Checking Gingrich that Dodd-Frank is destroying community banks

[hazlnut]

Checking Gingrich that Dodd-Frank is destroying community banks

What we found was that one year after the passage of Dodd-Frank, community banks are healthier. According to the latest report from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, for that group of banks, a key measure of profitability, return on assets, has doubled in the past year, growing from 0.26 percent a year ago to 0.57 percent in the second quarter of 2011. Return on assets has been higher this year than in any quarter going back to the start of 2008 before the great meltdown.

What is it with the far-right GOP, do they EVER say something that's true?

Why does the far-right engage in this type of deceitful partisanship?

Sure, the Dems get called out on their lies, misstatements, and slanted stats, but they don't even come close to the number of GOP lies and damn lies identified by fact-checking sites.

Of course, that must be because all the fact-checking sites are liberal...:roll::roll: it couldn't be that the far-right mindset believes that the end (victory and power) justifies the means (lies, lies, and death panels)... oh no...

 

[AdamT]

It's well known that the truth has a decidedly liberal bias.

 

[conservativeguy]

Checking Gingrich that Dodd-Frank is destroying community banks

Can I assume you know what a normal return on assets is for community banks since think .57% is healthy?

 

[Redress]

Checking Gingrich that Dodd-Frank is destroying community banks




What is it with the far-right GOP, do they EVER say something that's true?

Why does the far-right engage in this type of deceitful partisanship?

Sure, the Dems get called out on their lies, misstatements, and slanted stats, but they don't even come close to the number of GOP lies and damn lies identified by fact-checking sites.

Of course, that must be because all the fact-checking sites are liberal...:roll::roll: it couldn't be that the far-right mindset believes that the end (victory and power) justifies the means (lies, lies, and death panels)... oh no...

Playing devil's advocate and making a point many on both sides forget: how do you know what the rate of return would have been if Dodd-Frank had not passed?

 

[justabubba]

Playing devil's advocate and making a point many on both sides forget: how do you know what the rate of return would have been if Dodd-Frank had not passed?

what we know is that the ROI was lower before the effective date of the legislation
that the trend is in the correct direction after the regulations were enacted

 

[ksu_aviator]

This concludes that the Dodd Frank is likely harming all banks...including community banks: http://www.fwlaw.com/Dodd_Frank_Act_Impact_On_Community_Banks.pdf


This article illustrates all the likely ill effects: Dodd-Frank, one year later | Westfair Online


Another article with more negative impacts from Dodd Frank: ICBA - News - News Release - ICBA Comments on Dodd-Frank: One Year Later


And here is the real reason community banks aren't suffering...yet: Community banks use anti-big backlash to make inroads

So, Frank Dodd will hurt these banks as the rules become finalized and the only reason they are still surviving is because of public back lash to large banks.

 

[AdamT]

Could somebody please explain to my why I should give a f*ck if Dodd-Frank, which is designed to correct the weak bank regulations that led to the financial meltdown, imposes stricter bank regulations?

 

[Helix]

the MO for large banks / financial institutions seems to be :

1. take large risks that have the potential to bring down the economy

2. continue increasing risk until the bottom falls out

3. necessitate public support to prevent a national / global crisis

4. protest new rules designed to prevent the same specific scheme from reoccurring, and argue that a repeal of regulation is the best solution.

rinse and repeat.

 

[apdst]

Playing devil's advocate and making a point many on both sides forget: how do you know what the rate of return would have been if Dodd-Frank had not passed?

"We don't know! But, that doesn't matter"

 

[Utility Man]

Could somebody please explain to my why I should give a f*ck if Dodd-Frank, which is designed to correct the weak bank regulations that led to the financial meltdown, imposes stricter bank regulations?

Because government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

 

[apdst]

the MO for large banks / financial institutions seems to be :

1. take large risks that have the potential to bring down the economy

Because the government made them do it.

2. continue increasing risk until the bottom falls out

Because the government made them do it.

3. necessitate public support to prevent a national / global crisis

Because the congress critters had to cover their asses.

4. protest new rules designed to prevent the same specific scheme from reoccurring, and argue that a repeal of regulation is the best solution.

Because, the government ****ed things up, not the banks.

rinse and repeat.

Write on the blackboard, 100 times: Banks didn't become multi-million dollar opeartions by intentionally losing money!

Learn it, know it, live it.

 

[whysoserious]

Playing devil's advocate and making a point many on both sides forget: how do you know what the rate of return would have been if Dodd-Frank had not passed?

The article is not insinuating anything about the difference between passing and not passing. The title of the article is, "Checking Gingrich that Dodd-Frank is destroying community banks", and if the statement "...return on assets has been higher this year than in any quarter going back to the start of 2008 before the great meltdown" has any validity, then I think you could call Gingrich's remarks officially debunked.

 

[conservativeguy]

The article is not insinuating anything about the difference between passing and not passing. The title of the article is, "Checking Gingrich that Dodd-Frank is destroying community banks", and if the statement "...return on assets has been higher this year than in any quarter going back to the start of 2008 before the great meltdown" has any validity, then I think you could call Gingrich's remarks officially debunked.

So you can answer my question......what is the normal rate of return for commercial banks?

 

[apdst]

So you can answer my question......what is the normal rate of return for commercial banks?

You're going to make their heads explode with questions like that.

 

[conservativeguy]

You're going to make their heads explode with questions like that.

I can not be responsible for how they internalize their own failures....and this OP is an epic failure.

 

[justabubba]

I can not be responsible for how they internalize their own failures....and this OP is an epic failure.

share with us exactly WHY you believe that to be true


extra points if you include some facts

 

[AdamT]

So you can answer my question......what is the normal rate of return for commercial banks?

Is he your personal Google servant?

 

[apdst]

I can not be responsible for how they internalize their own failures....and this OP is an epic failure.

I understand.........

 

[conservativeguy]

share with us exactly WHY you believe that to be true


extra points if you include some facts

I asked a simple question based on the posters comment that a .57% ROA is healthy and Gingrich is wrong for saying otherwise. Why should I answer the question?

 

[apdst]

share with us exactly WHY you believe that to be true


extra points if you include some facts

Speaking for myself and not Conservativeguy, but no one who agrees with the OP can tell us whether, or not, the banks are better off now than they would be without Franky-Doody.

 

[conservativeguy]

Is he your personal Google servant?

No he isn't. I was asking him for his professional opinion of what constitutes a healthy ROA. I assumed he had an answer since he was saying he knew Gingrich was wrong.

 

[conservativeguy]

Speaking for myself and not Conservativeguy, but no one who agrees with the OP can tell us whether, or not, the banks are better off now than they would be without Franky-Doody.

You can speak for me on this question.

FrankyDoody memorialized the mega, too big too fail banks.......I would like to have someone explain to me how that helps community banks prosper.

 

[Redress]

what we know is that the ROI was lower before the effective date of the legislation
that the trend is in the correct direction after the regulations were enacted

But this uses the same logic as those who claim since tax revenue went up after tax cuts, therefore tax cuts increase revenue. It's false logic. What should the ROI be, and does Dodd-Frank help, hurt or not effect reaching that ROI?

 

[apdst]

But this uses the same logic as those who claim since tax revenue went up after tax cuts, therefore tax cuts increase revenue. It's false logic. What should the ROI be, and does Dodd-Frank help, hurt or not effect reaching that ROI?

The difference being, there are actual numbers that prove that tax revenue hit record highs after the tax cuts; here, the supporters of Franky-Doody don't have a pot to piss in.

 

[Redress]

The difference being, there are actual numbers that prove that tax revenue hit record highs after the tax cuts; here, the supporters of Franky-Doody don't have a pot to piss in.

Ummmm...either you are not following the logic or you are diverting. Not sure which.