PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues How Obama and Co. are screwing banks over..


petegz28
03-16-2010, 12:46 PM
Ok, my wife works in a local bank. They have all of 9 branches. They made 0 bad loans. They took $0 in TARP money. They were in a very, very strong position financially.

Enter Obama and the Fed Gov.

As Obama sceams for banks to lend more money, here is what his troops are doing to the banks...

They are forcing banks to raise more capital regardless of their situation. This of course decreases lending and in some cases, as in my wife's bank, forced some layoffs.

Secondly they are using fuzzy math. After the owners of my wife's bank upped $20 mil out of their own pockets to meet the new OCC capital requirements they are being told they still do not have enough. However, on top of the bank raising its capital they have set aside $50 mil for "loan loss reserves". They are doing just fine, except the Fed Gov says "oh, by the way, that $50 mil we require you to have for loan loss reserves doesn't count. You still need to raise even more capital".

So now, what was one of the stronger banks in the community is basically on the block to be sold and now listed in the top 3 of local banks that might fail.

Why? Why? Why? Again, they made no bad loans. They took no money from Uncle Sam and the taxpayer. WTF are they being squeezed so ****ing hard while Fannie and Freddie continue to milk us all?


This, my friends, is the hope and change Obama has brought on. Right now the employees of that bank are hoping they hang on and praying they don't have to change jobs.

KC native
03-16-2010, 03:34 PM
Pete if they are being told to raise more equity then they probably need to raise more equity. Seeing as it is a local bank, they probably didn't get into the residential subprime crap too bad but local/regional banks are into Commercial Real Estate loans heavy. Well, CRE is blowing up in our face as we speak. This is why you're starting to see a lot of local/regionals start to fall.

whatsmynameagain
03-16-2010, 03:59 PM
Ok, my wife works in a local bank. They have all of 9 branches. They made 0 bad loans. They took $0 in TARP money. They were in a very, very strong position financially.

Enter Obama and the Fed Gov.

As Obama sceams for banks to lend more money, here is what his troops are doing to the banks...

They are forcing banks to raise more capital regardless of their situation. This of course decreases lending and in some cases, as in my wife's bank, forced some layoffs.

Secondly they are using fuzzy math. After the owners of my wife's bank upped $20 mil out of their own pockets to meet the new OCC capital requirements they are being told they still do not have enough. However, on top of the bank raising its capital they have set aside $50 mil for "loan loss reserves". They are doing just fine, except the Fed Gov says "oh, by the way, that $50 mil we require you to have for loan loss reserves doesn't count. You still need to raise even more capital".

So now, what was one of the stronger banks in the community is basically on the block to be sold and now listed in the top 3 of local banks that might fail.

Why? Why? Why? Again, they made no bad loans. They took no money from Uncle Sam and the taxpayer. WTF are they being squeezed so ****ing hard while Fannie and Freddie continue to milk us all?


This, my friends, is the hope and change Obama has brought on. Right now the employees of that bank are hoping they hang on and praying they don't have to change jobs.


those poor banks
Posted via Mobile Device

KC Dan
03-16-2010, 04:00 PM
those poor banks
Posted via Mobile DeviceThey do employ people you idiot

stevieray
03-16-2010, 04:04 PM
those poor banks
Posted via Mobile Deviceyou poor asshole.

2bikemike
03-16-2010, 05:28 PM
The bank my daughter works for got screwed in this fiasco as well. But since they weren't too big to fail the feds ended up taking em over. IIRC they had a ton of money invested in Fannie.

BIG_DADDY
03-16-2010, 05:46 PM
And the Federal Reserve gets even more power. Corruption at it's finest.

BIG_DADDY
03-16-2010, 05:47 PM
those poor banks
Posted via Mobile Device

No taste or brains, nice.

whatsmynameagain
03-16-2010, 07:22 PM
They do employ people you idiot

and water is wet
Posted via Mobile Device

whatsmynameagain
03-16-2010, 07:22 PM
you poor asshole.

hardly
Posted via Mobile Device

stevieray
03-16-2010, 07:26 PM
hardly
Posted via Mobile Device
easily

whatsmynameagain
03-16-2010, 07:29 PM
easily

dont you have more important things to do like deciding what animal you will fingerpaint in art class tomorrow?

calling me a poor asshole makes no sense. if you said asshole then ok....
Posted via Mobile Device

KC native
03-16-2010, 07:45 PM
The bank my daughter works for got screwed in this fiasco as well. But since they weren't too big to fail the feds ended up taking em over. IIRC they had a ton of money invested in Fannie.

