home

Is The Obama Administration Blocking Repayment Of TARP Funds?

It seems to me that the Media should start asking that question. Via Atrios, JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon says they are:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon . . . said his firm could repay U.S. government rescue funds “tomorrow.” Dimon, calling money received through the Troubled Asset Relief Program “a scarlet letter,” and “the TARP baby,” said on a conference call today that the New York-based bank is awaiting guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department. “We could pay it back tomorrow,” he said.

So pay it. Don't wait for guidance, unless the Obama Administration is prohibiting repayment. The question needs to be asked by the Media.

Speaking for me only

< Senate Committee to Investigate Illegal NSA Wiretapping | Obama Administration To Release Torture Memos >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What? What? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:42:26 AM EST
    You want the press to actually ask a common sense question? Surely you just now! We don't have a press like that anymore it seems. We just have infotainment.

    Isn't that a bit of a Fox-Newsy headline? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    There's no evidence that they're blocking repayment, is there?


    Dimon implies as much (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:09:44 AM EST
    Hopeflly, someone will ask the question and hopefully the answer "They can pay today as far as we are concerned" will come from the Obama Administration.

    As of today, the Obama Administration is allowing Dimon and Co. to pretend that the Obama Administration is blocking payment.

    Parent

    Simon Johnson was on Fresh Air (none / 0) (#31)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    ... yesterday. He was saying that the reason Goldman et al. are so eager to return the TARP funds is that in the meantime they have gotten all kinds of new guarantees from other federal sources that come with no strings attached. That's what enables them to to repay the money now. It's not that they have suddenly become really solvent.

    Parent
    What is wrong with loan guarantees? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    You sound like you have no idea how the financial system works. That is what banks and other financial services companies do - borrow money - starting with consumer and business deposits that they pay interest on.

    Many countries including the UK are offering loan guarantees to get the financial system going again. I people want the economy to recover then they should welcome a multi-prong approach to fixing the problem.

    I don't get the math starved logic. If I as the government can guarantee loans and in return get 10 billion in cash back into the taxpayers coffers that seems like a good short term deal to me given how cash starved the government is.

    Parent

    If Some of the Megabanks are... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    so healthy why do they need low-cost loan guaranties to fulfill their charters?

    Parent
    Don't banks always (none / 0) (#59)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    borrow money as I stated? Don't they even do inter-bank loans even during good times? Aren't inter-bank loans right now at pretty much stand still? And isn't private capital at a slow crawl?

    Now I never said that the banks wanting to repay the loans are healthy or unhealthy. I don't think they are 100% healthy as the balance sheets I look at are not as in good shape as they were 5 years ago. And the value of some of the assets they carry are yet to be determined. But then those banks are not 100% UN-healthy either.

    Add in the fact that the banks want to have either sufficient cash or extra cash to withstand further foreclosures or credit card defaults and it makes perfect sense for them to borrow money for that purpose when it is available.

    It also makes perfect sense for the government to plan for such banking events and through the guarantees make it possible for the banks to shore up now in case there is a new flood of bad debt.

    Parent

    To Be more Precise... (none / 0) (#74)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    I was talking about the "Temporary Guarantee Liquidity Program".

    Parent
    That horse (none / 0) (#76)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    has already left the barn hasn't it?

    That program is not going to be receded mid-stream. There is no question that even semi-healthy banks needed then and still need additional capitalization for the things I already mentioned. Do you agree with that?

    I'm not sure what your point is?

    Parent

    There was a really good article (none / 0) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    yesterday which I can't find now - that actually said that Treasury's concern with these banks repaying the loans is that the banks who can repay will make the others who haven't appear to be weak.  The article said that Goldman Sach's release on Monday of their profits and their vow to repay the TARP money has forced Treasury's hand and that is why Treasury is now trying to figure out how to release the stress test results with more detail because they don't want to make the other banks look weak if they are still in the program.  I will keep looking for the article and post it if I can find it, but it was an interesting take on what this dispute over repayment was about.

