2014-15 Financial Institutions Survey
Data Tables

1. Overall, how satisfied are you with OSFI as the principal prudential regulator and supervisor of Canada's financial services industry?

  Counts Percentages
Total 106 100%
Very Satisfied 46 43%
Somewhat Satisfied 46 43%
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 4 4%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 8 8%
Very Dissatisfied 2 2%
Top 2 box 96 86%
Bottom 2 box 10 9%

1b. What are the main reasons why you are very satisfied with OSFI?
Subsample: Those who are “very satisfied” with OSFI

  Counts Percentages
Total 42 100%
Strong Prudential Regulator 12 29%
Approachable/responsive 12 29%
Strong/knowledgeable/professional staff 12 29%
Good communication/open dialogue 11 26%
Principles/risk based approach 8 19%
Foster good relationships 7 17%
Proactive 6 14%
Other 4 10%

1c. What are the main reasons why you are not more satisfied with OSFI?
Subsample: Those who are not “very satisfied” with OSFI

  Counts Percentages
Total 49 100%
One size fits all approach 16 33%
Regulatory burden/pace of change 16 33%
Staff are not knowledgeable/experienced enough 6 12%
Canadian context not considered in influence/adoption of int'l practices 5 10%
Too much interference in day-to-day management 4 8%
Too rules based/prescriptive 4 8%
Guidelines are unclear 3 6%
Lack of balance between prudential consideration and FI's need for growth 2 4%
RM turnover is too high 2 4%
Other 7 14%

2. How would you rate OSFI on the extent to which it focuses on the appropriate areas of risk in the [insurance/deposit-taking] sector?

  Counts Percentages
Total 105 100%
Very Good 43 41%
Good 45 43%
Fair 14 13%
Poor 3 3%
Very Poor - -
Top 2 box 88 84%
Bottom 2 box 3 3%

3. What one or two risk areas do you believe should be priorities for OSFI in the next couple of years pertaining to [companies in the insurance sector/institutions in the deposit-taking sector]?

  Counts Percentages
Total 89 100%
Risk management/operational risk 11 12%
Consumer debt/lending risk 9 10%
Capital related risks 8 9%
Cyber/IT security risks 8 9%
Liquidity/asset risk 8 9%
Risk of not being able to compete 7 8%
Risk strategies/rules appropriate to size of institution 7 8%
Environmental risks (earthquake, climate change, floods etc.) 6 7%
Solvency risk/compliance 6 7%
Interest rate related risks 5 6%
Mortgage related risk 5 6%
Regulatory burden 3 3%
Governance 2 2%
Other 21 24%

4. How would you rate OSFI with respect to: Responding in a timely manner to market changes or to industry suggestions that guidance needs updating.

  Counts Percentages
Total 103 100%
Very Good 16 16%
Good 63 61%
Fair 21 20%
Poor 3 3%
Very Poor - -
Top 2 box 89 77%
Bottom 2 box 3 3%

5. How would you rate OSFI with respect to: Consulting with the financial services industry when developing guidance.

  Counts Percentages
Total 101 100%
Very Good 39 39%
Good 40 40%
Fair 19 19%
Poor 3 3%
Very Poor - -
Top 2 box 79 78%
Bottom 2 box 3 3%

6. How would you rate OSFI with respect to: Providing your [company/institution] with the opportunity to comment on revised or proposed guidance.

Subsample: Small and mid-sized

  Counts Percentages
Total 99 100.0
Very Good 45 45%
Good 36 36%
Fair 12 12%
Poor 5 5%
Very Poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 81 82%
Bottom 2 box 6 6%

7. How would you rate OSFI with respect to: The transparency of the consultation process OSFI follows when developing guidance (e.g., the means by which industry members may provide feedback, the timing for feedback, the timing of OSFI's response).

Subsample: Small and mid-sized

  Counts Percentages
Total 100 100%
Very Good 25 25%
Good 53 53%
Fair 17 17%
Poor 5 5%
Very Poor - -
Top 2 box 78 78%
Bottom 2 box 5 5%

8. How would you rate OSFI with respect to: Communicating its response to feedback provided by the sector during consultations related to guidance development.

