This blog has been focused on big banks and related issues. As this ZH post points out, there are also many other stories involving many other banks. The author if this post knows the folks at Santa Barbara Bank and Trust and thinks a lot of them. He/She is not being critical of the bank but is using this example to make a case in point about economics and how not to solve the banking crisis. This viewpoint is primarily about boom and bust and the mistaken attempt to partially reflate the bubble as a way to prevent more profound crisis. It is a point well taken.
However, in any enterprise of this sort, there will have been some who supported the strategy that led to the current situation, and some who opposed the strategy. I would love to hear from those who opposed, who may have seen changes in the management and culture that lead to excessive risk taking and who can comment on the motivations of decision makers as well as those who “got on board”. I would also love to hear what happened to voices of dissent.
Further, though this bank did receive TARP, I would be curious how they are impacted by subsidized competitors.