Why cant a bank return the TARP money?

W

wrightme43

Hat tip the Wall Street Journal.

By STUART VARNEY

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.
Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.
After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

























Obama and Chavez are using the same play book.
 
Disturbing. I've read several articles on it so far, and none have any "nice" reasons for this. It's obvious, this is about control. This is about nationalizing the banking system. This is why people sound ignorant when they say the government should get to control businesses that took tarp money. Many didn't have a choice, were in no danger of bancruptcy, and now they can't get out. Some companies made a deal with the devil to survive, and some had the devil come looking for them.
 
I disagree with that argument for several reasons.

#1 is that the government is actually saying that the plan they have come up with is to deceive the public (by spending billions of our dollars on companies that by their own definition don't need the money) into thinking that bad banks aren't bad. They are spending billions of our money so that they can assist the banks in lying to us, and they think we should thank them for it. This is the plan we're going with? Fantastic.

#2 is that they are also saying they will fire people, they will set people's salaries, and set lending practices at these banks (which are privately owned, not bankrupt, not in any danger other than from the federal government). So a good bank, owned by private citizens, will be raided by the federal government so that bad banks don't look bad. Outstanding.

#3 is what I have been saying for a while now. This is a clear sign that there is no exit strategy. There is no plan to return these companies to their owners, no plan for the government to ever retract from this system of control. When asked if the taxpayers (who are footing 95% of the bill) will be getting 95% of the return on these "investments", Barney Frank cut off the congresswoman and did not allow Geithner to answer the question. In my opinion this is because the answer is a resounding NO. Grand theft.

This is extortion.

And another thing, does anyone here think that Citibank is in good financial shape? Does anyone here think that pouring your money into Bank of America stock isn't a risky idea? We know these banks are in bad shape, that's why the government gave them our money (right? Pretty ironic that we don't even know, isn't it?). What the hell kind of argument is that? Their stocks will suffer, are you serious? The US government is now in the business of manipulating stock prices? But Obama came out and said he doesn't care what happens with the stock market, and now we need to enslave businesses to manipulate the price of bad bank stocks? That the government now "owns"? That makes a lot of sense!!
 
Last edited:
Yes it could. The thing is that right now we have a system in place that rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior.

All banks are paying a much higher rate on insurance. (even the good small ones that took no stupid risks, and have strict underwriting)

If a bank needs to go under, the bad assest will be written down, the good assets will be bought and the banks that did what they were supposed to will benifit.

In my mind the good ones are being punished, while the bad is not allowed to experince failure.
 
Not only that but the word is these banks are being charged 5% interest on these "loans". With prime floating at about zero that is an insanely expensive loan. My mortgage will be less. They would lose money lending it, and the government is mad they aren't doing so. Don't get me wrong, if a bad bank needs money to survive it should come at a steep cost (it's my money being "lent" to them, I want to see a return), but this is very very different. This is extortion. They have been threatened, forced to take high interest loans they don't need, not allowed to repay it, and in exchange are being told they have no rights anymore. This is just the beginning.
 
News flash!

All government money comes with strings attached. If you don't want the strings, don't take the money.

:thumbup:
 
They didn't want to take the money. They were threatened with public audits that would cost them millions if they did NOT take the loans. That's a crime. Obviously there are strings attached to taking out a loan, the point is you are legally obligated to attach these strings upfront, not after the fact. These agreements are criminal. No bank would be allowed to write you a mortgage and then tell you later that you can't pay it off early, and while you have it you will be working for the bank and spending your money as they see fit. It's extortion.
 
:confused:

Well, that's how you see it, you have a right to your opinion.

I would like to know more about the 'forced audits' you refer to. Do you have a source for that info?
 
:confused:

Well, that's how you see it, you have a right to your opinion.

I would like to know more about the 'forced audits' you refer to. Do you have a source for that info?


Why yes, yes I do. LOL I know that was to Cuba but I will be happy to provide the info seeing as it is not being reported.

I am being very careful to only find news sources that not Fox because I know that every time I link anything that has Fox in it, it ends up instantly dismissed. (thats a whole other deal that I plan to discuss later)

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/27/news/economy/tarp_takeback/


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/622532.html

“…We heard a little at the beginning of the bank bailout that some were strongarmed into accepting TARP monies. Wells Fargo reportedly was forced to take $5 billion. Why? The Obama administration and Treasury wanted to keep dissent from their strategy to a minimum, and seeding the industry on the widest possible scale helped demonstrate its necessity — and provided incentive for dissenters to keep their mouths

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/suddenly-tarp-money-looks-bad/


Now I can get into threatened with audits, and the 5% intrest rate as well if you would like. I promise it is leaking out.
 
They didn't want to take the money. They were threatened with public audits that would cost them millions if they did NOT take the loans. That's a crime. Obviously there are strings attached to taking out a loan, the point is you are legally obligated to attach these strings upfront, not after the fact. These agreements are criminal. No bank would be allowed to write you a mortgage and then tell you later that you can't pay it off early, and while you have it you will be working for the bank and spending your money as they see fit. It's extortion.


