Importance of Community Banks and How They’re Threatened by Dodd-Frank

local bank buildingMalcolm Holland, president of $650 million Veritex Community Bank in Dallas, Texas, worries about the future of community banks as a result of increasing federal regulations and growing compliance costs. His concern is based upon the increasing expansion of federal rules that limit the flexibility of community bankers to meet the needs of their customers: “Community banks need to be creative because small business is creative. If we can’t meet the needs of small business – the core of our business – the economy as we’ve known it will cease to exist.”

In Mr. Holland’s opinion, legislators and regulators have failed to distinguish traditional community banks from the large multinational finance corporations commonly called “banks,” but for whom the standard functions of banking – taking deposits and making loans – are a minuscule part of their activities. It was the activities of the too-big-to-fail entities that caused the recent worldwide financial crisis, not the community banks. Unfortunately, in response to the mortgage securities debacle and in their efforts to prevent similar abuses in the future, the heavy hands of the regulators and uninformed legislators have unnecessarily and unfairly burdened community banks.

History of Community Banks

Banking is among the oldest industries in the world, tracing its roots back to ancient times where lenders, representing temples of worship or ancient rulers, provided loans to farmers to raise crops or traders to finance purchases in a distant region. As government-issued currencies became more acceptable and common, commerce expanded across continents and oceans, and a greater proportion of the population began to rise above subsistence, the beginning of our modern banking system appeared.

The first regulated savings bank in America (and the world) was the Provident Institution for Savings of Boston, Massachusetts in 1816. Just as the ballot box provided the opportunity for a man to assert himself in the politics of the nation, the savings banks allowed him to share in its prosperity, according to John Townsend, writing in his 1896 “The History of Savings-Banks in The United States.” It is from these roots that community-based financing developed.

Definition of Community-Based Financing

Simply stated, community-based financing is the utilization of locally based and supported financial institutions and organizations to fund local businesses and individuals within the same community or geographic area. The concept implies a continuous cycle where residents of the community, employed by and trading with local businesses, deposit their savings in locally owned institutions, which subsequently (and repeatedly) lend to or invest in local businesses and individuals.

Read more . . .

Understanding the Impact of a Federal Minimum Wage Increase

fast food worker
On February 11, 2014, President Barack Obama signed an executive order raising the minimum pay for workers employed by companies that have federal contracts. The pay per hour would be lifted from $7.25 to $10.10 and go into effect on January 1, 2015.

As might be expected, the move ignited a fire storm of dueling statistics and questionable conclusions from both sides of the political spectrum. Consequently, the average American is likely confused about who the order affects and its potential impact on the economy.

The Driver for Change: Income Inequality in America

The words “income inequality” presuppose that the current distribution of income between various levels of the population is unfair, a conclusion both supported and contested by many. The facts are that an increasing share of pre-tax cash market income – such as wages and salaries, dividends, interest, rent, investment returns, and business profits – has gone to the top 1% of Americans, while the share of the bottom 90% has fallen since the mid- to late-1970s. According to figures compiled by Emmanuel Saez, economics professor at UC-Berkely, the top 1% received around 22.5% of all pretax income while the bottom 90% dropped below a 50% share for the first time in history.

Whether or not this represents a problem depends upon your perspective and political leanings. According to a Pew Research Factank report from December 2013, 61% of Democrats and 50% of independents said the gap was a big problem – versus only 28% of Republicans.

In 2012, former partner at Bain Capital and author of “Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy is Wrong,” Edward Conard, aggressively argued that the enormous and growing income inequality was a sign that the U.S. economy was working, and, if we had a little more inequality, everyone – particularly the 99% – would be better off. According to the New York Times, Conard is not only a member of top 1%, he is a member of the top 0.1%, with an estimated wealth of hundreds of millions of dollars. Are Mr. Conard and his 1% cohorts just protecting their assets as their opponents claim, or do they have the solution for a better America?

On the other side of the issue, Nobel laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz claims in his book “The Price of Inequality” that rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability. British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson, writing in “The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better,” go even further to claim that income inequality undermines social bonds, contributes to mental illness, and increases obesity and teenage pregnancy while fostering crime and lowering life expectancy. Conservatives claim such opinions are akin to Chicken Little’s hysteria that the sky is falling – but what if they’re right?

A third perspective on income inequality was presented in a 2013 Forbes article by Shah Gilani, a hedge fund manager and a former manager of the futures and options division of Lloyd’s Bank. Gilani proposes that the tax code should be revamped and simplified while improving educational opportunities and skill-based opportunities for the middle class. He argues that the middle class are the real victims of inequality, and if not helped they “will increasingly slip into poverty and the backbone of America’s increasingly brittle skeleton will turn to dust.”

Read more . . .

What are Bitcoins? Pros, Cons & Investment Opportunities

bitcoinHistorically, exchanges of value – barter systems – were done face-to-face so that participants could instantly verify the respective physical properties being exchanged. As purchasers and sellers became geographically distant, agents or trusted third-parties acting on behalf of the participants became necessary to verify the quantity or quality of the property being transferred. For example, credit card issuers are examples of a third-party standing in for a buyer, guaranteeing to the seller that the buyer’s funds are good.

The growth of the Internet and the proliferation of digital transactions have exposed many limitations to traditional currencies and exchange systems in the borderless, electronic world. Current limitations include high expenses, time delays, and security risks. These limitations are particularly egregious when the transactions involve parties on each side of the globe, different national currencies, and complex products.

The idea of an international currency – independent of a country or central bank and designed for a globalized economy – has fascinated economists, business executives, computer experts, and anti-government advocates for years. The ideal currency would provide anonymity to its holders, protection from inflation, and security from theft and fraud. These ideals led to the concept of a digital currency, enabling the concept of cash or cash equivalent to be used over the Internet.

Bitcoins (BTC), the latest and most popular outcome of efforts to create a practical digital currency, first appeared in 2009 with an initial issue of 2,625,000. As of December 7, 2013, there were 12,091,050 BTCs, each with a value of $736.61 USD.

The website Shopify recently listed 75 specialty retailers that accept bitcoins, and Forbes announced its “Top 10 Bitcoin Merchant Sites,” including website development software developer WordPress. Even Baidu, Inc., China’s biggest search engine, accepted bitcoins until the nation’s central bank banned the use or ownership of the currency by financial institutions.

Description of Bitcoins

According to Anthony Gallippi, CEO of Bitpay payment processor, “Bitcoin is a more secure, faster, and more affordable option for transferring funds.” In technical terms, bitcoins are a math-based, finite, verifiable, open-sourced, decentralized virtual currency that relies upon cryptography for security.
Read more . . .

Opposing Views For Government In Housing

This article was initially presented on NationalMortgageProfessional.com on November 26, 2013.

StandoffAmericans have been engaged in a great ideological war over the role of government since the founding of the nation, and the latest skirmish regards the future role of the government in housing. Since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the warring parties have become increasingly entrenched and unwilling to compromise in the name of ideological purity. As a consequence, the future regulatory and economic environments affecting the housing and mortgage industries, related industries, and citizens is uncertain.

The Republican goal is to eliminate any government role in the mortgage market (other than through the direct guarantees provided by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) rural housing programs), while the intention of the Democrats is that federal support of the mortgage market be continued to encourage broad homeownership for all citizens. It is around these conflicting aims that the issues revolve.

Two partisan views

As a result of the mortgage security meltdown in 2008, significant taxpayer costs, and the subsequent recession that many contend continues today, members of both political parties agree that drastic reform of the mortgage finance industry is needed. However, each party has proposed a different approach based upon its political philosophy.

Read more . . .