La RÉNUMÉRATION est responsable de la croissance des dépenses des villes

Le palmarès 2015 permet de constater que la rémunération des employés représente la principale cause de la croissance des dépenses.

Près de la moitié de l'augmentation des dépenses est en effet attribuable à ce que les villes doivent verser à leurs employés, salaires et avantages sociaux compris. Pourtant, la rémunération ne représente que 37 % des dépenses municipales.

Le poids de la rémunération dans la croissance des dépenses se fait particulièrement sentir dans les grandes villes de la province, où elle contribue pour un peu plus de 60 % de l'augmentation.

À Montréal, la rémunération est responsable de tout près de 80 % de la croissance des dépenses.

Facile : Quand vous avez des politiciens crapuleux qui ont promis des retraites dorées insolvables, alors on augmente sans arrêt vos taxes pour satisfaire des retraites pyramidales.

À moins qu’on ne fasse faillite comme les États-Unis, pour s‘en sortir.

Exemple, Chicago est en train de devenir un futur Détroit.

"How underfunded are Illinois pensions?"

Nuveen figures property taxes need to rise by 50% to bail out Chicago pensions in deep trouble. In the video below I explain why 50% will not be enough!

My answer of $130 billion included Chicago and the main Illinois pensions.

Mark Glennon at WirePoints says the number using new Government Accounting Standard Board (GASB) rules is closer to $220 billion. That number includes all Illinois pensions but also includes unfunded healthcare liabilities of about $57 billion. (1)

Comparison of cities

Bravo, M. les policiens n’ayant pas eu de courage et d’avoir accordé n’importe quoi aux employés municipaux, préférable de garder le pouvoir que d’agir en bon père de famille. Et bien sûr en arnaquant les futures générations avec des promesses insolvables.

Si c’était moi, une couple de politiciens serait en prison, tout en annulant leurs retraites dorées qui se sont octroyées eux-mêmes.


Extrait de : Palmarès des municipalités: les dépenses explosent, PIERRE-ANDRÉ NORMANDIN, La Presse, 12 mai 2015

Alors que le gouvernement multiplie les compressions, les dépenses des villes québécoises ont continué à connaître de fortes augmentations, comme en témoigne le 3e Palmarès des municipalités publié aujourd'hui. Le ministre des Affaires municipales, Pierre Moreau, les invite d'ailleurs à mieux contrôler leurs finances en révisant l'ensemble de leurs services. Et les petites municipalités où les dépenses explosent devraient envisager de regrouper leurs services ou carrément fusionner.

Consultez la situation des finances dans votre municipalité

Les dépenses des villes ont augmenté deux fois plus rapidement que l'inflation de 2009 à 2013, surpassant même la croissance observée dans le secteur de la santé, selon le plus récent Palmarès des municipalités. Estimant que les municipalités n'en ont pas encore fait suffisamment pour contrôler leurs dépenses, le ministre Pierre Moreau les invite à imiter le gouvernement et à revoir l'ensemble de leurs activités.

La troisième mouture du Palmarès des municipalités préparée par le Centre sur la productivité et la prospérité HEC permet de suivre l'évolution de la performance des administrations municipales sur 5 ans, soit de 2009 à 2013. Les dépenses des villes, qui s'établissent désormais à 1951 $ en moyenne par habitant, ont ainsi affiché une croissance de 17,8 % sur 5 ans, soit de 4,2 % par année en moyenne.

« Ça dépasse tout ce qu'on connaît :

·         ça dépasse l'inflation,

·         ça dépasse l'augmentation des dépenses du gouvernement du Québec,

·         ça dépasse même la santé.

C'est quand même spécial que les dépenses pour ramasser les poubelles et déneiger les rues augmentent plus vite que celles dans les hôpitaux », s'étonne Robert Gagné, directeur du Centre sur la productivité et la prospérité HEC.

L'inflation a en effet été de 1,8 % en moyenne durant cette période (soit de 7,3 % sur 5 ans), tandis que les dépenses du gouvernement du Québec ont augmenté de 2,9 % par an (12 %). La croissance des dépenses en santé a pour sa part été de 14,1 % sur 5 ans, soit de 3,4 % en moyenne.

