2016-17 Financial Institutions Survey
Data Tables

Q1. Overall, how satisfied are you with OSFI as the principal prudential regulator and supervisor of Canada’s financial services industry?

  Counts Percentages
Total 127 100%
Very Satisfied 76 60%
Somewhat Satisfied 42 33%
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 3 2%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 4 3%
Very Dissatisfied 2 2%
Top 2 box 118 93%
Bottom 2 box 6 5%

Q2. How would you rate OSFI with respect to how proactive it is in responding to emerging issues pertaining to the <insurance / deposit-taking> sector?

  Counts Percentages
Total 123 100%
Very good 41 33%
Good 63 51%
Fair 19 15%
Top 2 box 104 85%

Q3. 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 123 100%
Very good 48 39%
Good 59 48%
Fair 16 13%
Top 2 box 107 87%

Q4. 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 104 100%
Cyber/IT security risks 32 31%
Regulatory burden 23 22%
Capital-related risks 16 15%
FinTech disruption 15 14%
Environmental risks (earthquake, climate change, floods etc.) 9 9%
Interest rate-related risk 8 8%
Mortgage-related risk 8 8%
Risk management/operational risk 7 7%
Risk strategies/rules appropriate to size of institution 7 7%
Insurance-related risk 7 7%
Liquidity/asset risks 6 6%
Risk of not being able to compete 6 6%
Solvency risk/compliance 5 5%
Shadow banking 5 5%
Other 6 6%

Q5. As needed, OSFI develops Guidance (which may include guidelines and advisories) for <companies in the insurance sector/institutions in the deposit-taking sector>. How would you rate OSFI with respect to:

Responding in a timely manner to market developments or to industry suggestions that guidance needs updating

  Counts Percentages
Total 124 100%
Very good 22 18%
Good 77 62%
Fair 21 17%
Poor 4 3%
Top 2 box 99 80%
Bottom 2 box 4 3%

Q6. As needed, OSFI develops Guidance (which may include guidelines and advisories) for <companies in the insurance sector/institutions in the deposit-taking sector>. How would you rate OSFI with respect to:

Consulting with the financial services industry when developing guidance

  Counts Percentages
Total 124 100%
Very good 52 42%
Good 51 41%
Fair 18 15%
Poor 2 2%
Very poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 103 83%
Bottom 2 box 3 2%

Q7. As needed, OSFI develops Guidance (which may include guidelines and advisories) for <companies in the insurance sector/institutions in the deposit-taking sector>. 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 institutions only

  Counts Percentages
Total 118 100%
Very good 38 32%
Good 60 51%
Fair 16 14%
Poor 2 2%
Very poor 2 2%
Top 2 box 98 83%
Bottom 2 box 4 3%

Q8. As needed, OSFI develops Guidance (which may include guidelines and advisories) for <companies in the insurance sector/institutions in the deposit-taking sector>. 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 institutions only

  Counts Percentages
Total 115 100%
Very good 31 27%
Good 60 52%
Fair 20 17%
Poor 3 3%
Very poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 91 79%
Bottom 2 box 4 3%

Q9. As needed, OSFI develops Guidance (which may include guidelines and advisories) for (companies in the insurance sector/institutions in the deposit-taking sector). How would you rate OSFI with respect to:

Communicating its response, including rationale, to feedback provided by your industry sector during consultations related to guidance development

Subsample: Small and mid-sized institutions only

  Counts Percentages
Total 116 100%
Very good 27 23%
Good 57 49%
Fair 27 23%
Poor 4 3%
Very poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 84 72%
Bottom 2 box 5 4%

Q10. Were you aware that OSFI includes with the final version of all revised or new guidelines a summary of stakeholder comments including an explanation of how OSFI dealt with the issues raised through the consultation process?

Subsample: Small and mid-sized institutions only

  Counts Percentages
Total 119 100%
Yes 73 61%
No 46 39%

Q11. Do you have any suggestions for improving the consultation process OSFI follows when developing guidance?

Subsample: Small and mid-sized institutions only

  Counts Percentages
Total 62 100%
More consultation with small/mid-sized institutions 13 21%
Engage in greater discussions with companies in the process of guidance development 13 21%
Continuous communication/sessions to discuss/review new guidelines and their impact 8 13%
Allow more time for consultation/implementation 7 11%
More transparent process (i.e. decisions not made in advance) 6 10%
Avoid “one size fits all” approach 5 8%
Communicate decision including rationale 3 5%
Other 3 6%
None/process is satisfactory 17 27%

Q12. 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 128 100%
Very good 20 16%
Good 63 49%
Fair 36 28%
Poor 8 6%
Very poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 83 65%
Bottom 2 box 9 7%

Q13. How would you rate OSFI’s guidance on the extent to which it considers the nature, size and complexity of financial institutions?

Subsample: Small and mid-sized institutions only

  Counts Percentages
Total 118 100%
Very good 20 17%
Good 35 30%
Fair 50 42%
Poor 12 10%
Very poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 55 47%
Bottom 2 box 13 11%

Q14. Overall, how effective do you think OSFI’s guidance is in providing a clear indication of its expectations?

  Counts Percentages
Total 128 100%
Very effective 50 39%
Somewhat effective 66 52%
Neither effective nor ineffective 7 5%
Somewhat ineffective 3 2%
Very ineffective 2 2%
Top 2 box 116 91%
Bottom 2 box 5 4%

Q15. Has your <company/institution> made a request for a regulatory approval in the last two years?

  Counts Percentages
Total 119 100%
Yes 70 59%
No 49 41%

Q16. What is your <company’s/institution’s> overall level of satisfaction with OSFI in processing regulatory approval applications?

