Word: bankes
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...what to do? The only thing observers agree on is that none of the options are savory. Some economists believe we should stick with the current plan, and continue to buy up preferred shares in bank stocks. But a growing number of economists and industry watchers say we need a new direction. Among the ideas being floated are having the government take over the banks that are in the worst shape, creating a "bad" bank that would buy up the mortgage bonds and other assets, or changing accounting rules to protect banks from future loan losses...
What's clear is that Geithner, unlike his predecessor Henry Paulson, does not face a growing chorus of voices calling for a particular plan. Initially, Paulson was reportedly in favor of spending TARP money to buy up troubled assets. But shortly after the bank rescue fund passed Congress, a flood of economists came out against Paulson's plan. Instead, most policy experts advocated a plan to inject capital into the banks by buying preferred shares. The latter strategy would be quicker to implement and would do a better job of stimulating lending. Britain was instituting a similar plan...
These days, however, few people think the capital-purchase plan makes sense. Paul Miller, an analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey who covers bank stocks, says the problem with it is that the government is buying preferred shares and not common stock. Miller says preferred equity does nothing to help out common shareholders. That's because holders of preferred shares can demand their money back before holders of common stock can. As a result, bank stocks continue to plummet. And no matter how much total capital a bank or any firm has, if its stock goes to zero...
...economists like the idea of the government buying up banks and running them. Congress seems to have little taste for it as well. That's why the government came up with the preferred-share plan in the first place. The fear is that the government would do a worse job of running the banks than the current executives. What's more, once the government owns a bank, it has to pay for everything, from keeping the lights on to severance. And that could get very costly...
...number does not account for the huge reductions in dividends at most big banks which occurred at the end of last year. Citigroup (C), Wells Fargo (WFC), Bank of America (BAC), and JP Morgan (JPM) have already made cuts or are candidates to do so. Firms in media from The New York Times (NYT) to newspaper chain McClatchy (MNI) are low on income and high on debt. Any company with dwindling cash will be on the list of firms which are likely to need dividend reductions to preserve their balance sheets...