As
reported in this news, The Obama administration lending program ,
which set up to funnel cash to small banks , is expected to turn a profit
of $80 million. This program is estimated to cost taxpayers 1.3 billion. Under
the program, banks that seek an infusion of money spelled out how
they would use taxpayer money to spur lending to small businesses. Once the treasury accepted a bank’s plan, it
became an investor in the bank; So far, this program has disabused $4 billion of
the $30 billion it was allotted. According to Independent Community Bankers of
America chief economist Paul Merski, in fact, the $4 billion infusion could
eventually spur $32 billion in lending.
One successful example is Alma Bank received $19 million from the program
and it reported one of the largest increases in lending to small
firms. As the CEO of
Kirk Karabelas which obtained the loan from the bank says, “we did need this
money. It helped us dedicated more to small business lending, and God
knows there are plenty of businesses right now that can use this. “
However,
the turnabout is not all good news. The author states that the Treasury Department’s Small Business
Lending Fund helped far fewer banks than Congress intended. Furthermore, of more
than 7000 community banks small enough to potentially qualify for the loans.
However, only 933 applied. And a mere 332 community banks and organizations
made the cut to receive
the funding. Treasury explained that fewer banks
are healthy enough to qualify for these funds. But, some small
business leaders and banks are discontented with the low participation
rate. They argued that the government officials are too stringent about which
banks can
get the money or that money banks had trouble navigating the
application process. On the other hand,
some bankers or small business leaders have a different take on the lending
fund. As the New
Jersey Community Bank President, Bob O'Donnell, said he avoided the
program entirely because he feared that the funds would allow the government to
place restrictions on his bank. In
summary, government regulations are necessary to
facilitate a healthy functioning
economy, especially when during a depression or
other difficulties. However, how much the government should do to regulate the economy
is always an issue to
be discussed.
1 comment:
This does pose some questions with regards to the capital marketplace. First, if these loans turned a profit for the government lending, why did not larger banks or the federal reserve lend the money? Were they not fed member banks?
To digress, if these banks are in need of capital, and the risk is low enough, could this not be seen as an incomplete market where the government should step in? A solid point is raised on government involvement, but banking and government are heavily regulated as is. Only because this takes a different form with direct lending the smaller institutions are some wary. Only time will tell, but as an experiment I would say there are positives to take away from this.
Post a Comment