Subsample: Small and mid-sized

  Counts Percentages
Total 100 100%
Very Good 21 21%
Good 50 50%
Fair 25 25%
Poor 4 4%
Very Poor - -
Top 2 box 71 71%
Bottom 2 box 4 4%

9. Do you have any suggestions for improving the consultation process OSFI follows when developing guidance?
Subsample: Small and mid-sized

  Counts Percentages
Total 52 100%
More consultation with small/mid-size institutions 13 25%
More transparent consultation process (i.e., decisions not made in advance) 12 23%
Communicate decision including rationale 11 21%
Avoid one-size fits all approach 5 10%
Allow more time for consultation/implementation 4 8%
Process takes too long 4 8%
Make it easier to participate (e.g., webinars/in-person) 3 6%
Other 5 10%
None/process is satisfactory 6 12%

10. How would you rate OSFI with respect to developing guidance that strikes an appropriate balance between prudential considerations and the need for institutions to compete?

  Counts Percentages
Total 103 100.0
Very Good 13 13%
Good 48 47%
Fair 33 32%
Poor 9 9%
Very Poor - -
Top 2 box 61 59%
Bottom 2 box 9 9%

11. How would you rate OSFI's guidance on the extent to which it conveys that the guidance may be scaled to reflect the nature, size and complexity of your [company/institution]?

Subsample: Small and mid-sized

  Counts Percentages
Total 100 100%
Very Good 13 13%
Good 30 30%
Fair 38 38%
Poor 15 15%
Very Poor 4 4%
Top 2 box 43 43%
Bottom 2 box 19 19%

12. Overall, how effective do you think OSFI's guidance is in providing a clear indication of its expectations?

Subsample: Split sample 1

  Counts Percentages
Total 54 100%
Very Effective 13 24%
Somewhat Effective 33 61%
Neither Effective nor Ineffective 4 7%
Somewhat Ineffective 3 6%
Very Ineffective 1 2%
Top 2 box 46 85%
Bottom 2 box 4 8%

12b. What are the key reasons why you say OSFI's guidance is ineffective in providing [an indication/a clear indication] of its expectations?

Subsample: Those who say 'ineffective'

  Counts Percentages
Total 6 100%
Poorly communicated/unclear guidelines 2 33%
Does not acknowledge differences between small and large institutions 2 33%
Other 2 33%

13. How would you rate OSFI with repect to: Providing an opportunity for your company/institution to discuss issues of concern with OSFI prior to OSFI coming to a conclusion

  Counts Percentages
Total 105 100.0
Very Good 44 42%
Good 44 42%
Fair 12 11%
Poor 4 4%
Very Poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 88 84%
Bottom 2 box 5 5%

14. How would you rate OSFI with respect to: The clarity of OSFI's written correspondence (e.g., Management Reports and Supervisory Letters) outlining issues of concern.

  Counts Percentages
Total 105 100%
Very Good 35 33%
Good 52 50%
Fair 15 14%
Poor 3 3%
Very Poor - -
Top 2 box 87% 83%
Bottom 2 box 3 3%

15. How would you rate OSFI with respect to: The consistency between OSFI's written and oral communications?

  Count Percentages
Total 106 100%
Very Good 35 33%
Good 48 45%
Fair 19 18%
Poor 4 4%
Very Poor - -
Top 2 box 83 78%
Bottom 2 box 4 4%

16. How would you rate OSFI with respect to: The extent to which it supervises (e.g., ongoing monitoring, on-site reviews including supervisory recommendations, reporting requirements, etc.) in a manner that is scaled to reflect the nature, size and complexity of your [company/institution]?

Subsample: Small and mid-sized

  Counts Percentages
Total 103 100%
Very Good 33 32%
Good 32 31%
Fair 25 24%
Poor 8 8%
Very Poor 5 5%
Top 2 box 65 63%
Bottom 2 box 13 13%

17. How do you rate OSFI with respect to: The extent to which it applies guidance in a manner that is scaled to reflect the nature, size and complexity of your [company/institution]?

