Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US May Take Ownership Stake in Banks
WASHINGTON - Having tried without success to unlock frozen credit markets, the Treasury Department is considering taking ownership stakes in many United States banks to try to restore confidence in the financial system, according to government officials.
The Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson at a news conference on Wednesday. (Shawn Thew/European Pressphoto Agency) Treasury officials say the just-passed $700 billion bailout bill
gives them the authority to inject cash directly into banks that
request it. Such a move would quickly strengthen banks' balance sheets
and, officials hope, persuade them to resume lending. In return, the
law gives the Treasury the right to take ownership positions in banks,
including healthy ones.
The Treasury plan was still preliminary and it was unclear how the process would work, but it appeared that it would be voluntary for banks.
The proposal resembles one announced on Wednesday in Britain. Under that plan, the British government would offer banks like the Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and HSBC Holdings up to $87 billion to shore up their capital in exchange for preference shares. It also would provide a guarantee of about $430 billion to help banks refinance debt.
The American recapitalization plan, officials say, has emerged as one of the most favored new options being discussed in Washington and on Wall Street. The appeal is that it would directly address the worries that banks have about lending to one another and to other customers.
This new interest in direct investment in banks comes after yet another tumultuous day in which the Federal Reserve and five other central banks marshaled their combined firepower to cut interest rates but failed to stanch the global financial panic.
In a coordinated action, the central banks reduced their benchmark interest rates by one-half percentage point. On top of that, the Bank of England announced its plan to nationalize part of the British banking system and devote almost $500 billion to guarantee financial transactions between banks.
The coordinated rate cut was unprecedented and surprising. Never before has the Fed issued an announcement on interest rates jointly with another central bank, let alone five other central banks, including the People's Bank of China.
Yet the world's markets hardly seemed comforted. Credit markets on Wednesday remained almost as stalled as the day before. Stock prices, which had plunged in Europe and Asia before the announcement, continued to plummet afterward. And stock prices in the United States went on a roller-coaster ride, at the end of which the Dow Jones industrial average was down 189 points, or 2 percent.
The gloomy market response sent policy makers and outside experts on a scramble for additional remedies to stabilize the banks and reassure investors.
There is no shortage of ideas, ranging from the partial nationalization proposal to a guarantee by the Fed of all lending between banks.
Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, on Wednesday refined his proposal - revealed in a debate with the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, the night before - to allow millions of Americans to refinance their mortgages with government assistance.
As Washington casts about for Plan B, investors are clamoring for the Fed to lower interest rates to nearly zero. Some are also calling for governments worldwide to provide another round of economic stimulus through expensive public works projects.
Yet behind the scramble for solutions lies a hard reality: the financial crisis has mutated into a global downturn that economists warn will be painful and protracted, and for which there is no quick cure.
"Everyone is conditioned to getting instant relief from the medicine, and that is unrealistic," said Allen Sinai, president of Decision Economics, a forecasting firm in Lexington, Mass. "As hard as it is for investors and jobholders and politicians in an election year, this crisis will not end without a lot more pain."
One concern about the Treasury's bailout plan is that it calls for limits on executive pay when capital is directly injected into a bank. The law directs Treasury officials to write compensation standards that would discourage executives from taking "unnecessary and excessive risks" and that would allow the government to recover any bonus pay that is based on stated earnings that turn out to be inaccurate. In addition, any bank in which the Treasury holds a stake would be barred from paying its chief executive a "golden parachute" package.
Treasury officials worry that aggressive government purchases, if not done properly, could alarm bank shareholders by appearing to be punitive or could be interpreted by the market as a sign that target banks were failing.
At a news conference on Wednesday, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., pointedly named the Treasury's new authority to inject capital into institutions as the first in a list of new powers included in the bailout law.
"We will use all the tools we've been given to maximum effectiveness," Mr. Paulson said, "including strengthening the capitalization of financial institutions of every size."
The idea is gaining support even among longtime Republican policy makers who have spent most of their careers defending laissez-faire economic policies.
