Banks not lending ?

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
WSJ is saying that banks are lending even less now. So where is the upturn in the economy going to come from ? Somebody got lots of cash in the closet ?

Of course the banks didn't loan more money because nobody wanted loans.
Businesses don't want loans ? hrmm.
First it was we don't have the money to loan, then when they get it, they don't have anyone to lend it to.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124019360346233883.html
Bank Lending Keeps Dropping

According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Treasury Department data, the biggest recipients of taxpayer aid made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February, the latest available data, than in October, the month the Treasury kicked off the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The total dollar amount of new loans declined in three of the four months the government has reported this data. All but three of the 19 largest TARP recipients with comparable data originated fewer loans in February than they did at the time they received federal infusions.

The Journal's analysis paints a starker picture of the lending environment than the monthly snapshots released by the government and is a reminder of the severity of the credit contraction. One reason for the disparity: The Treasury crunches the data in a way that some experts say understates the lending decline.

The Obama administration is scrambling to defuse a backlash surrounding the bank bailout. Political disquiet over banks' perceived lack of lending, as well as their spending on bonuses and perks, has provoked skepticism about the administration's ability to revitalize the banking system. Any evidence that banks are lending less could reinforce criticism of the program, and put pressure on plans crafted by Treasury to unfreeze credit markets and support bank balance sheets. With bailout funds dwindling, one option the Treasury might pursue is to turn loans into common equity.

Speaking in Trinidad on Sunday, President Barack Obama said that he'll require "accountability" for the U.S. banks receiving bailout money, and that he would not put taxpayer money into a "black hole."

In a news release Wednesday unveiling the February lending numbers, the Treasury touted "the relatively steady overall lending levels." Without the capital injections, lending would have suffered a far-steeper drop, it said. "Within this challenging environment, the February survey shows that banks extended only a slightly smaller total volume of loan originations in February than January."

The Treasury analyzed the monthly percentage change in the amount of new loans at each of the top 21 recipients of taxpayer funds. It then calculated the median change in lending at the 21 banks. (The median is the figure that falls directly in the middle of a string of numbers.) By that measure, the Treasury said, lending dropped 2.2% in February compared with the prior month

Using the same raw data, the Journal's analysis focused on the total amount of new loans by the 21 banks, a more comprehensive measure. In February, that total fell 4.7% from January, more than double the government's estimate of the decline in the median. The Treasury hasn't released its own tally of the October to February decline.

A Treasury spokesman said that "no one metric can accurately capture lending activity across the nation. That's why we provide the data set in full." He said that "the declining levels of lending obviously reflect current economic conditions. But Treasury firmly believes that lending levels would be much lower" without the government's capital injections.

The level of lending is an important factor in determining how fast the economy will turn around. It's also key for the government in deciding whether to allow individual banks to repay federal funds. If the Treasury believes doing so will diminish the economy's lending capacity, it could take a hard line on repayments.

Banks defend their lending, saying they're eager to issue new loans, refinance existing ones and modify those in danger of default.Complicating their efforts, bank executives say, is a decline in demand among consumers and businesses.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
That's why the government is borrowing money for you, putting you further into debt even though you don't want to be.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
There are too many banks. Sweeden has 4 major banks. We have 19. That number needs to be trimmed down; the best way is by bankrupcy. No more taxpayer funds should be used to bail out people who spent what they didn't have.
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
If the banks wanted to make loans they wouldn't be charging $5000 in fees plus points to people who have hundreds of thousands in equity in their homes. You have to remember these banks are sitting on free money from the taxpayer coffers. They have other plans.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Hacp
There are too many banks. Sweeden has 4 major banks. We have 19. That number needs to be trimmed down; the best way is by bankrupcy. No more taxpayer funds should be used to bail out people who spent what they didn't have.

Careful there, less banks = less choices.

But yes our banking system is bloated.
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,602
12
81

A lot of people have spent the equity in their home and/or watched it shrink. Others have borrowed against their 401K's and/or watched it shrink. Employment is shaky in a lot of jobs.

Just what are they going to put up for collateral for a loan ? More importantly what are they going to buy ?

I think people are beginning to see how little they really need.
A lot of us boomers, those planning on retiring in the next 10-15 years have to seriously evaluate their past spending habits and reconsider their timing and/or the quantity/quality of their retirement.

When a lot of people were banking on the equity in their home and the growth of their 401K to finance the "Golden Years". And it got hit with the shrink ray. Now their looking to shaky SS for the majority of the income. Add in the future tax increase's... The future doesn't look so bright that RayBan's will be needed. Most are scrambling around looking for night vision binocular's.


Now for the bright side:
With so many working longer it will lighten the load on SS. As a lot won't be able to retire as early or at all.



..

 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
That's why the government is borrowing money for you, putting you further into debt even though you don't want to be.

oops, thats a wittle secwet, shhhh
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Good. America(ns) are far too far in debt anyway. We need to learn to live within our means.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: JS80
Careful there, less banks = less choices.

Yeah, and people really care what bank they use? People do more research when they buy a computer than they do before choosing a bank. Thanks to FDIC, which has ended up being an insurance policy for the banks rather than for consumers.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: JS80
Careful there, less banks = less choices.

Yeah, and people really care what bank they use? People do more research when they buy a computer than they do before choosing a bank. Thanks to FDIC, which has ended up being an insurance policy for the banks rather than for consumers.

