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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
Counts | Percentages | |
---|---|---|
Total | 105 | 100% |
Yes | 42 | 40% |
No | 63 | 60% |
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% |
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 | - | - |
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% |
Counts | Percentages | |
---|---|---|
Total | 52 | 100% |
Yes | 33 | 63% |
No | 19 | 37% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |
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% |