    Parent
    Article Found... (none / 0) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    U.S. Planning to Reveal Data on Health of Top Banks

    Goldman's action has put pressure on other financial institutions to do the same or risk being judged in far worse shape by investors. The administration feared that details on healthier banks would inevitably leak out, leaving weaker banks exposed to speculation and damaging market rumors, possibly making any further bailouts more costly.


    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#46)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    Goldman is playing hardball with the government and not for altruistic reasons.

    Parent
    Is it hardball? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    If I was running one of these banks and I really was doing well, I would not want to be in the TARP club if I didn't have to be.  It makes perfect sense to me that any bank that is actually doing well is going to want to promote that fact.

    Geithner is effectively asking the healthy banks to run cover for the ailing banks which might make sense to a point, but if and when it doesn't and it is hurting your own business it makes no sense to play along.

    The irony here is that I think that a lot of people would be very heartened to hear that some of these financial institutions are in good shape - that would be good news - and would bouy the mood imo.  Treasury seems to think that not telling people which are doing well, which are troubled and which are really on the edge would be a bad thing - but given the fact that by grouping them all together they are effectively making the big picture look far worse - I'd say they'd do better in keeping the market calm and boosting positive growth if they were to provide more clarity.

    If I had the money to buy anything right now I wouldn't buy into a bank because I simply have no clue what the state of the market is or how these companies are really doing.  Seems to me they've probably suppressed investment rather than promoting or stabilizing it with this approach.

    Parent

    You Could Be Right... (none / 0) (#54)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    I'm thinking that the government's strategy has been to prevent panic and to promote an orderly (or at least as orderly as possible) unwinding of some business lines and/or raising of capital to support the riskier lines.  The large banks present systemic risks - panic could cause enormous problems.    


    Parent
    I think it is obvious that they (none / 0) (#56)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:06:56 PM EST
    are trying to keep this orderly, but the bet on TARP requires that there be some recovery - Geithner has been trying to keep the troubled banks alive long enough to recoup losses.  If they are stifling the recovery by creating doubt about the entire industry, they are undermining their own efforts.

    At a certain point, competition being what it is and in the interest of shareholders the healthy banks aren't going to hang out and cover for the losers.  Goldman Sachs and others have probably been reorganizing in such a way as to protect themselves from other banks failures - which was the only reason any of these guys agreed to be a part of the pool in the first place - to protect their interests in their competitors - and once they think they are extricated to the point where they won't be devastated by losses in other institutions they are going to go back to being fully competitive and independent firms again - and they'll probably try to kill their comptetition - this is business and it is Wall Street afterall.

    Parent

    And isn't THAT delicious irony? They took the money for the specified terms, understanding they'd have a hefty penalty if they tried to pay it early.

    Now they're doing a full PR press to try to wiggle out of it. Imagine how they'd react if YOU tried that same logic on YOUR loan repayment terms!

    Congress changed the rules after (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    the TARP funds were advanced, i.e. the executive comp limitations. Had the this limitation been part of the initial program, a number of these banks would not have taken the funds.

    My impression is that the US doesn't want Goldman and certain of the more healthy big banks to repay the money, because it will create a clear division between the more and less healthy banks and will give the healthy banks (i.e. the ones that repay the money) a competitive advantage.

    At least 3 or 4 of the smaller banks have already repaid their TARP funds. I believe one repaid the money several months ago.

    Goldman's raising of money to repay the TARP funds is part of what is forcing the issue now. I can't see how the US can say no to a request to repay. If there are fees/amounts to be negotiated prior to payment, I assume the US can stand tough on its positions on these issues. Since some of stress test information is going to be released, I would think that some of the issue involving more clear disclosure of haves and have-nots will be diffused.

    Parent

    I Think Goldman, Wells and JP Morgan... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    are breaking ranks and putting the government (and some of the other banks) in a difficult position.  

    Since Goldman, Wells and JP Morgan think they are so healthy, why not prohibit them from participating in the loan guarantee and other subsidies enacted in the past few months?    

    Parent

    What's difficult about it? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:01:26 PM EST
    One ... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    difficulty is that after Wells came out with its pre-earnings forecast, the government asked the banks to refrain from such forecasts until the stress tests were finished and the the quarterly reports were issued.  I'm assuming that the government is trying to get everyone (i.e. markets, foreign countries, creditors, etc.) on the same page rather than having various groups drawing unwarranted conclusions and perhaps starting a panic.

    Goldman is kind of thumbing its nose at the US Government.  

    And now JPMorganChase is saying it won't participate in the PPIP program.  This is another way of either telegraphing its health and/or may have the effect of making the PPIP program less than effective or ineffective.

    The second difficulty that I see is that some of the banks are perhaps testing the strength of the regulators.  I'll be interested to see where Congress fits into this drama.  Who will be advocating for the regulators and who will be advocating for the banks?

    Parent

    The government asked them to violate (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:23:04 PM EST
    securities laws? Really?

    Parent
    I Don't Think It's A... (none / 0) (#75)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:30:56 PM EST
    violation of securities law to refrain from issuing a pre-earnings report.  But I should have clarified that the rumor mill has it that the feds didn't want anything stated about the results of the stress test,  (Now that could be a violation if considered a material omission.)

    Parent
    Most public companies don't issue (none / 0) (#78)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:38:44 PM EST
    pre-earnings announcements, but they are free to chose either to do so or not do so.

    Interesting question on the stress tests. My reaction is that a company that is nearing insolvency must already discuss this in its MD&A, but a company that could become insolvent under certain assumptions for the future probably wouldn't have to disclose that.

    Generally, companies are not required to disclose material positive or negative information on any particular timeline, with certain exceptions. However, no one with material nonpublic information can trade securites; filings of SEC reports can trigger disclosure of information; public offerings cannot be conducted without full disclosure; etc.

    Parent

    Are There MD &A's in the (none / 0) (#81)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:20:19 PM EST
    quarterly reports or just the annual?

    I haven't had to read (or draft any language for) an MD&A of a troubled bank but I strongly suspect that a bank would have to have a discussion of any regulatory enforcement action. If as a result of the stress testing a bank is required to raise capital or take other action wouldn't that require disclosure?

    Parent

    MD&A's are in both quarterly and (none / 0) (#82)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:59:57 PM EST
    annual reports, i.e. 10-Q's and 10-K's.

    While I don't know for sure, I think that the substance behind regulatory action is and should be addressed, directly and indirectly, but I don't believe the existence of a regulatory order, like a cease and desist, is normally disclosed. In fact, I think the existence of a cease and desist is confidential, and that banks are not permitted to even show a cease and desist to third parties.

    As for your last sentence, I'm not sure. Again, I believe the plan to raise capital or take certain action would be disclosed, but I don't think it would necessarily be said that the regulators required that action.

    Don't take any of this to the "bank", as I'm not sure and merely saying what I think.

    But as I said earlier, the question of disclosure regarding the stress tests is an interesting one. The recently announced plan to disclose some of the stress test information may effectively answer or resolve this question.

    Parent

    The More I Think About It... (none / 0) (#84)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:39:51 PM EST
    the more I think that the feds will give specific guidance to the banks on what they may or may not say about stress tests.  I think one of Geithner's biggest mistakes was to announce that the feds were doing stress testing.  Why not just say that the feds are conducting expanded exams and give a timeline?

    Parent
    Other banks looking weak (none / 0) (#50)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    by not paying back the money is the problem. That has been mentioned on this blog and in numerous financial articles and is just common sense if you think about it.

    Parent
    They are weak (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    They do not merely look weak.

    Parent
    When you offer (none / 0) (#66)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    some hard numbers I will gladly look at them.

    In the meantime define "weak". I asked for you to define "insolvent" also in response to your post below.

    You want to say these banks are "weak" or "insolvent" but yet you offer no criteria for what makes them so. We are dealing with a situation that is all about numbers. Therefore it requires numbers to make a case.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:08:23 AM EST
    I hope they get a better answer (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    than this, if and when they do ask.

    I can see Gibbs now - "I'm not blocking the repayments, Bo isn't blocking the repayments, you'll have to ask someone else if they are blocking the replayments...."

    By not accepting repayment (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    the government does two things.  First, it keeps in place the oversight (insofar as the laughable amount of such that exists can be called "oversight") over the recipients, set in place by TARP.  Second, it continues the emotional/mental charade of a "crisis".  If the banks can repay the TARP money, then the crisis must be over (and all those luscious crisis powers would necessarily evaporate).

    Frankly, to compel the banks to lend (the government isn't compelling them, and the banks aren't lending b/c their big private stakeholders are making out too well by not lending), all that has to be done is remind them of what Gordon Brown did to the Icelandic banks and banksters:  invoke the anti-terrorism laws based on a tangential contact with someone related to terrism, and instantly turn the offending bank into a pariah, one which will collapse in a couple days.

    But the present state of affairs suits everyone just fine so it will be maintained until it doesn't.

    Some banks are paying it back. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:39:11 AM EST
    I posted that in the Open Thread from last night.

    Shore Bancshares Inc., the Easton-based holding company of three banks on the Eastern Shore, said Wednesday that it repaid $25 million to the federal bank bailout program, buying back 25,000 preferred shares it had sold to the U.S. Treasury. The lender also paid accrued dividends of $208,333, according to a prepared statement. The company filed a notice last month with the Treasury to repay the Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. The company said then that the terms of TARP had changed and that the public wrongly views banks as weak if they accept public funds. Other banks also have returned funds.

    Bloomberg News

    This article makes it sound like all that needs to happen is the filing of a notice with Treasury - does Treasury then have to approve?  And if so, one has to ask why approval is being withheld from these big institutions - is it a solvency issue, or a control issue?

    The answer is.... (4.00 / 1) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:03:35 AM EST
    that Paulson insisted that all big banks accept the money so as to not brand banks, weak or strong. By forcing "one size fits all" Tarp money across the board, the public would view it as an industry wide problem. If only troubled banks took the money the public might panic, withdraw their deposits, and cause a run on those banks, further exacerbating their downfall.

    That's the Obama/Geithner "Recovery" plan: Keep'm confused, keep the rape of the Republic going until "The Masters" have it all.


    Parent

    Then, shouldn't Treasury not be allowing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    only some banks to pay the money back?  

    And by allowing some to repay, isn't Treasury leading people to conclude that those banks that  are not being allowed to repay are the unhealthy banks?

    Seriously, this makes no sense.

    Parent

    The Banks Being Allowed to Repay.. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:19:34 AM EST
    are not the 9 megabanks that were required to take the TARP $$$.

    Parent
    That's correct.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    The one's repaying are insignificant.
    However, it's puzzling to me just what kind of power play game some of the big banks (Goldman, J.P) are playing. They know/knew the rules and the reason for them, why are they going public with their bleatings?

    But, this guy, Dimon, is a real piece of work. He's the one, "caught on tape," after the first Tarp distribution, telling his staff basically, "o.k. they forced this money on us, ostensibly to encourage us to make loans, and kick-start the economy. Anybody who works for me today, caught making a loan, will be working for someone else tomorrow, got it? Instead, we'll double our enforcement, collection, and foreclosure units; and don't forget those deadbeats on Social Security. If they've defaulted on a loan from us, and have so much as a penny of non-Social Security funds in their bank, we can "freeze" their accounts. It'll take those geezers months to get the funds released, and they'll probably need a lawyer who will screw them even more. Let's see how they like going without their Fixodent for three or four months.

    Oh, and let's not forget, with all these billions sloshing around, we should go "on the hunt," and buy up all those pesky little neighborhood banks; you know, those naïve little twerps who actually serve their customers, and give us a bad name.

    And finally, what's this crap I just read from our accounting department that "fees" fell to only 55% of our total income? If this trend continues we'll have to go back and actually make loans, and live off the interest. I want this bullsh#*t stopped now! What are we paying all those Wharton "B" school grads for anyway? Get into those 15 page #1 font credit card agreements; you know, the ones where we can do anything we want, anytime we want, to anyone we want? Surely, we've only scratched the surface in how many ways we can screw those dopes. Since we're not gonna be making any loans, where's the money for my 50 million dollar bonus gonna come from anyway? huh?

    Let's go people; you think buying Congresscritters, Senators, and the President is easy? I did my job. Now, for the love of God, go do yours!!"


    Parent

    I hate to admit it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    but makes a kind of perverted sense to me.
    did you see the stories about the congressman who was caught on radio telling the story of how he told his wife (after getting secret briefings from the administration) to go take all their money out of the bank like, RIGHT NOW.
    advise he did not, btw, pass on to his constituents.

    Parent
    Insolvent banks (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    should be put into regulatory receivership.

    Parent
    What is insolvent? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:48:54 PM EST
    You decline to offer exactly what defines insolvent each time you bring out the nationalization thing.

    So tell us what is insolvent? At what point is a bank insolvent to the point it needs to be nationalized?

    Parent

    When its liabilities exceed its assets (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:53:09 PM EST
    they are insolvent. The only confusion comes from their willful refusal to come clean about their liabilities.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    So when a banks liabilities exceed it's assets by $1 then they are insolvent? lol

    Or is the number $10? $1000? $Million? lol

    These bold broad statements here that make no sense as yours didn't are amusing. They are amusing because the people who make them are actually processing and judging this financial crisis based on flawed criteria that is zero-based in reality.

    How many insolvent poster on on the internet? Where their credit card debt alone exceeds the money they have in the bank? And these insolvent people, by your criteria, are qualified to come up with a plan to fix the nations financial crisis? Think about that.

    Parent

    Why are you here? (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    Just to mock and belittle?

    Isn't there some other form of entertainment that works for you?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#63)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:25:21 PM EST
    But as I told you yesterday there are a number of posters who mock me and others who you say squat too. So back off a little if you are not going to be fair and balanced. You don't exactly come off as credible in your critiques when you pick and choose who you critique based on whether they agree with your view or not.

    Now if you don't find the post I responded to absurd then what can I say?

    Parent

    Sorry, I used shorthand (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    There are clear rules for bank insolvency. See Bill Black's writings, I believe he cites them. They have to be capitalized to a certain percentage of their debt. But we don't know the level of the banks' debt - the depth of the 'big sh**pile' as Atrios calls it, because the banks simply will not tell us, or they themselves have not figured it out yet.

    In September they were pretty sure they would be insolvent in a WEEK if they did not get bailed out immediately.

    You can choose to trust these people if you want. I never will again.

    Parent

    There have always been rules (none / 0) (#77)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:19:18 PM EST
    as to ratios in banking, that is nothing new.

    If those holding the assets whose value is currently questioned are insolvent then 99% of banks could be insolvent. What are you going to do let them all go out of business like some of the protesters were saying yesterday? Then what? What would that cost the FDIC to make those deposits good?!!!  What kind of chaos would that cause across the nation for citizens?

    And if 99% of the banks could be insolvent then how does the government even tackle the nationalization of all of them at once?

    I read recently that as the beginning of April there were 533 institutions that took TARP money. According to the rants of this blog all of them are insolvent or they wouldn't have taken teh money. So is the government supposed to nationalize them all? How? We are not equipped to go into 533 institutions and take over their operations. And at what cost? Do you know it would be your tax dollars supporting their daily operations? All 533 multi-branch institutions? And for how long? Continental Illinois took ten years.

    So is that what you want? If so you are wishing for the impossible. You may as well have jointed the GOP protesters yesterday because you and they want the same impossible thing.