Seriously doubt it. Banks make their money from loans not investing (unless you're one of the giant conglomerates like Citi, BofA, etc).

KC native
03-16-2010, 07:46 PM
dont you have more important things to do like deciding what animal you will fingerpaint in art class tomorrow?

calling me a poor asshole makes no sense. if you said asshole then ok....
Posted via Mobile Device

ROFL

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 08:30 PM
This, my friends, is the hope and change Obama has brought on.

That hope and change is the central planning of socialism which destroys businesses, economies and nations.

Sometimes I think this stuff is deliberate, to sink America, have China own us and they wind up the leading power.
Simply because it is so incredibly stupid to do such things. The bank itself knows its business best.

petegz28
03-16-2010, 11:08 PM
Pete if they are being told to raise more equity then they probably need to raise more equity. Seeing as it is a local bank, they probably didn't get into the residential subprime crap too bad but local/regional banks are into Commercial Real Estate loans heavy. Well, CRE is blowing up in our face as we speak. This is why you're starting to see a lot of local/regionals start to fall.

I disagree. They are or at least were financially sound. And they are in a good position if some of their loans went bad. The fact that they OCC will not count the $50 mil in loan loss reserves towards the required capital the bank has to have to sustain bad loans is a total crock of horse shit.

That would be like me telling you, Native, I know you have made 0 bad loans. I know you have borrowed $0 from TARP. I understand that until I walked in the door your bank was fine and secure. Now, you have to have $100 mil in capital to stay in business. Those are the new rules. And then you tell me well, Pete, I have $50 mil in cap reserves and $50 mil in loan loss reserves. And then I tell you, oh, you're other $50 mil don't count. Now sell your fucking bank!!!

petegz28
03-16-2010, 11:09 PM
That hope and change is the central planning of socialism which destroys businesses, economies and nations.

Sometimes I think this stuff is deliberate, to sink America, have China own us and they wind up the leading power.
Simply because it is so incredibly stupid to do such things. The bank itself knows its business best.

One of the first tactics in marxism is to freeze a banks ability to do business, is it not?

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 11:48 PM
One of the first tactics in marxism is to freeze a banks ability to do business, is it not?

Plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

That would be the Federal Reserve however....Obama is seizing even more control ( Mercantilism uses a central bank too) over the nations money...and giving even greater control to our central bankers. More and more of the economy is being put under state control even if fractional reserve banking isn't good in itself. Even more state control of course, puts us much further into socialism....and of course devastates capitalism. The whole idea.

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 11:55 PM
Expect a vote on this later:
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/1298027_f520.jpg

KC native
03-17-2010, 12:36 AM
I disagree. They are or at least were financially sound. And they are in a good position if some of their loans went bad. The fact that they OCC will not count the $50 mil in loan loss reserves towards the required capital the bank has to have to sustain bad loans is a total crock of horse shit.

That would be like me telling you, Native, I know you have made 0 bad loans. I know you have borrowed $0 from TARP. I understand that until I walked in the door your bank was fine and secure. Now, you have to have $100 mil in capital to stay in business. Those are the new rules. And then you tell me well, Pete, I have $50 mil in cap reserves and $50 mil in loan loss reserves. And then I tell you, oh, you're other $50 mil don't count. Now sell your ****ing bank!!!

The last thing the government wants right now is more banks to go under. If they are in danger of being closed then they are a REALLY bad bank. The government is playing pretend and extend in the hopes that most banks can earn their way out of this. I can't tell if the $50 million in loan reserves is sufficient without knowing their lending base and leverage but if the OCC is telling them to either find a suitor or raise more capital then they are probably heavy into bad local commercial real estate loans.

I can tell you without a doubt that they made "bad" loans. My friend works for a very conservative local bank and the problem loans and foreclosures that he has handled were good conservative loans a few years ago(he works on their troubled asset review committee or whatever they call it). Now, they are trying to sell off collateral without taking a huge loss or trying to rework loans to kick the can down the street for a few years.

Bad loans are a normal part of banking. Bad debt happens to every bank which is why they account for it (in most cases the accounting for it has been too low).

KC native
03-17-2010, 12:38 AM
Plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

That would be the Federal Reserve however....Obama is seizing even more control ( Mercantilism uses a central bank too) over the nations money...and giving even greater control to our central bankers. More and more of the economy is being put under state control even if fractional reserve banking isn't good in itself. Even more state control of course, puts us much further into socialism....and of devastates capitalism. The whole idea.

You are really fucking stupid (and a coward as well). The Fed doesn't have a monopoly on credit creation. They can influence it via their various tools but ultimately it is up to the banks to lend and create credit.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 11:44 AM
And the Federal Reserve gets even more power. Corruption at it's finest.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Hopey Change™

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:57 AM
The last thing the government wants right now is more banks to go under. If they are in danger of being closed then they are a REALLY bad bank. The government is playing pretend and extend in the hopes that most banks can earn their way out of this. I can't tell if the $50 million in loan reserves is sufficient without knowing their lending base and leverage but if the OCC is telling them to either find a suitor or raise more capital then they are probably heavy into bad local commercial real estate loans.

I can tell you without a doubt that they made "bad" loans. My friend works for a very conservative local bank and the problem loans and foreclosures that he has handled were good conservative loans a few years ago(he works on their troubled asset review committee or whatever they call it). Now, they are trying to sell off collateral without taking a huge loss or trying to rework loans to kick the can down the street for a few years.

Bad loans are a normal part of banking. Bad debt happens to every bank which is why they account for it (in most cases the accounting for it has been too low).

I disagree 100%. The bank was doing great. They were hiring, they were expanding, they were lending. I am sure they had some bad loans as any bank does but they made 0 sub-prime loans or high risk loans and took $0 from TARP. In fact, their customer base was expanding due to customers of banks that did that TARP $'s moving their accounts to my wife's bank. EVerything for them was fine. They have been in business for over 100 years serving the local community. Now the Fed Gov starts ****ing around with things and they are in trouble. Go ****ing figure. The OCC and Fed took a bank that was doing just fine and ****ed them up the ass with their bullshit.

The only reason they are slated to "fail" is they are the block to be sold because as a privately held company the owners feel they have upped enough of their own cash to meet the new regulations the OCC and Fed keep shoving down their throats and won't do it anymore. Meanwhile, we as taxpayers are bailing out the banks such as BoA and others who did make stupid decisions and would have had severe problems had they not taken TARP $'s. Unlike my wife's bank.

This is a squeeze to insure the uh-hum, "investment" we as tax payers made in troubled banks.

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 11:59 AM
Banks have been screwing citizens over for a long, long time.

Turn-about seems fair play to me. ;)

stevieray
03-17-2010, 12:00 PM
Banks have been screwing citizens over for a long, long time. Turn-about seems fair play to me. :):shake:

petegz28
03-17-2010, 12:01 PM
Banks have been screwing citizens over for a long, long time.

Turn-about seems fair play to me. ;)

Kotter, go **** yourself. How about I lump you in with the general stereo type of lame ass teachers who don't know jack shit which is why they have to teach instead of making it in the "real world"?

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 12:02 PM
:shake:

Smile, stevie. You are too young to be brooding in your ale. :toast:

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 12:03 PM
Kotter, go **** yourself.


It's okay for banks to screw average Americans, but we whine when the government tightens up regulations on them a bit--in an attempt to avoid a repeat of the blunders of the past 15-20 years of loose lending?

Cry me a friggin' river, please. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 12:05 PM
Kotter, go **** yourself. How about I lump you in with the general stereo type of lame ass teachers who don't know jack shit which is why they have to teach instead of making it in the "real world"?

Happens all the time; a lot here of late. What goes around, comes around I guess. Kharma, baby.

;)

petegz28
03-17-2010, 12:13 PM
It's okay for banks to screw average Americans, but we whine when the government tightens up regulations on them a bit--in an attempt to avoid a repeat of the blunders of the past 15-20 years of loose lending?

Cry me a friggin' river, please. :rolleyes:

When they force a perfectly fine bank out of business for no good reason, yeah, Kotter, it's BS.

Fuck you and your river.

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 01:27 PM
When they force a perfectly fine bank out of business for no good reason, yeah, Kotter, it's BS.

**** you and your river.

That's YOUR account. If you have a link to a credible source to back your skewed account, I'd consider offering condolences....

:shrug:

petegz28
03-17-2010, 01:28 PM
That's YOUR account. If you have a link to a credible source to back your skewed account, I'd consider offering condolences....

:shrug:

Go teach your gym class.

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 01:30 PM
Go teach your gym class.

ROFL

KC native
03-17-2010, 04:11 PM
I disagree 100%. The bank was doing great. They were hiring, they were expanding, they were lending. I am sure they had some bad loans as any bank does but they made 0 sub-prime loans or high risk loans and took $0 from TARP. In fact, their customer base was expanding due to customers of banks that did that TARP $'s moving their accounts to my wife's bank. EVerything for them was fine. They have been in business for over 100 years serving the local community. Now the Fed Gov starts ****ing around with things and they are in trouble. Go ****ing figure. The OCC and Fed took a bank that was doing just fine and ****ed them up the ass with their bullshit.

