feed icon

Banking’s worst-case scenario

Posted on August 18, 2009 at 7:51 am

You may not buy all of the points made here by financial planner John Lounsbury, but there is plenty to agree with, including this thought:

We need one hell of a recovery here to prevent disaster. Muddle through will not do it. A return to 3% GDP growth may not do it. We need a couple of years at 4% (or higher) GDP growth to have any chance that some of these banks can earn their way out of the quagmire.

Comments

4 Responses to “Banking’s worst-case scenario”

  1. Tony Gottlieb writes
    August 18th, 2009 9:49 am

    We are not going to get there by investing in people who already have more money than they need.
    You finally get to the point where you run out of customers who have money to spend in order to make them wealthier.
    Banks hoarding cash and failing to competitively loan it to small businesses will find they have a lot of local real estate properties on their hands to sell.

  2. Josh May writes
    August 18th, 2009 9:57 am

    tendentious

  3. Chickenman writes
    August 18th, 2009 6:56 pm

    Here we have a classic example of why our government shouldn’t be in health care. How long have we heard people trumpeting how banks need to relax credit? But seldom do we hear of how the feds have so drastically increased restrictions on lending as to cripple the system. Funding the banks then increasing their reserve requirements don’t relax anything.

    And we want these people controlling our health care?

  4. Pearl Jefferson writes
    August 19th, 2009 6:25 pm

    I ran a sucessful electrical supply company for 25 years. We lost very little money by issuing credit to customers. We did have a policy that we would not issue credit to any company or any individual who were not credit worthy by their past experiences.

Leave a Reply




Recent Comments

The Conglomerate