    Parent

    The last number I saw was 543. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    Note that banks like JP Morgan have not had any unprofitable quarters.

    The bank regulators have already said all of the big banks are "well-capitalized" under the regulators' defination. This means that, currently, they are not close to insolvency.

    As for the value of assets, banks must comply with accounting standards, as well as regulatory standards. Due to the mark-to-market rule and otherwise, accountants, as well as most banks, have become fairly conservative.

    Some of you seem to think that the banks can just set the values as they like. That is just not true.

    Some believe that the mark-to-market rule has caused the banks to undervalue certain assets.

    With the illiquid or non-existent market for certain securities, the recession and the weak and declining housing market, the valuation of assets, loans and securities, is a moving target. Most banks have built up their loan loss reserves fairly high.

    That doesn't mean that a contuining and worsening economy will not cause additional writedowns and problems.

    Parent

    Not the public (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:39:47 PM EST
    the public is not a worry in this.  The issue is the bondholders and other lenders, the stock market, etc.

    Whether it's right or wrong, this has zippo to do with consumer confidence and everything to do with business/finance confidence.

    Parent

    All the other entities you mentioned (none / 0) (#53)
    by Catch 22 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    are true, it has a lot to do with them. But I think it has to do with public perception also.

    Parent
    The question should be asked... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    and hopefully we'll get a straight answer.  Then we should ask why we gave JP the money when they didn't need it...sh*t we should ask why we gave them the money even if they did need it...alotta people and businesses need money and ain't getting any.

    We should take the money back and not let any beuracratic red-tape get in the way.

    Well, as (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by eric on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    Atrios puts it, this payback talk is just Lucy's Football.  Several banks are playing this game, while some others have actually paid money back.  Nobody is stopping them.

    Waiting for guidance?  I'll bet they'll take a check.

    For the record, I would like to pay back all of my student loans, I could do it tomorrow, I am just waiting for guidance from Sallie Mae.

    Parent

    why on earth (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    would they block repayment?
    just asking.

    Would spotlight those banks that did (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:54:52 AM EST
    not pay back the funds; thereby, identifying those who are the most at risk. This is what the administration is trying to avoid or at least that is what I've read in numerous places.

    Parent
    ah (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:56:03 AM EST
    Yes the reality (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    is gov't should have gotten out of the way of capitalism and then stepped in after we found out what the consequences where instead of trying to prevent the inevitable and completely mucking up the system.

    They now know that this program and all the other bailouts aren't working or at least creating other problems and taking back some of the money will be an admition to the public that all this money (whcih we've borrowed or printed) has been wasted.

    Also the banks (at least some of them) are to blame for taking blood money from the government and then being suprised that Uncle Sam started nosing around in their buisness.

    This was all predicted but nobody listened to anyone that wasn't an "expert".


    Parent

    so then hopefully (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    we are talking about delaying not blocking.
    which would make no sense at all.


    Parent
    Not for nothing... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    doesn't the public have a right to know which banks at risk?  If I did business with banks I'd want to know which ones were half in the grave.

    And aren't publicly traded companies supposed to make their financials available to the public for review anyway?

    Parent

    if you have less than 100,000 dollars (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    in any one bank, and you certainly should, you have nothing to worry about.

    Parent
    Unless Uncle Sam goes belly-up... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    though if that happens all currency is worthless...though I still rather have it in my hands, at least you could make origami!

    Parent
    The FDIC limit was recently changed. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Elporton on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:39:08 PM EST
    It's now $250,000.

    Parent
    Good question.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:59:30 AM EST
    Power over the banks?  Hesitant to admit what a clusterf*ck TARP was from jumpstreet?

    Whatever the reason, I'm confident it is not a good one.

    Parent

    why on earth ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by wystler on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    ... would you presume that they would block repayment?

    you actually put faith Mr. Dimon's pronouncement?

    Parent

    um, because (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:50:03 AM EST
    that was the headline of the post.  it was a question.