The only reason they are slated to "fail" is they are the block to be sold because as a privately held company the owners feel they have upped enough of their own cash to meet the new regulations the OCC and Fed keep shoving down their throats and won't do it anymore. Meanwhile, we as taxpayers are bailing out the banks such as BoA and others who did make stupid decisions and would have had severe problems had they not taken TARP $'s. Unlike my wife's bank.

This is a squeeze to insure the uh-hum, "investment" we as tax payers made in troubled banks.

:facepalm: Just because they were hiring positions doesn't mean the company is doing great. Like I said to you earlier they probably are chock full of bad CRE loans(development,construction, and just plain financing). That's what local/regional banks do. Their loan base is always slanted toward those types of loans. When those loans (which historically are very safe and have high recovery rates) go bad then locals/regionals begin to fail. If they are in danger of being closed down then there is a reason. The government is letting so much crap get by right now just so they can avoid closing down many banks.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 04:29 PM
:facepalm: Just because they were hiring positions doesn't mean the company is doing great. Like I said to you earlier they probably are chock full of bad CRE loans(development,construction, and just plain financing). That's what local/regional banks do. Their loan base is always slanted toward those types of loans. When those loans (which historically are very safe and have high recovery rates) go bad then locals/regionals begin to fail. If they are in danger of being closed down then there is a reason. The government is letting so much crap get by right now just so they can avoid closing down many banks.

No they were not chock full of bad loans. The OCC raised the capital requriments on them not once but twice. The second time around the owners have decided they are not going to take any more money out of their pockets. They are in no danger of going under or being able to absorb bad loans. The government is squeezing smaller banks to drive people to the larger ones. This helps said troubled banks and larger banks pay back the money they took from the tax payer. If the Fed Gov never walked into my wife's bank they would have 15 more employess and be working on building out new branches.

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 10:43 PM
No they were not chock full of bad loans. The OCC raised the capital requriments on them not once but twice. The second time around the owners have decided they are not going to take any more money out of their pockets. They are in no danger of going under or being able to absorb bad loans. The government is squeezing smaller banks to drive people to the larger ones. This helps said troubled banks and larger banks pay back the money they took from the tax payer. If the Fed Gov never walked into my wife's bank they would have 15 more employess and be working on building out new branches.

So YOU say. Link??? :shrug:

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 10:50 PM
Plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

That would be the Federal Reserve however....Obama is seizing even more control ( Mercantilism uses a central bank too) over the nations money...and giving even greater control to our central bankers. More and more of the economy is being put under state control even if fractional reserve banking isn't good in itself. Even more state control of course, puts us much further into socialism....and of course devastates capitalism. The whole idea.

Hahah, I haven't ventured into DC for a while. When did you become a nutjob?

Brainiac
03-17-2010, 10:51 PM
Let me get this straight. Petegz28 talks about a bank that is being squeezed by Obama's new regulations. This is a bank that has no high risk loans and has taken no TARP money.

Then the Obamabots chime in and say that the bank MUST be in trouble, even though they know nothing about the bank. They don't even know which bank it is. All they know is that if Obama's new banking regulations are causing problems for the bank, then the bank MUST be about to fail. And they ask Pete to provide proof that the bank ISN'T about to fail.

Is that right?

It sounds like the Obamabots are trying very hard to defend Obama.

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 10:52 PM
Never seen somebody pull NIMBY with a bank before.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 10:52 PM
So YOU say. Link??? :shrug:

Fuck you and your link. I know more about it than you do. My wife works with the President of the bank directly on a daily basis.

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 10:53 PM
Let me get this straight. Petegz28 talks about a bank that is being squeezed by Obama's new regulations. This is a bank that has no high risk loans and has taken no TARP money.

Then the Obamabots chime in and say that the bank MUST be in trouble, even though they know nothing about the bank. They don't even know which bank it is. All they know is that if Obama's new banking regulations are causing problems for the bank, then the bank MUST be about to fail. And they ask Pete to provide proof that the bank ISN'T about to fail.

Is that right?

It sounds like the Obamabots are trying very hard to defend Obama.

HE IS A COMMUNIST I HATES HIM I HATES HIM!!!

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 10:56 PM
**** you and your link. I know more about it than you do. My wife works with the President of the bank directly on a daily basis.