Subsample: Small and mid-sized

  Counts Percentages
Total 102 100.0
Very Good 20 20%
Good 35 34%
Fair 29 28%
Poor 13 13%
Very Poor 5 5%
Top 2 box 55 54%
Bottom 2 box 18 18%

18. Overall, how effective do you think OSFI is in supervising your [company/institution]?

  Counts Percentages
Total 106 100%
Very effective 56 53%
Somewhat effective 38 36%
Neither effective nor ineffective 7 7%
Somewhat ineffective 4 4%
Very ineffective 1 1%
Top 2 box 94 89%
Bottom 2 box 5 5%

19. Have you submitted an application to OSFI on behalf of your [company/institution] in the last two years?

  Counts Percentages
Total 105 100%
Yes 42 40%
No 63 60%

20. What is your overall level of satisfaction with OSFI in processing applications from your [company/institution]?

Subsample: Submitted an application to OSFI in past two years

  Counts Percentages
Total 42 100%
Very Satisfied 17 40%
Somewhat Satisfied 16 38%
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 5 12%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 4 10%
Very Dissatisfied - -
Top 2 box 59 78%
Bottom 2 box 4 10%

21. How well do you understand the basis on which OSFI makes decisions about your [company's/institution's] applications?

Subsample: Submitted an application to OSFI in past two years

  Counts Percentages
Total 42 100%
Very Well 15 36%
Somewhat Well 22 52%
Neither Well Nor Poorly 5 12%
Somewhat Poorly - -
Very Poorly - -
Top 2 box 37 88%
Bottom 2 box - -

22. How would you rate OSFI with respect to how proactive it is in dealing with emerging issues pertaining to the [insurance/deposit-taking] sector?

  Counts Percentages
Total 103 100%
Very Good 29 28%
Good 53 51%
Fair 19 18%
Poor 2 2%
Very Poor - -
Top 2 box 82 80%
Bottom 2 box 2 2%

23. Were you aware that a “Small and Mid-Sized Advisor” role was recently created at OSFI?

Subsample: Small and mid-sized DTIs

  Counts Percentages
Total 52 100%
Yes 33 63%
No 19 37%

24. How well has OSFI communicated the objectives of the 'Small and Mid-sized Advisor'?

Subsample: Small and mid-sized DTIs aware of Advisor

  Counts Percentages
Total 32 100%
Very Well 5 16%
Well 15 47%
Neither well, nor poorly 7 22%
Poorly 5 16%
Very Poorly - -
Top 2 box 20% 62%
Bottom 2 box 5 16%

25. What one or two issues pertaining to small and mid-sized [insurance companies/deposit-taking institutions] do you believe OSFI should make priorities in the next year?

Subsample: Small and mid-sized

  Count Percentage
Total 74 100%
Scale expectations to size and complexity of business 36 49%
Reduce regulatory burden/pace of chance for small institutions 18 24%
Capital requirements suitable for small/mid-sized institutions 10 14%
Corporate governance suitable for small/mid-sized institutions 9 12%
ORSA 7 9%
Awareness of differences in parent and branch/subsidiary relationships 5 7%
Compliance 5 7%
Balance prudential considerations with FI need to compete/grow 4 5%
Explanations of guidelines/explanations 4 5%
Risk management 3 4%
Other 10 14%

26. Thinking about your dealings with OSFI's staff on any supervisory or regulatory matter, how satisfied are you with OSFI's capacity to interact with you in the official language of your choice (i.e., English or French)?

  Count Percentage
Total 102 100%
Very Satisfied 91 89%
Somewhat Satisfied 8 8%
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 1 1%
Somewhat Dissatisfied - -
Very Dissatisfied 2 2%
Top 2 box 99 97%
Bottom 2 box 2 2%

27. Which of the following are areas in which you are dissatisfied?

Subsample: Those who are 'dissatisfied' (at Q26)

  Count Percentage
Total 2 100%
OSFI's capacity to speak to me in my official language of choice (e.g., in meetings, over the phone) 1 50%
None of the above 1 50%

28. Are there any other comments you would like to make concerning the issues raised in this questionnaire?

  Count Percentage
Total 19 100%
Scale regulation to size/complexity of business/institution 6 32%
Continue focus on small/mid-size institution 3 16%
Continued awareness of regulatory burden 3 16%
Improved coordination/communication within OSFI 3 16%
They are doing a good job 3 16%
More guidance/assistance as regulations become more complex 2 11%
More time needed to implement new regulations 2 11%
Other 3 16%