« On n'est quand même pas dans un domaine hautement inflationniste. En santé, la technologie évolue, la population vieillit : on n'observe pas ça au municipal. »

La croissance rapide des dépenses alors que le Québec est aux prises avec un vieillissement de sa population pose, au contraire, un problème supplémentaire, selon Robert Gagné. « La plupart des retraités ont des revenus fixes, mais sont confrontés à des dépenses municipales qui augmentent rapidement, donc à des hausses de leur compte de taxes. Ça commence à être un puissant problème », dit-il.

Croissance anormale, selon Moreau

« Non, ce n'est pas normal », admet le ministre des Affaires municipales, Pierre Moreau. Celui-ci dit qu'il a fait le même constat sur la croissance des dépenses que le Centre sur la productivité et la prospérité. « Oui, globalement, il est clair que la croissance des dépenses du gouvernement a été bien inférieure à celle des municipalités au cours des dernières années. »

« Nous sommes dans un mandat où nous sommes plus que sérieusement engagés dans un exercice de contrôle de la croissance des dépenses du gouvernement et, malheureusement, cet exercice n'est pas comparable au niveau municipal », poursuit le ministre.

Pierre Moreau tient à souligner que certaines administrations municipales ont fait des efforts pour limiter la croissance de leurs dépenses, citant en exemple la métropole. « Montréal a fait un exercice qui m'apparaît évident », dit-il.

Le ministre invite toutefois l'ensemble des villes à imiter le gouvernement, qui a entrepris la révision de chacun de ses programmes.

« On est bien conscients, quand on donne de l'oxygène dans la colonne des dépenses des municipalités, que c'est tout aussi valable que si on augmente les transferts et on travaille sur la colonne des revenus. »

Aux municipalités qui expliquent la forte croissance de leurs dépenses par la multiplication des exigences imposées par le gouvernement, le ministre reconnaît que celles-ci ont pu contribuer. Pierre Moreau précise qu'il a entrepris une révision de toutes ces exigences dans le cadre des présentes négociations pour le prochain pacte fiscal, attendu en août, qui établira combien Québec versera aux municipalités. « Faites-nous l'inventaire de ça et on va regarder dans quelle mesure les exigences gouvernementales constituent un fardeau que l'on peut réduire. »

Rémunération

Mais au-delà des exigences gouvernementales, le palmarès 2015 permet de constater que la rémunération des employés représente la principale cause de la croissance des dépenses. Près de la moitié de l'augmentation des dépenses est en effet attribuable à ce que les villes doivent verser à leurs employés, salaires et avantages sociaux compris. Pourtant, la rémunération ne représente que 37 % des dépenses municipales.


clip_image001

Évidemment, les gouvernements n’attaquent pas les problèmes de fond (municipal et provincial), il faut réduire les salaires, les avantages sociaux et les retraites dorées, sans cela, on va directement dans le mur. (1)


Le poids de la rémunération dans la croissance des dépenses se fait particulièrement sentir dans les grandes villes de la province, où elle contribue pour un peu plus de 60 % de l'augmentation. À Montréal, la rémunération est responsable de tout près de 80 % de la croissance des dépenses.


The U.S. represents the largest threat to world peace today.

In Gallup Poll, The Biggest Threat To World Peace Is ... America?

By  @ericbrownzzz on 
The United States Capitol building
The United States Capitol building in Washington in this March 19, 2010 file photo. REUTERS

Is the most dangerous country in the world the United States of America? According to a new poll from WIN and Gallup International, the U.S. represents the largest threat to world peace today.

In their annual End of Year poll, researchers for WIN and Gallup International surveyed more than 66,000 people across 65 nations and found that 24 percent of all respondents answered that the United States “is the greatest threat to peace in the world today.” Pakistan and China fell significantly behind the United States on the poll, with 8 and 6 percent, respectively. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea all tied for fourth place with 4 percent.

Much of the animosity toward America comes from Muslim Middle Eastern and North African nations, all located in a region most likely to be affected by American military actions over the past decade. Forty-four percent of Pakistani respondents, for instance, voted America as the most dangerous nation, despite Pakistan’s acceptance of U.S. foreign aid. The Chinese and Russians rated the United States as dangerous even more than Pakistanis did, at 54 and 49 percent, respectively.

However, a plurality of people polled in several officially American-allied nations also rated the United States as dangerous. Thirty-seven percent of Mexicans and 17 percent of Canadians view their neighboring country with suspicion on the world stage. A surprising 13 percent of American respondents rated their own nation the biggest threat to world peace as well.