*Shrug* I chose my bank after a lot of consideration. Plus there are high tier banks for high net worth clients (not that I'm at that level yet...).
 

AFMatt

Senior member
Aug 14, 2008
248
0
0
Who the heck would want a loan right now? So many businesses are hardly staying afloat as it is, building more debt doesn't seem to fit in the budget, and their employees fear they may be out of a job tomorrow.
 

AMDJunkie

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 1999
3,431
5
81
Originally posted by: AFMatt
Who the heck would want a loan right now? So many businesses are hardly staying afloat as it is, building more debt doesn't seem to fit in the budget, and their employees fear they may be out of a job tomorrow.

Ding! Welcome to the unnerving spiral that is depreciation. Don't have a job? Can't secure a loan! Can't secure a loan? Banks can't make money off of interest! Banks not around to give businesses a loan? Businesses fire workers! Don't have a job? Can't...

Hey, might as well though. Your dollar will be able to buy you so much more once no one else can get any. Oh wait, since our pre-crisis debt was already through the roof, that just makes our creditors richer, not us.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
Who has the money to pay back the loan + interest? Plus don't forget about all the rest of the stupid fees and hoops you got to jump through. I think people are waking up to the idea that mortgages and loans = being a SLAVE to interest that can never be paid back. We paid enough taxes to keep the banks afloat maybe it's time for the banks to just start handing out 0% or interest free loans. Why do we need interest anyway? Maybe the government should be the next bank with 0%! Oh well, just a thought as we watch the system collapse again.

The system is broken and it's not fixed. I guess round 3 will be the collapse of the dollar eh?
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: ericlp
Who has the money to pay back the loan + interest? Plus don't forget about all the rest of the stupid fees and hoops you got to jump through. I think people are waking up to the idea that mortgages and loans = being a SLAVE to interest that can never be paid back. We paid enough taxes to keep the banks afloat maybe it's time for the banks to just start handing out 0% or interest free loans. Why do we need interest anyway? Maybe the government should be the next bank with 0%! Oh well, just a thought as we watch the system collapse again.

The system is broken and it's not fixed. I guess round 3 will be the collapse of the dollar eh?

Generally, small businesses don't start until the banks guarantee the loan.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Originally posted by: Kwatt

A lot of people have spent the equity in their home and/or watched it shrink. Others have borrowed against their 401K's and/or watched it shrink. Employment is shaky in a lot of jobs.

Just what are they going to put up for collateral for a loan ? More importantly what are they going to buy ?

I think people are beginning to see how little they really need.
A lot of us boomers, those planning on retiring in the next 10-15 years have to seriously evaluate their past spending habits and reconsider their timing and/or the quantity/quality of their retirement.

When a lot of people were banking on the equity in their home and the growth of their 401K to finance the "Golden Years". And it got hit with the shrink ray. Now their looking to shaky SS for the majority of the income. Add in the future tax increase's... The future doesn't look so bright that RayBan's will be needed. Most are scrambling around looking for night vision binocular's.


Now for the bright side:
With so many working longer it will lighten the load on SS. As a lot won't be able to retire as early or at all.



..
With the downside being less jobs for the younger generations. Lots of interrelations and co-dependencies in our economy. One thing affects another. Put your head between your knees because we expect a rough landing. If you can term crashing and burning a landing.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
To me this a red flag for the state of the economy. If the economy is so bad that people are not trying to get loans, we are in for a deep and long down turn.

Anyone wanting the Federal government to cut spending during a bad recession either are clueless about macroeconomics or rich enough that a bad recession\ depression would not affect them.
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: JS80
Careful there, less banks = less choices.

Yeah, and people really care what bank they use? People do more research when they buy a computer than they do before choosing a bank. Thanks to FDIC, which has ended up being an insurance policy for the banks rather than for consumers.

That seems to be more a function of a low reserve rate than anything. If the banks couldn't invest so much of our money it wouldn't be an issue, but then the banking game also wouldn't be anywhere near as lucrative.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Kwatt
-snip-

Now for the bright side:
With so many working longer it will lighten the load on SS. As a lot won't be able to retire as early or at all.

Unfortunately not much of a "bright side".

When you retire has very little effect on when/how you draw SS benefits.

If they work past 62/65 they will be paying SS tax, that's the only benefit I see.

It used to be that if you made too much (wages) you wouldn't receive your SS retirement check, but they eliminated that some years ago.

Fern
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,602
12
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Kwatt
-snip-

Now for the bright side:
With so many working longer it will lighten the load on SS. As a lot won't be able to retire as early or at all.

Unfortunately not much of a "bright side".

When you retire has very little effect on when/how you draw SS benefits.

If they work past 62/65 they will be paying SS tax, that's the only benefit I see.

It used to be that if you made too much (wages) you wouldn't receive your SS retirement check, but they eliminated that some years ago.

Fern


Last thing I read it was reduced from 62-69 depending on your income. After age 70 full check no matter how much you make.

It has been awhile since I have seen anything about it though.


..

 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Kwatt
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
It used to be that if you made too much (wages) you wouldn't receive your SS retirement check, but they eliminated that some years ago.

Fern


Last thing I read it was reduced from 62-69 depending on your income. After age 70 full check no matter how much you make.

It has been awhile since I have seen anything about it though.

I'm pretty sure that's gone.

Only reduction I've seen is between 62-65, it's a set percentage unrelated to your income.

I'll try to find a link (it'll be tomorrow though)

Fern