By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Some of $700B hard at work to help...

troubled banks buying out other troubled banks?

source consumerist

Banks Using $700 Billion Bailout To Buy Other Banks, Not Make More Loans

Washington told taxpayers a major rationale for us to fork over $700 billion to banks was to save the American economy by making loans more accessible, but it looks like at least at Chase they rather use it to buy other banks, NYT reports.

Times reporter Joe Nocera listened in on a Chase employee-only conference call and one employee asked, "Chase recently received $25 billion in federal funding. What effect will that have on the business side and will it change our strategic lending policy?"

Translation: When are we going to start making loans?The executive moderator replied:

Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase.. What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.

Later, the same executive said,

We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side.

Translation: We'll use that $25 billion as a war chest to buy other banks, and hoard it in case times get tougher.

"Read that answer as many times as you want," wrote NYT, "You are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy."

Furthermore, a new tax break allows banks to immediately deduct any losses they that are on the books of the banks they acquire.

What is the government doing to make banks use the money for loans? Apparently, jack, except for asking really really nicely. If this continues and banks don't use their government handout to open up loans, this bailout will be the single greatest ripoff in American history, and those responsible are naive if they don't think they'll have a giant bloody revolution on their hands—and I mean that in the literal sense.

So When Will Banks Give Loans? [NYT] (Photo: Getty)



Around the Network

why doesn't this surprise me?



the rich get richer



You've got to love a government that will fight over a course of action and then finally deciding on this risky endeavor, puts absolutely no restrictions on the billions of dollars being handed out. Frankly, i'd rather them just let the banks sort it out themselves or just buy them outright. At least I know Chase will be a pretty safe place to find work at over the next few months.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Welfare for the rich confirmed. We spend about $30 billion a year on welfare for the poor, but the average "welfare" for the rich is almost triple that. Yet you don't hear Republicans complaining about that do you.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network

^no.....ohh wait you didnt really ned an answer did you



 

well when they buy other banks, they're also buying all the bad mortgages and defaulted loans that brought the smaller banks into trouble, anyways. So in a way, its still kind of a bailout.

All I know is if I were in power, I'd wash my hands clean of this because there's no good outcome from this



akuma587 said:
Welfare for the rich confirmed. We spend about $30 billion a year on welfare for the poor, but the average "welfare" for the rich is almost triple that. Yet you don't hear Republicans complaining about that do you.

Weren't the republicans the ones who voted against the Bailout in the first place stating that there wasn't enough regulations and checks on it... and that some of them were just completly against welfare of any kind?

I'm pretty sure that was the house republicans who did that.


Either way... where's the oversight?  This is the difference between regulation and oversight.  The congress could eaisly block this from happening and demand the money back... yet.



Kasz216 said:

The congress could eaisly block this from happening and demand the money back... yet.


If I remember correctly, the text of the law (or whatever you call it) approving the bailout gave the Federal Reserve wide powers to do whatever they wanted. There was even a clause saying that no court could challenge decisions made about how the money is spent (this cause would probably not stand up in court, but it was there).

Some weeks ago I saw someone saying that a recession/depression is a way for the rich to get even richer while the rest of us get poorer. This and other recent events make that look quite accurate. Call me cynical, but I don't believe this crisis just "happened".

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:

The congress could eaisly block this from happening and demand the money back... yet.


If I remember correctly, the text of the law (or whatever you call it) approving the bailout gave the Federal Reserve wide powers to do whatever they wanted. There was even a clause saying that no court could challenge decisions made about how the money is spent (this cause would probably not stand up in court, but it was there).

Some weeks ago I saw someone saying that a recession/depression is a way for the rich to get even richer while the rest of us get poorer. This and other recent events make that look quite accurate. Call me cynical, but I don't believe this crisis just "happened".

 


It did previously... but the republicans blocked it because of that... i believe they added in some checks to allow them to screw with it.  Also some bribes.


To quote Wikipedia

"The original plan would have granted the Secretary of the Treasury unprecedented power to spend, proofing his or her actions against congressional or judicial review. Section 8 of the Paulson proposal states: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."This provision was not included in the final version."

Congressional rule can happen.  The question is, will the democrats actually do it considering there in the pockets of the big banks as much as the republicans are.