User Tag List

First 567

Results 61 to 67 of 67

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Or you can read the top, and see that it was actually The Wall Street Journal.
    To be fair, it is in the opinion section.

    I am a fan of the Wall Street Journal, but I don't read its (or any other newspapers') opinion sections.

    Edit: I see ptgatsby already mentioned that. I'm diggin through other sources to see if I can find something on it. If the events are true, I am sure there is plenty of spin on it.

    Edit 2: I keep digging, and all I've found is that banks did return money citing the TARP restrictions, but nothing on the government refusing. Everything I find about the refusal of TARP returns cite that Wall Street Journal Opinion piece. I really wish the guy would have pointed to a factual article in his Opnion peice.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #62
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    To be fair, it is in the opinion section.

    I am a fan of the Wall Street Journal, but I don't read its (or any other newspapers') opinion sections.

    Edit: I see ptgatsby already mentioned that. I'm diggin through other sources to see if I can find something on it. If the events are true, I am sure there is plenty of spin on it.

    Edit 2: I keep digging, and all I've found is that banks did return money citing the TARP restrictions, but nothing on the government refusing. Everything I find about the refusal of TARP returns cite that Wall Street Journal Opinion piece. I really wish the guy would have pointed to a factual article in his Opnion peice.

    It certainly is an opinion piece, but it's an opinion by a financial commentator in The Wall Street Journal. To suggest that it's prima facie invalid because News Corp. purchased Dow Jones & Company is absurd.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It certainly is an opinion piece, but it's an opinion by a financial commentator in The Wall Street Journal. To suggest that it's prima facie invalid because News Corp. purchased Dow Jones & Company is absurd.
    I never said that it was invalid for those reasons, but I presume the comment was directed at someone else.

    I simply don't trust opinon pieces from any organization. Reading something like this in an opinon piece raises a lot of questions:
    • How did he know that the basic event (refusal of returned TARP funds by the gov't) happened?
    • Why are there no factual sources (not talking about blogs, or op. eds) reporting it?
    • Why is almost every source (opinion or otherwise) citing him as the source?


    A person can be well-qualified but unscrupilous. It wouldn't be the first time. We know the N.Y. Times had issues like that before.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #64
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    If you'd read my previous posts you'd get the gist of it. I posted it on the previous page, but I'll edit the OP to include this info as well. The wall street journal piece was written by a host on the Fox Business Network. The information came first hand from Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst in a conversation he had with one of the CEOs of a very large bank (the name of which he cannot disclose). If you read the WSJ article CLOSELY, you'd see that he got this information from one of his other Fox colleagues, Napolitano. The article I have now posted in the op is by Napolitano himself, the originator of this information. I also referenced a NY Times blog entry (there are far more instances of this being reported in other outlets) about how there are several banks now returning TARP funds.

    What Napolitano and Varney assert is that the government is primarily concerned with the very large banks like the one Napolitano spoke with, and for whatever reason, saw fit not to allow the return of TARP funds. If these Fox news people are not complete liars (we all know the chances of that are slim at best, they'd be hung along with the news organization for spreading such shit if false), then it would be factually implied that for reasons UNKNOWN, the government in at least one instance refused to take back TARP funds, in full, from a large bank.

    If the rest of the information about the nature of the exchange is verified, then we know that the bank pleaded to have it returned for reasons that have yet to be fully clarified, though one could ASSUME (an assumption is a logical leap across gaps in actual information/facts) from the reports about the previous 4 or so banks that already returned TARP funds, that this large bank also saw that the strings that come with their TARP funds were far too many as with the smaller banks that just returned theirs. It was explicitly stated in many of the articles about the banks that did return TARP funds that they did so, in part, because they did not want the extra restrictions the government had over the bank, because of TARP money they received.


    4 Banks Become First to Repay TARP Money
    March 31, 2009, 4:43 pm



    Four smaller regional banks on Tuesday became the first financial institutions to return the federal money they had received under the government’s banking bailout, leaving a program that placed restrictions on their executive compensation and other spending.
    .............................................

    A number of banks have been chafing under the restrictions imposed by TARP. Northern Trust of Chicago said in February that it would repay more than $1.5 billion “as quickly as prudently possible” after a hail of criticism from Capitol Hill over its lavish entertainment spending at a golf tournament in suburban Los Angeles.
    ...................................

    The big banks were told in the fall by then-Treasury Henry M. Paulson Jr. that they were required to accept TARP money in order to strengthen the banking system, which had been severely shaken by the global financial crisis.
    But President Obama’s economic stimulus plan, enacted in February, changed the rules to allow banks to pay back the money ahead of schedule. It also tightened the restrictions on bonuses and other spending.

    Signature Bank returned $120 million to the Treasury. It said the tightened restrictions on TARP money “adversely affected our business model.”

    “It became apparent that we should return these funds to the Treasury,” Joseph J. DePaolo, Signature’s chief executive, said in a statement. “The return of these funds allows us to continue to execute our business model, which includes the successful recruitment and retention of highly talented banking professionals throughout the metropolitan New York area.” ............................................

    Bank of Marin returned $28 million. “Given the operating restrictions we experienced as a participant, we believe this decision is in the best interest of our customers, shareholders and employees,” Russell A. Colombo, the bank’s chief executive, said in a statement. “We feel we are well positioned to continue lending in our community without additional capital support.”
    .......................
    This article is in the OP. Other articles on the same subject are very similar in wording and base conclusions. I fully expect Fox will follow up with a more in depth investigation with journalists on the possible issue of the government refusing the repayment of TARP funds. We will have to wait and see.

  5. #65
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    There are other reports through the grapevine that seem to suggest that banks like Goldman Sachs may have enough money to pay back their TARP funds, but are being withheld from doing so not because of any explicit demand by the government for control, but for specific and mundane reasons pertinent to their status as outlined in the articles below.

    Goldmans could launch rights issue next week - Times Online


    April 10, 2009
    Goldmans could launch rights issue next week
    Investment bank which has $10 billion loan from US government predicted to raise equity soon to repay it

    Christine Seib in New York

    Goldman Sachs is considering announcing a multi-billion dollar rights issue to repay its $10 billion (Ł6.8 billion) US Government loan as early as next Tuesday.

    But the Wall Street bank may meet resistance from the Government, which yesterday met regulators to discuss the stress tests carried out on America’s 19 largest banks to determine which companies need another bailout.

    Goldman Sachs will reveal its first-quarter figures next Tuesday. David Viniar, the bank’s chief financial officer, said in February that the bank wanted to repay the cash pressed upon it by the Treasury and raised the possibility of a stock issuance in order to do so.

    The bank’s decision on whether to go ahead with the rights issue will depend on market conditions. The company has sufficient cash to repay its taxpayer loan without a share sale, according to insiders.
    Related Links

    * Vodafone cools links with UBS and Goldman

    * Housebuilders rise as Goldman eyes green shoots

    * Goldman Sachs eyes Barclays' iShares

    Five small US banks have already repaid their loans and three more have announced plans to do so imminently.

    Bankers say, however, that the big banks have received no guidance from the Government on when they will be permitted to pay off their debts. Mr Viniar acknowledged in February that there were restrictions on the repayments, which can only be made when the company raises Tier 1 capital and not from earnings.


    The S&P 500 closed up 1.7 per cent on Thursday, its fifth consecutive week of gains, while the Dow Jones was up by 0.8 per cent. The markets, closed yesterday for Good Friday, were buoyed by rising bank stocks after Wells Fargo, the fourth-biggest US bank, said that it would make a record $3 billion profit in the first quarter.

    Goldman Sachs’ shares were up 8 per cent at $124.33, their highest level since last October’s bailout.

    Isabel Schauerte, analyst at Celent, the financial research firm, said that a capital raising was a large risk for Goldman Sachs.

    "A return of taxpayer funds would ... set it apart from the pack, just as in better times," she said. "A failure in the capital-raising endeavour, however, could trigger a potentially momentous decline investor and creditor confidence."


    The Treasury forced the country’s biggest banks to participate in its $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp) last October in order to calm fears about the industry’s stability and avoid singling out weaker banks, regardless of whether some banks actually needed extra cash.

    The handouts have since been used by the Government to constrain executive pay at the banks, infuriating bank bosses.

    Kenneth Lewis, Bank of America’s (BoA) chief executive, said last month that he was keen to repay the company's $45 billion from Tarp by late this year or early 2010, depending on the economy. BoA will report its first-quarter results on April 20.

    JP Morgan Chase will report its results next Thursday and Citigroup next Friday. Both banks are likely to give an update on their use of the Tarp, from which JP Morgan received $25 billion and Citigroup $45 billion. Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan’s chief executive, has said previously that the bank did not need the Government’s money.

    President Barack Obama met yesterday with Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, Mary Shapiro, chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Sheila Bair, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chairwoman, Larry Summers, the President’s top economic adviser, and John Dugan, comptroller of the currency, to discuss a range of financial topics.

    The meeting is expected to cover the stress tests conducted at the 19 biggest banks. The Government instituted the tests in February to find out how the banks would cope with worse economic conditions and whether they are likely to need more Tarp capital.

    The banks have been told by the Fed not to discuss their test results publicly.
    The White House is expected to give an outline of the results at the end of this month, although it has not yet decided whether to reveal the performance of individual banks.

  6. #66
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    None of which confirms the story of the administration refusing to take money, or any of the "he wants to control the entire banking system, this is socialism, the world is over" in the opinion pieces.

    If anything, it seems like the most plausible explanation comes from your articles - that the bank bosses are upset that their pay is being controlled and the administration wants the banks stress tested before he lets their shortsightedness and sole regard for their own profits again put them into a similar mess.

    And that's even if I could confirm that it has been actually refused, of which is not confirmed and the the only pertinent detail. The rest was already known.

  7. #67
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    None of which confirms the story of the administration refusing to take money, or any of the "he wants to control the entire banking system, this is socialism, the world is over" in the opinion pieces.
    Right.
    If anything, it seems like the most plausible explanation comes from your articles - that the bank bosses are upset that their pay is being controlled and the administration wants the banks stress tested before he lets their shortsightedness and sole regard for their own profits again put them into a similar mess.

    And that's even if I could confirm that it has been actually refused, of which is not confirmed and the the only pertinent detail. The rest was already known.
    That's exactly what I said, based on the info that we have. From the beginning of this thread, I was more concerned with whether or not the government was refusing the return of TARP funds, and WHY. The "WHY" is where all the opinion BS comes in. What I just referenced would seem to suggest that any reasons they have for not taking back TARP money would be related to the financial standing of the bank.

    Whether or not I agree with some of the opinion pieces is not relevant to what the facts are. It may or may not be a power move, but ultimately if the banks are allowed to pay back the money, then that would disprove the arguments made in the opinions of the opinion pieces.

Similar Threads

  1. The Return of Cold Fusion?
    By Tellenbach in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-20-2015, 10:40 PM
  2. When will we see the return of the hero?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-31-2014, 12:45 PM
  3. The Return of Mole
    By Mole in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2014, 05:16 AM
  4. The Return of Lex!!!!
    By Robopop in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 11:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO