U.S. Rep. Robert Pittenger called for a lighter regulatory environment for community banks at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee today, saying that he's heard from community bank presidents in the Charlotte region who describe the post-Dodd Frank landscape as "oppressive."
Pittenger, a Charlotte Republican elected to the office last fall, was a director at Park Meridian Bank for 14 years, in the 1990s and early 2000s. The bank sold to Regions Bank in 2001. He cited that experience and said he hoped for a return to a lighter regulatory environment more like that era.
He described difficulty in obtaining capital, the lack of new bank charters and consolidation in the industry as symptoms.
"All this leads us to believe that the need for relief today, to create that same environment back when we had back during those positive years, and to recognize that perhaps what we’re doing today through the regulations are creating creating more difficulty and impediments than protections," he said.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Pittenger calls for return to lighter bank regulations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Have you not learned anything from RECENT history, Pittenger? Banks need MORE regulation, not less. The Banks which are "too big to fail" should be broken up.
This will no doubt confuse the left and the headline was for that purpose... Maybe one of these wizards that penned this biased piece can tell them why Frank/Dodd excluded Freddie and Fannie? Probably not, the low information voters will continue to blame the sub prime meltdown on GW and ignore Carter, Clinton, Cuomo, The Sandlers, Frank, Dodd, etc, etc, etc. Typical.
And the low-information right-wing sycophants will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that no one committed fraud - including defrauding Fannie and Freddie - despite all of the evidence to the contrary. But then, if you tell a big enough lie often enough, some people actually believe it.
Bank regulation is no different than locking the front door of your house when you leave. It's a tool to keep the crooks from walking in and stealing everything you own, which is what has happened repeatedly over the past 30 years, only this last time they have looted the entire treasury of the United States of America and are evidently going to get away with it.
Sorry for a typo - should have said "refuse to acknowledge that any one committed fraud", not that "no one committed fraud."
The article and Pittengers comments refer exclusively to community banks. There is an immense difference between a community bank and large financial institutions. Unfortunately, banking regulations are applied across the board and therefor unjustly impact community banks who are quickly becoming unable to compete. Either no one cares or no one understands the difference.
@ Anonymous 8:44:
I'm actually genuinely surprised that someone that responded to this "article????" actually understands how repressive to growth regulating small lenders really is. If I (Johnny Little Banker) can't make my own independent decisions regarding whom I do and do not extend a loan, small business in this country takes it on the chin. This country was founded upon and grew to what is based upon a complete dependency on borrowing money as a means to make an idea a business. If average people can't borrow money, only people of substantial means will have the ability to invest in themselves.
Really makes me wonder why the "Average Joe" could be on board with legislative ideas that make it harder for him to make money and easy for the already wealthy to get wealthier.
Access to debt is the great equalizer in a world that would otherwise be dominated by equity.
@Adolf
I assume Pittenger doesn't put a lot of stock in the "expert" opinions of random clowns that aren't capable of reading a few hundred words before spouting off.
Either you didn't read the article or you are extremely dense. Doesn't matter which of the two it is, they're both quite sad.
Just for fun (and I'm good for the money), I'll give you $1,000 cash for every community bank you can name that's "too big to fail."
Hate to say it but he has a point. Unfortunately we can't have one set of regulations for community banks and another for the large banks, who need to be more regulated, not less. Not sure what the answer is unless we want to talk about leveling the playing field by breaking up the big ones and keeping them from getting so big and risky.
The problem is the cost of regulation will force smaller banks out. As a result, larger banks will become larger, and will become even less capable of managing risk. The solution is worse than the problem.
GOPer wingnut Pittenger doesn't like bank regulations. Shocker!
Post a Comment