FDIC Criticizes Massachusetts Bank With No Bad Loans for Being Too Cautious - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 03-18-2009, 07:57 AM

Punished for doing the right thing and not needing a bailout. I remember many saying the Feds weren't forcing banks to make subprime loans?????

FOXNews.com - FDIC Criticizes Massachusetts Bank With No Bad Loans for Being Too Cautious - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Quote:

The problem, according to FDIC data, was that from late 2003 through mid-2008, East Bridgewater Savings made an average of 28 cents in loans for every dollar in deposit — a sharp contrast to the 90 percent average loan-to-deposit ratio among similar banks, the paper reported.

"There are no apparent financial or legal impediments that would limit the bank’s ability to help meet the credit needs of its assessment area," the FDIC wrote in the CRA evaluation.

.....

Considering his bank is doing well in tanking industry and even the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund is in trouble after paying for an upswing in bank failures, Petrucelli told the Boston Business Journal that the negative rating caught him by surprise.

***tanked_as_usual*** · 03-18-2009, 08:02 AM

would one say that East Bridgewater Savings Bank has a liberal or conservative method of doing business?

***Harry Boy*** · 03-18-2009, 08:05 AM

Liberals:
If it feels good do it.

***patsfan13*** · 03-18-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanked_as_usual

would one say that East Bridgewater Savings Bank has a liberal or conservative method of doing business?

It would say that the FDIC is trying to dictate how the bank does business. CRA anyone?

***Patters*** · 03-18-2009, 08:48 AM

Thank you for proving the point that the banks were not forced to make bad loans as some conservatives have claimed. If they need to improve, it means they should be more willing to lend money to credit-worthy individuals who want to invest in poor areas. The CRA, by promoting investment in poor areas, basically uses capitalism to develop those areas, as opposed to government funds.

***tanked_as_usual*** · 03-18-2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

Thank you for proving the point that the banks were not forced to make bad loans as some conservatives have claimed. If they need to improve, it means they should be more willing to lend money to credit-worthy individuals who want to invest in poor areas. The CRA, by promoting investment in poor areas, basically uses capitalism to develop those areas, as opposed to government funds.

why shouldn't they just be allowed to lend money in a prudent manner? arm-twisting a bank to lend money at a higher risk is not capitalism

***patsfan13*** · 03-18-2009, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

Thank you for proving the point that the banks were not forced to make bad loans as some conservatives have claimed. If they need to improve, it means they should be more willing to lend money to credit-worthy individuals who want to invest in poor areas. The CRA, by promoting investment in poor areas, basically uses capitalism to develop those areas, as opposed to government funds.

Actually this proves that banks are pressured to make bad loans. Not suprised to see a lib trying to spin this, B Frank and C Dodd would be proud.

***Patters*** · 03-18-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Actually this proves that banks are pressured to make bad loans. Not suprised to see a lib trying to spin this, B Frank and C Dodd would be proud.

They might be pressured, but they did not have to acquiesce. Politicians right and left pressure business all the time, but that doesn't mean businesses have to cave. Maybe conservative business leaders are just weak and spineless and are easily shoved around? Is that your point? After all, many of them do lead cushy lives. If Barney Frank knocked on your door and insisted you donate $100 to the UN, would you do it?

***patsfan13*** · 03-18-2009, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

They might be pressured, but they did not have to acquiesce. Politicians right and left pressure business all the time, but that doesn't mean businesses have to cave. Maybe conservative business leaders are just weak and spineless and are easily shoved around? Is that your point? After all, many of them do lead cushy lives. If Barney Frank knocked on your door and insisted you donate $100 to the UN, would you do it?

Perhaps they did not seek to merge or expand thier business giving the FDIC an excuse to punish them for not bending to the pressure the FDIC is clearly applying. Is this an example of excessive deregulation from your POV?

I am not a banker, when MR Frank and his cohorts raise my taxes they will not knock on my door byut the IRS will if I don't comply with thier wishes.

***Patters*** · 03-18-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Perhaps they did not seek to merge or expand thier business giving the FDIC an excuse to punish them for not bending to the pressure the FDIC is clearly applying. Is this an example of excessive deregulation from your POV?

I am not a banker, when MR Frank and his cohorts raise my taxes they will not knock on my door byut the IRS will if I don't comply with thier wishes.

Yes, but you're talking about law, not pressure. Of course, if there's a law in place, most of us will comply, even if we don't like the law. But, with regard to lending policies, my point is that lenders (in a few areas) were pressured, but not forced to make loans. Some did not cave.