Bank failure is 83rd in '10; pace more than double last year's

[jujuman13]

Link
Bank failure is 83rd in '10; pace more than double last year's - USATODAY.com

Quote(Regulators on Friday shut down a Nevada bank, raising to 83 the number of U.S. bank failures this year.

The 83 closures so far this year is more than double the pace set in all of 2009, which was itself a brisk year for shutdowns. By this time last year, regulators had closed 40 banks. The pace has accelerated as banks' losses mount on loans made for commercial property and development.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took over Nevada Security Bank, based in Reno, with $480.3 million in assets and $479.8 million in deposits. Umpqua Bank, based in Roseburg, Ore., agreed to assume the assets and deposits of the failed bank.)

Tut tut Harry Reid is evidently of no help with banking system failures in Nevada.

Did I not read about something that referred to Obama saving the banks? Oh well must have misunderstood.
This article says that in all probability the number of Banks that will fail this year will exceed those that fell last year.
The FDIC believes that the total cost of rescuing Banks over 4 years will be of the order of $100 Million.

 

[Deuce]

You have a strange idea of what a Senator's job description entails.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Link
Bank failure is 83rd in '10; pace more than double last year's - USATODAY.com

Quote(Regulators on Friday shut down a Nevada bank, raising to 83 the number of U.S. bank failures this year.

The 83 closures so far this year is more than double the pace set in all of 2009, which was itself a brisk year for shutdowns. By this time last year, regulators had closed 40 banks. The pace has accelerated as banks' losses mount on loans made for commercial property and development.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took over Nevada Security Bank, based in Reno, with $480.3 million in assets and $479.8 million in deposits. Umpqua Bank, based in Roseburg, Ore., agreed to assume the assets and deposits of the failed bank.)

Tut tut Harry Reid is evidently of no help with banking system failures in Nevada.

Did I not read about something that referred to Obama saving the banks? Oh well must have misunderstood.
This article says that in all probability the number of Banks that will fail this year will exceed those that fell last year.
The FDIC believes that the total cost of rescuing Banks over 4 years will be of the order of $100 Million.

Just to be clear are you for or against bank bailouts?

Has Obama not saved enough or has he saved to many? Did Bush save to many or to few?

 

[apdst]

Just to be clear are you for or against bank bailouts?

Has Obama not saved enough or has he saved to many? Did Bush save to many or to few?

83 banks have failed in the first two quarters of 2010. Don't look like Obama's doing a very good job of saving the banks.

This must be all that recovery we've been hearing about.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

83 banks have failed in the first two quarters of 2010. Don't look like Obama's doing a very good job of saving the banks.

This must be all that recovery we've been hearing about.

So you want him to save more of them?

Basically the banks that are failing are the small more local banks, the big banks were saved under the Bush Admin, whose policies were continued under the Obama admin.

The small banks are being allowed to fail as the economic impact is not as large as it would be if Citi failed. Which is why AIG was bailed out to provide back door bailouts to Goldman and other large institutions

 

[apdst]

So you want him to save more of them?

Basically the banks that are failing are the small more local banks, the big banks were saved under the Bush Admin, whose policies were continued under the Obama admin.

The small banks are being allowed to fail as the economic impact is not as large as it would be if Citi failed. Which is why AIG was bailed out to provide back door bailouts to Goldman and other large institutions

No, I don't expect him to save any of them. Recouping the economy isn't his objective. Helping small businesses isn't his objective. He wants all the major industries controlled by a few large corporations that are privately owned and government run. It's classic facism.

Expect anything from Obama? Hell no!

 

[danarhea]

I wouldn't worry about this at all. Just keep your money in your mattress. :mrgreen:

 

[BmanMcfly]

So you want him to save more of them?

No, it doesn't matter to save more or less of them... but it would be better to save the RIGHT ones.

Basically the banks that are failing are the small more local banks, the big banks were saved under the Bush Admin, whose policies were continued under the Obama admin.

Yes, they are saving those 'too big to fail', and everyone else is 'too small to save'. The worst part about this is that those local banks that are being allowed to fail are the ones that are actually relatively healthy banks... the monster 'zombie banks' (as I've heard a few economists call them), that are more or less houses of toxic assets, assets that exist only on paper and aren't worth the money they are not printed on.

You are right though that this is a continuation of policies... and essentially proof in itself that the presidency is more like a 'relay' where they just pass the baton, and not really competing factions fighting for the best interests of the people they represent.

The small banks are being allowed to fail as the economic impact is not as large as it would be if Citi failed. Which is why AIG was bailed out to provide back door bailouts to Goldman and other large institutions

At taxpayer expense... you forgot about that... you also neglected that american taxpayers are bailing out foreign financial institutions as well...

Remember : If we can agree that these banks were really 'too big to fail', then you must also agree that everyone else is 'too small to save'??

 

[BmanMcfly]

I wouldn't worry about this at all. Just keep your money in your mattress. :mrgreen:

No, money would be useless if the system crashes... what you would need are items of barter, hard currency; gold, silver, bronze, copper, etc, you would also need food and water / water filters, and when it's shown that we are actually in a depression, when people lose everything, they lose it... so you'll also want something to defend your supplies; gun, sword, knife, bow& arrow (cause it's easier to replace ammo) and proficiency in using them.

 

[winston53660]

I thought about robbing banks as a second career but heck none of them have any money any more.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

No, it doesn't matter to save more or less of them... but it would be better to save the RIGHT ones.



Yes, they are saving those 'too big to fail', and everyone else is 'too small to save'. The worst part about this is that those local banks that are being allowed to fail are the ones that are actually relatively healthy banks... the monster 'zombie banks' (as I've heard a few economists call them), that are more or less houses of toxic assets, assets that exist only on paper and aren't worth the money they are not printed on.

Actuallyt the small banks that are failing are costing the FDIC a lot of money. They typically have non performing loans (ie bad ones far higher then thier capital base. The FDIC has had trouble selling more then a few, and have had to guarantee the debts of the others. Overall the FDIC is allowing plenty of small banks to continue to operate when in past years they would have been shut down.

You are right though that this is a continuation of policies... and essentially proof in itself that the presidency is more like a 'relay' where they just pass the baton, and not really competing factions fighting for the best interests of the people they represent.



At taxpayer expense... you forgot about that... you also neglected that american taxpayers are bailing out foreign financial institutions as well...

Remember : If we can agree that these banks were really 'too big to fail', then you must also agree that everyone else is 'too small to save'??

Yes in the AIG bailout foreign banks were also given plenty of money (tens of billions of dollars)

I dont agree that the banks were too big to fail. They were to big to allow them to stop operating as that would impact the US economy to a huge level. They were not to big to go bankrupt, and have shareholder, bondholders lose a ton of wealth. Not to mention depositors who would and should have only had the FDIC guaranteed levels given to them. The way the FDIC is handling the small banks is the way the government should have handled Citi, Goldman AIG etc.