CDIC from 1967 to 2017: From Next Best to World Class | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

Regulation has improved. CDIC and OSFI try to catch issues earlier, before CDIC ends up on the hook for losses.

Apparently, there has been a cleanup in the governance of the deposit taking institutions. This is from page 115:

… Humphrys concluded that “[t]he coming together of all of these factors opened the way to exploit the savings market on the strength of deposit insurance.”⁸ Then, when real estate values had been inflated substantially in the late 1970s, especially in Western Canada, unscrupulous developers who controlled deposit-taking institutions had used them to attract money for their real estate projects. The financial institution would lend the money it received in deposits to another company controlled by the developer, taking the property being developed as security. Often, the value of the real property that they gave these lending institutions as security was “grossly overstated.” When those properties fell in value, the development company could not repay the loan and the lending company could not recover its money from the secured property.⁹ He pointed to District Trust, AMIC, Fidelity Trust, Greymac Trust, and Seaway Trust as companies that had failed as a result of such practices.¹⁰ …