Banking economics dial explorer

Canadian D-SIB reference tool — NIM, fee mix, LCR/NSFR, and capital ratios with plain-English definitions and benchmark ranges.

Plain-English glossary
Interest income
Money the bank earns from lending — mortgage payments, loan interest, credit card rates, and returns on bonds it holds. Think of it as rent charged for lending out money.
Interest expense
Money the bank pays for its funding — interest on savings accounts, GICs, and wholesale borrowing. The cost of using other people's money.
Earning assets
The total pool of assets that generate interest income — loans, mortgages, bonds, and other investments. Not all assets earn interest (buildings, ATMs don't count). Averaged over the period.
NIM
The profit margin on lending. If the bank earns 5% on loans and pays 2.5% for deposits, NIM is 2.5%. A wider spread = more profitable core banking.
5.2%
2.8%
$280B
NIM2.40%
0%Canadian D-SIB range: 1.8% – 2.6%4%
Within typical range
$6.7B
Net interest income
2.40%
Spread (income − expense)
Digital deposit growth
Lower-cost deposits reduce interest expense rate
↑ widens spread
Mortgage platform
Faster approvals → more interest-earning assets
↑ grows earning assets
Rate repricing / regulatory
Protects spread in rising rate environments
~ protects margin
GIC renewal automation
Higher renewal rate retains cheap funding
↓ reduces expense rate
Pressure-test questions
Does this project grow earning assets, reduce funding costs, or both?
What is the incremental spread (bps) on new assets or savings on liabilities?
Is the NIM impact a one-time shift or recurring over the forecast period?
Plain-English glossary
Spread income
Revenue from lending and investing — the interest margin. It moves up and down with interest rates and loan volumes. This is what NIM measures.
Fee income
Revenue that doesn't depend on interest rates — monthly account fees, credit card interchange, wealth management fees, insurance premiums, transaction charges. Stable and predictable regardless of rate cycles.
Revenue mix
The proportion of total revenue from fees vs. spread. A higher fee mix is prized by investors because earnings are less exposed to rate swings. Canadian banks typically target 30–42% fee income.
Non-interest income
The official accounting term for fee income — all revenue other than interest. Shows up on the income statement separately from net interest income.
$8.0B
$3.5B
Fee mix30%
0%Canadian D-SIB range: 30% – 42%60%
Within typical range
$11.5B
Total revenue
70%
Spread income %
Card / payments modernization
Higher interchange + annual fees; digital wallets drive volume
↑ fee income
Wealth / advisory platform
AUM growth → management fees at lower cost per client
↑ fee income
Branch modernization
Shifts advisors to advice → higher referral conversion
↑ both streams
Regulatory / compliance
No direct revenue — frame as risk cost avoidance
~ no direct impact
Pressure-test questions
Is the fee income recurring (AUM-based, monthly) or transactional (per-event)?
Does this project grow fees proportionally faster than NII — shifting the mix?
What is the revenue per customer or per transaction being claimed?
Plain-English glossary
HQLA
High Quality Liquid Assets — the bank's emergency cash reserves. Assets you can sell instantly without losing much value: cash, Government of Canada bonds, provincial bonds. The bigger this pool, the more the bank can survive a crisis.
Net cash outflows
How much money the bank would bleed out in a 30-day stress scenario — if depositors panic and withdraw, credit lines get drawn, or wholesale lenders don't renew. Regulators assign a run-off rate to each liability type.
LCR
Liquidity Coverage Ratio — the 30-day survival test. HQLA ÷ stressed outflows. Must be ≥ 100%. Canadian D-SIBs typically run 125–155% as a buffer above the OSFI floor.
NSFR
Net Stable Funding Ratio — the 1-year stability test. Does the bank have enough long-term stable funding to cover its long-term assets? Must also be ≥ 100%. Retail deposits score much better than wholesale here.
Run-off rate
The percentage of a liability regulators assume will flee in a stress scenario. Chequing account: ~5% (you probably won't close it in a panic). Wholesale paper: 25–100% (institutions will not renew). Lower run-off = better for LCR.
$55B
$40B
$0B
LCR138%
80%Canadian D-SIB range: 125% – 155%200%
Within typical range
Retail deposits carry ~5–10% run-off vs 25%+ for wholesale funding
Retail deposit acquisition
Low run-off rates reduce stressed outflows in LCR
↑ LCR improves
Wholesale funding reduction
Replacing short-term wholesale with retail lengthens funding profile
↑ NSFR improves
Tech modernization
No direct liquidity impact unless enabling faster settlement
~ indirect only
Liquidity reporting
Better data quality may reduce OSFI-required HQLA buffers
↑ reduces buffer req.
Pressure-test questions
Does this project grow retail deposits specifically — or other liability types with different run-off rates?
Is the liquidity benefit consistent with OSFI's run-off rate table?
Is the benefit to LCR or NSFR — or both? They measure different things (30-day vs 1-year).
Plain-English glossary
CET1 capital
Common Equity Tier 1 — the bank's highest-quality shock absorber. Mostly retained earnings (profits kept, not paid as dividends) plus common shares issued. If the bank suffers massive losses, CET1 absorbs them first. The bank's own skin in the game.
Risk-weighted assets
Not all $1 of assets carries the same risk. A GoC bond is near-zero risk; an unsecured personal loan is high risk. RWAs adjust assets by their riskiness — a $1M mortgage might count as $350K of RWA, while a $1M personal loan counts as $1M.
CET1 ratio
CET1 capital ÷ RWAs. The bank's safety buffer as a percentage. OSFI sets a floor for Canadian D-SIBs of ~11.5% including buffers. Higher above the floor = more capacity to grow loans, pay dividends, or absorb losses.
D-SIB
Domestic Systemically Important Bank — OSFI's designation for Canada's Big 6 (Scotiabank, TD, RBC, BMO, CIBC, NBC). They face stricter capital requirements because their failure would destabilize the entire financial system.
$48B
$370B
$0B
CET1 ratio13.0%
10%Canadian D-SIB range: 12% – 14.5%17%
Within typical range
1.5%
Buffer above OSFI floor (~11.5%)
$370B
Adjusted RWA
Basel IV / regulatory capital
Better risk model = lower RWA per dollar of exposure
↓ RWA → ↑ CET1
Loan growth initiatives
More mortgages/loans → higher RWAs → compresses ratio
↑ RWA → ↓ CET1
Credit risk data quality
Cleaner PD/LGD data → more accurate IRB models
↓ RWA → ↑ CET1
Cost / efficiency projects
Higher retained earnings → builds CET1 capital over time
↑ capital via earnings
Pressure-test questions
Does this project grow RWAs — and has capital consumption been factored into the ROI?
If the project claims capital relief, which risk weight category is changing and by how much?
Has Treasury / Capital Management been consulted on the RWA and capital impact?