While poll respondents seem anxious about the United States’ role in world affairs, many of them would have no problems moving to America if they could. The United States topped WIN/Gallup’s list of top countries people would move to with 9 percent of the vote. Canada and Australia came in second with 7 percent apiece, while 38 percent said they were happy exactly where they are.

Overall, responders seemed remarkably optimistic about their own futures, despite any misgivings about the United States. Nearly 50 percent of responders say that 2014 will be better than 2013, the first time since 1990 that people thought a better year was on the way.

“Despite an unstable economic situation, our happiness index is extremely high all over the world except in Europe,” Jean-Marc Leger, President of WIN/Gallup International Association, said in a statement. “Moreover people think that 2014 will be better than 2013. Optimism is back in the world.”

Source: In Gallup Poll, The Biggest Threat To World Peace Is ... America?, By Eric Brown, International Business Times, January 02 2014

To Jeb Bush: ‘Your Brother Created ISIS’

Moi, j’aurais été plus loin, pourquoi on n’accuse pas votre frère comme étant un acteur principal d’un génocide en Irak, plus de 175,000 morts fondés sur une fausse prémisse : la possession d’armes de destruction massive.

Après, on se demande pourquoi : Les Etats-Unis sont considérés comme une plus grande menace pour la paix que la Corée du Nord, Israël ou l'Iran.


Extrait de : College Student to Jeb Bush: ‘Your Brother Created ISIS’, Michael Barbaro, The New York Times, may 13 2015

RENO, Nev. — “Your brother created ISIS,” the young woman told Jeb Bush. And with that, Ivy Ziedrich, a 19-year-old college student, created the kind of confrontational moment here on Wednesday morning that presidential candidates dread.

Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, had just concluded a town-hall-style meeting when Ms. Ziedrich demanded to be heard. “Governor Bush,” she shouted as audience members asked him for his autograph. “Would you take a student question?”

Mr. Bush whirled around and looked at Ms. Ziedrich, who identified herself as a political science major and a college Democrat at the University of Nevada.

She had heard Mr. Bush argue, a few moments before, that America’s retreat from the Middle East under President Obama had contributed to the growing power of the Islamic State. She told the former governor that he was wrong, and made the case that blame lay with the decision by the administration of his brother George W. Bush to disband the Iraqi Army.

It was when 30,000 individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out — they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons,” Ms. Ziedrich said.

She added: “Your brother created ISIS.”

Mr. Bush interjected. “All right. Is that a question?”

Ms. Ziedrich was not finished. “You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir.”

“Pedantic? Wow,” Mr. Bush replied.

Then Ms. Ziedrich asked: “Why are you saying that ISIS was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”

Ziedrich's case is stronger than it may seem. To be sure, had the U.S. not invaded Iraq, the region's history would have unfolded differently. But more to her point, specific decisions made by the Bush administration also led to the rise of ISIS. Most notably, the administration engaged in a widespread and controversial policy known as debaathification, which made most people, even low-level bureaucrats, who had been associated with the former regime, ineligible for government employment in the new era.

The German magazine Der Spiegel in April published a trove of documents that once belonged to the mastermind of ISIS, Haji Bakr, who created the infrastructure of the Islamic State. (2)

Mr. Bush replied: “We respectfully disagree. We have a disagreement. When we left Iraq, security had been arranged, Al Qaeda had been taken out. There was a fragile system that could have been brought up to eliminate the sectarian violence.”

He added: “And we had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress. The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”

He concluded: “Look, you can rewrite history all you want. But the simple fact is that we are in a much more unstable place because American pulled back.”

Mr. Bush turned away. The conversation was over.

Ivy Ziedrich told Jeb Bush, “Your brother created Isis,” and now she finds herself both a target and a hero on social media.


Vancouver needs to acts to slow foreign buyers

Extrait de: Some wonder if it’s time Vancouver acts to slow foreign buyers, Kerry Gold, The Globe and Mail, May. 08 2015

If a city defines itself as interdependent communities that are connected, funded and guided by a taxpaying base of businesses and full-time residents, then Vancouverites are now finding themselves on the sidelines.

