Conversations with each of the federal banking regulators over the last several days confirm what we have heard elsewhere: the distribution of TARP Capital that started out with a more liberal bias has now turned more conservative. Regulators have recently indicated that institutions with a CAMELS rating of 1 and 2 are almost certainly likely to receive an investment, while 3-rated institutions are now described as “perhaps” receiving an investment. 4 and 5-rated banks are unlikely to receive any TARP Capital, absent unique circumstances. (Just a few weeks ago, these same regulators were telling us that a 3-rated institution would be treated more like a 2-rated institution, and that 4-rated institutions would “perhaps” receive an investment.) This shift is certainly an outgrowth of Treasury’s position that the main test of which institutions will receive capital investments is assured long term viability.
What does this mean for the thousands of banks that will not receive funding? They certainly need to be considering a public relations initiative to manage or preempt the questions that will come at them from shareholders and the local media. Perhaps the conversation could be along the following lines: “(i) the banking industry did not ask for this plan (which has changed dramatically since it was first proposed); (ii) an investment by the Treasury in a bank is not an automatic guarantee that a particular bank will be successful and neither is a decision not to invest some sort of condemnation; (iii) our loan portfolio reflects our community and the real estate lending which helped our community grow is suffering; and (iv) we are here for the long run and look forward to meeting the credit needs of our customers for years to come. Together we will both survive the current economic challenges.”