Bank gives Tarp funds back

[chess9]

Originally posted by: 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?

First of all the Chrysler loan had entirely different terms, and there were other serious considerations with that loan, so your example is inapposite. Secondly, I said this bank had to re-pay in accordance with the terms of the loan. The capital requirements are the sticking point, not some piddly little interest the government might get back. You think Treasury is worried about a few million dollars of interest payments when they are trying to save our banking infrastructure? I think not....

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: 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?

Well, some nervous nelly bankers might have taken the money for fear they were inviting an audit otherwise. I understand that mentality. But, if they took the money, I'd want to audit them because I'd have guessed that was their motivation. Those banks that stood up to Treasury, and told Paulson to go fuck himself, were the strong banks. They did the right thing if their banks were solid. Treasury was trying hard to game the system and the bankers who are quislings let him do it. Now Geithner is doing the same thing!! The egomaniacs at Treasury are trying to control everything, but they don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. They are guessing, just like everyone else. And they are trying, in good faith possibly, to save our banking system and our country. This crisis IS a national security failure of monumental proportions. Why do you think Obama is hiring more police? The riots are coming, the riots are coming.

-Robert

 

[halik]

The really interesting part is whether the treasury allows them to repay that cash, as it has pretty strong implications on the banks that don't.
If the are not allowed to repay the money, at the very least it will make Bawney Fwank STFU.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: 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?

Well, some nervous nelly bankers might have taken the money for fear they were inviting an audit otherwise. I understand that mentality. But, if they took the money, I'd want to audit them because I'd have guessed that was their motivation. Those banks that stood up to Treasury, and told Paulson to go fuck himself, were the strong banks. They did the right thing if their banks were solid. Treasury was trying hard to game the system and the bankers who are quislings let him do it. Now Geithner is doing the same thing!! The egomaniacs at Treasury are trying to control everything, but they don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. They are guessing, just like everyone else. And they are trying, in good faith possibly, to save our banking system and our country. This crisis IS a national security failure of monumental proportions. Why do you think Obama is hiring more police? The riots are coming, the riots are coming.

-Robert

Obviously not a single person running the top 20-30 banks in the US is as smart as you. You should come out of retirement and offer your services.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: 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?

Well, some nervous nelly bankers might have taken the money for fear they were inviting an audit otherwise. I understand that mentality. But, if they took the money, I'd want to audit them because I'd have guessed that was their motivation. Those banks that stood up to Treasury, and told Paulson to go fuck himself, were the strong banks. They did the right thing if their banks were solid. Treasury was trying hard to game the system and the bankers who are quislings let him do it. Now Geithner is doing the same thing!! The egomaniacs at Treasury are trying to control everything, but they don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. They are guessing, just like everyone else. And they are trying, in good faith possibly, to save our banking system and our country. This crisis IS a national security failure of monumental proportions. Why do you think Obama is hiring more police? The riots are coming, the riots are coming.

-Robert

Obviously not a single person running the top 20-30 banks in the US is as smart as you. You should come out of retirement and offer your services.

I don't know what you mean by 'top' 20-30 banks, but most of the top banks with the largest capitalization ASKED for TARP money. Then needed it because they have loads of toxic assets.

To run a bank, you have to be half snake and half DODO. I'm missing half.

Anything I say is based only on my years of experience, education, and thinking. If you don't agree that's your right of course, but these are my views. I'd say my guess is probably worth as much as any banker's guess, inasmuch as their track record appears to be like the Cub's record.

-Robert

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

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

Well, I've never seen, or heard of that being the case (jail, fine etc). If I did I'd have to disagree with it.

Seems though that your point against revolves around the meaning of 'forced'.

Could we agree that they may have been 'coerced'?

Fern

 

[jonks]

yikes, someone has some serious inferiority issues