They’re often not even on the radar of real estate marketers, especially where purchases of high-end properties or bulk-sale condo presales or land assemblies are concerned. Those high-stakes buys drive the market from the top down, pushing prices up across the entire region. And yet a good many of those purchases are made by the mysterious international investor, a nebulous “other” who has all this power and yet so much anonymity. Who are they? What are their primary residences? How many properties do they own? Which properties do they own?

Answers to these questions could give clarity to those who need it most, the local who is at the mercy of an unaffordable housing market.

·         The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver issued a press release this week that said sales of detached properties in April had gone up 70.6 per cent since April, 2013.  The benchmark price had gone up 12.5 per cent this year over last, to $1.079-million. The same release said the supply is simply not meeting the insatiable demand.

·         Considering that the median family income in Vancouver is $66,000 – and we carry household debt that exceeds the national average – that demand isn’t coming from anywhere inside the province.

It’s not even coming from inside the country, according to geography professor David Ley, who gave a presentation last week at Simon Fraser University’s HOUSE: Rethinking the Affordability Crisis symposium.

Dr. Ley has been studying the unaffordability crisis in Vancouver and cities such as London, Sydney, Hong Kong and Singapore for several years. He has found a direct correlation between net immigration and Vancouver housing price increases over a 30-year period. As house prices continue to climb crazily while incomes stagnate, there is a decoupling under way between the local economy and the housing market. As one local pundit put it, the market is no longer income driven – but capital driven.

“Incomes are low, and there is very negligible net migration into Vancouver from the rest of Canada, and those are the two leading indicators that usually tell you something about a housing market,” says Dr. Ley. “In this case, the capital that’s coming to the market is clearly not from the people with those low incomes, and the new people are coming in as immigrants.”

He sees no end in sight for the insatiable demand by foreign investors. In fact, he sees prices only intensifying – as does University of Melbourne urban geography professor Kate Shaw, who was in Vancouver this week. And the weakened dollar is stimulating the demand, offering the foreign buyer a price reduction of 20 per cent.

“I don’t think it’s a bubble,” Dr. Shaw says. “I can’t see Vancouver and Toronto and Melbourne and Sydney becoming unsafe places to invest. I think it could go on for a very long time.”

The effects of an unaffordable housing market can be profound. Last year, a study found that one in seven Australians is living in poverty, partly due to high housing costs. Dr. Shaw argues that simply throwing more supply at the problem won’t create affordability. Instead, the focus should be on the demand, which isn’t going to stop any time soon.

“The inequities are already profound, and it’s dividing cities – which is an interesting and highly problematic situation in itself,” she says. “Because that alone could contribute to a level of destabilization no investor or economist is thinking about.”

Other cities under tremendous pressure of foreign investment are taking a lot more action than Vancouver.

“The Aussies have also been very concerned about affordability,” says Dr. Ley. “There’s no end of government reports on this issue.”

While the city of Vancouver has relatively modest resources, the federal and provincial government, in particular, could take action, Dr. Ley says.

I think it is negligence. There is just no interest in dealing with these questions at the provincial level. It is just a non-issue.”

Other cities have taken action with varying degrees of success.

·         London’s stamp duty reform has cooled that market.

·         For two decades, each time the housing market in Hong Kong has overheated, the government has intervened, Dr. Ley says.

·         “The experience in London is that some of the tax interventions have slowed the market, and the same in Singapore. In Hong Kong, even though they’ve thrown everything at it, they just cannot slow down the market there. It went up 14 per cent last year.”

·         Hong Kong, however, is reaping the revenue from a stamp duty on foreign ownership – $75-billion (Hong Kong), $11.7-billion (Canadian), in the past year. Hong Kong also approved a double stamp duty last year on people buying second homes. Mainland Chinese investors owned more than 40 per cent of Hong Kong’s new luxury market in 2012. That figure was recently halved due to cooling measures such as stamp taxes.

In Australia, all capital cities are being hit hard by rising prices, particularly Sydney. That city has seen values increase by 35 per cent in the past five years, forcing a segment of the population to clear out of the city – a phenomenon known as “economic housing refugees.” The foreign investment problem is compounded by the fact that because of major tax incentives, locals are also investing heavily in real estate, according to Dr. Shaw.

There have been interventions, such as a law that foreign purchasers can buy only new homes, and must obtain permission from the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB). However, the process is voluntary, and stories about dubious real estate agents selling properties illegally are emerging. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott made headlines the other day when he announced there could be jail time for foreign purchasers who make illegal purchases. Dr. Shaw says convictions are unlikely.

