Some Banks Want to Return Government Money

Wall Street banks have taken billions of taxpayer dollars. Now some of them are starting to wonder if they should give the money back.

Even before the government announced its latest efforts to fix the troubled banking industry on Tuesday, executives at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley said they wanted to repay the money quickly. Both banks received $10 billion under the first rescue plan last fall.

Paying back all those funds would be ... Full Story »

Posted by Dale Penn
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dale Penn - Feb 11, 2009 - 8:48 AM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dale Penn - Feb 11, 2009 - 8:48 AM PST
Derek Hawkins
3.3
by Derek Hawkins - Feb. 11, 2009

This touches on an interesting dilemma for banks, but I don't see enough evidence here -- quotes from bank executives, analysts, etc. -- to fully support the trend described.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.7
by Kaizar Campwala - Feb. 11, 2009

This piece attempts to show the tricky position that banks find themselves in acception TARP money and other government support. However, it doesn't really get into whether the current regulations imposed by the government (i.e. executive pay, etc) are a big problem, or is the real issue a fear of further regulation down the road.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Dale Penn
4.0
by Dale Penn - Feb. 11, 2009

Covers the financial industry's reaction to new government attention to their business expenditures.

The banking industry, just like any other, has a culture that will take time to change. Meetings with corporate customers at five star hotels after taking bailout money leaves a bad taste in the mouth of taxpayers and is fodder for reporters, but in reality are peanuts compared to the real issues that need to be addressed by the industry and the government. Credit card companies raising rates and changing terms "because they can" is a good example of an area that is depressing our ... More »

See Full Review » (8 answers)
Peter L. Combs
3.4
by Peter L. Combs - Feb. 11, 2009

An albeit brief look between the lines about how banks feel about being scrutinized. Average writing but an amusing bit to contemplate. Very short on details.

Take the money back and revoke their Banking Papers if they fould up again..cutting them loose from FED FUNDS for good. Lets not forget Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs, that culture NEVER forgets who's buttering the bread and on which side.

Banks are not allowed to repay the government money out of their earnings for three years, though some bank executives are privately saying they think the government may ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Norman Farrell
2.8
by Norman Farrell - Feb. 11, 2009

There is a disconnect within the article. It starts by stating some banks wonder if they should give the money back. By the third paragraph it notes return would be difficult in this tough environment. Difficult? Maybe, impossible? The lead paragraph seems out of place, maybe inserted by an editor. The piece skims across important issues and quotes only finance industry insiders. David Viniar's silliness should be balanced by experts like Dean Baker or Paul Krugman.

If the banks still had the funds to return, presumably they didn't need the bailout in the first place. Now that would a story. The financial boys don't want to pay the piper. So lacking in credit worthiness that they wouldn't qualify for a loan from themselves, the banks dare complain about limits imposed by Congress? These are business people who impose conditions over their borrowing customers every day.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Kenneth Sibbett
4.1
by Kenneth Sibbett - Feb. 11, 2009

An excellent report, with the greedy bankers crying about being given Billions of dollars, with a fixed rate to pay the money back that they would never loan out to them selfs. What this really breaks down to is the $500.000 these poor pitiful people will receive as salary. They still think they can make 10's of millions of dollars while they run their banks into worthless paper.

I don't see why the shareholders put up with the enormous salaries and bonuses these vultures pay them selfs.Their has to be an incentive to keep these bastards honest.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Shelley Waddington
2.9
by Shelley Waddington - Feb. 11, 2009

The story neglects the position of small, strong community banks banks.

At a small, recent private investor meeting, attended by a community bank representative, I learned that thousands of small, well-run community banks all over the country have applied for and received TARP funds, even though they have no operating difficulties and are solvent. It seems that if they do not apply for the funds that they receive a black eye and are viewed by the banking agencies as having the potential to fold. That being said, the funds are being placed in separate ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.6

Good
from 10 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.5
Facts
3.7
Fairness
3.4
Information
3.8
Sourcing
3.0
Style
3.8
Context
3.2
Depth
2.8
Enterprise
3.2
Popularity
3.8
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
4.2
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »