WHY THOSE WHO CAN ARE NOT SPENDING
Recently, my wife and I
found out that we could reduce our mortgage and second mortgage interest rates
substantially by refinancing and combining the two loans. This process reduced
our monthly payments by over $300 and left us with substantially the same
outstanding balance. The generation of credit reports for the mortgage
triggered automatic reporting to our various credit card companies. One company
cut our credit limit in half because we weren't using all of it. Another credit
company cut our credit limit for two reasons: one was that we used too much of
the credit available on the first card. The other reason was that they didn't
like the bank from which we obtained our new mortgage.
The fact is that we
substantially reduced our monthly cash outflow. This means that in the event of
something going wrong with either my wife's or my income our chances of
continuing to pay our bills has been significantly increased. In their infinite
wisdom, however, these idiots reduced our credit limits. This has resulted in our
eliminating our plans for a winter vacation because we do not want to come
closer to our still available credit limits and thereby reduce our future
credit worthiness.
On top of all of this,
the banks that reduced our limits were on the list of banks which received outrageous
amounts of bailout money. This is the money that was intended to increase bank's
willingness to lend. Not only did it not increase bank lending, it appears that
the banks have reduced their lending despite their gorging themselves at the
public trough.
So, because the banks
are acting like idiots, people like my wife and I who are willing and able to
spend have been forced to cut back. Perhaps the Swedish answer of nationalizing
the banks is the only way out of this mess. We should also be looking at the
potential for fraud charges against the banking executives who took the money
under false pretenses.












I don't think you can stereotypically categorize all the TARP banks in this way. JPMorgan, for example, continues to lend to both consumers and businesses. They of course are tightening their loan standards as you would expect in a downturn. Banks that only make prudent loans are not acting like idiots. Acting like idiots was when they were giving away mortgages to people who had to put down little or no equity. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
February 7, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Bill. They seem to have the problem of swinging to extremes. First they imprudently lend and the they refuse to lend at all. All they have done is prove that they deserve neither their jobs nor the obscene bonuses they've consider their due. These are the same guys who complain about other people having a sense of entitlement. The Pot Calling the kettle...
February 8, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all banks are refusing to lend. So you should not lump all TARP banks together and treat them the same. JPM, Wells Fargo and others are definitely still lending.
February 8, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. It is not correct to lump all of them together. However, the economic statistics seem to indicate that the ones you mention are the exception and not the rule.
February 8, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please post your economic statistics that you use.
February 8, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And please make sure to exclude asset securitizations from your analysis. Just focus on the commercial banks that you are criticizing. Here's the data from the Fed and it shows that banks continue to lend.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/Current/
All the TARP money in the world can't get the banks to revive the shadow banking system. The ABS market is pretty much dead. When you exclude that part of the system, you'll see that commercial banks lending slightly increased in Q4.
February 8, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem has to do with availability. I'm still looking for the statistics that would let us know what happened to credit lines. However, the huge growth in excess reserves appears to indicate that my statements have validity.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/current/h3.htm
February 8, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pls show me where the "excess reserves" are. In the current environment of over-levered banks, I haven't heard the term "excess reserves" used very often. During the credit bubble the banks were under-reserved. Their lending standards were thrown out the window because the fees were so enticing. The need to grow their reserves to get them back in line with prudent lending metrics
February 8, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way. You just made my point. Reserves are increased by reducing lending. The bailout money was given to induce the banks to grow their lending. They appear to have used the bailout to
1. Pay Bonuses.
2. Pay dividends.
3. Grow excess reserves.
None of which were part of the intent of the bailout.
February 9, 2009 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The data shows that lending increased, not decreased. Lending will not have increased by the size of the TARP, but that wasn't the point.
February 9, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lending growth was glacial at best. You're getting very defensive. Are you a Banker?
February 9, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I work for one, but not in the back office, not the front office. I am defensive because glacial growth is very different from the mainstream media saying the banks aren't lending. And if people thought the TARP would quickly trickle to consumers, I'm sorry if people misunderstood how it would work.
Did you read this article?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353296384237547.html
February 9, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a lot of trust in the Wall Street Journal News Pages News Pages. However, their opinion pages, to which the the article you mention belongs,are to right wing propaganda what Pravda was to left wing propaganda.
My standard line is "Consider your sources" As far as the WSJ is concerned, the News Pages are terrific but the editorials come from the days of the Robber barons. Forward to the 19th century
February 9, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Ely is just referring to federal reserve data (as are you). I am just trying to point out that banks have increased their lending, even at glacial speed like you said.
February 9, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go to the site I listed in my last reply. The excess reserves are listed there.
February 9, 2009 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink