You will hear an interview with some myths about banks. For each questio

Woman: Mr. Lewis, could you analyze what role did banks play in the market bubble?
Man: Our economic crisis mirrors every great market bubble in history. Clearly, banks were major participants, but they were not alone. Mortgage lenders, borrowers, regulators, policy makers, appraisers, rating agencies, investors and investment bankers all played a role in pushing economic excesses forward. The institutions that gave in completely to the frenzy are no longer with us. Those balancing the need to compete with the need to lend prudently survive today and are helping to stabilize the system.
Amid the turmoil, it has become clear that banks need to make changes in the way they run their business, from risk management to expense control to compensation practice. Most banks are making these changes in a good-faith effort to adjust to new economic realities.
Woman: One claim is that the banks aren’t lending. How do you analyze it?
Man: This claim is simply not true. Yes, banks have tightened lending standards after a period in which standards were too lax. But, according to Federal Reserve data, bank credit has actually increased over the course of this recession, and business lending is trending up most modestly so far in 2009. Also, mortgage finance volume Is booming as a result of low interest rates. What’s gone from the system is the" easy "credit that gets us into this mess, as unregulated nonbank lenders have disappeared, and the market for many asset-backed securities has all but dried up. Most banks are making as many loans as we responsibly can, given the recessionary environment.
Woman: What about the claim that the banks are insolvent?
Man: In the past 18 months, we’ve seen nearly 15 bank failures. which compares to about the 40 failures or closings of commercial banks or savings institutions between 1986 and 1987. There may be more to come, but the vast majority of banks will weather this economic storm.
Woman: Then, the Troubled Asset Relief Programme(TARP)hasn’t worked?
Man: Not true. Last October, when the TARP was enacted, systemic risk threatened our entire financial system and economy. The point of the programme was to stabilize surviving banks. prevent a total meltdown, and enable banks to lend more. The TARP and other government programmes have worked, and banks have made more loans as a result.
Woman: What about the claim that taxpayers have given the banks billions and won’t get their money back?
Man: TARP funds are not charity. Banks that received TARP funds will make about $13 billion in dividend payments to the U.S. Treasury this year. TARP funds are loans yielding anywhere from 5% to 8% interest This is a win-win: Banks are getting the capital they need, and taxpayers are getting a strong return on their investment.
Woman: One claim says that "The only way to fix the banks is to nationalize them." Is it true?
Man: This is a misguided premise. The announcement of nationalization will undermine the confidence in the financial system and send shudders through the investment community. Politicizing lending decisions and the credit allocation process will be destructive for the economy.
Man: Nationalization also will give the false impression that all banks are insolvent. We agree with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s statement that the nationalization of banks is not necessary to stabilize the banking system.
Woman: OK. Then getting our facts straight as we debate the important issues will help us rebuild a healthy financial services sector that can better support economic growth. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.