Of Special Interest
- Financial wellness affects half of peoples’ mental or physical health, finds report
- Study finds traditional financial institutions embrace Fintech disruption
- Grass is greener for environmentally friendly businesses, finds Barclays
- Prospective homeowners would consider a 40-year mortgage to escape renting, finds Santander
- Millennials’ needs are changing the face of banking industry, says new report
- FS is putting consumer data at risk by failing to protect mobile apps, says Arxan
- A lack of belief in their ability holds 28% women back in work, says Cambridge & Counties
- ‘Which?’ reveals Scotland has lost over a third of its bank branches in eight years
- Next downturn unlikely to be as bad as 2008, according to S&P
- FCA reveals findings from first cryptoassets consumer research
- US consumers favour single mobile app for banking and payments
- Banks suffering major IT shutdowns every day, ‘Which?’ reveals
- The US will be a key offshore centre in 2019, says GlobalData
- Debit industry changes markedly in 10 years of the Debit Issuer Study
- UK's ‘Big Five’ face ‘too big to compete’ as small challengers secure stellar returns
- Banks as vulnerable now as before crash, says new study
- Leverage ratio a constant conundrum for European and US banks, says SNL
16th August 2011
Rethinking of US infrastructure bank
President Barack Obama's plan for a new federal infrastructure bank in order to assist infrastructure projects and stimulate growth has not been welcomed by many Republicans in its current form. Instead it is seen as yet another example of a project that will increase federal debt and encourage wrong attitudes. Some Republicans are also annoyed at what they view as delaying tactics by the White House in putting forward a Highways Bill.
If the plans are to make it through Congress the format is likely to have to change significantly. The original proposal was to provide the infrastructure bank with $30bn in funding and to allow it to issue grants, loans and 'other financial tools'. Some Republicans are saying they might support a proposal for a bank with sub-$10bn funding if it were not to issue grants (branded federal give-aways), investing only in projects at least 50% private funded and in projects with a revenue stream - most likely through tolls.
A move to the use of such a bank, as opposed to a new highways bill is also viewed by some as further centralisation and likely to cause an increase in bureaucracy and the politicisation of decisions rather than based on evaluation of the public benefit. The Democratic party deny these suggestions and say the proposed bank's lending decisions would not be politically influenced.