WaPo's Pearlstein Rips Wall Street, Touts A Main Street Success

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

February 11, 2009 10:04 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It

The headline running at the top of the Washington Post's website reads "Wall Street Executives Go On Image Offensive," neatly setting today's storyline as CEOs come to town to throw themselves on the money -- I'm sorry! I believe I meant "mercy!" -- of Congress. And in a fantastic column, Steven Pearlstein tries to make that as difficult as possible. Pearlstein comes hard; his piece is frontloaded with two fistfuls of populist fury. But it's not the anti-Wall Street pyrotechnics that make the piece, it's the populist wisdom that truly lowers the boom. By casting Wall Street's "Titans Of Finance" against a small-time banker who got the economy right, Pearlstein's column is worthy of being quoted at length in today's hearings.

Pearlstein tells the story of Citizens South Bank of Charlotte, North Carolina and its CEO, Kim Price. Price and his bank avoided wading into the subprime market, and stayed profitable. But since they were eligible to receive Federal bailout money, they applied and won themselves a modest slice of the TARP, to the tune of $20.5 million. As Pearlstein relates, Price then found an excellent way to use that money:

...that got Price to thinking: What if Citizens were to use its federal bailout money to offer below-market mortgage rates with no closing costs to consumers who would buy a house, or a house lot, from builders and developers who had borrowed money from Citizens?


Price asked some of his loan officers to check with the builders and developers, who not surprisingly were excited enough about the project to be willing to chip in some money to help cover a portion of the forgone closing costs. So last week, Citizens launched its marketing campaign for the $20.5 million program, in collaboration with its builder-developer customers, offering 30-year loans with an initial teaser rate of 3.5 percent for the first two years, rising to a fixed 5.5 percent rate (the current market rate) for the balance of the loan.

"As we see it, it's a win-win-win situation all round," Price explained to me. The builders and developers win by having a tool to help move their unsold inventory. The consumer wins by getting a cut-rate loan. And Citizens wins because it lowers the risk that it will have to write off even more of its commercial loans while taking a modest step to help stimulate the local economy. And, of course, the public relations bump isn't bad either.

But look at what Pearlstein zeroes in on here:

What's striking, however, is the attitude Price expresses in talking of the new program. He's enough of a profit-making businessman to know that when the government is offering 5 percent equity money, he'd be a damn fool not to take it, even if his bank is already well capitalized. And yet he's sensitive enough about obligation that he feels comes with taking taxpayer money that he was anxious to use it in a visible way to benefit his community and his customers, as well as his shareholders.

See, it's almost as if the understanding that one has obligations outside the balance sheet is an important ingredient to, as I like to say, "getting it right."

It's powerful, well-elucidated stuff from Pearlstein, who signs off by putting a good question into the hands of the Senate Finance Committee: "How is it that Kim Price, a community banker with an undergraduate degree from Appalachian State University, a tiny executive staff and a pay package that you would consider insulting, somehow managed to come up with a more creative use for his government bailout money than any of you?"

I should very much like to hear that question!

The headline running at the top of the Washington Post's website reads "Wall Street Executives Go On Image Offensive," neatly setting today's storyline as CEOs come to town to throw themselves on the ...
The headline running at the top of the Washington Post's website reads "Wall Street Executives Go On Image Offensive," neatly setting today's storyline as CEOs come to town to throw themselves on the ...
 
Comments
9
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
photo

That is exactly the kind of question that would already have been asked, years ago, within successful companies if we had had a true competitive, free market in the first place. The government favoritism to oligopolies is not written into statute as blatantly as "only corporations A, B, and C may do business in industry x or produce Compound W." But billions of dollars of tax breaks to petrol corporatists for decades, and outright gifts to petrol and bank corporatists in the previous administration, are not much more subtle than that. They just aren't prohibited explicitly by anti-trust law YET.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 02/13/2009
- pfrogger I'm a Fan of pfrogger 61 fans permalink

everyone knows the answer.
this is America.
what the corporations want, they get.

let's all stop pretending we don't understand what's going on. it's beyond simple.
corporate America essentially runs this country. they are connected to almost all the politicians (the exceptions really just prove the rule), even the Dems. Case in point: the bailout (among many others).

the average American got scammed.
not the first time, and not the last time.
Dems in power, same BS, different wrapping.

wake up people. their actions are in stark contrast to their rhetoric. corporations and banks were going under and we foot the bill. Socialism anyone?
they kept all the top tier greedy financial gurus responsible for this mess and laid of the lower tier people. All the top guys got bonuses. Rewarding those who made disastrous decisions - Last I checked that's anti-capitalism.

This has been going on since before Rockefeller and will continue long after our children have passed on. This is America, where money walks and good PR to the mindless sheeple keeps them subdued. Disagree all you like, but the facts speak for themselves.

"America, what a country!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:54 PM on 02/11/2009

While I applaud Citizen's ethics and social responsibility, and abhor the big banks who took the money and used it to pay themselves first, why is it that Citizen's was entitled to $20.5 million under TARP if they were profitable?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 PM on 02/11/2009

Capital Federal here in Topeka paid dividends for last year and expect a 3% profit THIS YEAR! And they took exactly $0.00 in bailout funds!!! Fundamentally sound business practices end up rewarding themselves. Yes, the past few years their dividend and profit ratios weren't that 'flashy' compared to the big banks, but they are absolutely sound and profitable as we go through this.

I have a mortgage with them and they are exactly the type of people that you would expect - they have ethics and the professionalism and friendliness that I wish I could experience with other big businesses in the US. I have a personal list of businesses that I will NEVER do business with ever again and several of them are on the list of bailout recipients (the only two I trust from the TARP I are Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs and I don't really think they needed the money but I'm not sure they were actually given a choice because no one wanted to have the others fail in a panic and the end result in that type of situation could end up with monopolies and we don't want that either).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:50 PM on 02/11/2009
- lybabash I'm a Fan of lybabash 2 fans permalink

community banks should be getting the money; they know their customers and many have had no loans default. great idea to to get the existing customers together with new ones.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 02/11/2009
- IndieBlue I'm a Fan of IndieBlue 26 fans permalink

Boy, this Kim really sounds like one of them "socialists" I keep hear'in about from by buddy Rush.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 02/11/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

He accepted government money when he didn't need it (strike one; GD socialist), tried to use it to help people get into housing they could afford (strike two - bleeding heart), offered lower interest rates than the current market rates (strike three for not maximizing shareholder value). In fact he may be violating his fiduciary responsibility here. He needs to be investigated, his bank taken over by the government and sold to a real bank that knows how to make a profit like Citibank or Bank of America. With the assets of this bank, they might even be able to send their officers to an expensive resort to try to figure out how to make money in this difficult environment..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 PM on 02/11/2009
photo

Seriously, somebody get this article in the hands of the dems in the hearing today

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 02/11/2009
- nicole473 I'm a Fan of nicole473 261 fans permalink
photo

I would truly love to hear that answer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 AM on 02/11/2009
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect