Friday, February 7, 2014
I read that the State banking associations and several other groups sent a letter to President Obama on Tuesday urging the president to nominate a community banker to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
In doing so they write: We offer our request and recommendation in view of our shared desire for economic growth that reaches to all parts of our nation, and in the recognition that community banks are fundamental to achieving that growth.”
And I entirely support such motion.
But, that said, if we are talking about the need of having a voice at the Fed, then no one needs it more at this injunction, than the medium and small businesses, the entrepreneurs and the start ups.
For a starter this is what they would say:
“We are punished by bankers with smaller loans, higher interest rates and harsher terms because we are perceived as risky from a creditor point of view. And that we understand... that’s life.
But why must you regulators have to make it even harder for us to get loans at competitive rates by requiring the banks to hold more capital when lending to us than when lending to those of the AAAristocracy?
We fully understand you must require banks to hold capital, and this primarily to be able to confront unexpected losses. But why would you think that we, we who represent higher expected losses, also represent the risk of higher unexpected losses? Is it not the other way round? Has history not proven sufficiently that the AAAristocracy is the most dangerous source of that kind of unexpected losses that can really shake the system?”