"My wife"....???

"My WIFE"...???

Unless you have an independent, credible link....shut your stupid pie-hole? Okay, bi-atch??? :shrug:

Yeah, YOU bi-atch. Yeah, you. :harumph:

WoodDraw
03-17-2010, 10:59 PM
Can you post the OCC regulations that changed?

BucEyedPea
03-17-2010, 11:00 PM
"My wife"....???

"My WIFE"...???

Unless you have an independent, credible link....shut your stupid pie-hole? Okay, bi-atch??? :shrug:

Yeah, YOU bi-atch. Yeah, you. :harumph:

Yeah, because his wife's first-hand experience is less informative than someone else second-hand information. LOL!
You do know that credible has subjectivity connected to it right?

BucEyedPea
03-17-2010, 11:01 PM
Hahah, I haven't ventured into DC for a while. When did you become a nutjob?

You must be one too to see it in another. You know what they say.
Nice to know you don't know how to articulate a response.
Oh and I said before Obama was elected he'd govern like an Allende....and he is.
He's a subversive.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:05 PM
"My wife"....???

"My WIFE"...???

Unless you have an independent, credible link....shut your stupid pie-hole? Okay, bi-atch??? :shrug:

Yeah, YOU bi-atch. Yeah, you. :harumph:

Yea, she made it all up. You stupud doucheknuckle, go fuck your boyfriend.

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 11:06 PM
Yeah, because his wife's first-hand experience is less informative than someone else second-hand information. LOL!

UNLESS, of course, it contradicts Ron-Paul-dumbassery, Lew-Rockwell-stupidity, or TJ-BEP-ideological-demagoguery...then, and ONLY then, do anecdotal accounts matter what-so-ever. Of course, unless you sleep with them on Viagra...then, of course, the Viagra-induced-propaganda accounts are the ONLY thing that matters.

Heh. LMAO

wazu
03-17-2010, 11:06 PM
Pete if they are being told to raise more equity then they probably need to raise more equity.

Wow.

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 11:07 PM
Yea, she made it all up. You stupud doucheknuckle, go **** your boyfriend.

Still no REAL link, then...I take it, bi-atch??? Only more "posturing" for the butt-buddy pics??? :shrug:

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:08 PM
Pete if they are being told to raise more equity then they probably need to raise more equity. Seeing as it is a local bank, they probably didn't get into the residential subprime crap too bad but local/regional banks are into Commercial Real Estate loans heavy. Well, CRE is blowing up in our face as we speak. This is why you're starting to see a lot of local/regionals start to fall.

The only reason they are having to raise more is because of the new OCC regulations. They have to raise to meet the new requirements. It isn't that hard to understand.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:08 PM
Still no REAL link, then...I take it, bi-atch??? Only more "posturing" for the butt-buddy pics??? :shrug:

Kotter, stick to talking about what it's like to take cock up your ass. It is about the only thing you seem credible on.

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 11:08 PM
Wow.

Yeah, we should SOOOOOO totally trust banks and all after the last couple of years and all....

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 11:10 PM
Kotter, stick to talking about what it's like to take cock up your ass. It is about the only thing you seem credible on.

In other words:

"No, I'm a pussy. I don't have any real links to validate my hyperbole. Rather, I suck. Lots of dick"

Signed, Pete.

petegz28
03-17-2010, 11:10 PM
Yeah, we should SOOOOOO totally trust banks and all after the last couple of years and all....

Once gain you want to lump all the banks together. Probably why you are a teacher and not working in the real world.

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2010, 11:11 PM
Once gain you want to lump all the banks together. Probably why you are a teacher and not working in the real world.

Don't you sell donuts? Or used condoms? Or something like that? Please, cracker??? LMAO

KC native
03-18-2010, 05:30 PM
The only reason they are having to raise more is because of the new OCC regulations. They have to raise to meet the new requirements. It isn't that hard to understand.

Ok, so if during this crisis (and one of the reasons so many have folded) many banks didn't hold enough in loan loss reserves, then don't you think it is reasonable that banks be required to increase reserves due to the implosion of CRE?

HonestChieffan
03-18-2010, 05:34 PM
Kotter, go **** yourself. How about I lump you in with the general stereo type of lame ass teachers who don't know jack shit which is why they have to teach instead of making it in the "real world"?

As time goes on the preponderance of evidence would support that conclusion.

Mr. Kotter
03-18-2010, 06:13 PM
As time goes on the preponderance of evidence would support that conclusion.

Heck, between you and Pete collectively....you might measure up. But chances are....not. ;)

petegz28
03-18-2010, 06:15 PM
Heck, between you and Pete collectively....you might measure up. But chances are....not. ;)

Go clean your erasers.

Hydrae
03-18-2010, 07:08 PM
Ok, so if during this crisis (and one of the reasons so many have folded) many banks didn't hold enough in loan loss reserves, then don't you think it is reasonable that banks be required to increase reserves due to the implosion of CRE?

Personally I would think the bank would be the ones who would be careful about that to protect their business. And if they gamble wrong, they should be the ones paying the price, not me as a tax payer.

So now we are saying that we need stronger regulations in place to control a private business so it will not fail and cost the taxpayer. My solution would be to NOT INCLUDE THE TAXPAYER IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Yes, for the most part I am a free market believer. You put in regulations to protect citizens from a company (bank or otherwise) from taking advantage of or endanger the general populace but you do not alleviate their risk the way we did with TARP. Peroid.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 07:14 PM
Personally I would think the bank would be the ones who would be careful about that to protect their business. And if they gamble wrong, they should be the ones paying the price, not me as a tax payer.

So now we are saying that we need stronger regulations in place to control a private business so it will not fail and cost the taxpayer. My solution would be to NOT INCLUDE THE TAXPAYER IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Yes, for the most part I am a free market believer. You put in regulations to protect citizens from a company (bank or otherwise) from taking advantage of or endanger the general populace but you do not alleviate their risk the way we did with TARP. Peroid.

The squeeze is they want banks to lend more yet they keep raising their capital requirements on them. That's like crying cause your foot hurts as you keep pounding it with a hammer.

Nightfyre
03-18-2010, 07:20 PM
Ok, my wife works in a local bank. They have all of 9 branches. They made 0 bad loans. They took $0 in TARP money. They were in a very, very strong position financially.

Enter Obama and the Fed Gov.

As Obama sceams for banks to lend more money, here is what his troops are doing to the banks...

They are forcing banks to raise more capital regardless of their situation. This of course decreases lending and in some cases, as in my wife's bank, forced some layoffs.

Secondly they are using fuzzy math. After the owners of my wife's bank upped $20 mil out of their own pockets to meet the new OCC capital requirements they are being told they still do not have enough. However, on top of the bank raising its capital they have set aside $50 mil for "loan loss reserves". They are doing just fine, except the Fed Gov says "oh, by the way, that $50 mil we require you to have for loan loss reserves doesn't count. You still need to raise even more capital".

So now, what was one of the stronger banks in the community is basically on the block to be sold and now listed in the top 3 of local banks that might fail.

Why? Why? Why? Again, they made no bad loans. They took no money from Uncle Sam and the taxpayer. WTF are they being squeezed so ****ing hard while Fannie and Freddie continue to milk us all?


This, my friends, is the hope and change Obama has brought on. Right now the employees of that bank are hoping they hang on and praying they don't have to change jobs.
What bank and where are they headquartered?

petegz28
03-18-2010, 07:23 PM
What bank and where are they headquartered?

I am not going to say but they are located and headquartered here in Johnson County, Ks.

Nightfyre
03-18-2010, 07:27 PM
I am not going to say but they are located and headquartered here in Johnson County, Ks.

Why not? I could pull up their report and tell you what the bank examiners were thinking. PS Obama doesn't drive the FDIC and in fact, examiners disdain Obama's demands that banks lend more when most of them are dealing with too many issues to be adding more.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 07:35 PM
Why not? I could pull up their report and tell you what the bank examiners were thinking. PS Obama doesn't drive the FDIC and in fact, examiners disdain Obama's demands that banks lend more when most of them are dealing with too many issues to be adding more.

Not gonna do it. Sorry. Who appointed Sheila Baher (Sp?)

Nightfyre
03-18-2010, 07:36 PM
George W. Bush

Nightfyre
03-18-2010, 07:37 PM
There are no banks headquartered in Johnson County, KS.

Also, any bank that has 9 branches and has written 0 bad loans is either A) in denial (and demands regulatory beatings) or B) the best institution ever to grace the face of the planet.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 07:38 PM
George W. Bush

Well that was a huge fuck up on his part then.

Nightfyre
03-18-2010, 07:40 PM
Well that was a huge **** up on his part then.

Possibly. She hits and misses for me. She doesn't actually drive examiner decisions, however. Further, she has ZERO to do with the OCC examinations.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 07:40 PM
There are no banks headquartered in Johnson County, KS.