“How are they going to jail a non-resident foreign investor?” she said.

“It’s not going to happen. At worst, in the high-profile cases, the government would compulsorily acquire property back and repay the illegal purchaser the amount they paid in the first instance. That would be the extent.”

But the plan includes financial penalties that would affect local real estate agents – which is a start, Dr. Shaw says.

Australia and Canada are in very similar situations in that both nations went through the global financial crisis fairly unscathed,” Dr. Shaw says. “The impact of that has been property prices remained very strong, meaning those two countries are probably the safest investment prospects for property in the world. So there is capital coming in from a lot of very unstable economies – Russia, the Middle East, China in particular, and Europe, with problems in the European Union. So as a consequence, everybody in those economies is pulling out money and putting it into property in safe economies. And that demand is increasing at a very, very high rate.”

An offshoot of the demand for homes as investments has been the problem of empty houses, or ghost neighbourhoods. An estimated 22,000 homes sit empty in London when they could be housing in the order of 55,000 people. According to Dr. Ley’s findings, 85 per cent of central London’s new properties have been purchased with offshore money. Melbourne’s high-rise developments in Southbank and Docklands are estimated 90-per cent investor-owned and 25-per cent empty, according to Dr. Shaw.

In Vancouver, we have no such data on empty houses yet. But anecdotal evidence suggests the figure on the west side of the city is in the hundreds, which is a disturbing trend.

Both academics see government intervention as mandatory in Canada and Australia, if the average-income resident is going to manage for the coming decades.

“The solutions are pretty easy,” says Dr. Shaw. “Taxation is a very powerful mechanism and you can absolutely disincentivize as much as incentivize. So it’s not that we don’t have solutions. The politics around it are an entirely different matter. Possibly the biggest problem is the political class in Australia is one of the largest beneficiaries of the taxation regime, so there’s not a lot of appetite.”

But judging from this week’s jail-time announcement, Australia’s political class is clearly having to respond to its voters. The only way there will be government intervention here is if people demand it, Dr. Ley says. “The only reason I could see for government interest is if there is a political push-back by people, that this becomes a political issue.”

In other cities, push-back has resulted in demonstrations. In Vancouver, there’s a surprising apathy around the issue. During last year’s civic election, only left-leaning Coalition of Progressive Electors candidate Meena Wong suggested a levy on empty homes. But the lack of data are undoubtedly confusing the issue for people.

“I’m quite surprised that there has not been a politicization around this,” Dr. Ley says. “I think the fact that we suppress data means they can’t be well informed. The kind of data that is normal in other cities, we just don’t have here.”


Australia's crackdown on foreign real estate ownership

Extrait de: Foreign investors face crackdown on Australian property purchases, theguardian, Sunday 3 May 2015

Coalition announces package of measures for foreign buyers, including new fees, lower review thresholds, increased penalties and more enforcement

Foreigners who have bought Australian properties without proper approval have until the end of November to come forward or face penalties, the Coalition says.

Under a crackdown on foreign property investment, new penalties include fines of more than $100,000 and up to three years jail for individuals and fines of more than $600,000 for companies.

They will apply to foreign buyers and those who facilitate illegal property sales, including developers and real estate agents.

The package announced by the government on Saturday also includes a range of new fees for all foreign acquisition applications and new lower review thresholds for foreign purchases of rural land ($15m, down from $252m) and agribusiness ($55m, down from $252m).

The prime minister, Tony Abbott, claimed existing rules controlling foreign acquisition of real estate were not being enforced under Labor.

Foreign investors mostly aren’t allowed to buy existing residential real estate but, subject to approval, can buy new residential property on the basis that this drives demand for housing stock.

But there’s growing concerned that rules have been widely flouted, with foreign buyers pricing locals out of heated city property markets.

Under the new regime, there’ll be better enforcement through transferring residential real estate functions from the Foreign Investment Review Board to the better-resourced Australian Taxation Office.

It will be able to use its extensive data-matching systems to identify possible breaches.

Abbott said foreigners were illegally buying into the existing residential property market and driving up prices.

“We want to ensure that locals are getting a fair go, that the playing field is at least level and, if possible, slightly tilted towards the locals,” he told reporters in Sydney.

The treasurer, Joe Hockey, said there would be a moratorium on enforcement of the new rules.

