While you're all outraged about the bailout...

[classicman]

Thats all well and good, but why should the banks that didn't want nor need the TARP money have to deal with all this "after the fact" legislation? They were told initially that they were to take money even thought they didn't need it so that those banks who did need the money would not be, in effect, singled out.
Now that the "healthy" backs have taken the money the administration is adding further stipulations and exerting additional control over them when it wasn't needed in the first place.
If they don't need it - let them give it back - seems logical.

Originally Posted by classicman

Thats all well and good, but why should the banks that didn't want nor need the TARP money have to deal with all this "after the fact" legislation? They were told initially that they were to take money even thought they didn't need it so that those banks who did need the money would not be, in effect, singled out.
Now that the "healthy" backs have taken the money the administration is adding further stipulations and exerting additional control over them when it wasn't needed in the first place.
If they don't need it - let them give it back - seems logical.

I dont think it is that simple.

Many of the banks that took TARP money but didnt need it to stay afloat have said the that those funds gave them additional capital to make loans they would not have otherwise made in a recessionary economy.

You want banks making as many "good" loans as possible to consumers and small businesses to get money flowing back into the economy, particularly when jobs are being lost at such staggering rates as we have seen in the last 18 months.

And unfortunately, the "after the fact" legislation is a result primarily of the public outcry hyped by the rhetoric that cant distinguish between banks and other financial institutions (like AIG).

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Do they not need it, or are the executives willing to risk the bank's stability in order to get themselves bonuses?

lol - you are more pessimistic than me. Many did not need it and only took the money because they were literally forced to by the administration.

Originally Posted by Redux

I dont think it is that simple.

Many of the banks that took TARP money but didnt need it to stay afloat have said the that those funds gave them additional capitol to make loans they would not have otherwise made in a recessionary economy.

Some - not sure if it many though. Either way it doesn't matter - those that no longer want it and have not used it, as in the real life example above, should be able to give it back.
Additionally I would think that the administration would want to get their money back as soon as prudently possible. As a taxpayer I recognize that getting the money that is not needed back sooner saves not only that money, but the interest on it as well.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And unfortunately, the "after the fact" legislation is a result primarily of the public outcry that cant distinguish between banks and other financial institutions (like AIG).

Since you brought it up, while everyone is bitching and complaining about AIG, Fannie and Freddie paid out more than 200 million in bonuses. Why was that not splashed all over the media for weeks on end? Where is all the outrage from Congress? Where are the special hearings and and and and? Why no outcry over them?

Originally Posted by classicman

...
Some - not sure if it many though. Either way it doesn't matter - those that no longer want it and have not used it, as in the real life example above, should be able to give it back.
Additionally I would think that the administration would want to get their money back as soon as prudently possible. As a taxpayer I recognize that getting the money that is not needed back sooner saves not only that money, but the interest on it as well.

As to the real life example above, a "prominent and profitable bank" (unnamed....."the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation"...lol, nice touch )....what is the bank's current capital reserve? Is it still profitable? What is its lending policy? Will that policy change if it gives back the TARP funds and sits on its money until the economy improves rather than make more responsible loans and contribute to the flow of credit now?

Too many unanswered questions about this real life example to make such sweeping generalizations about the "intent of the Obama administration" or it being a "perfect example of the those institutions trying to do the right thing." as the editorial (and Merc) suggest.

BTW, the editorial also completely misrepresents the Pay for Performance Act by suggesting that it would apply to all employees of such institutions.