Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

portlander23

(2,078 posts)
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 09:21 AM Oct 2015

Killing Off Community Banks: Intended Consequence of Dodd-Frank?

Killing Off Community Banks: Intended Consequence of Dodd-Frank?
Ellen Brown
Web of Debt

At over 2,300 pages, the Dodd Frank Act is the longest and most complicated bill ever passed by the US legislature. It was supposed to end “too big to fail” and “bailouts,” and to “promote financial stability.” But Dodd-Frank’s “orderly liquidation authority” has replaced bailouts with bail-ins, meaning that in the event of insolvency, big banks are to recapitalize themselves with the savings of their creditors and depositors. The banks deemed too big are more than 30% bigger than before the Act was passed in 2010, and 80% bigger than before the banking crisis of 2008. The six largest US financial institutions now have assets of some $10 trillion, amounting to almost 60% of GDP; and they control nearly 50% of all bank deposits.

Meanwhile, their smaller competitors are struggling to survive. Community banks and credit unions are disappearing at the rate of one a day. Access to local banking services is disappearing along with them. Small and medium-size businesses – the ones that hire two-thirds of new employees – are having trouble getting loans; students are struggling with sky-high interest rates; homeowners have been replaced by hedge funds acting as absentee landlords; and bank fees are up, increasing the rolls of the unbanked and underbanked, and driving them into the predatory arms of payday lenders.

Obviously, making the big banks bigger also serves the interests of the megabanks, whose lobbyists are well known to have their fingerprints all over the legislation. How they have been able to manipulate the rules was seen last December, when legislation drafted by Citigroup and slipped into the Omnibus Spending Bill loosened the Dodd-Frank regulations on derivatives. As noted in a Mother Jones article before the legislation was passed:

The Citi-drafted legislation will benefit five of the largest banks in the country—Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. These financial institutions control more than 90 percent of the $700 trillion derivatives market. If this measure becomes law, these banks will be able to use FDIC-insured money to bet on nearly anything they want. And if there’s another economic downturn, they can count on a taxpayer bailout of their derivatives trading business.


Very interesting article. More at the link on North Dakota's banking model.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Killing Off Community Banks: Intended Consequence of Dodd-Frank? (Original Post) portlander23 Oct 2015 OP
Thanks for posting Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #1
But we were told we had to have this. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #2
Not much of a thesis hfojvt Oct 2015 #3
K & R, even the reforms are written by corporate interests dreamnightwind Oct 2015 #4
I bank at a large credit union in Oregon davidpdx Oct 2015 #5

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
3. Not much of a thesis
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:09 AM
Oct 2015

when they write things like this

"Meanwhile, their smaller competitors are struggling to survive. Community banks and credit unions are disappearing at the rate of one a day. Access to local banking services is disappearing along with them. Small and medium-size businesses – the ones that hire two-thirds of new employees – are having trouble getting loans; students are struggling with sky-high interest rates; homeowners have been replaced by hedge funds acting as absentee landlords; and bank fees are up, increasing the rolls of the unbanked and underbanked, and driving them into the predatory arms of payday lenders."


To me that reads like a blivet of hyperbole and cliches.

Right, people are going to payday lenders because of bank fees. Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense.

Of course, back in the year 2000 I did have a renter who was paying more than $40 a month to cash his paychecks at a grocery store.

Near as I could understand his reasoning, he apparently owed somebody some money and was afraid that a bank account could be seized. Hence, no account and no other way to cash a check.

I am pretty sure that free checking is still fairly readily available, even if small, short term loans are not.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
4. K & R, even the reforms are written by corporate interests
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:15 PM
Oct 2015

Until we find a way to elect candidates without their money, the corporations will continue to laugh all the way to their too big to fail banks.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
5. I bank at a large credit union in Oregon
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:14 AM
Oct 2015

If they ever went out of business I would be screwed given that I'm overseas. I opened that account when I was in college and although I stopped using it for a period of time while I was still in Oregon, I started using it again and it is my only bank account in the US. Most likely that one will be fine as it has always been well managed.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Killing Off Community Ban...