Posted on 08/26/2011 11:52:58 AM PDT by Arec Barrwin
An Amazing Indictment of Obamanomics: Banks That Don’t Want Deposits
Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell
I’ve commented on the failure of Obamanomics, with special focus on how both banks and corporations are sitting on money because the investment climate is so grim. Not exactly flattering to the White House.
Using Minneapolis Federal Reserve data, I’ve compared the current recovery with the expansion of the early 1980s. Once again, not good news for the Obama administration.
And I’ve shared a couple of cartoons — here and here — that use humor to show the impact of bad public policy.
But here’s a Bloomberg story that provides what may be the most damning evidence that the President’s big government agenda is a failure:
U.S. regulators have asked some banks to take more deposits from large investors even if it’s unprofitable, and lenders in return are seeking relief on insurance premiums and leverage ratios, according to six people with knowledge of the talks.
Deposits are flooding into the biggest U.S. banks as customers seek shelter from Europe’s debt crisis and falling stock prices. That forces lenders to raise capital for a growing balance sheet and saddles them with the higher deposit insurance payments. With short-term interest rates so low, it’s hard for financial firms to reinvest the new money profitably.
…At least one firm, Bank of New York Mellon Corp., tried to recoup some of the costs by charging depositors 13 basis points, or 0.13 percent, for holding unusually high balances.
Let’s think about what this article is really saying. Banks normally make money by attracting deposits and then lending that money to people and businesses that have productive uses for the funds.
Yet the economy is so weak that banks are leery of taking more money. The story is complicated by other factors, including capital flight from Europe, taxes (or premiums) imposed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and various regulatory issues. But even with these caveats, it’s still remarkable that banks want to turn down money — or charge people for making deposits. That’s sort of like McDonald’s turning away customers because the firm loses money by selling Big Macs and french fries. Or, better yet, like McDonald’s turning away free goods from suppliers because not enough people want to buy the final product.
Daniel J. Mitchell • August 26, 2011 @ 1:09 pm Filed under: Finance, Banking & Monetary Policy; General; Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy Tags: big government, government intervention, Governmnet Spending, obama, obamanomics, taxation
Gasp, it would take a collection of ill-educated, math illiterate and consummately stupid lard-heads to perp policies that would produce such results.
Oh, forgot about the Cretin-in-Chief and his West Wing clown collection of felon/cretins.
Sorry.
Bush’s fault.
interesting
Barry ZerO: EPIC FAIL
He gets me in within a reasonable time, but he tells the boobs still sporting Obama bumper stickers that it will be at least a couple of days before he can get at them. He tells me that what he has made in increased business from the sour economy has been more than been consumed by his increased costs for security, employee health insurance, regulatory compliance and the like.
And still, it’s exceedingly difficult to get venture capital.
Maybe someone more clever than I can engage in a little “disintermedation” and get all that European money to American entrepreneurs bypassing the banks...
Only with someone like him or FDR in the White House could things be so badly bollixed up.
or are the banks just going to grab for so many brass rings at once that the public will become disgusted and vote to nationalize the banking system?
Money is presently lent cheap...because in the current Hyper-regulatory environment...and hyper-taxation...unless you’re willing to try to hire the illegal, there’s NO money to be made. Its worthless, Jim.
First Houses, Now Cars: "Please Take the Damn Thing"
Dear Bankruptcy Adviser,
I was forced to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy. I agreed to surrender my vehicle. After my Chapter 7 was discharged, I naturally expected my car to be picked up by the lender. It has now been three months. Is there a required amount of time in which they have to pick it up? I have made many calls about this to my lender. Not one call has been returned. Isn't there something in the law that states they have a time limit to pick up the car, or else release the title to me?-- Jim
Interesting that the smart money of Europe views our economy as less unsafe than their own.
I’ve thought this for quite some time. The US has a large and growing group that fights government expansion and discusses (loudly) the problems it creates.
This group has largely been absent in Europe. For instance, they don’t have anybody even vaguely resembling Rush. Their mass media is even more in the tank for Big Gov than here. And alternative media is by comparison highly underdeveloped.
So nobody hollers “cliff” as the edge approaches.
This is not news, however, it is shocking to most people.
A bank’s balance sheet is opposite everything else’s. Deposits = liabilities. Loans = assets.
Banks are either trying purposefully or are being forced to shrink by regulators.
Cloward-Piven strategy continues. Something different has to happen soon.
“Banks normally make money by attracting deposits and then lending that money to people and businesses that have productive uses for the funds.”
That is so 1983.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Hey now, you want to bypass the required Government regulations for foreign investment in the US? Only a terrorist would want to not tell the Government every last detail about any financial transaction they make... Maybe it's time for you to on a special TSA watch list, and to spend some time talking to a few dark-suited gentlemen from the Government who are "here to help"...
Hey now, you want to bypass the required Government regulations for foreign investment in the US? Only a terrorist would want to not tell the Government every last detail about any financial transaction they make... Maybe it's time for you to on a special TSA watch list, and to spend some time talking to a few dark-suited gentlemen from the Government who are "here to help"...
You say that like it is a bad thing!
(This is my 98,000th post!)
Without violating trust or business relationships, let me say that I have been told by one of the members of the Board of Directors of a small privately held insurance company in the Midwest that some banks in its market area have declined to accept the company’s cash for purchase of a 1 year CD. The company buys $250k CDs in various banks to be able to keep its reserves on deposit where they will be insured by the FDIC.
The interest rates being offered hardly make the transaction worth the cost of doing the paperwork. Banks clearly are making enough money with the funds they have borrowed from the Fed and are keeping on deposit from the Fed. This move keeps this vast amount of “liquidity” from being lent out and being used by borrowers to bid up wages and prices. This is why we have money supply charts that look like very scary hock-sticks and yet we don’t have a corresponding rate of inflation that matches.
All money transferred to or from any bank must pass through the Federal Reserve. You can not run a bank of any kind in the USA without being part of the Federal Reserve system. You would need another form of money to do "disintermediation" - such as gold.
And on a related subject, it would be wise to get at least some of your money out of that system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.