Banks get OK to repay $68B TARP money

Status
Not open for further replies.

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,447
133
106
Posting two articles in one day, go me! ;)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...pusbankrepayments.html
10 big banks get OK to repay $68B in bailout money
By DANIEL WAGNER

WASHINGTON ?

Ten of the nation's largest banks were given the green light Tuesday to repay $68 billion in government bailout money, freeing them from restrictions on executive compensation that they say are making it hard to keep their top-performing executives.

The Treasury Department said the banks had been approved to repay the money they received from the Troubled Asset Relief Program created by Congress in October at the height of the financial crisis.

Experts say allowing 10 banks to return $68 billion in bailout money shows some stability has returned to the system but caution that the crisis isn't over. And some fear the repayments could widen the gap between healthy and weak banks.

All eight banks that took TARP money and last month passed government "stress tests" confirmed they received permission to repay the bailout funds. They are: JPMorgan Chase & Co., American Express Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., State Street Corp. and BB&T Corp.

Morgan Stanley did not pass the government test, but on Tuesday said it had raised enough capital quickly and was approved to repay its TARP money.

Northern Trust Corp. was not among the 19 banks subjected to stress tests, but the company said it also had received permission to repay the bailout funds.

Speaking at the White House, President Barack Obama welcomed the news but said "this is not a sign that our troubles are over - far from it."

Stocks zigzagged after the Treasury's widely expected announcement. In afternoon trading, the Dow Jones gained about 20 points. Broader stock averages also edged up.

Some analysts questioned whether the repayment of TARP money obscures dangers in the broader banking industry. Smaller banks are still saddled with billions of dollars in risky commercial real estate loans. And large banks continue to hold the toxic mortgage-backed assets at the heart of the financial crisis.

More than 600 banks have received nearly $200 billion in TARP money, and 22 smaller banks already have repaid their funds.

The 10 banks are set to return money from a $200 billion program the government created as part of the $700 billion financial rescue package. The money initially was used to buy preferred shares in the banks - which are investments that pay regular dividends.

Officials insisted the money was an investment in the companies. The government would receive dividends and warrants, which allow it to buy shares of the banks at a set price over the next 10 years.

advertising

Critics have fretted that taxpayers may never see much of the money. But Tuesday's news makes clear that at least for this program, repayments could yield some profits for taxpayers.

Obama said he's happy that people are beginning to see "an initial return on a few of these investments."

Money from the $700 billion fund used for other programs will be harder to recover. And some of it, such as the $70 billion used to wind down failed insurance giant American International Group Inc., ended up in the pockets of relatively healthy banks including Goldman Sachs. That means taxpayers are unlikely to recoup the entire $700 billion, even with profits from the banks.

Bank analyst Bert Ely called the repayments a positive sign for the banking sector but not a reason to celebrate. He noted that three of the nation's biggest banks - Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America Corp. - are still tied to the bailout.

Even the banks permitted to repay the bailout funds are still dependent on government support, including debt guarantees from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and credit lines from the Federal Reserve.

American Express and U.S. Bancorp said the repayments would reduce earnings for the quarter.

Other observers worried the repayments are a better deal for the banks than they are for the taxpayer.

"We all know why the senior executives want to repay this money: It's a burden to manage the TARP politics," said Mark Williams, a finance professor at Boston University and former Fed examiner.

Williams argued that it would be best for the banks to keep as much capital as possible until the economy turns around. Unemployment continues to rise, he said, and that could mean more losses on loans and new bank failures.

"We're not at the bottom of the banking crisis, so why is it, then, that the regulators are letting these banks reduce their capital cushion?" Williams said. "Should they stumble again, taxpayers will have to come to rescue."

Banks have been chafing under limits on executive compensation and say key employees have been leaving for small private firms and foreign banks. JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has railed against government restrictions on hiring foreign employees.

The administration is expected to roll out new executive compensation rules Wednesday that would apply to banks that still have TARP funds.

When Treasury first doled out the money, it received warrants from the banks allowing it to buy stock at a fixed price at some future date. The stock prices are expected to rise as the economy recovers. As a result, the warrants could provide substantial profits for taxpayers.

The firms now have the right to purchase the warrants Treasury holds in their firm "at fair market value," Treasury said Tuesday.

