| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| The Great Solvent North |
| 2009-03-01 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #9 Don't worry.....it's the Loonie's turn next. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-03-01 18:46 |
| #8 There are 8400 or so banks in the US. Just a small number of the regionals [The FDIC is only taking over a few a week] and a handful of the largest banks are in trouble in the same way that a handful of the mono lines and insurance companies are in trouble but they are the biggest and offer the systemic risk which is the current threat. But the regulators could make the problem worse. I was talking to my banker a week ago. They are a small regional bank which acquired for TARP money because "everyone was doing it". I suspect they will remove the application now. But the point he made was that the regulators are talking about increasing the current reserve requirement from 10% to 12%. That would cause a reduction of 20% in their lending capacity. Consequently they are taking it slowly until they know what is happening. That is the case with most banks. So while congress berates them from supposedly not lending [which in fact is not true anyway] the regulators are putting the clamps on them. It is the shadow banking sector which has stopped and despite the talk the Fed has not been able to restart it. |
| Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 2009-03-01 12:49 |
| #7 Generally speaking, the further you get from the big cities, the healthier the banking institution. It's pretty easy to check them out. Here is a helpful link. Bankrate.com |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-01 11:24 |
| #6 It's a little strange. I read all about the problems of the big US banks. Then I drive around my village and see that all the local community banks are building new branches. They're doing well. I think it's because they were small enough they couldn't grab a piece of the CDO pie, swaps, tranches, etc. But if I needed a loan (and I don't) I could go to them and get one (since I'm creditworthy). |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-03-01 11:06 |
| #5 U.S. banks that used conservative lending policies are also solvent. |
| Posted by: bman 2009-03-01 11:00 |
| #4 BTW, Canadian banks aren't solvent - they're just late to the party, buoyed by a commodities bubble whose bursting is only in its early stages. Later in the year, investors in Canadian banks will look back upon today's 50% haircuts as the good old days. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-03-01 07:47 |
| #3 I think we should revisit this topic later in the year when the Canuck government has to rescue its banks because of the banks' excessive exposure to Canuckistan's commodity and real estate bubbles. This is more of the usual stupidity and ideological posturing from the New York Times. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-03-01 07:44 |
| #2 Yep, the US government managed it's currency monopoly to the detriment of Americans by allowing so much credit. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-03-01 07:43 |
| #1 Tedesco, the writer of the article, misses the point. The Canadian banks are not healthy because of government control but because the banking lending policies were conservative. Our lending institutions were not, mostly due to liberal lending policies initiated by the democrats and continued by both parties. Consolidation of and control of the US banks would not change a thing as long as foolish policies are still in place as required by the Congress and the President. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-03-01 04:50 |