It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Community banking executives around the country responded with anger yesterday to the Bush administration's strategy of investing $250 billion in financial firms, saying they don't need the money, resent the intrusion and feel it's unfair to rescue companies from their own mistakes.
But regulators said some banks will be pressed to take the taxpayer dollars anyway. Others banks judged too sick to save will be allowed to fail.
The government also said yesterday that it will guarantee up to $1.4 trillion of private investment in banks. The combination of public and private investment is intended to refill coffers emptied by losses on real estate lending. With the additional money, the government expects, banks would be able to start making additional loans, boosting the economy.
ad_icon
President Bush, in introducing the plan, described the interventions as "limited and temporary."
some banks will be pressed to take the taxpayer dollars anyway.
President Bush, in introducing the plan, described the interventions as "limited and temporary."
Federal regulators said they did expect some banks to volunteer, though none stepped forward yesterday. But they added that they would not rely on volunteers. Treasury will set standards for deciding which banks can be helped, and the regulatory agencies will triage the banks they oversee:
"We will encourage institutions to apply," said John C. Dugan, the comptroller of the currency, who oversees most of the nation's largest banks.
In return for its investments, Treasury will receive preferred shares of bank stock that pay 5 percent interest for up to five years. After that, if the companies haven't repaid the government's initial investment, the interest rate goes up to 9 percent.
Participating banks cannot increase the dividends they pay to shareholders without federal permission, they must accept some limitations on compensation for their executives, and Paulson said the government would press companies to limit mortgage foreclosures.
The government decided not to impose an explicit requirement that banks use their taxpayer dollars to increase lending. But regulators said they will watch banks closely. They also noted that banks have less reason to hoard money now that they can borrow more easily. Most important, however, they said, banks want to make money.
"And the way that banks make money is by lending," Dugan said.
Also yesterday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said it will create, essentially, two new insurance programs.
The basic insurance program still guarantees all bank deposits up to $250,000. A new supplemental program guarantees all deposits above $250,000 in accounts that don't pay interest. The program basically covers accounts used by small businesses.
...
The FDIC estimates that this new guarantee could cover up to $500 billion in deposits. Banks that sign up for the insurance -- and bankers agree that everyone will participate, for fear of ceding an advantage to rivals -- will pay a premium of 10 cents on every $100 in deposits.
the ones that arnt going bankrupt and begging for bail outs from the looks of it
Originally posted by Maxmars
I have questions about what I have highlighted below....
If the comptroller of 'currency' oversees 'MOST' of the nations largest banks; which of the nation's largest banks doesn't he 'oversee'?
we are bailing them out from thier screw ups trying to squeeze yet more profit from a system where money from nothing was common place, and selling stuff you dont have was also common
So the banks are getting a fixed interest rate.... 5%. And they have 5 years to pay this back or it jumps to 9%? Considering bank profits run into the thousands of percent by some counts; isn't this a little 'too kind'? Or is bank profit sacrosanct?
it means he wont say please and will have a stern look on his face when he says it, as they talk about it over a thousand dollar lunch payed for by the tax payers
Exactly what does Paulson's assurance that "the government would press companies to limit mortgage foreclosures." mean in terms of quid pro quo?
"Pressing" doesn't sound very solid to me.
dont be silly only people who own things we want in other countries are terrorists
So banks were 'Hording" money? Couldn't that be considered a financial terrorist activity given the circumstances?
BANKS MAKE MONEY BY LENDING.
I don't know. There's something irritating about this statement; in particular, BANKS MAKE MONEY BY LENDING MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE would have been more accurate. Or perhaps simply, BANKS "MAKE" MONEY might have been more realistic.
I don't think I have ever heard of a banker saying that they didn't want your money.
Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Maxmars
local goverments, police forces, charities and peoples general savings were shoved into icelandic banks as they had pretty big interest rate and seemed pretty secure
the banks went under literally over night, and as the icelandic goverment wouldnt gurantee the british money back we used terrorist laws to sieze icelandic assests in the uk (worth 4 billion) and hold them hostage until we blackmailed iceland to give us our 1 billion back