Testifying before a Senate panel, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the value of the warrants for banks permitted to repay TARP funds are in the "several billion dollar range."

Besides Treasury's potential income from the sale of the warrants, the 10 banks already have paid dividends on the preferred stock totaling about $1.8 billion over the last seven months.

Dividend payments received for all TARP participants are about $4.5 billion to date, according to Treasury.

The amounts the banks could repay are:

- JPMorgan: $25 billion

- Morgan Stanley: $10 billion

- Goldman Sachs: $10 billion

- U.S. Bancorp: $6.6 billion

- Capital One: $3.6 billion

- American Express: $3.4 billion

- BB&T: $3.1 billion

- Bank of New York Mellon: $3 billion

- Northern Trust: $1.6 billion

- State Street: $2 billion

The push to repay the funds comes a month after "stress tests" of the nation's 19 largest financial firms found that 10 needed to raise $75 billion more to protect against future losses. All of those banks, including Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, had submitted plans by late Monday to bolster their capital cushions that were enough to help them survive a deeper recession, the Fed said.

The other nine institutions had to prove they could raise enough private capital without federal guarantees before they could return the money.

So far, 16 of the 19 banks have raised $75.2 billion, mostly by selling common stock.

Geithner cautioned senators Tuesday that Treasury still needs flexibility to inject money into the financial sector and did not guarantee that the paybacks would be used to reduce government debt.

Lawmakers, particularly Republicans, have been insisting that any repaid bailout money be used to reduce the deficit.

But Geithner did say that the repayments made it less likely that the administration would need to seek additional money from Congress. The administration had included up to $750 billion in additional bailout funds in its budget proposal.

----

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn and AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger in Washington, and AP Business Writers Madlen Read, Stevenson Jacobs and Sara Lepro in New York contributed to this report.

I guess I don't understand the economic principles well enough but it always struck me as ridiculous that the banks needed permission to pay back money to the government. Can somebody explain the reason to me, preferably in kindergarten terms? :)
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: AreaCode707

I guess I don't understand the economic principles well enough but it always struck me as ridiculous that the banks needed permission to pay back money to the government. Can somebody explain the reason to me, preferably in kindergarten terms? :)


Ill do it in one term: "Power Hungry"
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,702
54,694
136
The basic idea for banks needing permission to pay it back is that a lot of them are trying to rid themselves of the 'scarlet letter' of having TARP funds and the restrictions that go along with them. As these banks aren't exactly known for making good financial decisions lately, the government wants to make sure that these same people won't come crawling back for more money a few months from now... that they really are well capitalized enough.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,447
133
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
The basic idea for banks needing permission to pay it back is that a lot of them are trying to rid themselves of the 'scarlet letter' of having TARP funds and the restrictions that go along with them. As these banks aren't exactly known for making good financial decisions lately, the government wants to make sure that these same people won't come crawling back for more money a few months from now... that they really are well capitalized enough.

I'd assume the reason they want to rid themselves of the "scarlet letter" is that it's a bad image for their bank, therefore decreasing their customers. In that case, wouldn't the government also want them to get rid of that stigma as fast as possible, to become profitable again?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,702
54,694
136
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: eskimospy
The basic idea for banks needing permission to pay it back is that a lot of them are trying to rid themselves of the 'scarlet letter' of having TARP funds and the restrictions that go along with them. As these banks aren't exactly known for making good financial decisions lately, the government wants to make sure that these same people won't come crawling back for more money a few months from now... that they really are well capitalized enough.

I'd assume the reason they want to rid themselves of the "scarlet letter" is that it's a bad image for their bank, therefore decreasing their customers. In that case, wouldn't the government also want them to get rid of that stigma as fast as possible, to become profitable again?

Most definitely. The banks paying back the TARP money makes everyone look good, government and banks. Accepting repayment and then having the bank collapse again would be much worse than just waiting a few months to repay it however, so we have this.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Much to the chagrin of free market fundamentalists:

Officials insisted the money was an investment in the companies. The government would receive dividends and warrants, which allow it to buy shares of the banks at a set price over the next 10 years.

Critics have fretted that taxpayers may never see much of the money. But Tuesday's news makes clear that at least for this program, repayments could yield some profits for taxpayers.