Well then you are uninformed. They have been in Johnson Couty, I won't say what city. They have been here for the better part of 100 years.

Check your PM's. If you publicly give the name of the bank so help me I will come and shit on your porch every fucking morning until you die of methane poisoning. You got it?

Nightfyre
03-18-2010, 07:52 PM
Well then you are uninformed. They have been in Johnson Couty, I won't say what city. They have been here for the better part of 100 years.

Check your PM's. If you publicly give the name of the bank so help me I will come and shit on your porch every ****ing morning until you die of methane poisoning. You got it?

I replied to you via PM. I am sorry to inform the community that the regulators are pretty much spot on in this case.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 07:56 PM
I replied to you via PM. I am sorry to inform the community that the regulators are pretty much spot on in this case.

Thanks for the info. My wife syas that was not written up in their review. Very interesting.

Nightfyre
03-18-2010, 08:00 PM
Thanks for the info. My wife syas that was not written up in their review. Very interesting.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. It is bad for the individuals laid off and worse for the local economy. I hate regulation as much as anyone, but when someone has so much control (and thus responsibility) over the local economy and runs it aground, you can see why you'd need it under present circumstances.

Mr. Kotter
03-18-2010, 08:51 PM
Go clean your erasers.

:spock:

Smartboards and computer generated multi-media presentations don't use "erasers," zipperhead.

I see you are as out-of-touch with classrooms and education as you are with reality in general. No surprise there, I guess. Heh.

banyon
03-18-2010, 08:54 PM
:spock:

Smartboards and computer generated multi-media presentations don't use "erasers," zipperhead.

I see you are as out-of-touch with classrooms and education as you are with reality in general. No surprise there, I guess. Heh.

Really? That's too bad. I always enjoyed using a real slate blackboard like they had at KU in Strong Hall.

petegz28
03-18-2010, 08:55 PM
:spock:

Smartboards and computer generated multi-media presentations don't use "erasers," zipperhead.

I see you are as out-of-touch with classrooms and education as you are with reality in general. No surprise there, I guess. Heh.

Yeah, since I haven't been in school since 1989, when we actually had to use pencils and paper and actually learn things. Not watch the teacher jack off to his new toys. No wonder our kids are so dumb today.

Gary
03-18-2010, 10:49 PM
I'm not worried about any of this. It will all be straightened out at the next Bilderberg meeting.

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2010, 09:23 AM
Yeah, since I haven't been in school since 1989, when we actually had to use pencils and paper and actually learn things. Not watch the teacher jack off to his new toys. No wonder our kids are so dumb today.

1989...is that when your mom/aunt/grandma stopped "home schooling" you?

Was that 4th or 5th grade? :hmmm:

Really? That's too bad. I always enjoyed using a real slate blackboard like they had at KU in Strong Hall.

LMAO

Seriously though...when I was on campus, they still had classes in that building. Calculus in the basement from an grad assistant from India who barely spoke English. Of course, I also had Chem class from Clark Bricker in the old Hoch Auditorium before the fire. Bricker knew all our names, within the first week of class....a general chem class with 800 in the lecture hall (labs were with an army of grad assistants.) Wow....talk about a stroll down memory lane.

cdcox
03-19-2010, 09:55 AM
The bank itself knows its business best.

Correction: bank executives know how to run banks to help themselves, and the hell with everyone else, including the bank.

Bank CEO's are making decisions in order to line their own personal pockets. In the process they've destroyed many large banks, indebted the American tax payer, and destroyed billions of dollars in wealth. I've lost tens of thousands of dollars because of the effect of their decisions on the economy. Their business affects every American. They are not even making decisions based on what will help the bank.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 10:14 AM
Correction: bank executives know how to run banks to help themselves, and the hell with everyone else, including the bank.


Nope if they do that they go out of business. So the greed puts them under. But the thing is, they're protected by govt which leads to the moral hazards which is the behavior you're complaining about. Our govt has a history of propping up such banks with bank holidays etc. If they had more freedom they'd have to be more answerable to their public or they wouldn't survive.

Sorry it's the truth.

cdcox
03-19-2010, 03:36 PM
Nope if they do that they go out of business. So the greed puts them under. But the thing is, they're protected by govt which leads to the moral hazards which is the behavior you're complaining about. Our govt has a history of propping up such banks with bank holidays etc. If they had more freedom they'd have to be more answerable to their public or they wouldn't survive.

Sorry it's the truth.

