Are banks allowed to return TARP funds?

[chopcrazy]

Here is an interesting opinion article if true, Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

"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"


If true, why can't a bank return the money?

 

[Peejay]

Yes, the banks are being allowed to return the money.

Under the original Bush plan, the banks were not allowed to repay the money early. In the Obama stimulus bill, there were allowances made to correct this and allow banks to return the money.

In a couple other threads about this, there were four banks that had already returned their TARP money:

Signature Bank of NY has returned $120 million.

Old National Bancorp has returned $100 million.

Iberia Bank of LA has returned $90 million.

The Bank of Marin has returned $28 million.

Add to that list:

Sun Bancorp. The treasury has approved them to return their $89 million.



As I asked in the other thread about this, does anyone know of any bank that has been turned down ? What bank has been denied to return the money ? I can't find a single report that names any bank that has been denied. There are a bunch of fuzzy, no detail stories that claim this, but no facts to back it up. The facts show that the banks are asking to return the money and so far, the Treasury is saying "yes" and "thank you".

 

[Toro]

I have heard of banks who have been calling the Treasury to give back the funds but unable to even talk to anyone there. I have no idea if its true or not, and it sounds pretty far-fetched, but that's what I was told.

 

[Peejay]

I have heard of banks who have been calling the Treasury to give back the funds but unable to even talk to anyone there. I have no idea if its true or not, and it sounds pretty far-fetched, but that's what I was told.

I've heard and seen a lot of talk too.

The facts are, only six banks have formally requested to gove the money back early.

The rest are saying "well we want to but....."

If they want to give it back early, they can formally request to do so. As I said, only six have actually done that.. The rest are posturing.

Let's see what shakes out before we go making these unfounded, untrue claims.

 

[xsited1]

Here is an interesting opinion article if true, Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

"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"


If true, why can't a bank return the money?

Wow. That's scary.

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.

 

[Peejay]

Here is an interesting opinion article if true, Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

"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"


If true, why can't a bank return the money?

Wow. That's scary.

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.

Awww....poor little scared thing.

Let me help you out of your fear.

The banks that have actually applied to return the money have.

The banks that are blowing this hot air haven't actually asked to give the money back.

Are you scared about not getting the promotion you didn't apply for too ? You should be. Cause if you didn't apply, I promise you won't get it.

 

[Alpha1]

I have heard of banks who have been calling the Treasury to give back the funds but unable to even talk to anyone there. I have no idea if its true or not, and it sounds pretty far-fetched, but that's what I was told.

I've heard and seen a lot of talk too.

The facts are, only six banks have formally requested to gove the money back early.

The rest are saying "well we want to but....."

If they want to give it back early, they can formally request to do so. As I said, only six have actually done that.. The rest are posturing.

Let's see what shakes out before we go making these unfounded, untrue claims.

And the Pay for Performance Act, was passed by the House.

This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money.
Obama admin. control of the internal management of the those banks...

 

[Peejay]

I have heard of banks who have been calling the Treasury to give back the funds but unable to even talk to anyone there. I have no idea if its true or not, and it sounds pretty far-fetched, but that's what I was told.

I've heard and seen a lot of talk too.

The facts are, only six banks have formally requested to gove the money back early.

The rest are saying "well we want to but....."

If they want to give it back early, they can formally request to do so. As I said, only six have actually done that.. The rest are posturing.

Let's see what shakes out before we go making these unfounded, untrue claims.

And the Pay for Performance Act, was passed by the House.

This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money.
Obama admin. control of the internal management of the those banks...

They have the option to give the money back if they don't like the new rules. Pretty simple really.

 

[chopcrazy]

I've heard and seen a lot of talk too.

The facts are, only six banks have formally requested to gove the money back early.

The rest are saying "well we want to but....."

If they want to give it back early, they can formally request to do so. As I said, only six have actually done that.. The rest are posturing.

Let's see what shakes out before we go making these unfounded, untrue claims.

And the Pay for Performance Act, was passed by the House.

This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money.
Obama admin. control of the internal management of the those banks...

They have the option to give the money back if they don't like the new rules. Pretty simple really.

"While the Treasury Department is allowing another bank to return money loaned to it under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), it is still keeping one institution – TCF Financial – in the lurch, declining to tell it or CNSNews.com why it has taken more than the required 30 days to process the money-return request."
CNSNews.com - Treasury Allows New Bank to Return TARP Funds, Keeps Other Bank Waiting

The new rules rules are the Treasury and Congress can change them at any time for any reason.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

'Under threat of damaging public audit' -- what does this mean? What would the audit have revealed? Mismanagement of money, poor decisions, crooks . . . and/or more?

 

[RodISHI]

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.

'Under threat of damaging public audit' -- what does this mean? What would the audit have revealed? Mismanagement of money, poor decisions, crooks . . . and/or more?

More. Would be the answer here.