"The banks promise to REDOUBLE their efforts."

[chimpymustgo]

Well that was a big pile of NUTHIN.

Obama comes out. Reads a statement. Turns on heel and leaves. Sigh.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126080843481590571.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news

Obama Meets With Bankers, Pushes for More Lending


WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says banks have a greater obligation to help the U.S. economy recover because they received "extraordinary" assistance from the government and taxpayers.

Following a White House meeting with the heads of the nation's top financial firms, the president said he urged banks to increase lending to small businesses. He also said banks can't stand in the way of an overhaul of financial regulation.

The House passed legislation Friday that would restructure financial regulations. The president says banks have used their lobbyists to try to thwart reform efforts and says it is in the interest of the financial industry to have modern rules.

The gathering in the Roosevelt Room was less crowded than anticipated, with heavy fog in Washington keeping three of the executives from attending in person. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. John Mack of Morgan Stanley, and Dick Parsons of Citigroup Inc. participated via video conference.

"Sorry your flight got held up," Mr. Obama told the three during a brief photo opportunity.

-edit-

In a statement Monday, Mr. Dimon said J.P. Morgan Chase is doing its part to support small businesses, boost lending, modify mortgages for strapped homeowners, support regulatory reform and uphold sound compensation practices.

"This is simply what a bank should do," Mr. Dimon said.

But the J.P. Morgan statement also said that the bank shares "concerns" that some of the regulatory proposals could restrict lending and hurt economic growth and job creation.

-edit-

[aquart]

1. Zero times two is still zero.

[Cassandra]

2. Redouble or...

double down?

[Bozita]

3. two times zero is still zero

[Tim01]

4. He wants banks to make loans they think are a bad risk?

That doesn't sound very productive unless we want to be bailing them out again.
I'm not really in favor of throwing more money at banks.

[chimpymustgo]

9. NYT: Interest Rates Are Low, but Banks Balk at Refinancing

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/economy/13rates.html?em

Mortgage rates in the United States have dropped to their lowest levels since the 1940s, thanks to a trillion-dollar intervention by the federal government. Yet the banks that once handed out home loans freely are imposing such stringent requirements that many homeowners who might want to refinance are effectively locked out.

The scarcity of credit not only hurts homeowners but also has broad economic repercussions at a time when consumer spending and employment are showing modest signs of improvement, hinting at a recovery after two years of recession.

Refinancing could save owners hundreds of dollars a month, which could be spent, saved or used to pay down debts. Extra spending would help lift the economy, and lower payments might spare some people from losing their homes to foreclosure.

-edit-

“More than ever before, lenders are very conscious of making good quality loans,” said Michael Fratantoni, the vice president for research at the Mortgage Bankers Association. “They are looking at the value of the collateral and the credit quality of the borrower.”

But some borrowers argue that more refinancings now might well forestall losses for the banks later.

Mark Belvedere bought a condominium in a San Francisco suburb in early 2004 and refinanced it in 2005. He now owes $235,000 on a property that would sell for barely half that today.

Mr. Belvedere said he would be willing to live with all that lost equity if he could refinance his loan from a variable rate, which could eventually go as high as 12 percent, into a 30-year fixed term.

-edit-

[Pab Sungenis]

5. Or worse....

Two times negative three is negative six. They're promising to make things worse.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. 4*0=0

[mike_c]

7. pigs....

There are walls and lampposts somewhere that're missing their bankers.

[closeupready]

8. I think it's time to face up to the fact that the banks are in charge.

Obama's not, when it comes to financial regulations. That much is clear.

[MNDemNY]

10. I'm shocked.

Just shocked. Who would ever think.........

[DJ13]

11. Oh, Obama is tough

Now back to making billions off government money.

[gorfle]

12. this is not a credit problem.

This is not a credit problem. Nor has it been.

It is a wealth problem.

The problem is that our economy has been running on borrowed funds for the last decade, and now everyone is tapped out. The banks aren't lending because the prudent people are not signing up for any more debt, and the rest of the people aren't any good for lending more to them.

I have said for years that this massive disparity in standards of living across the globe is going to equalize eventually, with those with the lowest standards of living seeing their standards rise, and those with the highest standards of living seeing their standards lower.

We can tolerate this - for example, our property values all declining by 50% - but we are going to need help from our government to get us through it. If instead of giving all this money to banks, it instead refinanced every mortgage so that instead of costing $400,000 over 30 years the house only cost $200,000 over 30 years, you could cut people's house payments in half. People would suddenly have a lot more WEALTH to spend on other things.

If the government subsidized college educations we would have a lot less people starting out life saddled with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.

Cash for Clunkers is a good idea, because it effectively defrays the cost of living by reducing the cost of what is for most people their second biggest investment.

We need more money targeted directly to THE PEOPLE to help them through this global equalization process.

What people do NOT need are more debts.