Small Banks Disappearing

[Revoltingest]

Banks are quick to fire staff when not needed.
So I'm not worried that we have too many bankers.
Btw, when applying for a difficult & complex loan,
you'll thank yer lucky stars that staff are there with
time & expertise to make it happen.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I was responding to the espoused idea that was put forth that we be need less traditional banks and was I implying that banks, if not hampered by excessive government regulations, are the lenders that provide the capital required by many to operate and start new businesses. If those of you that disagree with my premises so be it, just don't accuse me of posting just to cause a controversy.

I prefer smaller, local banks that can more effectively lend and manage money to small local businesses. IMO, those are actually more traditional than the mega-sized international banks.

I also argue that we need less of the monolithic banking entities, grocers, agricultural companies, etc. and more of the local specialized entities that know their communities they serve. That is why I submitted more artists, handymen, and scientists/engineers are needed in the nation's communities, large and small.

I was curious why you were suggesting the point of my post, however, that I wanted to do away with how businesses are started and expanded. That confused the heck out of me.

 

[esmith]

I prefer smaller, local banks that can more effectively lend and manage money to small local businesses. IMO, those are actually more traditional than the mega-sized international banks.

I also argue that we need less of the monolithic banking entities, grocers, agricultural companies, etc. and more of the local specialized entities that know their communities they serve. That is why I submitted more artists, handymen, and scientists/engineers are needed in the nation's communities, large and small.

I was curious why you were suggesting the point of my post, however, that I wanted to do away with how businesses are started and expanded. That confused the heck out of me.

I agree with you that smaller community banks are more attuned to the needs of small business, farmers, and the average citizen. I think you misunderstood me or I did not express myself in a clear concise manner to put across my point. I understood the original poster was advocating for the elimination of banks that is why I said what I did. If that is not what they meant, that is what I read. However, I do not understand how having more artists, handymen, and scientists/engineers have any affect on how a community is served. So the way I read your previous statement and the current one you seem to be saying that (slightly reworded as I read it).

"more artists, handymen, and scientists/engineers are needed in the nation's communities, large and small so that they serve the community better"

So, if read that way, how do they "serve" (provide service) their communities better than say large institutions that provide employment and a larger tax base to support the state hence the communities within the state.

 

[idav]

I ran across an interesting piece in the news...
Since 2000, There Are 29 Percent More Big Banks and 24 Percent Fewer Small Banks | National Review Online

I prefer small banks for my borrowing needs, so it concerns me that they might become an
endangered species. Why? Large banks are less personal, more bureaucratic, less able to make
loans to unconventional borrowers, & in my experience more likely to be downright hateful.

Questions:

1) Is this phenomenon due to gov regulation?
I see a compelling case for #1 being true.

2) Is this consequence intended or unintended.
I don't see why the fed would intend consolidation of banks, but such an obvious consequence leaves me wondering. Are large banks easier to coax donations from?

I saw this awesome movie called "too big to fail". Really put the whole thing in perspective. Government handed the top banks a blank check and the rest of the banks got thrown under the bus. Now they are too big to fail and you almost need to be one of the giants otherwise the money wasn't/isn't getting lent out. I am sure a large part of it is regulations. I wouldn't have left my local branch recently but they started stiffing me every chance they got and it wasn't right, makes me wonder if they are struggling like other smaller banks, I sure did enjoy never having to wait in line. Even if your not a bank, local type business can't compete with national or international giants.

 

[esmith]

I saw this awesome movie called "too big to fail". Really put the whole thing in perspective. Government handed the top banks a blank check and the rest of the banks got thrown under the bus. Now they are too big to fail and you almost need to be one of the giants otherwise the money wasn't/isn't getting lent out. I am sure a large part of it is regulations. I wouldn't have left my local branch recently but they started stiffing me every chance they got and it wasn't right, makes me wonder if they are struggling like other smaller banks, I sure did enjoy never having to wait in line. Even if your not a bank, local type business can't compete with national or international giants.

It is not only small bank that are increasing fees, but the large ones are just as guilty. I have a checking account with a large national bank chain that I established back in 1981. Recently I was in the bank on business and the conversation somehow found its way to my checking account. I was told never never give up that account, it is one of the few remaining type of account that is considered "premium". As far as big banks go, I had a checking account with Bank Of America back in the 70's and was putting some of my pay into it about every month. I got a letter from them that said if I didn't start writing checks (which cost me) the were going to start charging me a maintenance fee. Needless to say I went into the bank and wrote one check. It was for the entire amount that was in the account, basically closing the account. So, it is not just the little guys.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I agree with you that smaller community banks are more attuned to the needs of small business, farmers, and the average citizen. I think you misunderstood me or I did not express myself in a clear concise manner to put across my point. I understood the original poster was advocating for the elimination of banks that is why I said what I did. If that is not what they meant, that is what I read. However, I do not understand how having more artists, handymen, and scientists/engineers have any affect on how a community is served. So the way I read your previous statement and the current one you seem to be saying that (slightly reworded as I read it).

