Banks Hoard Money Meant to Boost Economy, Lender Says

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
I think we should all pause for a minute and say "No shit?"

The banks want to keep the money given to them to help out their own balance sheets, not to lend it out. Seems that bailout sure is helping....

Article

Banks Hoard Money Meant to Boost Economy, Lender Says (Update1)

By Jody Shenn

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Banks getting $125 billion from U.S. taxpayers to unlock the credit crunch are saying they'd rather hoard the money than use it for loans, the head of the largest independent mortgage company said.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is injecting capital into institutions including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. on the expectation they would step up lending and investing to prevent the economic slowdown from getting worse. That isn't happening, said Lee Farkas, chairman of Ocala, Florida-based Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.

Many large banks have told Farkas the U.S. rescue isn't boosting their interest in offering or expanding credit lines to lenders such as his, even for borrowing secured by ``low-risk, highly liquid loans,'' he said.

``By their own admission, they're taking the money and they don't want to put it to work,'' he said in an interview during the Mortgage Bankers Association's conference in San Francisco. ``Every single one you talk to, from the biggest to medium biggest, is saying the same thing, they want to de-lever.''

Farkas, whose 26-year-old home lender is among the 10 largest overall, said yesterday he encouraged Taylor Bean's 2,700 employees to call lawmakers in support of Paulson's $700 billion rescue package. Now, he's ``disappointed'' with the results.

``The big banks are acting irresponsibly,'' Farkas said. ``They're going to continue to reduce their balance sheets. Period. That's not what the Treasury wants.''

Scarcer Credit

Mortgage banks such as privately held Taylor Bean rely on so-called warehouse lending to make new loans and then hold the mortgages until they're sold. The credit lines have gotten scarcer and more expensive over the past year, Farkas said.

Smaller lines cut the amount of loans the companies can make in a given period, potentially reducing competition and boosting home buyers' borrowing costs amid the worst housing slump since the Great Depression. Costlier lines force the lenders to offer loans at higher interest rates relative to current mortgage-bond yields or with larger fees to maintain profit margins.

Farkas, 56, declined to name the banks, saying they weren't necessarily current lenders to his firm. He wouldn't identify the company's lenders.

Scott Silvestri, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina- based Bank of America, wrote in an e-mail that ``we will add to our capital which will increase our capacity to expand our balance sheet and make more loans.'' Brian Marchiony, a spokesman for New York-based JPMorgan, didn't immediately respond to a phone call and e-mail seeking comment. Christina Pretto, a spokeswoman for New York-based Citigroup, declined to comment.

Government Intent

Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis said on the CBS news show ``60 Minutes'' on Oct. 19 that the government's plan will bolster his company's lending. ``The intent will be to use it to grow loans and to make more net income,'' he said.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said on an Oct. 15 conference call, that ``we hope to be able to find ways to use it to benefit our shareholders and to continue to be there for our clients.''

Citigroup will spend the taxpayer capital if opportunities make sense, ``even if that would imply growth in the balance sheet as we're bringing down other balance sheet categories,'' Chief Financial Officer Gary Crittenden told analysts on a Oct. 16 conference call.

Rivals Collapse

Taylor Bean made $17 billion of loans in the first half of this year, ranking 12th among U.S. mortgage originators and ahead of larger companies such as National City Corp., HSBC Holdings Plc and Sovereign Bancorp., according to newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance. Since then four of its bigger rivals, including Countrywide Financial Corp. and Washington Mutual Inc., have been sold, failed or ended most lending.

Paulson on Oct. 14 announced his plan to inject $125 billion into nine of the biggest U.S. banks, and potentially another $125 billion into other financial companies. He said that ``the needs of our economy require that our financial institutions not take this new capital to hoard it, but to deploy it.''

Governments worldwide have made similar injections this month, including into U.K., Swiss and Dutch banks.

The reluctance of the biggest U.S. banks to expand in a mortgage warehouse business now offering much safer loans as collateral appears to stem mostly from their desires to bolster capital ratios to appease shareholders, even though many of the companies also benefit from reduced competition, Farkas said.

Kill Competitors

``The best way to kill your competitors is to not lend to them,'' said Farkas, whose company lends mostly through brokers and community banks.

Taylor Bean has survived while independent lenders including First Magnus Financial Corp. and American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. failed because the company never strayed from a focus on loans that meet Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Federal Housing Administration guidelines, Farkas said.

