Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FDIC may tap U.S. banks for funds

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:16 AM
Original message
FDIC may tap U.S. banks for funds
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE58L0...


Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:22am EDT
(Reuters) - The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp may ask healthy U.S. banks to lend billions of dollars to restore the health of the depleted fund that safeguards bank deposits, the New York Times reported, citing senior regulators.

The paper said the initiative, which has gathered strong support across the board, is seen as a more attractive alternative to tapping the $500 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, or yet another emergency assessment.

According to the paper, the FDIC was reluctant to approach the Treasury department for additional funds, since any new borrowing could be seen as a bailout, and have a strong political reaction.

The FDIC, whose board members were yet to reach a consensus on the issue, is expected to issue a proposed plan next week, to replenish the dwindling fund, the paper said.

The FDIC could not be immediately reached for comment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. That's insane. And scary.
Seems like we're teetering on the edge again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Why scary?
It's better than some of the alternatives.

If they do another assessment, then you're just damaging some of the healthy banks to pay for the dying ones. That's what insurance is for, but it's just about the worst time to hit their incomes.

If you take a loan from the treasury then the american taxpayers are more on the hook than they currently are.

This has the advantage of keeping it off of the taxpayers' dime (at least for this piece of the bailout), AND it actually HELPS the healthier banks (because it gets carried as an asset intead of a direct hit to earnings).

Of course... if the entire system collapses then the taxpayer is on the hook for the loan... but that's what would happen in a treasury loan too.

I wouldn't say that it's evidence of further "teetering", it rather implies that they expect the system to strengthen but to still have lots of banks go under over the next two years. In that environment, the FDIC assessments should restock the fund over the coming years and they'll only have a mid-term funding issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The thing that really stands out
after thinking about this is the level of desperation that it indicates.

In theory, the FDIC has the "full faith and credit" and a $50 billion credit line with Treasury. So why on earth would there EVER be any need for something like this.

The obvious implication is that they don't think the Treasury can actually support them when push comes to shove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Nah
The treasury has an unlimited amount of money.

The concern is that they don't like how it would be viewed (that tapping it would imply that the fund is no longer solvent).

It isn't that they NEED to do something like this. They think that it could be preferable to the other options. Industry expectations had been for two more assessments over the coming months and many were worried that it would eat up the profits of the handful of banks that were still making money. This could be much better... instead of a hit to next quarter's earning, they get to add an asset to their books. Then the payments come out of future years' assessments.

So they're basically pre-paying future assesments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. No.
It's called

ONE

BIG

CIRCLE JERK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. That's my opinion too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. the FDIC is funded by banks all the time
that's how it was and is funded.

the problem is that there are still too many banks that need to be audited and, in some cases, nationalized and then sold after this bad debt is reconciled - i.e. taken as a loss by those banks.

that's the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. via premiums
And when the premium reserve dries up, that normally constitutes for a bankrupt insurance entity. Of course, the FDIC will never really go bankrupt unless the government did. But, being that it is scrounging for change and the risk models proved insufficient to handle this problem, it is a bit of a big deal. This isn't normal FDIC activity

On another note, it sucks to see a government insurance agency out of money (needing either a line of credit from the treasury or some other means of covering its losses). It just plays into right-wing lies that the government can't do anything right. Clearly, an idiot should know if bank insurance was private, they would of ran out money last year. This are not ordinary times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe2 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. Healthy banks?
Which ones are those?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Only an audit of the Fed would tell.
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 11:44 AM by SlowDownFast
But, alas, it won't happen - despite a court ruling.

They OWN .gov now.

Welcome to the United Sachs of Goldman, citizen.

Now get in line and assume the position...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Almost forgot...
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 11:55 AM by SlowDownFast
I hear The Bank of Sealy is safer than most.



on edit:

Assuming Bucky is still worth a damn in the coming future - which is a pretty big assumption.

DX chart (one year):

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=d12
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe2 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. lol!
Love the pic.

Sadly, the mattress bank does seem tempting doesn't it? Says something about the times.

So mark to market rules and transparency no longer apply?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. Why isn't the FDIC raising it's premiums?
This might have been avoided, if they had started raising it 1.5 years ago, when the magnitude of the problem was becoming clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. They have (and did),
The problem is that it's a direct hit to bank profits ("profits"... yeah right) so it makes things worse for the banks on the verge of collapse (AND hurts those few "good" banks who didn't get involved in any of the problems but are still weakened by the lousy economy. So they've raised the premiums AND taken special "one-time" (again "yeah right") assessments to close the gap... but they will need more.

The mistake actually goes back a number of years to when the FDIC reduced (almost eliminated) their premiums because the fund was flush with more cash than could possibly be needed (they thought) and it was irresponsible to keep taking money from banks to overfill the fund.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Aug 31st 2014, 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC