Bank Mergers in North America: Comparing the Approaches in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Article provides a summary comparison of the processes in the United States and Canada for governmental approval of bank mergers. The topic came to prominence in 1998 when four of Canada's five largest banks unveiled plans that would have resulted in the Royal Bank of Canada merging with the Bank of Montreal and the Toronto Dominion Bank combining with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC"). These proposed mergers were rejected by the then Finance Minister, Paul Martin. The reasons given included: (1) the resulting banking industry structure would have concentrated too much economic power in the hands of too few financial institutions; (2) the combinations would have reduced competition in the Canadian financial services sector; and (3) the reduction in the number of banks would have reduced the Canadian government's flexibility to address future concerns.\nAlthough the government rejected the 1998 mergers, the Finance Department in 1999 acknowledged that business combinations could be an appropriate business strategy in some circumstances. The government promised guidance as to when such combinations of large banks would be permitted. In 2001, the Department of Finance set forth its broad outlines for bank merger policy. One of the obvious differences with U.S. law is that the Canadian approach explicitly provides that the views of the public and political leaders are to be incorporated into the merger approval process. Since the issuance of the bank merger policy, the government has promised specific guidance about what types of combinations will be permitted, but it has yet to complete that policy document.\nThis Article provides a comparison, in summary form, of the U.S. and Canadian approaches to the approval of bank mergers. It starts with a brief explanation of U.S. bank merger law and then lays out the evolving Canadian approach to large bank mergers. It concludes with a discussion of whether the Canadian approach will help the regulators of Canadian financial institutions address the deficiencies identified in the 1998 transactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".