The company's capacity to warehouse new loans, through bank credit lines and a unit that issues commercial paper, contracted by $4 billion to $3 billion since July 2007, Farkas said. His current challenges also include maintaining the financing needed to hold contracts to service outstanding loans, he said.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
I read this shortly after you posted. I care, I'm irritated by the way this bailout has been handled pretty much every step along the way, but there's not much to say beyond what you said in your first sentence.
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,902
2
76
Well, hey, if they save the money then they can continue to swallow up the smaller banks for pennies on the dollar when they bust. They won't have the money to buy them up if they loan it all out.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,363
1,222
126
That's why I support "wealth redistribution" more each day. Americans clearly did not support the bailout but Congress did what they wanted anyways. The wealthy in the US continue to hoard money and so the rest are going to need to force them to share.
 

nergee

Senior member
Jan 25, 2000
843
0
0
The entire shitpile of Bernanke's lending schemes are failing, and will continue to fail.......
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,621
136
It's understandable that the banks would want to build up a cushion in times of stress and uncertainty. Sooner or later one bank will start lending again and start to rack in easy profits and the others will begin to follow suit. To resolve this crisis will take both cash and time.

Paulson's plan has improved a whole lot with the direct investment into the banks rather than the vague buying the toxic assets idea.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: brandonbull
That's why I support "wealth redistribution" more each day. Americans clearly did not support the bailout but Congress did what they wanted anyways. The wealthy in the US continue to hoard money and so the rest are going to need to force them to share.

This is wealth redristibution. Money was taken from us (Joe the taxpayer) and given to the banks (Joe the CEO), therefore being redistrubuted to the top from the bottom. *

*Note: items in () were included so that the "average Joe" could understand. :D
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,703
54,694
136
Guys, the banks sitting on their money does not make them money. There is no rational reason to do that, and the bailout's entire purpose was to restore confidence in the markets. Things have certainly gotten better than they were a few weeks back, but yeah things still suck.

There is a massive worldwide financial panic going on right now, of course things don't work immediately.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
This is an admission that supply side economics is a failure. When you give the rich more money, the hoard it rather than spending it. When you have $10 billion in your pocket and receive an extra 1%, your spending habits aren't going to change.

At last, we have positive confirmation from the rich that reducing their taxes and handing them free money doesn't do anything!
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, the banks sitting on their money does not make them money. There is no rational reason to do that, and the bailout's entire purpose was to restore confidence in the markets. Things have certainly gotten better than they were a few weeks back, but yeah things still suck.

There is a massive worldwide financial panic going on right now, of course things don't work immediately.

Did you bother reading the article? It gives several reasons as to why the banks are reluctant to lend still.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: brandonbull
That's why I support "wealth redistribution" more each day. Americans clearly did not support the bailout but Congress did what they wanted anyways. The wealthy in the US continue to hoard money and so the rest are going to need to force them to share.

This is wealth redristibution. Money was taken from us (Joe the taxpayer) and given to the banks (Joe the CEO), therefore being redistrubuted to the top from the bottom. *

*Note: items in () were included so that the "average Joe" could understand. :D

Except more than half the Joes in this nation don't pay income taxes.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: brandonbull
That's why I support "wealth redistribution" more each day. Americans clearly did not support the bailout but Congress did what they wanted anyways. The wealthy in the US continue to hoard money and so the rest are going to need to force them to share.

This is wealth redristibution. Money was taken from us (Joe the taxpayer) and given to the banks (Joe the CEO), therefore being redistrubuted to the top from the bottom. *

*Note: items in () were included so that the "average Joe" could understand. :D

Except more than half the Joes in this nation don't pay income taxes.

Like Joe the plumber and his delinquet taxes? :shocked:

LOL, CNN fact check (today live) debunked the over half crap. 38% of those filing taxes last year paid zero or received back money. 38% does not equal over 50% (not that 38% is good mind you). Of course, that's what happens when taxes index their marginal rates but wages don't keep up! :D

 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
There is no rational reason to do that, and the bailout's entire purpose was to restore confidence in the markets.

Thats not what some here say ;)

The bailout was to provide liquidity to banks so that credit could continue to flow. You know, so you can get your paycheck?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: brandonbull
That's why I support "wealth redistribution" more each day. Americans clearly did not support the bailout but Congress did what they wanted anyways. The wealthy in the US continue to hoard money and so the rest are going to need to force them to share.

This is wealth redristibution. Money was taken from us (Joe the taxpayer) and given to the banks (Joe the CEO), therefore being redistrubuted to the top from the bottom. *

*Note: items in () were included so that the "average Joe" could understand. :D

Except more than half the Joes in this nation don't pay income taxes.

Like Joe the plumber and his delinquet taxes? :shocked:

LOL, CNN fact check (today live) debunked the over half crap. 38% of those filing taxes last year paid zero or received back money. 38% does not equal over 50% (not that 38% is good mind you). Of course, that's what happens when taxes index their marginal rates but wages don't keep up! :D

Only ~140 million tax returns were filed in a nation of 300 million people. Count the rest of them.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: brandonbull
That's why I support "wealth redistribution" more each day. Americans clearly did not support the bailout but Congress did what they wanted anyways. The wealthy in the US continue to hoard money and so the rest are going to need to force them to share.

This is wealth redristibution. Money was taken from us (Joe the taxpayer) and given to the banks (Joe the CEO), therefore being redistrubuted to the top from the bottom. *

*Note: items in () were included so that the "average Joe" could understand. :D

Except more than half the Joes in this nation don't pay income taxes.

Like Joe the plumber and his delinquet taxes? :shocked:

LOL, CNN fact check (today live) debunked the over half crap. 38% of those filing taxes last year paid zero or received back money. 38% does not equal over 50% (not that 38% is good mind you). Of course, that's what happens when taxes index their marginal rates but wages don't keep up! :D

Only ~140 million tax returns were filed in a nation of 300 million people. Count the rest of them.


That's now how it works. 300 million people don't work and/or have wages. Of the 140 million people that do work or have income which requires filing taxes, 38% of them paid zero or received money back. LOL @ trying to lump everyone (working or not) into the "Joe the taxpayer" status! :laugh:
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: brandonbull
That's why I support "wealth redistribution" more each day. Americans clearly did not support the bailout but Congress did what they wanted anyways. The wealthy in the US continue to hoard money and so the rest are going to need to force them to share.

This is wealth redristibution. Money was taken from us (Joe the taxpayer) and given to the banks (Joe the CEO), therefore being redistrubuted to the top from the bottom. *

*Note: items in () were included so that the "average Joe" could understand. :D

Except more than half the Joes in this nation don't pay income taxes.

Like Joe the plumber and his delinquet taxes? :shocked:

LOL, CNN fact check (today live) debunked the over half crap. 38% of those filing taxes last year paid zero or received back money. 38% does not equal over 50% (not that 38% is good mind you). Of course, that's what happens when taxes index their marginal rates but wages don't keep up! :D

Only ~140 million tax returns were filed in a nation of 300 million people. Count the rest of them.


That's now how it works. 300 million people don't work and/or have wages. Of the 140 million people that do work or have income which requires filing taxes, 38% of them paid zero or received money back. LOL @ trying to lump everyone (working or not) into the "Joe the taxpayer" status! :laugh:

Funny thing about that is plenty of those 160 million use our roads and other government services, receive government healthcare, and still whine about a bailout that they aren't paying a dime for.

Don't worry, though, Obama will skyrocket that 38%.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Heh. Banks are keeping the money because they have to, because they're overextended and insolvent w/o it. They've based lending on over valued securities holdings for years, and are caught short when they have to take losses.

They need the capital just to keep the doors open. This bailout and "unwinding" means a serious cutback in available lending, which will continue for some time, until banks arrive at some sort of firm footing from which to operate.

I'm starting to think it's a systemic failure based on a faulty model- with banks selling investments in products rather than investors taking an interest in banks themselves... Yeh, sure, it feels peachy on the way up, but leaves banks with their under-capitalized butts hanging out in the breeze when the going gets tough...
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: winnar111

Funny thing about that is plenty of those 160 million use our roads and other government services, receive government healthcare, and still whine about a bailout that they aren't paying a dime for.

Don't worry, though, Obama will skyrocket that 38%.

So? It's not like they don't pay gasoline and "other" taxes (sales and use taxes, property taxes, etc) to help fund some of those things. Somebody needs to see what percent of working people paid taxes at the start of Bush's term vs the end. Again, stagnant wages with a rising marginal rate will certainly do that for you not to mention cutting the taxes.

It was also interesting to note that CNN fact check mentioned today that Obama's tax cut would be sent to those actually paying money into the system instead of those that already don't pay or receive money back (therefore not giving them even more than they currently get back from the system). At least the money is going back to those that are paying it in instead of paying the EIC crowd even more.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,703
54,694
136
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, the banks sitting on their money does not make them money. There is no rational reason to do that, and the bailout's entire purpose was to restore confidence in the markets. Things have certainly gotten better than they were a few weeks back, but yeah things still suck.

There is a massive worldwide financial panic going on right now, of course things don't work immediately.

Did you bother reading the article? It gives several reasons as to why the banks are reluctant to lend still.

Yes I read the article, what I meant was that the banks aren't sitting on the money for the hell of it, so I didn't see what there was to complain about.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: winnar111

Funny thing about that is plenty of those 160 million use our roads and other government services, receive government healthcare, and still whine about a bailout that they aren't paying a dime for.

Don't worry, though, Obama will skyrocket that 38%.

So? It's not like they don't pay gasoline and "other" taxes (sales and use taxes, property taxes, etc) to help fund some of those things. Somebody needs to see what percent of working people paid taxes at the start of Bush's term vs the end. Again, stagnant wages with a rising marginal rate will certainly do that for you not to mention cutting the taxes.

It was also interesting to note that CNN fact check mentioned today that Obama's tax cut would be sent to those actually paying money into the system instead of those that already don't pay or receive money back (therefore not giving them even more than they currently get back from the system). At least the money is going back to those that are paying it in instead of paying the EIC crowd even more.

Wait, what? Obama's own website mentions how all his tax policies are 'fully refundable'; his 'making work pay' tax credit essentially is the EIC. On top of that, he's expanding the EIC itself.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...layatab.cfm?DocID=1900

$648 billion in tax 'refunds' to negative payers. Damn, we could fight Iran for that.

And most of this BS starts phasing out at $50-60k or so; if you're a $75-80k middle class family you're getting bent over.

Sales and property taxes go to local governments, but thanks for fudging that in!

A real question would be how many people pay $1000 to the feds, or have a parent/child/some direct relation pay $1000 for them....
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Oh, that 38% number will become nearly half:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/...icle.aspx?RsrcID=37519

The heart of Obama?s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as ?credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability? -- in short, refunds available even to those who don?t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer?s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

In real numbers, 60.7 million people who have no tax burden at all will receive refunds from Obama, while only 33.8 million people, who pay approximately 40 percent of income taxes, will get any kind of refund. Twenty percent of taxpayers, who pay 87.5 percent of total income taxes, will actually see after-tax income decline under Obama by nearly two percent, according to the Center.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama?s spending proposals will be so large that they effectively eliminate income taxes for 15 million households, increasing the percentage of households that pay no taxes from 37.8 percent to 48.1 percent.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: brandonbull
That's why I support "wealth redistribution" more each day. Americans clearly did not support the bailout but Congress did what they wanted anyways. The wealthy in the US continue to hoard money and so the rest are going to need to force them to share.

This is wealth redristibution. Money was taken from us (Joe the taxpayer) and given to the banks (Joe the CEO), therefore being redistrubuted to the top from the bottom. *

*Note: items in () were included so that the "average Joe" could understand. :D

Except more than half the Joes in this nation don't pay income taxes.

Like Joe the plumber and his delinquet taxes? :shocked:

LOL, CNN fact check (today live) debunked the over half crap. 38% of those filing taxes last year paid zero or received back money. 38% does not equal over 50% (not that 38% is good mind you). Of course, that's what happens when taxes index their marginal rates but wages don't keep up! :D

Only ~140 million tax returns were filed in a nation of 300 million people. Count the rest of them.

Are children and teenagers younger than 18 supposed to get full-time jobs, or the tens of millions of retired folk who pay no income tax? rofl at your retard math.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,703
54,694
136
God, not another thread filled with phony tax math from the right wingers. Yeah forget all the Medicare, FICA, payroll taxes, (true the employer pays it, but since he's paying a tax solely because of your employment it negatively impacts your wages), gas taxes, etc. In fact, a bunch of Obama's tax credits are specifically designed to offset payroll taxes and such.

But hey, Winnar already has a sterling reputation for his other threads that he's made here, lets let him keep crapping his pants on this one too.