    Parent
    They would also need to negotiate what to do (none / 0) (#11)
    by steviez314 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    about the warrants.

    Pay what they owe on them (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    There is an early payment penalty I know. So pay it. Just like you or I would.

    Otherwise, Dimon should shut up.

    Parent

    The warrants would need to get valued by a third (none / 0) (#27)
    by steviez314 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    party or negotiated.  But I doubt that's the hang up.

    The  TARP document on the Treasury website

    link

      says that TARP money can only be repaid by proceeds from another public capital raise for the first 3 years.  Obviously, this has either changed or been waived for those smaller banks.

    Parent

    There would be a contractual provision (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:47:43 AM EST
    for early redemption.

    I do not think valuation is the issue.

    Parent

    post-contract changes (none / 0) (#39)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    The original TARP contracts said nothing about executive compensation; can't the banks say that the feds' unilaterally imposing this invalidates the contract?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:20:28 PM EST
    They can't.

    Parent
    Here is the actual legal contract Chase signed: (none / 0) (#44)
    by steviez314 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    JPMorgan Chase-Treasury TARP contract

    Page A-5 of the documnet, or page 31 of the pdf, has the repayment provisions.  Since Goldman issued stock, I can see how they can repay it, but not Chase...but I assume any contract can be re-written by both parties.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    Optional Redemption. Except as provided below, the Designated Preferred Stock may not be redeemed prior to the first Dividend Payment Date falling on or after the third anniversary of the Original Issue Date. On or after the first Dividend Payment Date falling on or after the third anniversary of the Original Issue Date, the Corporation, at its option, subject to the approval of the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency, may redeem, in whole or in part, at any time and from time to time, out of funds legally available therefor, the shares of Designated Preferred Stock at the time outstanding, upon notice given as provided in Section 5(c) below, at a redemption price equal to the sum of (i) the Liquidation Amount per share and (li) except as otherwise provided below, any accrued and unpaid dividends (including, if applicable as provided in Section 3(a) above, dividends on such amount) (regardless of whether any dividends are actually declared) to, but excluding, the date fixed for redemption.

    Notwithstanding the foregoing, prior to the first Dividend Payment Date falling on or after the third anniversary of the Original Issue Date, the Corporation, at its option, subject to the
    approval of the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency, may redeem
    , in whole or in part, at any time and from time to time, the shares of Designated Preferred Stock at the time outstanding, upon notice given as provided in Section S(c) below, at a redemption price equal to the sum of (i) the Liquidation Amount per share and (ii) except as otherwise provided below, any accrued and unpaid dividends (including, if applicable as provided in Section 3(a) above, dividends on such amount) (regardless of whether any dividends are actually declared) to, but excluding, the date fixed for redemption; provided that (x) the Corporation (or any successor by Business Combination) has received aggregate gross proceeds of not less than the Minimum Amount (plus the "Minimum Amount" as defined in the relevant certificate of designations for each other outstanding series of preferred stock of such successor that was originally issued to the United States Department of the Treasury (the "Successor Preferred Stock'') in connection with the
    Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program) from one or more Qualified Equity
    Offerings (including Qualified Equity Offerings ofsuch successor), and (y) the aggregate
    redemption price of the Designated Preferred Stock (and any Successor Preferred Stock)
    redeemed pursuant to this paragraph may not exceed the aggregate net cash proceeds received by
    the Corporation
    (or any successor by Business Combination) from such Qualified Equity
    Offerings (including Qualified Equity Offerings of such successor)
    .

    (Emphasis supplied.) What's the definition of Liquidation Price?

    Parent

    Ahh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:21:48 PM EST
    "Liquidation Amount" means $10,000 per share of Designated Preferred Stock.

    Parent
    Approval of the applicable bank regulator (none / 0) (#67)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    is necessary, whether the redemption is made before or after 3 years.

    It looks like the liquidation amount of $10,000 per share is probably what the US paid for each share.

    Sometimes there is a prepayment penalty. This is common with prepayments of debt. Not necessarily with preferred stock.