"The problem is the uncertainty that people have about doing business with banks, and banks have about doing business with each other," said William Poole, a staunchly free-market Republican who stepped down as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on Aug. 31. "We need to eliminate that uncertainty as fast as we can, and one way to do that is by injecting capital directly into banks. I think it could be done very quickly."
Mr. Paulson acknowledged that the flurry of emergency steps had done little to break the cycle of fear and mistrust, and he pleaded for patience.
"The turmoil will not end quickly," Mr. Paulson told reporters on Wednesday. "Neither the passage of this law nor the implementation of these initiatives will bring an immediate end to the current difficulties."
Mr. Paulson will play host to finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 7 countries this Friday. But he cautioned against expecting a grand plan to emerge from the gathering.
More likely, the participants will compare notes about the measures they are adopting in their own countries. David H. McCormick, Treasury's under secretary for international affairs, said there was no "one size fits all" remedy for the crisis, though countries were cooperating through the coordinated cuts in interest rates, with guarantees on bank deposits and in regulations.
At the Federal Reserve in Washington, officials insisted they had not run out of options and made it clear they were willing to do whatever it took to shore up the economy.
Fed officials increasingly talk about the challenge they face with a phrase that President Bush used in another context: "regime change."
This regime change refers to a change in the economic environment so radical that, at least for a while, economic policy makers will need to suspend what are usually sacred principles: minimal interference in free markets, gradualism and predictability.
In the last month, both the Treasury and the Fed took extraordinary steps toward nationalizing three of the biggest financial companies in the country. Last month, the Treasury took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-sponsored mortgage-finance companies that were on the brink of collapse. A week later, the Fed took control of the American International Group, the failing insurance conglomerate, in exchange for agreeing to lend it $85 billion.
On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced that it would lend A.I.G. an additional $37.8 billion.
But neither the individual corporate bailouts nor the Fed's enormous emergency lending programs - including up to $900 billion through its Term Auction Facility for banks - have succeeded in jump-starting the credit markets.
"The core problem is that the smart people are realizing that the banking system is broken," said Carl B. Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics. "Nobody knows who is holding the tainted assets, how much they have and how it affects their balance sheets. So nobody is willing to believe that anybody else isn't insolvent, until it's proven otherwise."
- Posted in



52 Comments so far
Show AllIf people would just educate themselves on what the political parties platforms are, instead of listening to, and believing all the rhetoric and smear tactics that flood the media, they'd know exactly why we're in this mess, where it's being taken, and who will end up the big losers.
Fascism defined:The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism).
Are we on our way?
The United States of America™ -- it's not a nation any more, it's a brand.
The United Socialist States of America™
Ahh, now that's more like it.
This is nothing new Karl Marx predicted this outcome it is just sad that more people in the United States are unfamiliar with his work. The current state of our society clearly advantages the rich. (All men are created equal) only if they are born in the same social and racial group. The failure of the Soviet union was mostly due to the financial burden of the cold war (space ships, nuclear weapons, tanks, aircraft carriers...this did not occur in the united states due to the consumerism of its citizens Now that we are in a serious economic crisis we must decide if failed policies truly represent the voice of the people)
We're there already.
"'The core problem is that the smart people are realizing that the banking system is broken,' said Carl B. Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics. 'Nobody knows who is holding the tainted assets, how much they have and how it affects their balance sheets. So nobody is willing to believe that anybody else isn't insolvent, until it's proven otherwise.'"
All these claims of ignorance and helplessness are intended to obscure the flow of the funds approved in the bailout.
In six months, a lot of folks will be asking "Where did that $700 billion go?"
Of course, by then the figure will have risen to three or four trillion.
q
Welcome to AmeriKKKa!!!
Sioux Rose
There's a profoundly poignant irony at work. Remember how our military beefed up after WWII following the theory of the DOMINO effect? Well check out those dominoes now! As one bank after another tumbles in the great capitalist dream empire, it is the feared communists (China) who must help to manage, if not offset, the crisis. Remarkable... like our "intelligence" never getting a thing right about 911 (which I, too, believe was an inside job so that the people who have mismanaged our economy for their own greed, are now taking the entire ship of state down with them. Yes. There is a LAW of karma) and our sagacious court justices appointing a dangerous baboon to lead in times when there is an enemy of sorts, or certainly a bona fide threat in the form of climate change... which the world's people for their genius could SOLVE together. But no, the nations clammor over illusions of supremacy, claims to wealth, and waste their treasures on the very arms that will ensure yet more climate change, while stealing the lives of some of their most blessed innocent citizens. Needless to say, the calamitous events we are witnessing are attempts to force conscious human beings into new social, political and economic arrangements. It takes crisis to force change and we have arrived there...
Wall St.'s implosion is further evidence of the elites' incapacity to rule over the society, and the people's need to throw off elite rule. Health insurance, mortgages, even business loans are unnecessary and fundamental evils. The economy does NOT need to perpetually grow, even if it could. The economy does NOT need credit. The people were born with everything they need. A healthy, functional society recognizes the right of all people to a independent, dignified occupation. The society does NOT need the elites, like the host does NOT need the parasite.
I thought it was the G8? Now they are saying G7. Did some country drop out, or am I just confused?
Russia has been given the cold shoulder.
Off course one did - the USSR, the United States of Soar Republicans!
v.purto
Before it was G8 it was G7. The kids invited Russia to play for awhile, but seem to have tired of them now.
Only in America is 780 billion passed in 3 days ,a quick to act, matter of life or death , where was the people's dream team of lawyers to look over this matter? read the fine prints etc? 3 days? no wonder our 'economoney sucks', America's credit score is zero.
The heck with ownership "stake". Take over the Fed completely! Repeal the Federal Reserve Act so we stop paying interest to the private owners of the Federal Reserve. Then we can print interest-free money. See Ellen Brown's article at the Global Research site: "Who Owns The Federal Reserve? The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks" by Ellen Brown http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489. This is the first requirement of comprehensive monetary reform. A complete reform package has been prepared by the American Monetary Institute (www.monetary.org) called the American Monetary Act. I highly recommend that everyone read it and forward it to your congresspersons, with a request that they sponsor it.
jskin....u may be right. i've had zarlenga's "the lost science of money" for 3 weeks now and i'm only on chapter 2. i gotta quit spending so much time on this internet thing...
zgoobadooba- I just started it as well. Absolutely a must read for anyone wanting to understand money, economics and power. Zarlenga shows just how the wealthy and powerful have controlled the money supply as long as money has existed (30 centuries). And the relationship between war and monetary policy. Five stars; very highly recommended: "The Lost Science of Money -- The Mythology of Money-The Story of Power" By Stephen Zarlenga.
kind of negative comments so far from CD'ers. seems to me, that unless you're in favor of absolutely abolishing money, this (injecting capital into banks that have a decent chance of making it) is part of a necessary approach to ease day-to-day living for many stressed americans. i wish paulson would be willing to enter the area of "moral hazard" by making it easier for homeowners to hold on to their houses...he seems to be willing to bail out the bad bets of some of his banker buddies, why not show some compassion for those on the other end?
Are you SERIOUS? What compassion have they shown for the average working citizen?
agreed....not much. one can only hope that a sense of pragmatism will make even investment bankers see that they can only grind people down so far.
zgoobadooba October 9th, 2008 12:04 pm
"i wish paulson would be willing to enter the area of "moral hazard" by making it easier for homeowners to hold on to their houses."
The idiots in Washington are trying to solve the problem by attacking the symptoms. Until they realize that the only way to fix the problem is to fix the core of the problem which is the housing crisis there will be no improvement. As you put it, by making it easier for homeowners to hold onto their houses. In the meantime God only knows how much more money they will burn through, which will continue to make the problem worse and potentially unsolvable.
The countries economic problems go deeper than that but by solving the housing crisis that would at least fix that part of it.
Lobo Gris
yeah, we have a housing crisis and i wouldn't mind seeing much of that $700bil going into programs that would somehow keep people in their homes. but we have developed a credit crunch too and this i think has to be considered more than just a symptom. without available credit, the current downswing we're in could accelerate drastically.
zgoobadooba October 9th, 2008 2:00 pm
"but we have developed a credit crunch too and this i think has to be considered more than just a symptom"
The credit crunch is a result of the housing crisis. Fix the housing crisis and you fix then credit crunch at the same time. The banks are carrying tons of bad loans on their books which limits how much they have to lend. Paulson is only attacking half the problem by going in and buying up the bad loans from the banks but doing nothing to keep homeowners in their homes. If he bailed out the homeowners the effect would be the same, taking bad loans off the books (because they would no longer be bad loans), with the added benefit to the economy that millions would not end up with no home and bad credit.
Lobo Gris
ok...the credit crunch is the result of the housing bubble created by wall street and its washington enablers. are u saying that we should re-inflate this bubble and the basic problems will be solved? geez, i'm not an economist and i feel i may be getting in over my head here...i'm just trying to use common sense. if paulson injects capital into the banks with the least amount of "troubled assets" by buying their stock, this may free up credit and help to keep things going. this stock could then be sold later if things improved. this would avoid the debt that would be incurred through re-inflating the housing bubble. hey, i wanna see people stay in their homes too...your solution (just focusing on the housing problem) seems a little too simple and mechanistic to me.
zgoobadooba October 9th, 2008 2:54 pm
"ok...the credit crunch is the result of the housing bubble created by wall street and its washington enablers. are u saying that we should re-inflate this bubble and the basic problems will be solved?"
No I'm not saying to re-inflate the bubble. Not every homeowner loan can be saved but the large majority of them can and it isn't a bubble if the loan is made good and successfully paid off. In the process it frees up funds which can be lent. Basically the more bad loans a bank is carrying the less they can lend. It has to do with the reserves they are required to have.
"if paulson injects capital into the banks with the least amount of "troubled assets" by buying their stock, this may free up credit and help to keep things going. this stock could then be sold later if things improved"
But Paulson isn't buying stock. He is buying up bad loans. The idea being to sit on the empty property until housing prices come back and then reselling it. Of course what isn't mentioned is who is going to pay the property taxes and the upkeep while it just sits there, which would be another problem solved if homeowners stayed in their homes. Not to mention the fact that when the government decides its time to sell that that puts them in competition with everyone else, floods the market with hundreds of thousands of homes which again lowers market values and creates problems all over again.
BTW I'm no economist either, I have just read a bunch about it.
Lobo Gris
lobo...i think our disagreement here is one of emphasis. i'm looking more at the short term, u at the long. i see the freezing of credit markets as potentially disastrous..something that could lead to accelerated unemployment. that's why i'm in favor of paulson buying stock in banks that have a chance of making it through this situation. u tell me that he's not buying stocks, he's buying bad loans. from what i gather, all banks have some degree of bad loans. the ones who are hopelessly tied down with bad loans probably aren't worth saving...fdic to the rescue. the ones who are judged to be risk worthy get a capital injection (treasury stock purchase) and hopefully they will then issue easier credit. and i agree with u...a good deal of the $700bil should be used to enable those under threat of foreclosure to stay in their homes.
i guess i think you've been a little too dismissive of paulson using up some of that $700bil on bank stock purchases. the europeans are using this approach to loosen credit their markets. do u really think this approach is some kind of contagion madness?
zgoobadooba October 9th, 2008 4:36 pm
u tell me that he's not buying stocks, he's buying bad loans. from what i gather, all banks have some degree of bad loans.
If it were a few bad loans it wouldn't be a problem to begin with. My understanding of it is they are all buried in bad loans. They were even bundling them and selling them to foreign banks which is why they are in trouble too.
"the ones who are hopelessly tied down with bad loans probably aren't worth saving...fdic to the rescue."
The argument is that there are too many of them and that they are too big to fail. WaMu, AIG, the investment banks etc. Which gets into bank deregulation which allowed other types of financial institutions besides traditional banks to get in on the act too.
As for how the Europeans are dong it, buying stock, from my perspective that is just throwing money at the banks without dealing with the underlying problem. And I don't think it's working. I heard today that there are European banks that are now being Nationalized.
