This paper analyzes the effectiveness of debt-relief programs targeting shortrun household liquidity constraints implemented in Canada in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These programs allowed individuals to push off mortgage and credit card payments and cut in half interest rates on credit card debt. Using credit bureau data, we document that, despite potential savings above $4 billion, enrolment was limited: 24% for mortgages and 7% for credit cards. By exploiting the richness of our data set, we provide evidence that close to 80% of individuals were unaware of the credit card relief program while others faced important fixed non-monetary costs preventing uptake.Résumé. Nous analysons l'efficacité de mesures d'allégement financier aux emprunteurs mises en place par les institutions financières canadiennes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Ces mesures offraient aux ménages l'occasion de repousser leurs paiements hypothècaires ou de cartes de crédit. À l'aide de données sur les comptes de crédit individuels, nous documentons que malgré le fait que ces programmes offraient des économies potentielles de plus de 4 milliards de dollars, les taux de recours ont été
Following the crisis, macroprudential regulations targeting mortgage-market vulnerabilities were widely adopted, their success often relying on the response of financial intermediaries. We provide evidence from Canada suggesting banks may have behaved strategically to limit the effectiveness of recently implemented mortgage stress tests. Before implementation, borrowers had to prove they could make mortgage payments based on the interest rate specified in the contract. The new tests require borrowers to show they can afford payments based on a typically higher qualifying rate, derived from the mode of 5-year rates posted by the six largest banks. The government’s objective was to cool credit markets, but, since many mortgages are government-insured, the big banks’ interests were not aligned. We find evidence of rate manipulation using a difference-in-differences approach comparing changes in spreads for 5-year mortgages with 3-year spreads, unaffected by the policy. The qualifying rates were lowered encouraging continued borrowing, muting the tests’ impact.
BackgroundSynchronous multiple ground-glass nodules (SMGGNs) in synchronous multiple lung cancers are associated with specific imaging findings. It is difficult to distinguish whether multiple nodules are primary tumors or metastatic lesions in the lungs. The need for PET/CT and contrast-enhanced brain MRI for these patients remains unclear. This study investigated the necessity of these two imaging examinations for SMGGN patients by means of retrospective analysis.MethodsSMGGN patients who were diagnosed and treated in our hospital from October 2017 to May 2020 and underwent whole-body PET/CT(Cranial excepted) and/or contrast-enhanced brain MRI+DWI were enrolled in this study. We analyzed the imaging and clinical characteristics of these patients to evaluate SMGGN patients’ need to undergo whole-body PET/CT and brain MRI examination.ResultsA total of 87 SMGGN patients were enrolled. 51 patients underwent whole-body PET/CT examinations and did not show signs of primary tumors in other organs, metastatic foci in other organs, or metastasis to surrounding lymph nodes. 87 patients underwent whole-brain MRI, which did not reveal brain metastases but did detect an old cerebral infarction in 23 patients and a new cerebral infarction in one patient. 87 patients underwent surgical treatment in which 219 nodules were removed. All nodules were diagnosed as adenocarcinoma or atypical adenomatous hyperplasia. No lymph node metastasis was noted.ConclusionFor SMGGN patients, PET/CT and enhanced cranial MRI are unnecessary for SMGGNs patients, but from the perspective of perioperative patient safety, preoperative MRI+DWI examination is recommended for SMGGNs patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.