online.wsj.com/article/SB123258304319904345.html
This service is temporary unavailable due to system maintenance. The username entered is already associated with another account. Please enter a different username The email address you have entered is already in use.
Such a dramatic step could make it easier for some bank customers to get a loan. And customers with deposits will still be protected by federal insurance, just as they are today. Still, consumers could see more branch closings, more standardization across bank products and a deterioration in customer service. Common and preferred shareholders, meanwhile, will likely get wiped out in a bank nationalization. With all of the problems that banks are now facing, here is a primer on bank collapses and the impact of possible bank nationalization. The shocks of the credit crisis last fall spurred lawmakers to seminationalize the banking sector; nearly 314 institutions have already signed over some of their shares and other securities to the Treasury in return for $350 billion in government TARP funds. The government could now go a step further by taking complete ownership of certain troubled banks. View Full Image Bank of America Joe Major/WSJ Stock Turmoil at Bank of America and others may spur government takeovers.
Lowdown on You and the FDIC Proposal Why nationalize banks? In Western countries, nationalization is largely used as an emergency method to prop up banks during tough times. It is typically used to lend to small and medium-sized businesses and restructure burdensome loans to consumers. Sweden took over its banks, restored them to health and privatized them again. France nationalized its banking sector, privatized it again by selling it into private hands and now may be in the process of another wave of nationalization. In the US, the government took over hundreds of institutions during the savings-and-loan crisis a couple of decades ago. It aggressively sold off bad assets, and the experiment is now regarded as a success. What will happen to my account if my bank is nationalized? There should be very little change to consumers' bank accounts and insurance-protection levels if their bank is nationalized. And even though an increasing number of banks are failing, the FDIC -- which is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government -- can't run out of money because of its ability to borrow from the Treasury. Under New Management What a government takeover of banks could mean for consumers: * FDIC insurance would still cover any accounts currently covered. Nationalized banks are more likely to loosen the lending spigots. Banks would start making loans that they wouldn't otherwise make today, such as to borrowers with less-than-stellar credit. There would be more pressure to make loans to achieve social objectives. "Uncle Sam is not going to want to put anybody out of their house," he says. Government-owned banks could offer basic credit cards with low rates that would appeal to less-creditworthy customers who regularly use cards to borrow. But such cards are less likely to come with costly rewards programs, such as those that earn frequent-flier miles, says Dave Kaytes, managing director at Novantas. How will private-banking and brokerage-account customers be affected? That depends on whether the government takes a short- or long-term view. If it intends to be a long-term owner, then it will probably sell off the brokerage, investment-banking and other auxiliary operations as nonessential to the core banking business. If, however, the government sees its step as a short-term fix to shore up the system temporarily, then it may hang on to such operations. If the government takes over a bank, management will be under even more pressure to cut costs. Expect more branch closings and poorer customer service. "Think of the bank as the DMV of the future, run by government employees who have little upward mobility," says Mr Kaytes. "I think we can expect that over time, the nationalized banks will be less open to innovation and new product development, more conservative in their approaches, and more constrained in their actions and subject to tighter scrutiny," says Jim Eckenrode, banking and payments research executive at TowerGroup. In the US, the biggest problem for the government would be the sheer impracticality and expense of taking over all 8,000 banks -- or even the 314 institutions that described themselves as "banks" in order to receive government aid. The US government would have, at most, the ability to take over only a handful of the most important institutions. As a result, nationalization would not solve the pressing problem of potential bank failures, particularly among small banks. Consumers who have deposits in such banks would still be dependent on the FDIC to return their money during a failure, and such a process could be lengthy and involve a lot of red tape.
Q: Blackstone Group has invested more than $730 million in India sincearriving three years ago, only to see much of it wiped out by the country's weakening economy and stock market plunge. The language you used does not comply with community standards.
The Journal Community encourages thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between real people. We require the use of your full name to authenticate your identity. The quality of conversations can deteriorate when real identities are not provided.
|
http://csua.com/feed/