, earlier this month ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world. The U.S. came in at No. 40, and Germany and Britain ranked 39 and 44, respectively. (Switzerland was No. 16, just ahead of Namibia.) "For Canadian banks, having higher capital ratios than anyone else in the world is a source of pride," says analyst Mario Mendonca with Toronto-based investment bank Genuity Capital Markets.

The average capital reserves for Canada's Big Six banks — defined as Tier 1 capital (common shares, retained earnings and non-cumulative preferred shares) to risk-adjusted assets — is 9.8%, several percentage points above the 7% required by Canada's federal bank regulator. That's a little better than major U.S. commercial banks like Bank of America, but significantly higher than an average capital ratio of about 4% for U.S. investment banks and 3.3% for European commercial banks.

Another factor that helped make Canada the new gold standard in banking was Ottawa's decision in the late 1980s to allow commercials banks to acquire investment dealers on Toronto's Bay Street, the country's financial hub. As a result, these institutions are subject to the same strict rules as commercial banks, while U.S. investment dealers are subject to only light supervision from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, of course, will now be under the U.S. Federal Reserve's supervision since they have been chartered as bank-holding companies.

Canada's banks make bad investments on occasion. When Toronto-based CIBC, Canada's most aggressive big bank, took $3.5 billion in charges against the U.S. subprime debacle, federal regulators quickly arrived on the scene. But here's the difference: CIBC ended up selling $2.94 billion worth of its own shares in the first quarter of this year to shore up capital reserves. "The relationship between government and banks is a positive one," says Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty. "We have a lot of discussions and regular meetings. The common goal is a sound financial system."

There is, of course, a flip side to Canada's regulatory system. When the global economy was flying high, Canadian banks complained about not being allowed to merge to become more significant international players. "In hindsight, that decision may have saved Canada from having a Royal Bank of Scotland on its hands," says Lawrence Booth, a finance specialist at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, referring to the overly ambitious bank's bailout earlier this month by the British government.

Says FFlaherty: "The credit crisis we're facing is the result of unbridled greed. We need to bridle greed." Perhaps when world leaders sit down in Washington to forge a 21st-century New Deal for the global financial system, it may have more than a smattering of Canadian banking know-how.