Lobo Gris
lobo...i'm ready to put this one to rest. when u say the euros are nationalizing their banks, it's really the same thing that paulson may do...purchase preferred stock shares with the hope that they can be sold off in better times. americans are just averse to a word like nationalize. i think sweeden went thru this process some years back and it worked out.
in one of your earlier replies, u said that our economic problems are probably deeper than our housing and now credit crises. i agree and think ultimately our problems are due to a frozen duopolistic system of political power...we just haven't evolved as a democracy. it looks like we're in some pretty deep shit now...maybe the best we can do is to see it with eyes wide open.
Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks and his immortal answer was: "Because that's where the money is." The federal government has apparently just now discovered this Great Fiscal Wet Dream. Need money to fund the next war?; let's partially nationalize the banks and now we can steal from them too.
Zgoo et al, you seem to be overlooking a glaring problem here: these "solutions" all entail the U.S. becoming a socialist state. That's what "socialism" is - when the state owns the corporations and the resources. Last time I heard, Republicans were almost demonically against socialism of ANY kind. Everyone knows Republicans want to end any and ALL government "socialism" such as social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc. That is one of the primary planks of the Republican ideology, look it up on their effing website.
But wait! No! suddenly they do a 180 and are 100% gung-ho all-out behind the idea of the U.S. government suddenly handing out 1 trillion $ to corporations that are about to go bust. What's the difference in the government handing out $$ to corporations and handing out food stamps to poor people? ABsolutely zilch, except poor people need it to survive, and corporations are supposedly part of the Great Free Market which the Republicans have always declared is the only way to allow their great idol, Capitalism, to flourish. No government regulations! No government interference! Leave the Market and the corporations alone! Um...well, wait....except for when we might lose money, then give us a trillion bucks!!
And as if the Republicans' sudden reversal of their anti-government interference in the Free Market ideology isn't startling enough, suddenly they are all for the State-ownership of private corporations, also known as Socialism.
Amazing how quickly those quirky Rethugs will completely abandon their core principals when it comes to money, isn't it? Talk about flip-flopping.
"The only thing required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing."
That's my thought exactly. When government itself consists of representatives of big business and the people are content with lip service and a largely symbolic congressional representation, you have come full circle to a place where socialism and fascism have identical structures. Rather than working to get government off their backs, businesses have become the government, gaining through the back door what they couldn't accomplish publicly.
If I had a pencil, and was the type to pencil in margins, I'd pencil in, "very true".
i'm not advocating the gov't buying out and taking over the corporations. i'm just saying in the short-term, it's a sensible idea to get money into banks that are deemed sound enuf to make it long-term. we're in a credit economy and to keep things going we have to have institutions that are willing to make loans. if the gov't buys stocks in these banks, this form form of capital injection may ease credit markets. when, if the economy comes round, these shares could then be sold at a profit. european governments with social democratic leanings are using this approach and methinks we should too.
Isn't this what in organized crime is called "extortion"?
Make us your new partners, and we will make sure your business stops burning down every night.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Any good Marxist would applaud the government taking over the banking industry, and would encourage their taking over the utilities companies and the oil companies and the insurance companies and the medical industry as well. This works only if the government is, somehow, us. If government is just "them" wearing government hats, as seems to be the case, then it is the government which has been taken over, and the system is still a corporate oligarchy, with "we the people" providing the labor and the money but none of the administration or oversight. Or so it seems to an ignorant man who has never had a political science course.
It's interesting that the most reactionary administration since Herbert Hoover's is nationalizing the banking system in the US. President Bozo and Vice President Evil have stepped aside to let Treasury Secretary Paulson run the show. He is off to a good start. How about continuing the trend and begin nationalizing the big insurance, health care, energy, airline and all the other rapacious industries that have robbed us blind?
NATIONALIZATION!!! Take that, Friedmanite scum!
Now we have to push to get oil, mineral, land, and other public property nationalized and get equal shares of non-transferable stocks and dividends from it.
We can't let the oligarchy nationalize the losers and keep the winners.
Every man a king!
Capitalism is a repeating tragedy --
It'a a ridiculous "King-of-The-Hill System" intended toi redistribute
wealth and assets from the many to the few.