    It doesn't look like there's a prepayment penalty, unless it was built into the liquidation amount.

    Where's the warrant provision, which some have referred to?

    Parent

    Def: (none / 0) (#64)
    by steviez314 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    (d) "Liquidation Amount" means $10,000 per share of Designated Preferred Stock.

    (i.e., the original price)

    but I read this as that they can only redeem before 3 years

    provided that (x) the Corporation (or any successor by Business Combination) has received aggregate gross proceeds of not less than the Minimum Amount (plus the "Minimum Amount" as defined in the relevant certificate of designations for each other outstanding series of preferred stock of such successor that was originally issued to the United States Department of the Treasury (the "Successor Preferred Stock'') in connection with the
    Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program) from one or more Qualified Equity
    Offerings

    So they can only repay the Treasury with proceeds from a new Qualified Equity Offering (like Goldman's common stock sale).

    I assume this waas put in because the gov't wanted to ensure the banks had adequate capital ratios, and didn't want them to issue debt (or use retained earnings) to pay back the preferreds.

    Parent

    I do not read that (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:29:37 PM EST
    from that phrase.

    Parent
    What's your question, BTD? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    Steviez interpretation looks correct to me.

    Parent
    And the answer is: (none / 0) (#69)
    by steviez314 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:39:21 PM EST
    That clause, part of the original TARP legislation and contracts, does require repayment within 3 years to be conditional on new equity offering.

    However, the Stimulus Bill, which included the new compensation restrictions, changed the law to allow unrestricted repayment without regard to source of funds used (although still subject to regulatory OK).

    Parent

    And here is the actual language from the StimBill: (none / 0) (#71)
    by steviez314 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:54:32 PM EST
    ``(g) NO IMPEDIMENT TO WITHDRAWAL BY TARP RECIPIENTS.--
    Subject to consultation with the appropriate Federal banking agency
    (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
    Act), if any, the Secretary shall permit a TARP recipient to repay
    any assistance previously provided under the TARP to such financial
    institution, without regard to whether the financial institution
    has replaced such funds from any other source or to any waiting
    period, and when such assistance is repaid, the Secretary shall
    liquidate warrants associated with such assistance at the current
    market price.

    Parent
    I agree that (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:06:04 PM EST
    the need for adequate capital is contemplated, the question of how to get it is where we differ.

    In any event, the Stim bill provision you cite clarifies any doubt - not necessary now.

    Parent

    Didn't Obama say something (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:11:23 AM EST
    at their meeting about how they supposedly still needed to take their medicine? I think they are being required to keep the money.

    High Stakes Poker ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    game going on right now, I think.  Perhaps the relatively healthy megabanks are trying to force the government to step in and dismember some of the not so healthy banks.  Nine big bank CEO's were told to take the TARP $ in part to make sure that no stigma was attached to the taking of TARP.  Goldman Sachs (and I believe earlier Wells) made statements about wanting to repay TARP.  And coincidentally made remarks about the great earnings results.  So if one or more of the megabanks are not asking to repay TARP, the stigma now attaches.

    I believe JP Morgan has announced that it will not be participating in PPIP.  This doesn't sink PPIP but it doesn't help it much either.

    The megabanks are breaking ranks.  And perhaps the healthy ones are trying to isolate themselves from the less robust ones.  They are probably eying opportunities to pick off assets and business lines.

    And they are not exactly toeing the line imposed by the government.  We may be in for an interesting show over the next few weeks.

    Pour encourager les autres (none / 0) (#30)
    by lambert on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:39:01 AM EST
    My guess is that one bank is going to have to be sacrificed.

    Goldman Sachs is making sure that process happens, and that it's not them. Yay, Finance Democrats!

    Parent

    Instead of Banksters... (none / 0) (#34)
    by santarita on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    think Cannibals.

    Parent
    NY Times: Banking Industry Showing Signs (none / 0) (#83)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:36:46 PM EST