Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this7:13 am
May 15, 2007
Online
I just received this e-mail from CDF:
I’m writing today with some exciting news about Canadian Direct Financial and as a loyal client, I wanted you to be among the first to know.
On February 28, we will announce that Canadian Direct Financial will be rebranding. That means CDF will get a new name, logo and website.
The time is right for an updated, modern approach that better reflects who we are and what we offer.
While our name will be changing, we remain as determined as ever to help you reach your financial goals. You will continue to receive the same great service you have come to expect from CDF. I can’t stress this enough!
After the announcement next week, we will provide several opportunities for you to learn more about what the brand changes mean for you, so please continue to watch for updates.
Thank you for your business and for your cooperation during this exciting time.
Sincerely,
Adam Skoreyko
Division Manager
Update: new e-mail from February 28 announcing name change to Motive Financial:
Last week, we told you that Canadian Direct Financial will rebrand with a new name, logo and website. Today, I’m extremely excited to announce Canadian Direct Financial will become Motive Financial on April 18.
As a CDF client, here’s what you need to know about the transition to Motive Financial:
* You will continue to receive the same great service you have come to expect from us.
* The new website will be motivefinancial.com and will be live on April 18. The old website will not work after April 30 so you will need to visit the new website to log in to online banking.
* If you have a Canadian Direct Financial debit card, your new Motive Financial card will arrive by mail shortly after the launch of the new website.While our new website will look different, it will function the same way as the current website. If you experience any problems using the new site, please contact us at 1.877.441.2249.
Motive is all about creating wealth and opportunity for savers like you. We look forward to serving you as Motive Financial and renewing our focus on rewarding our clients with great rates and low fees.
Thank you for your business and for your cooperation during the move to Motive Financial.
Sincerely,
Adam Skoreyko
Division Manager
7:43 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
Trying to run away from their parent Canadian Western Bank? Is this "grouping" of companies still solvent? I thought i read they were on the brink of spiralling down.
Rebranding always reminds me of the used car business and their paint job overhauls.
9:42 am
October 27, 2013
Offline
Hardly. CWB is doing just fine. Wild guess they may want to emulate Tangerine
11:09 am
May 28, 2013
Offline
Hopefully their rebranding will also include a more competitive interest rate. At 1.5%, it does not make me want to keep much cash there.
11:31 am
June 8, 2016
Offline
Interesting; I have dealings with Canadian Western Bank, and have always been satisfied with them, but in light of the low interest rate environment, I recently inquired about CDF, (and CWB confirmed CDF was separate, should I wish to give CDF some business). I ended up opening the high interest eSavings with Alterna Bank, but...
This CDF news will likely be well advertised in my province of Alberta ...so I will 'stay tuned'...
11:51 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
This is their statement with respect to CDIC -
"If you’re a CWB customer, it’s important to know that your deposits at CWB will be combined with your deposits at CDF when considering the CDIC maximum coverage limitation."
Is this normal for banks and and their supposed "separate" online bank subsidiaries?
12:38 pm
October 27, 2013
Offline
I believe it is if CDF is simply a division of CWB as compared to a separate corporate entity.
Similar to PC Financial which is actually a division of CIBC (they have combined CDIC coverage). Which is why I speculate CWB may be thinking of the Soctia/Tangerine model (separate corporate entities).
Don't much care either way. My only business with CWB/CDF is CDF's HISA in which I currently only have a pittance in it.
12:47 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
I can't say what's "normal", but I don't think it has a negative meaning.
It's wise to look at CDIC website to ensure that you have proper coverage. Although in this case it seems accurate, I would not just go by what the bank in question says about itself as sometimes they use confusing wording.
Tnagerine is insured separately from parent Scotia, probably because it was acquired as a separate entity, not created as a junior by Scotia.
Oaken is the brand of two separately insured entities with very similar names. The Big Banks all have several separately insured brands under their umbrellas. Even more confusion is created when two brands have very similar names but are not both insured the same way, e.g. Alterna Bank and Alterna Credit Union - the latter owns the former but only the former is with CDIC. Each situation is a bit different. Always check directly with CDIC for clarity.
12:54 pm
December 17, 2016
Offline
Yeah, no, I don't dick around with banks anymore, and their limited CDIC coverage for deposits, other than using one of the 5 for my everyday banking (bill paying, Visa, etc.) I use MB credit unions to park the real cash and their deposit insurance is straight forward.
6:49 pm
September 11, 2013
Offline
It's confusing because people tend to use words like umbrella, group, entity, brand, etc, that have no specific legal meaning. Also, people say subsidiary, owned by, parent, etc when they really mean division - and vice-versa.
AltaRed, you are right, it depends on whether the businesses continue to be operated as separate corporations (whether one is owned, created or acquired by the other is irrelevant) or whether they are divisions within the same corporation. In the former case, each has its own CDIC limit; in the latter, as there is only one corporation albeit maybe with separate divisions, there is one CDIC limit for the corporation as a whole.
As you note, Tangerine and Scotia are separate corporations (just like Home Trust and Home Bank/Oaken Financial, as well as like Alterna Bank and Alterna Savings CU) whereas PC and CIBC are separate divisions within the same corporation (same as CWB and CDF). Corporate structure is just a business decision that is made by each group, whether or not to operate as separate legal entities (corporations) or as a single entity (corporation) with a number of divisions. For example, when Scotia acquired Tangerine they could have made Tangerine a division of Scotia but decided instead to keep Tangerine as a separate corporation owned by (not a part of) Scotia. They could change their minds tomorrow. It makes no difference in terms of marketing, operation, etc, but it does make a difference re CDIC limits.
As Loonie said, check with CDIC site to be sure.
9:33 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
Bill said
It's confusing because people tend to use words like umbrella, group, entity, brand, etc, that have no specific legal meaning. Also, people say subsidiary, owned by, parent, etc when they really mean division - and vice-versa.AltaRed, you are right, it depends on whether the businesses continue to be operated as separate corporations (whether one is owned, created or acquired by the other is irrelevant) or whether they are divisions within the same corporation. In the former case, each has its own CDIC limit; in the latter, as there is only one corporation albeit maybe with separate divisions, there is one CDIC limit for the corporation as a whole.
As you note, Tangerine and Scotia are separate corporations (just like Home Trust and Home Bank/Oaken Financial, as well as like Alterna Bank and Alterna Savings CU) whereas PC and CIBC are separate divisions within the same corporation (same as CWB and CDF). Corporate structure is just a business decision that is made by each group, whether or not to operate as separate legal entities (corporations) or as a single entity (corporation) with a number of divisions. For example, when Scotia acquired Tangerine they could have made Tangerine a division of Scotia but decided instead to keep Tangerine as a separate corporation owned by (not a part of) Scotia. They could change their minds tomorrow. It makes no difference in terms of marketing, operation, etc, but it does make a difference re CDIC limits.
As Loonie said, check with CDIC site to be sure.
I'm surprised you used the word "entity" - twice - since you find it a source of confusion.
The structures (can I use that word without getting blamed?) are confusing to the average person who doesn't understand them. It's not as if any of these institutions make it crystal clear. When I go to the Tangerine site, it doesn't say "Welcome to Tangerine, a separate corporation from Scotia but owned by Scotia" etc., and, if it did, the average person still wouldn't know what that implied. The average person is also not up on "specific legal terms", which can be even more confusing, as anyone who has ever read "Terms and Conditions" knows.
8:05 am
May 15, 2007
Online
I've updated the original post above with the e-mail I received today about the rebrand to "Motive Financial".
6:46 pm
February 17, 2013
Offline
Top It Up said
Yeah, no, I don't dick around with banks anymore, and their limited CDIC coverage for deposits, other than using one of the 5 for my everyday banking (bill paying, Visa, etc.) I use MB credit unions to park the real cash and their deposit insurance is straight forward.
I have used them, but I am a little leery of provincial credit unions and their "guaranteed" deposits. Whether it's unlimited or a million dollars, and the state of provincial debt, I don't have a lot of confidence in a province being able to reimburse those funds in the event of a worse case scenario. Sounds like a good deal, but the devil is in the details, and I'm not up on those. Overly cautious? Maybe. If it comes down to the complete and total collapse of the banking industry and/or economy to the point of having to actually pay out defaulted deposits, I don't think CDIC or the provinces will be paying out at 1 to 1... if at all. Manitoba may be in a worse situation if they are accepting an inordinate amount of deposits from customers across Canada compared to BC and the other provinces. What IS the reason Manitoba is positioned to be the country's banker compared to the other provinces? Just MHO. Feel free to enlighten me.