Further, it is not about competition, it's about killing the competition.
Where were the laws being enforced to prevent the rise of new monopolies?
They weren't-!!
It's time to break up these companies and move the NEW DEAL back in again.
But also to move forward into econmomic democracy via democratic socialism.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
This is a natual cycle in the business model of capitalism.
In most organisms "maximizing growth" means a cancer that eventually kills the host. Same in economics.
Free market capitalism is no different. The planet is not getting any bigger, nor are new natural resources miraculously replentishing themselves. Boom and bust is the model.
the fat cats know the drill.... claw for as much wealth as you can on the way up, then stash and protect it for the ride back down when the entire system implodes yet again. if done right it can be very enriching for the top 2%, even thoiugh it means death and destruction for the remianing 98%.
A solid and steady market is best for the security of that vulnerable 98%...but that would mean that elite 2% would not have the oppourtunity to enrich themsleves at our expense by booming and busting us...no one ever got filthy rich in a stable market...just mildly rich..and that is not good enough for this greedy bunch.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
The only good news here is that the US is becoming a Social Democracy by nationalizing the banks—by throwing the losses into the public lap. Great.
All other news is bad.
It is not the banking system that is broken. Capitalism is broken.
The Treasury Department is considering taking ownership stakes in many United States banks to gain direct access to our life's savings.
That way the GOP can rob us blind again without 'raising' taxes.
Now we can have 'targeted' poverty in addition to endemic poverty through hyperinflation.
Heckuva job! Now we can't trust any bank.
Banks have been one of the biggest and heaviest investors in oil futures thereby driving up gas prices for Americans. The Banks are crooks, stop bailing them out.
The only way to cure the sub-prime mortgage problem is to recast loans to an affordable rate one homeowner at a time. Begezzus, if we can martial the resources to go to the the moon, we can hire people and accelerate this process. All we would need to do to stop the bleeding is to recast ten thousand loans a month. The numbers are not that staggering.
It's simple. Set some standards and hire out-of-work mortgage agents to handle the process. Existing lenders could hire these extra brokers and work out the mortgages with the government helping people instead of banks that are holding oil futures and charging people 30% interest on their credit cards.
Bankers and corporations can take care of themselves. There are sovereign wealth funds that will loan them money. The banks and corps just don't want to pay the higher interest rates that the wealth funds would require. They would rather allow U.S. Citizens to subsidize their wealth. Heeeeeell Nooooooo!
To Edmund and Mark:
I've seen the word *nationalize* used a lot in connection with foreign governments but not very much with respect to the US. Maybe I don't understand, but aren't the following substitutions accurate? And if so, why didn't you use them?
" US May Take Ownership Stake in Banks"
US May Partially Nationalize Banks
"the Treasury Department is considering taking ownership stakes in many United States banks"
the Treasury Department is considering partially nationalizing many United States banks
" the law gives the Treasury the right to take ownership positions in banks"
the law gives the Treasury the right to nationalize banks
"any bank in which the Treasury holds a stake"
any bank the Treasury nationalizes
TLS
i don't think edmund and mark will be responding. nationalizing would obviously be too rad for proper Timesmen to use. and ownership stake would really be more fitting here. the point is to free up credit markets short term and then to "de-nationalize" by selling the ownership stake when times get better.
US May Take Over Banks - and we all know the Bush Doctrine on takovers as in Iraq.
Hang the management, plunder the assets and punish the innocent!
I wonder if America's Ruling Classes have considered what will happen to them
when creditors take over a bankrupt America.
Looks like this was a case of too little too late for the market.
There may be no real hope for the underlying credit crisis beyond admitting that there's no "hope". A lot of these assets aren't really there and there may just have to be a bit hit here.
The end of Hallucinated Capital.
It won't be the end of the World.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
Its certainly the end of McCain/Palin.
Mutual of Wal-Mart
Murdock Banking Group
GM Bank and Trust
Halliburton Mutual
State Farm Financial
Bank of Exxon
Lockheed Martin Bank
Cheney Savings and Loan
Blackwater Credit Unions