This is exactly right and is exactly what is happening.

All contract law in the US is being shown invalid by our government. It is destroying any chance of a recovery of our stock market. NO ONE in their right mind will invest if the rules can be changed in the middle.
 
Thanks for the assist, good info. What is somewhat mindboggling to me is the theory (or excuse) for not accepting repayments. It would make bad banks appear weak. Really? What would that cause? Stock prices to plummet? So be it, they went from $60 to $2.50 already. And the government has very clearly stated that they wont let them fail, so what's the problem? We know Citibank is weak, that's why they took the damn money! So right now the government is saying we should make them all weak? Spread the lack of wealth around so it's "fair"? What right do they have? And where is the judicial branch during all this? Are they on vacation?
 
Good info, I liked this quote from the Charlotte Observer article:

Also, community banks say that the government rules aren't such a hardship on them.

So, there are banks that took TARP money that are satisfied with the strings attached. The way some of those other articles put it, it sounded like every bank was about to fail because of the TARP regulations. Good to know that's not the case.

As far as banks (like Wells Fargo) being forced to take TARP money, I can only find reference to that during the original TARP bailout, the one that was put together by the Bush Administration.
 
Good info, I liked this quote from the Charlotte Observer article:



So, there are banks that took TARP money that are satisfied with the strings attached. The way some of those other articles put it, it sounded like every bank was about to fail because of the TARP regulations. Good to know that's not the case.

As far as banks (like Wells Fargo) being forced to take TARP money, I can only find reference to that during the original TARP bailout, the one that was put together by the Bush Administration.

And your argument is? Yes that is what we are saying. The Treasury forced banks in at the beginning of TARP, now the new administration is retroactively changing the rules and not allowing banks to get out.
 
And your argument is? Yes that is what we are saying. The Treasury forced banks in at the beginning of TARP, now the new administration is retroactively changing the rules and not allowing banks to get out.

My point is, the government not accepting repayment of TARP funds at this time is not as big a deal as some of the news organizations make it out to be. In fact, some banks that took TARP money find the strings attached to the money acceptable and fair.

Also, the current administration changing the previous administration's TARP policy is to be expected. The two administrations obviously have very different ways of handling (or ignoring) a financial crisis.

To quote Forrest Gump-

"And that's all I have to say about that."
 
My point is, the government not accepting repayment of TARP funds at this time is not as big a deal as some of the news organizations make it out to be. In fact, some banks that took TARP money find the strings attached to the money acceptable and fair.

Also, the current administration changing the previous administration's TARP policy is to be expected. The two administrations obviously have very different ways of handling (or ignoring) a financial crisis.

To quote Forrest Gump-

"And that's all I have to say about that."

But I'm not clear on what you've said, that it's okay for extortion to take place as long as a few of the victims are okay with it, or that it is okay to unilaterally change the terms of a legal contract? Both are illegal by the way.

I just want someone to actually explain in plain english why they feel this administration should be able to break legal contracts at will and hold private businesses hostage. Where is the argument? Just because? Quoting Forrest Gump is pretty ironic in this case.
 
Example:

You can't make rent, you ask the bank for a loan, they agree to loan you $1000 to help out, you agree to pay it back with interest over the next 3 months.

A week later your banker retires, I take his job, and decide you can't go out to the bar while you owe me the money, and you can only spend $40 a week on food, and you should lend some of that $1000 to my friend Pete at a lower interest rate than you're paying me, and you have to cancel your fishing trip you had planned six months ago.

You are angry and say fine, take your $1000 back I don't want it.

I say no, I won't do that. And I'm also considering getting you fired.
 
Ok now this is a can of worms here.

First off let me make one thing clear. I was absolutely 100% against tarp when Bush signed off on it, I am absolutely 100% against tarp when Obama signs off on it.

Here is the thing.

If a few banks are ok with it, fine let them keep it, and submit to the retroactive rules applied.
If other banks want to return it, saying they dont need it, it causes undue hardship on my company that did not want it in the first place, and they are not allowed to return it, and are forced to abide by rules that are changed after the fact of them recieving it, and are paying more than they earn on the money they recieved, wouldnt you agree that is a problem???????????


Am I missing something here?


I must go back to the same thing I keep saying over and over.

NO ONE in their right mind, or without criminal inside information will invest in a market where the rules change after the fact.

One of the tenents of US, UK law is that you cant write a new law to punish someone for something they did before the law existed. You cant retroactively tax people, you cant change the rules in the middle of the game. To do so is so basicly wrong that it bogles my mind that people are not offended by it.
 
But I'm not clear on what you've said, that it's okay for extortion to take place as long as a few of the victims are okay with it, or that it is okay to unilaterally change the terms of a legal contract? Both are illegal by the way.

I just want someone to actually explain in plain english why they feel this administration should be able to break legal contracts at will and hold private businesses hostage. Where is the argument? Just because? Quoting Forrest Gump is pretty ironic in this case.

Quoting myself since you ignored the questions. What is your answer? You support this illegal activity because...
 
Back
Top