"more artists, handymen, and scientists/engineers are needed in the nation's communities, large and small so that they serve the community better"

So, if read that way, how do they "serve" (provide service) their communities better than say large institutions that provide employment and a larger tax base to support the state hence the communities within the state.

Yeah, I think we're talking past each other. Essentially agreeing on many a point, but something is breaking down in the communication.

I don't advocate for the elimination of banks. I advocate for the increase of smaller local banks. I support Main Street capitalism and small businesses providing employment and a tax base for the state. My experience has been that small businesses tend to have local vendors and distributors for inventory and merchandise, hence keeping dollars spent in the local economy.

As much as possible, at least. I find more and more of the taxes I pay to be sucked up by the state and federal government in larger amounts. Which wouldn't be that much of a problem if said governments were to support the infrastructure and schools and such instead of either lining the pockets of lobbyists for pet projects or of going to pay for a needless and bloated imperialism.

Smaller banks and credit unions don't have such lofty goals.

 

[Avi1001]

I was responding to the espoused idea that was put forth that we be need less traditional banks and was I implying that banks, if not hampered by excessive government regulations, are the lenders that provide the capital required by many to operate and start new businesses. If those of you that disagree with my premises so be it, just don't accuse me of posting just to cause a controversy.

I was just responding to your own description of yourself:

..... So being the contrary ole fart that I am I am starting out with the "Bad"......

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because banks have been so uncreative in their product offerings, both large and small banks will whither and decrease in number. This is fine, and ultimately might result in some new ideas being formulated. At this point, I will continue doing business with my national brokerage house. They provide me with savings, checking and even a local office, which isn't that great, but I put up with.

I think the future will provide more options for on-line and phone customer service. Knowledgeable customers will be able to select knowledgeable service providers. Unknowledgeable customers will be automatically transferred to unknowledgeable service providers in remote locations .

Also, after the current debacle, Bitcoin will return under a new company. The idea is too good !

I'm not sure if its creativity (or lack thereof) that is to blame for a failing bank. Though overall the amount of banks are not decreasing. Just the variety. The majority of banks found are quickly becoming the large scale corporate banks while the number of local or smaller banks are dwindling.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

We only have one bank, it's the Federal Reserve Bank. All the other banks are sister banks of this privately-owned company.

The Glass Steagall Act was compromised by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Remember when Mob Bell got too big. Now companies can merge with impunity. Citigroup was a 140 billion dollar merger between Citicorp and Travelers Group.

We need our own currency, but that didn't work out for Abe or Jack.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We only have one bank, it's the Federal Reserve Bank. All the other banks are sister banks of this privately-owned company.

The Glass Steagall Act was compromised by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Remember when Mob Bell got too big. Now companies can merge with impunity. Citigroup was a 140 billion dollar merger between Citicorp and Travelers Group.

We need our own currency, but that didn't work out for Abe or Jack.

There's lots of money involved when congressmen make moves like they did with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I'm always a little cautious when they're so gung-ho trying to push certain legislation. I believe that many of them, when they make these moves, are only interested in their own pockets and not what's in the best interest of the American people.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

There's lots of money involved when congressmen make moves like they did with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I'm always a little cautious when they're so gung-ho trying to push certain legislation. I believe that many of them, when they make these moves, are only interested in their own pockets and not what's in the best interest of the American people.

"It's a Wall Street government." Robert Gnaizda, Former Director of Greenlining Institute

[youtube]eKHKfcT9pCI[/youtube]
It's a Wall Street Government - YouTube

But the problem doesn't stop there. The Fed is owned by international bankers and the bankers are owned by families.

 

[VocoInDubium]

I ran across an interesting piece in the news...


I prefer small banks for my borrowing needs, so it concerns me that they might become an
endangered species. Why? Large banks are less personal, more bureaucratic, less able to make
loans to unconventional borrowers, & in my experience more likely to be downright hateful.

Questions:

1) Is this phenomenon due to gov regulation?
I see a compelling case for #1 being true.

2) Is this consequence intended or unintended.
I don't see why the fed would intend consolidation of banks, but such an obvious consequence leaves me wondering. Are large banks easier to coax donations from?

I prefer small banks. Suggestion: Start a a big small bank. (Get the state to start a bank for residents only)

Credit unions are great as well... I have no idea why Bank of america or Peoples bank and other such Fee based profit entities have customers but I'm sure their customers will pipe up and let me know how Jesus is but a humble shadow to their charitable kindness.