PDA

View Full Version : Weren't these the same banks that CRA forced to lend to bad borrowers?



boutons_deux
03-16-2010, 01:48 AM
Bailout Banks Slashed Lending In January

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department said Monday that new lending plummeted in January at the nine largest banks that have yet to repay their taxpayer bailouts.

Treasury's monthly survey of bank lending shows overall new loan origination dropped 35 percent from December's level. Treasury says the drop "may be partially explained by large increases" in late 2009.
The survey also shows that average loan balances at the nine banks were 2 percent higher than in December – bringing them to their highest level since September.

The nine banks are: Citigroup Inc., Comerica Inc., Fifth Third Bancorp, Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., KeyCorp, Marshall & Ilsley Corp., PNC Financial Services Group Inc., Regions Financial Corp. and Suntrust Banks Inc.

Increasing lending to consumers and small businesses was one of Congress' stated goals when it passed the $700 billion financial bailout in October 2008.

Treasury said this is the last time it will publish a summary analysis of the bank survey because "aggregate month to month changes are no longer meaningful."

The nine banks surveyed in January held 17 percent of industry assets at the end of 2009. When the survey was first conducted in November 2008, it included the 22 largest banks holding bailout money. Those banks held 61 percent of industry assets.

===========

The bank bailout, insane Treasury/FED lending at effectively zero interest rates, TARP were all intended to unfreeze the credit markets and keep credit moving.

The BIG REPUG/CONSERVATIVE LIE that CRA and Fannie/Freddie caused the disaster is bullshit.

Banks won't now lend to credit-worthy small businesses now but were FORCED by CRA to make sub-prime shit loans to uncreditworthy (black, Hispanic) borrowers? G M A F B

If the regulated banks were forced by CRA to make sub-prime loans, then why did these very same banks form non-regulated subsidiaries to get in on the FEE! action of making sub-prime (liar, stated-income, federal-rule-violating) loans (to be unloaded onto investors)?

Winehole23
03-16-2010, 03:24 AM
The presumed uni-directionality of real estate prices seemed to preclude the possibility lenders could ever be held to account for making more and more front end money off essentially bad risk.

UTPhil2006
03-16-2010, 11:15 AM
Lending has become so tight lately that even well qualified borrowers are getting turned down for fickle reasons. Doesn't surprise me one bit that this has come up.

coyotes_geek
03-16-2010, 03:03 PM
Following Bush-Obama economic doctrine, the obvious response to this problem is to give the banks more money. If we can just give them enough taxpayer money eventually they'll feel like gambling with it again.

boutons_deux
03-16-2010, 04:39 PM
"they'll feel like gambling with it again."

they never lost that feeling. see the huge Wall St profits and bonus for 2009