Subsample: If Q15 is yes

  Counts Percentages
Total 70 100%
Very satisfied 44 63%
Somewhat satisfied 18 26%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2 3%
Somewhat dissatisfied 4 6%
Very dissatisfied 2 3%
Top 2 box 62 89%
Bottom 2 box 6 9%

Q17. How well does your <company/institution> understand the basis on which OSFI makes decisions about your applications?

Subsample: If Q15 is yes

  Counts Percentages
Total 70 100%
Very well 38 54%
Somewhat well 24 34%
Neither well nor poorly 7 10%
Somewhat poorly 1 1%
Top 2 box 62 89%
Bottom 2 box 1 1%

Q18. The following questions pertain to OSFI’s supervision as it relates to your <company/institution>. How would 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>, when carrying out supervisory work.

Subsample: Small and mid-sized institutions only

  Counts Percentages
Total 118 100%
Very good 24 20%
Good 57 48%
Fair 33 28%
Poor 3 3%
Very poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 81 69%
Bottom 2 box 4 3%

Q19. The following questions pertain to OSFI’s supervision as it relates to your <company/institution>. How would you rate OSFI with respect to the extent to which its supervisory activities are scaled to reflect the nature, size and complexity of your <company/institution>.

Subsample: Small and mid-sized institutions only

  Counts Percentages
Total 119 100%
Very good 29 24%
Good 55 46%
Fair 29 24%
Poor 5 4%
Very poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 84 71%
Bottom 2 box 6 5%

Q20. The following questions pertain to OSFI’s supervision as it relates to your <company/institution>. How would you rate OSFI with respect 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 127 100%
Very good 66 52%
Good 44 35%
Fair 14 11%
Poor 3 2%
Top 2 box 110 87%
Bottom 2 box 3 2%

Q21. The following questions pertain to OSFI’s supervision as it relates to your <company/institution>. How would you rate OSFI with respect to the clarity of OSFI’s written correspondence (e.g., Management Reports and Supervisory Letters) in outlining issues of concern.

  Counts Percentages
Total 126 100%
Very good 52 41%
Good 59 47%
Fair 12 10%
Poor 2 2%
Very poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 111 88%
Bottom 2 box 3 2%

Q22. The following questions pertain to OSFI’s supervision as it relates to your <company/institution>. How would you rate OSFI with respect to the consistency between OSFI’s written and oral communications.

  Counts Percentages
Total 125 100%
Very good 47 38%
Good 60 48%
Fair 17 14%
Poor 1 1%
Top 2 box 107 86%
Bottom 2 box 1 1%

Q23 Overall, how effective do you think OSFI is in supervising (e.g. ongoing monitoring, on-site reviews including supervisory recommendations, reporting requirements, etc.) your (company/institution)?

  Counts Percentages
Total 127 100%
Very effective 79 62%
Somewhat effective 40 31%
Neither effective nor ineffective 6 5%
Somewhat ineffective 1 1%
Very ineffective 1 1%
Top 2 box 119 94%
Bottom 2 box 2 2%

Q23B. What are the main reasons why you say OSFI is very effective in supervising your <company/institution>

Subsample: If very effective at Q23

  Counts Percentages
Total 66 100%
Takes into consideration size and complexity of our business 21 32%
Clean communication across institution 19 29%
Good follow up/supervision of our institution 15 23%
Professional/knowledgeable 12 18%
Regular/continuous contact with OSFI team 11 17%
Responsive to our industry’s needs 9 14%
Timely in their responses to our questions/requests 7 11%
Transparent 7 11%
Collaborative when appropriate 6 9%
Fair enforcement of relevant guidance 6 9%
Provides detailed/accurate/informative responses 5 8%
Place reasonable demands on our management 3 5%
Their feedback is considered added value for our institution 3 5%
Other 2 3%

Q23C. What are the main reasons why you feel OSFI is not more effective in supervising your <company/institution>?

Subsample: If somewhat effective, neither effective nor ineffective, somewhat ineffective or very ineffective at Q23

  Counts Percentages
Total 31 100%
Does not often scale to size and complexity of the industry 10 32%
OSFI personnel does not have sound understanding of industry practices 10 32%
High turnover of relationship manager/have to educate new manager on our business 4 13%
Discrepancy between group creating the regulations and supervision group 4 13%
OSFI supervision is most effective at principle level/needs to be at operational level 3 10%
Too much regulations 3 10%
Too much information requested 2 6%
Getting feedback from OSFI’s reviews can be a prolonged process 2 6%
Lack of communication creates complications between OSFI team and our team 2 6%
Lack of transparency on decisions making process 1 3%
Other 1 3%

Q24. 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)?

  Counts Percentages
Total 123 100%
Very satisfied 111 90%
Somewhat satisfied 9 7%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 1%
Very dissatisfied 2 2%
Top 2 box 120 98%
Bottom 2 box 2 2%

Q26. 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 institutions only

  Counts Percentages
Total 78 100%
Reduce regulatory burden/pace of change for small institutions 18 23%
Capital requirements suitable for small/mid-sized institutions 13 17%
Scale expectations to size and complexity of business 12 15%
Balance prudential considerations with FI need to compete/grow 9 12%
Awareness of differences in parent and branch/subsidiary relationships 8 10%
Explanation of guidelines/expectations 8 10%
Corporate governance suitable for small/mid-sized institutions 7 9%
Cyber risk 6 8%
ORSA (Own Risk and Solvency Assessment) 4 5%
Risk management 4 5%
More focus on technology 4 5%
FinTrac reporting 4 5%

Q27. Are there any other comments you would like to make concerning the issues raised in this questionnaire?

  Counts Percentages
Total 34 100%
They are doing a good job 8 24%
Other mentions 7 21%
None/nothing 19 56%