The word "greed" carries a negative moral connotation that markets do not recognize. The underlying premise of market economics is that everyone acts in their own self interest. So the CEOs are acting exactly as they are supposed to under the premise of the market game. The word greed is not useful in understanding the situation.

Markets theory also assumes that those positively or negatively affected by an outcome have the ability to affect that outcome by their buying and selling decisions. So your solution of "allowing the market to take care of it" is incomplete because there are stakeholders (ordinary citizens) that do not own bank stock. There needs to be a mechanism by which these stakeholders can influence the behavior the the bank decision makers in order for the ordinary citizens to influence conditions that are negatively affecting them.

I argue that political intervention is a type of market. Stakeholders feel the same financial pain that stockholders feel. They act in their interests to reduce their level of pain and increase their level of safety. They do this by supporting regulation of the financial institution to restrict the ways in which the institution can negatively impact their lives.

I protect my financial liberty by supporting regulation that keeps bank CEOs from making decisions that benefit their personal well being while simultaneously putting my financial well being at risk.

Your argument that their should be no regulation other than the economic marketplace puts my liberty at risk.

T-post Tom
03-19-2010, 03:38 PM
It's all part of the new world order. Don't blame Obama... it's the Masons.

KC native
03-19-2010, 04:13 PM
I replied to you via PM. I am sorry to inform the community that the regulators are pretty much spot on in this case.

Just wanted to put this out there again. I don't expect pete to acknowledge I was right though.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 04:13 PM
Just wanted to put this out there again. I don't expect pete to acknowledge I was right though.

Um, you should read a little more carefully. Then apologize.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 04:31 PM
The word "greed" carries a negative moral connotation that markets do not recognize. The underlying premise of market economics is that everyone acts in their own self interest. So the CEOs are acting exactly as they are supposed to under the premise of the market game. The word greed is not useful in understanding the situation.
Not so. I learned in a class at the Foundation of Economic Education that greed does play a role. That's part of self-interest. When the entrepreneur tries to make as much as possible he can get greedy. It's the greed that leads them to overbuild buildings ( for instance) that eventually have to fall in price because too much was put on the market trying to get rich. So that greed can wind of being beneficial for others. When an only-one supplier in town decides to jack up rates sky-high out of greed, that just invites competition. A competitor can enter still make money by charging less. That results in another supplier on the market. So there is greed and it plays a role and it's a role that can benefit the greater number. It's tough for businesses to make it in a free-market. What you can't allow to happen is to bar entry by anyone. That's what the wrong kind of regulation does.

Markets theory also assumes that those positively or negatively affected by an outcome have the ability to affect that outcome by their buying and selling decisions. So your solution of "allowing the market to take care of it" is incomplete because there are stakeholders (ordinary citizens) that do not own bank stock. There needs to be a mechanism by which these stakeholders can influence the behavior the the bank decision makers in order for the ordinary citizens to influence conditions that are negatively affecting them.
Incorrect. See above again. Competition does that and voting with one's feet. The banks with better track records will get the most customers if banking is free. Banks that didn't practice fractional reserves would be more stable for the public and they'd be sought out. You just need transparency. The reason we advance further with free-markets is because other business will also copy other successful businesses—their products and services and even improve on them. Technology grows faster too. Another phenomena is that you never know who or what might come up with a better moustrap that can completely change things overnight.

I argue that political intervention is a type of market.
It is not a market. I mean there's a marketplace of ideas in politics but political economy which uses intervention is trying to override the market. It's force. Even then the market has the last say...and that is things like inflation and bubbles. In the former Soviet Union it was lines.

Stakeholders feel the same financial pain that stockholders feel. They act in their interests to reduce their level of pain and increase their level of safety. They do this by supporting regulation of the financial institution to restrict the ways in which the institution can negatively impact their lives.

I protect my financial liberty by supporting regulation that keeps bank CEOs from making decisions that benefit their personal well being while simultaneously putting my financial well being at risk.

Your argument that their should be no regulation other than the economic marketplace puts my liberty at risk.
In a true free market, which we don't have and so no one recognizes one and even fears one, if a CEO of a bank only operated on what was best for him personally, he'd be out of business. The key to markets is voluntary exchange that where each individual decides what is valuable for him.

Further, fractional reserve banking with a central bank in charge is riskier and leads to instability. We are so far from free-banking it's hard to have a legitimate discussion on it. So in our current system certain types of regs are necessary in another saner system not so much. That doesn't mean zero regs for it to be considered free but not as many are needed. You might want to check out the history of banking by Rothbard. It's an eye opener as to how politicians have made banking worse and created many banking crisis in the past.