Banks still not lending to business'

[Deleted User]

bendix wrote: »

Let me get this right. You're criticising a bank for not lending you money that to buy a property that you could pay for outright with cash, at a time when the credit crunch was at its most severe, and you're using that instance to judge banks' behaviour nearly three years later?

1. They claimed they were still lending.

2. I gave this example only to illustrate that their claims of continuing lending to small businesses are false.

3. We all know why they aren't lending and haven't been significantly since the start of the crunch. However the banks publicly (and the likes of ILW and Thrugelmir) deny that this is the case.

OF COURSE they weren't lending at the time. What does that have to do with a debate about lending practices now?

Part of the reason for the bailouts was to protect the country from a lack of lending to small businesses and the job losses and other damage this would cause.

Honestly, i despair of people's reasoning ability, I really do.

So do I, yours.

Alot_does_not_exist

lemonjelly wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13489884

OK, so we've heard this line for over 2 years now. The banks are continually being labelled as non-lenders at the mo, & this is stifling the economy.

Are they being made scapegoats by the incumbents? My feeling is that they are. After all, if the government has spent 2 years telling banks to lend more & the banks hadn't, then surely now would be the time to act. Wouldn't it? After all, the government gave plenty of concessions with respect to their "bankers bonus tax" which was due to scare the bejaysus out of them.

So will the government act? (that is rhetorical btw;))

What do you expect?

The bankers share their Sunday morning golf rounds with their traditional friends in the Tory hierarchy and, hey presto, no bonus tax and no need to observe any supposed, for-public-consumption 'agreements'.

Not even the need, probably, for the usual party funding promises with a nod and a wink at the 19th hole.

What goes around comes around.

ILW

So why do the critics think that banks are refusing to lend, what is their motive?

Thrugelmir

Pennywise wrote: »

That goes without saying but banks are happy to lend based on goodwill to big firms. If banks won't lend, and the AIM/stock exchange is for big firms only, just who is going to provide small firms with the funds they need to expand?

Different scenario between big and small firms. Big firms are often able to drive significant costs out of a business following a take over. Big firms are also far less lightly to default.

Even private equity groups are now looking for operationally profitability. Rather than merely trading the business itself as a commodity.

The reality is that it takes time time for a business to grow. Many SME's are family owned or have few shareholders. So selling equity is not an option many are happy to consider. Though there are networks of investors who can fill this requirement.

bendix

ILW wrote: »

So why do the critics think that banks are refusing to lend, what is their motive?

Cuz it's all part of the big conspiracy, man. It's all part of the stinking scene to put down the little guy, man.

And stuff.

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

So why do the critics think that banks are refusing to lend, what is their motive?

Read the posts numbered 23, 30, and 36.

[Deleted User]

bendix wrote: »

Cuz it's all part of the big conspiracy, man. It's all part of the stinking scene to put down the little guy, man.

And stuff.

Wrong its just the banks reneging on the promises that got them bailed out. No conspiracy, just sleaze.

ILW

[quote=[Deleted User];43888562]Read the posts numbered 23, 30, and 36.[/QUOTE]

To strengthen their balance sheets, is that a bad thing?

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

To strengthen their balance sheets, is that a bad thing?

Yes and no.

It depends how they do it. At the moment they're calling in healthy loans and restricting further lending to small businesses is harmful to the economy generally and employment especially.

If they honour the assurances they have already given not to mention their public statements people would probably resent them less.

Thrugelmir

[quote=[Deleted User];43887752]
2. I gave this example only to illustrate that their claims of continuing lending to small businesses are false.
[/QUOTE]

You are borrowing to speculatively invest in property. Not borrowing to fund growth of a business.