Obama said he's happy that people are beginning to see "an initial return on a few of these investments."

When Treasury first doled out the money, it received warrants from the banks allowing it to buy stock at a fixed price at some future date. The stock prices are expected to rise as the economy recovers. As a result, the warrants could provide substantial profits for taxpayers.


 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
The basic idea for banks needing permission to pay it back is that a lot of them are trying to rid themselves of the 'scarlet letter' of having TARP funds and the restrictions that go along with them. As these banks aren't exactly known for making good financial decisions lately, the government wants to make sure that these same people won't come crawling back for more money a few months from now... that they really are well capitalized enough.

Good.
As an American Express Co. shareholder, I must applaud them for doing so.

The only thing those TARP restrictions accomplished was send people to private/foreign firms.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Back to the glory days of runaway executive compensation.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Phokus
Much to the chagrin of free market fundamentalists:

Officials insisted the money was an investment in the companies. The government would receive dividends and warrants, which allow it to buy shares of the banks at a set price over the next 10 years.

Critics have fretted that taxpayers may never see much of the money. But Tuesday's news makes clear that at least for this program, repayments could yield some profits for taxpayers.

Obama said he's happy that people are beginning to see "an initial return on a few of these investments."

When Treasury first doled out the money, it received warrants from the banks allowing it to buy stock at a fixed price at some future date. The stock prices are expected to rise as the economy recovers. As a result, the warrants could provide substantial profits for taxpayers.


How's that "investment" in Citi, BofA, AIG and car companies going? let's talk about return on investment.




 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,447
133
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: eskimospy
The basic idea for banks needing permission to pay it back is that a lot of them are trying to rid themselves of the 'scarlet letter' of having TARP funds and the restrictions that go along with them. As these banks aren't exactly known for making good financial decisions lately, the government wants to make sure that these same people won't come crawling back for more money a few months from now... that they really are well capitalized enough.

I'd assume the reason they want to rid themselves of the "scarlet letter" is that it's a bad image for their bank, therefore decreasing their customers. In that case, wouldn't the government also want them to get rid of that stigma as fast as possible, to become profitable again?

Most definitely. The banks paying back the TARP money makes everyone look good, government and banks. Accepting repayment and then having the bank collapse again would be much worse than just waiting a few months to repay it however, so we have this.

That makes sense, except that then the companies would not want to be paying back the money prematurely either so why a rule that says they could not?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: Budmantom
How's that "investment" in Citi, BofA, AIG and car companies going? let's talk about return on investment.

ok you first...tap...tap...is this thing on?...Oh that's right you can barely tie your own shoes let alone talk about the return on an investment like that.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: Budmantom
How's that "investment" in Citi, BofA, AIG and car companies going? let's talk about return on investment.

ok you first...tap...tap...is this thing on?...Oh that's right you can barely tie your own shoes let alone talk about the return on an investment like that.

And you are oc'ing a 486......

Please tell me how much of our money Barry has invested and how much of a return we can expect.


 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,541
1,106
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
Much to the chagrin of free market fundamentalists:

Officials insisted the money was an investment in the companies. The government would receive dividends and warrants, which allow it to buy shares of the banks at a set price over the next 10 years.

Critics have fretted that taxpayers may never see much of the money. But Tuesday's news makes clear that at least for this program, repayments could yield some profits for taxpayers.

Obama said he's happy that people are beginning to see "an initial return on a few of these investments."

When Treasury first doled out the money, it received warrants from the banks allowing it to buy stock at a fixed price at some future date. The stock prices are expected to rise as the economy recovers. As a result, the warrants could provide substantial profits for taxpayers.


Most banks were FORCED to take TARP, to dilute the stigma of TARP for those that actually needed it and until now they were not allowed to pay it back. Taxpayers will lose their shirts on the banks that actually needed TARP, the ones the US has practically taken over.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
I think that it is about time that some of the better performers were allowed to do so. I agree with not letting them pay back the TARP funds for a certain amount of time and forcing all players to take the money as they initially did. However, that initial period of instablity with the banks has subsided enough so that we can try to return to business as usual. Hopefully this return will be under much more scrutiny/transparency (including the compensation issue) than the way things were operating prior to the fiasco.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.