Bank gives Tarp funds back

[daniel49]

link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

 

[Fern]

Well, so far they plan to give it back.

They are awaiting permission to return it.

Will be interesting to see if the Treasury allows them to return it. Last I read they seemed quite reluctant to allow repayment now for fear of making those banks who don't repay it look bad.

Otherwise, the comments in the article by bankers saying the TARP thing was 'lousy' etc were interesting

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fern
Well, so far they plan to give it back.

They are awaiting permission to return it.

Will be interesting to see if the Treasury allows them to return it. Last I read they seemed quite reluctant to allow repayment now for fear of making those banks who don't repay it look bad.

Otherwise, the comments in the article by bankers saying the TARP thing was 'lousy' etc were interesting

Fern

they already look bad. i'm simply amazed that treasury thinks we're all idiots out here.

 

[OCGuy]

:thumbsup:

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: daniel49
link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

Notice he says they were 'encouraged' to take the TARP money, contrary to what several boneheads here said about banks being FORCED to take the money. I wish someone would force some money on me. Of course, I'd report them immediately to the police...or the Bureau of Insane Government (BIG).

Also, as long as the bank meets the re-payment terms the regulators cannot refuse the money. If Treasury starts refusing to accept money they are going to look like the idiots we already know they are. Erm, well, you get the idea.

Let's see "US government refuses to take loan repayment from bank." Uh, right. But, we've seen nuttier from Paulson, Bush, and now Geithner and Obama.

-Robert

 

[waggy]

more i read on TFC the more i like the bank. they were FORCED into takeing the money. now they are trying to give it back and getting stonewalled at that. wonder why?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: daniel49
link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

LOOK AT ME I'M A LAWYER ME SO SMART

-Robert

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: chess9
Notice he says they were 'encouraged' to take the TARP money, contrary to what several boneheads here said about banks being FORCED to take the money. I wish someone would force some money on me. Of course, I'd report them immediately to the police...or the Bureau of Insane Government (BIG).

I don't know what your range of business experience is but occasionally when a city/state/federal government "encourages" you to do something you goddamned well better do it if you intend to continue operating your business without all sorts of problems suddenly popping up. Just because they haven't written you a notarized memo explicitly detailing all the horrible shit they can legally do to you doesn't mean a threat hasn't been made. You'd have to be incredibly obtuse not to get this.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: daniel49
link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

Notice he says they were 'encouraged' to take the TARP money, contrary to what several boneheads here said about banks being FORCED to take the money. I wish someone would force some money on me. Of course, I'd report them immediately to the police...or the Bureau of Insane Government (BIG).

Also, as long as the bank meets the re-payment terms the regulators cannot refuse the money. If Treasury starts refusing to accept money they are going to look like the idiots we already know they are. Erm, well, you get the idea.

Let's see "US government refuses to take loan repayment from bank." Uh, right. But, we've seen nuttier from Paulson, Bush, and now Geithner and Obama.

-Robert

I had trouble with that link the first time so I won't revist it, but I'm pretty sure the banker didn't quite say "encourage".

I thought he said "strongly encouraged"

Is my recollection incorrect, or have you purposely 'misquoted' the banker to give a false impression in support of your contention?

Also, I'm pretty sure the Treasury can refuse to accept the money at this time, contrary to your assertion. IIRC, a 2 year period (or something similar) has to expire before banks are automatically allowed to return it without permission. If you had read the article, the part that said they awaiting permission to return the money might have tipped you off to this fact.

Fern

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: chess9
Notice he says they were 'encouraged' to take the TARP money, contrary to what several boneheads here said about banks being FORCED to take the money. I wish someone would force some money on me. Of course, I'd report them immediately to the police...or the Bureau of Insane Government (BIG).

I don't know what your range of business experience is but occasionally when a city/state/federal government "encourages" you to do something you goddamned well better do it if you intend to continue operating your business without all sorts of problems suddenly popping up. Just because they haven't written you a notarized memo explicitly detailing all the horrible shit they can legally do to you doesn't mean a threat hasn't been made. You'd have to be incredibly obtuse not to get this.

Many banks refused TARP money. Some bankers were wisely cautious. This guy has been hoist on a petard of his own and Treasury's making. Now he's trying to wiggle free.