Illegal foreign investors have until 30 November to come forward without penalty. However, they’ll still be forced to divest.

Hockey said this would help build confidence in foreign investment.

“They ensure that the laws that are in place are properly enforced and importantly, they give Australian investors and Australian home owners confidence they are competing on a fair and level playing field,” he told reporters.

The announcement produced mixed reactions.

Labor frontbencher Stephen Jones said the government was declaring Australia open for business and in the next breath saying “but let’s check your passport”.

“We will have differential arrangements for different countries. The government needs to send clear messages about foreign investment,” he told Sky News.

The federal Nationals leader, Warren Truss, said this was a win for common sense, giving the public reliable information about real levels of foreign ownership of agricultural land and agribusiness.

“There are plenty of stories of the existing rules being ignored or being circumvented through scams, front companies and contrived arrangements,” he said in a statement.

The Business Council of Australia chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, said they were disappointed the government had decided to implement a fee regime on all overseas investments in Australia.

“Given the great progress made by the government in concluding key free trade agreements, it is disappointing they have made a decision which would undermine those deals and potentially discourage much-needed foreign investment in Australia,” she said in a statement.

The Property Council of Australia welcomed toughened compliance measures but said the new fees were too high.

Chief executive Ken Morrison said a more moderate fee would more than cover the FIRB approvals process and ensure taxpayers are not out of pocket.

“But the government seems determined to use this process as an opportunity to raise revenue,” he said in a statement.

Morrison said this set a dangerous precedent for the states, with Victoria already announcing increases in stamp duty and land tax for foreign buyers.


Europe : L’assurance-vie, victime collatérale des taux d’intérêt négatifs

Mise en garde sur les effets des taux d’intérêt très bas

Le FMI estime par ailleurs qu’il convient de limiter les excès financiers et les effets négatifs d’une période prolongée de bas taux d’intérêt.

Dans la zone euro, où près d’un tiers des obligations souveraines à court et long terme présentent des rendements négatifs, la persistance de faible taux d’intérêts mettrait ainsi en danger un grand nombre d’établissements financiers, et notamment 24 % des assureurs-vie européens de taille moyenne.

Or le secteur compte un portefeuille de 4 400 milliards d’euros d’actifs dans l’Union européenne et il est de plus en plus connecté avec l’ensemble du système financier. D’où un risque évident de contagion.

Difficile aujourd'hui de parler à un économiste du niveau des taux en Europe sans entendre que « la politique monétaire finira par menacer la stabilité financière ».

Pas de traitement de choc pour juguler la crise sans dommages collatéraux.

Les banquiers centraux le savent aussi, ils ont d’ailleurs identifié le maillon faible depuis longtemps.

« Une période prolongée de bas taux d’intérêt menace la solvabilité des assureurs, a averti mardi la Nederlandsche Bank des Pays-Bas, dernière en date à tirer la sonnette d’alarme. Un euphémisme. Les mois qui passent accroissent la pression sur la branche vie de ces poids lourds des marchés de capitaux, les nouveaux placements qu’ils réalisent ne leur permettant plus de tenir leurs engagements auprès de leurs assurés.

Contagion à l’ensemble du système financier

La défaillance d’un ou de plusieurs assureurs de taille moyenne pourrait provoquer une perte de confiance à l’échelle du secteur si elle semble tenir à un problème qui concerne l’ensemble du secteur et qui se propagera probablement à d’autres établissements. La complexité du métier de l’assurance et la communication limitée d’informations financières pourraient aussi contribuer à cette contagion. L’absence d’un système de protection de l’assuré ou d’un ensemble de normes minimales communes pour l’ensemble de l’Union européenne, qui existe au Japon et aux États-Unis, amplifie ces risques.

Les interconnexions élevées et croissantes entre le secteur de l’assurance et l’ensemble du système financier de l’Union européenne constituent une autre source de contagion éventuelle. Le secteur de l’assurance est le plus gros investisseur institutionnel, avec des investissements de 4.400 milliards d’euros dans le secteur privé européen (graphique 2). Par exemple, de gros problèmes de trésorerie dans une compagnie d’assurances pourraient provoquer des ventes à prix réduits, ce qui forcerait d’autres compagnies à constater un ajustement aux prix du marché qui pourrait engloutir l’ensemble du système financier.