5:16 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
Rick said
... I am a little leery of provincial credit unions and their "guaranteed" deposits. ... If it comes down to the complete and total collapse of the banking industry and/or economy to the point of having to actually pay out defaulted deposits, I don't think CDIC or the provinces will be paying out at 1 to 1... if at all. Manitoba may be in a worse situation if they are accepting an inordinate amount of deposits ... What IS the reason Manitoba is positioned to be the country's banker compared to the other provinces?
I have no idea BUT I'm curious why, whenever there is a challenge it's always based on the worst case scenario i.e. Armageddon. I'd be more concerned about individual banks and credit unions going rogue vs a total collapse of the "system."
I'll use CIBC as an example. They use to be the # 1 bank of the majors, they are now # 5, and why is that? Because of CIBC's hapless World Markets group that scattered money around in the US, like the proverbial drunken sailors, to companies like Enron and schemes like the sub-prime mortgage market, they lost their shirts and and in turn lost investor confidence as a result. Did CIBC go under? NO. But they are no longer seen as the reliable place to park the cash as they once were. So why would I consider banks over CUs? Plus, as a whole, banks now only view themselves as a safe place to store your money, not a place to invest.
I'm only worried about individual failures not group failures. Plus, I have no interest in having 10+ accounts to make sure I stay under the current CDIC cap at each institution when I can have 1 or 2 CUs that give me complete insurance and allow me to sleep at peace each and every night.
Oh, and by the way - the JWs have now moved Armageddon to 2034.
7:09 am
September 11, 2013
Offline
TopItUp, I can see your point, the insurance won't work if there's a systemic collapse, it's there for individual institutions that go bust. But I also agree with Rick that in a rare case of systemic collapse (I didn't really follow it but I've seen a few references to the world's banking systems coming very close to collapse and being saved at the last minute in 2008 - maybe it's bs, I don't know) my view is the federal government and all of Canada is in better financial shape and has more resources than some individual provinces, plus only the feds can "print" money if necessary! Plus I'd guess the banking system is bigger than and has been around a lot longer than the credit union system, not sure if that's good or bad, but I'm guessing the banking system would be a bigger priority in a "crash" than the credit union system. Either way, I agree, not something to lose any sleep over.
7:55 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
Bill said
I'd guess the banking system is bigger than and has been around a lot longer than the credit union system, not sure if that's good or bad, but I'm guessing the banking system would be a bigger priority in a "crash" than the credit union system.
I don't believe that for a single moment ... that's nothing more than FUD.
9:28 am
October 27, 2013
Offline
I believe the CU system has more risk given the preponderance for regional or local loans than does a national bank. Remember what happened in the US Savings and Loan crisis? The US banks like Wachovia primarily into mortgage lending in the latest financial crisis? The Canadian trust companies that went teats up during the '80s and '90s housing crises?
All we need is a severe provincial crisis in a particular province for the CUs in that province to be in trouble (and potentially the provincial government too). I wouldn't be sanguine about CUs lending like drunken sailors into the GVA or GTA housing markets these days.
That said, there does not seem to be much room for risk for the foreseeable future given Central Banks ability to 'fund' the system and/or the increased capital requirements imposed by regulators.
10:03 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
From the Canadian Credit Union Association
CUs in the Mortgage Market:
58%: The percentage of credit union loans that are residential mortgages “…residential mortgage lending is now at the centre of credit union business,” notes Rob Martin, author of the report.
8.9%: The average annual increase in mortgage balances at credit unions, from 2009 to 2014, compared to 5.5% at banks over the same period.
Mortgage market share (outside of Quebec):
Highest penetration: 35.9% in Manitoba
Lowest penetration: 4.5% in Newfoundland
Ontario: 5%
Default Statistics
0.29%: Mortgage arrears rate among federally regulated institutions (e.g., banks)
0.13%: Mortgage arrears rate among provincially regulated institutions (e.g., credit unions)
Please write your comments in the forum.