Some banks are wanting to pay back the TARP money?

[audtatious]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/0...x.htm

I do find the last quote disturbing in this article:

"What it really comes down to is Goldman Sachs does not have control of its own destiny," said James Ellman, head of San Francisco-based Seacliff Capital, a hedge fund specializing in financial services. "The President of the United States does and the President of the United States will tell us in 3 to 4 days what Goldman Sachs' options are."

[HashiriyaS14]

I do think they should give it back, BUT I understand why it's necessary for scrutiny to be given to the source of funds.

It should come from additional equity, and if they can get that additional equity, then they should be allowed to pay it back with impunity.

I do NOT think they should be able to just leverage themselves to the eyeballs to buy out the government. That would allow management to act in a way that is blatantly contradictory to shareholder best interest.

[smockers83]

I do NOT think they should be able to just leverage themselves to the eyeballs to buy out the government. That would allow management to act in a way that is blatantly contradictory to shareholder best interest.

As we have already seen, a whole industry can blatantly act in disregard to the best interests of shareholders because they know the government cannot let the industry as whole fail, therefore it'll save many firms. This provides the incentive for greed without regard to shareholders and the health of the company.

[ishkabibble]

Heh, the execs learn that they are going to have to live on a "meager" income, and now they want out. Just goes to show that execs almost always act in their best interests, not the company's.

[Cold_Zero]

I have heard the allegation that "limiting the pay of Execs to $500,000 if their company takes bailout money is socialism" a few times on talk radio last week. This line of thinking is just plain crazy. No, what would be authoritarian and probably socialistic is if the Federal Government passed a law/rule that all Corporate Executives, regardless of taking any bailout money, would have their incomes limited to $500,000. Taking money from the Federal Government always comes with stipulations. It is no different in the private sector. If you take someone else's money, you have to play by their rules. I don't think that limiting the incomes of Executives whose banks/corporations/financial institutions take federal bailout money is unreasonable, socialistic or smacks in the face of Capitalism. Sorry, I have a hard time swallowing that line of thinking.Bud

[smockers83]

Now, the news is that banks may be charged a fee for the TARP funds that go unpaid. I know this was taxpayer money, but you cannot expect to invest money in a business when it is failing and always get all of your money back. If I were to buy into a business and didn't get all of my money back, I'm SOL. The government is stepping out of bounds on this one. However, the TARP bill does say the government can do it, but I still think it's out of line.

So far TARP is expected to incur about $40 billion in losses according to the Treasury with the expectation that we won't see the money given to GM and Chrysler. That's probably over half of that $40 billion right there. Some others in the WH believe its net cost will be $120 billion. I'll go with the Treasury on this one, since they're the ones who deal with money every day. Are the banks going to be charged for the losses of GM and Chrysler, too?

Outrage of the day for this administration.