If you are a bank president, you are paid big bucks to make the right decisions, not to kowtow to regulators when you don't have to. I know lots of bankers, and they are up to their eyeballs in lawyers. They knew full well they didn't have to respond to the bully pulpit of Paulson, but many of them thought it would be harmless. They should have listened to Reagan: "The government is here to help you."

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: daniel49
link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

Notice he says they were 'encouraged' to take the TARP money, contrary to what several boneheads here said about banks being FORCED to take the money. I wish someone would force some money on me. Of course, I'd report them immediately to the police...or the Bureau of Insane Government (BIG).

Also, as long as the bank meets the re-payment terms the regulators cannot refuse the money. If Treasury starts refusing to accept money they are going to look like the idiots we already know they are. Erm, well, you get the idea.

Let's see "US government refuses to take loan repayment from bank." Uh, right. But, we've seen nuttier from Paulson, Bush, and now Geithner and Obama.

-Robert

I had trouble with that link the first time so I won't revist it, but I'm pretty sure the banker didn't quite say "encourage".

I thought he said "strongly encouraged"

Is my recollection incorrect, or have you purposely 'misquoted' the banker to give a false impression in support of your contention?

Also, I'm pretty sure the Treasury can refuse to accept the money at this time, contrary to your assertion. IIRC, a 2 year period (or something similar) has to expire before banks are automatically allowed to return it without permission. If you had read the article, the part that said they awaiting permission to return the money might have tipped you off to this fact.

Fern

I read the article. Your quibble about strongly encourage doesn't vitiate the point I was making that they weren't forced to take it. People here were suggesting they could be fined, or jailed, or sued if they refused the money. That wasn't the case and no law required them to take the money. ALL THE BANKERS KNEW THAT. As usual, the right wingers here didn't bother to read.

We don't know what they are actually doing regarding re-payment. Re-paying may reduce their capital, which is probably why they have to wait for the stress test to be completed. This bank president is being touted as some sort of hero, but the truth is he bought into TARP and is now regretting his error. He's probably getting a million dollars year in salary anyway.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: daniel49
link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

LOOK AT ME I'M A LAWYER ME SO SMART

-Robert

Don't you have a bible passage you need to read?

-Robert

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: chess9
Notice he says they were 'encouraged' to take the TARP money, contrary to what several boneheads here said about banks being FORCED to take the money. I wish someone would force some money on me. Of course, I'd report them immediately to the police...or the Bureau of Insane Government (BIG).

I don't know what your range of business experience is but occasionally when a city/state/federal government "encourages" you to do something you goddamned well better do it if you intend to continue operating your business without all sorts of problems suddenly popping up. Just because they haven't written you a notarized memo explicitly detailing all the horrible shit they can legally do to you doesn't mean a threat hasn't been made. You'd have to be incredibly obtuse not to get this.

Many banks refused TARP money. Some bankers were wisely cautious. This guy has been hoist on a petard of his own and Treasury's making. Now he's trying to wiggle free.

If you are a bank president, you are paid big bucks to make the right decisions, not to kowtow to regulators when you don't have to. I know lots of bankers, and they are up to their eyeballs in lawyers. They knew full well they didn't have to respond to the bully pulpit of Paulson, but many of them thought it would be harmless. They should have listened to Reagan: "The government is here to help you."

-Robert

Some of the smaller regional banks got out of it, I have no doubt that opting out became less and less optional. The major banks all had to play ball.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: daniel49
link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

LOOK AT ME I'M A LAWYER ME SO SMART

-Robert

I'M SO ENLIGHTENED I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD IF YOU DO YOU'RE AN IDIOT

-Robert

 

[Genx87]

Not sure if this article mentioned it. But I read in the star and tribune a couple of days ago about this and their reasoning was the restrictions the govt is putting on the money including the ceo pay limits.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: daniel49
link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

Notice he says they were 'encouraged' to take the TARP money, contrary to what several boneheads here said about banks being FORCED to take the money. I wish someone would force some money on me. Of course, I'd report them immediately to the police...or the Bureau of Insane Government (BIG).

Also, as long as the bank meets the re-payment terms the regulators cannot refuse the money. If Treasury starts refusing to accept money they are going to look like the idiots we already know they are. Erm, well, you get the idea.

Let's see "US government refuses to take loan repayment from bank." Uh, right. But, we've seen nuttier from Paulson, Bush, and now Geithner and Obama.

-Robert

"encouraged" is just the politically-correct way of saying "forced".

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure if this article mentioned it. But I read in the star and tribune a couple of days ago about this and their reasoning was the restrictions the govt is putting on the money including the ceo pay limits.

Yes, I'd heard this also. It was covered on CNBC tonight too. Actually, of the two hours I watched this evening, a large portion was devoted to how businesses and corporations feel that the Obama administration is anti-business.

 

[Double Trouble]

Anyone who believes the banks had any option not to take that money is simply delusional. That's simply not how things work. When they say "strongly encouraged" as many have said they were, it means "we were told you'd better take it or you're going to have a LOT of problems with regulators crawling up your butt for the foreseeable future if you don't".

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: daniel49
link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

Notice he says they were 'encouraged' to take the TARP money, contrary to what several boneheads here said about banks being FORCED to take the money. I wish someone would force some money on me. Of course, I'd report them immediately to the police...or the Bureau of Insane Government (BIG).

Also, as long as the bank meets the re-payment terms the regulators cannot refuse the money. If Treasury starts refusing to accept money they are going to look like the idiots we already know they are. Erm, well, you get the idea.

Let's see "US government refuses to take loan repayment from bank." Uh, right. But, we've seen nuttier from Paulson, Bush, and now Geithner and Obama.

-Robert

"encouraged" is just the politically-correct way of saying "forced".

So how did they "force" them to take the money? What was the implied threat if they didn't take the funds?

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: daniel49
link

Good for you TCF. I wish you had a branch here.
One steps back from the feeding frenzy. Hopefully as the article suggests, it could be a new trend.

Notice he says they were 'encouraged' to take the TARP money, contrary to what several boneheads here said about banks being FORCED to take the money. I wish someone would force some money on me. Of course, I'd report them immediately to the police...or the Bureau of Insane Government (BIG).

Also, as long as the bank meets the re-payment terms the regulators cannot refuse the money. If Treasury starts refusing to accept money they are going to look like the idiots we already know they are. Erm, well, you get the idea.

Let's see "US government refuses to take loan repayment from bank." Uh, right. But, we've seen nuttier from Paulson, Bush, and now Geithner and Obama.

-Robert

Yes they can.
In the early 80's Chrysler got a bailout loan from the US government.
A year later, they wanted to repay early. The Reagan administration didn't allow them to do so.

If I loan someone $1,000 at 8% interest yearly for 5 years, why should I allow them to pay the principal early when I can collect money on interest payments and the full principal back the entire 5 years?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fern
Well, so far they plan to give it back.

They are awaiting permission to return it.

Will be interesting to see if the Treasury allows them to return it. Last I read they seemed quite reluctant to allow repayment now for fear of making those banks who don't repay it look bad.

Otherwise, the comments in the article by bankers saying the TARP thing was 'lousy' etc were interesting

Fern

they already look bad. i'm simply amazed that treasury thinks we're all idiots out here.

look who we keep voting into offices... we deserve it. I cannot think of more than a few politicians I'd help off the edge of a cliff.

 

[alphatarget1]

Didn't the treasury stick TARP funds to wells fargo even though they didn't need it?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lothar
If I loan someone $1,000 at 8% interest yearly for 5 years, why should I allow them to pay the principal early when I can collect money on interest payments and the full principal back the entire 5 years?

That makes sense from the pure business perspective, but it shouldn't be the case when it's the government. After all, their intention was never to turn a profit, right? It was meant to rescue a failing economy... right?

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lothar
If I loan someone $1,000 at 8% interest yearly for 5 years, why should I allow them to pay the principal early when I can collect money on interest payments and the full principal back the entire 5 years?

That makes sense from the pure business perspective, but it shouldn't be the case when it's the government. After all, their intention was never to turn a profit, right? It was meant to rescue a failing economy... right?

I'm not a politician.
You'll have to ask your congressman about that.

 

[frostedflakes]

So conservatives who opposed pay and bonus limits should be thanking Democrats for putting these restrictions on TARP money? You have to admit, it's a good way to keep banks who don't really need the money from taking it.