13

The TARP backlash is in full swing

Many banks are sick and tired of TARP and want to give their money back. Not only that, they're protesting the government's requirement of paying 5% interest on the loans.

The American Bankers Association sent letters to the Treasury and FDIC saying banks should be allowed to give the money back without "what amounts to a prepayment penalty." From Fox News:

The group argued that the purpose of the government's initial request for a 5% return of its initial investment in the banks was predicated upon the assumption that the banks would need the money for several years. Since these banks have held government capital for several months, the association argues that they should not have to pay the loans back with 5% interest.

"For a very short term investment, this amounts to an onerous exit fee, not a proper return on investment," the letter said.

The ABA says it's not trying to zap taxpayer money, but rather get out of a plan they agreed to but now loathe. The letter says when banks went along with TARP, they had no way of knowing that "a program designed to shore up public confidence in banks would have precisely the opposite effect in many cases."

Some banks don't seem to care about the 5%. They just want out. The CEO of Shore Bancshares of Maryland told CNSNews the Treasury has given the bank the okay to return its $25 million loan:

"We have heard, we got approved, we're paying it back today," said Vermilye. The biggest reason for returning the funds, he said, was the public perception that the banks taking TARP money were weak banks that were getting bailed out.

"Number two, they [Treasury] changed the rules after the game had started and made the rules retroactive," said Vernilye. "The basic feeling was that Congress might change these rules anytime they felt like changing them."

Another regional bank, Minnesota's TCF Financial, has also applied to give its money back, but that was 45 days ago, and still no word from the Treasury. It's only supposed to take 30 days.

(TCF spokesman Jason) Korstange said that changing the rules of TARP and demonizing banks that participate in it ultimately hurts the government's own efforts, because the TARP program is the best recovery program the government is offering.

"It's the best thing the government has going for it right now, as a matter of fact, [because] it's not given to the bank, it's a loan," Korstange told CNSNews.com. "We're paying dividends on it. They're getting 5 percent. To be perceived as this ogre that's out there gobbling up all this tax money is just wrong."

I don't blame these smaller banks that didn't want or need the money for being upset about the way the government has handled this thing. It's particularly a mess because it started under Bush/Paulson and now it's Obama/Geithner in charge, and Congress got involved, so the rules have changed.

But since the banks agreed to the 5%, they need to let it go. If public perception is a big issue, stop whining, give the money back and go about your business.

About the author

Pages

AMATI NONYMUS's picture
AMATI NONYMUS - Apr 20, 2009

Debitoris caveatis
!

If rules continue to change, then it is any banker's guess. If the bankers cannot bank on it thus bankers want to cash in the chips. But if most bankers assume that this is the final change of mark-model/mark-market, and other banking rules thus bankers thinking that long rates are about to drop will simply buy up t-bonds with the money loaned from the TARP MAN. When we see more banks than not cashing in to leave casino, does this then mean that long rates are doomed to rise? If soon rising, does this mean that Chinese are selling all the tea-bonds in China?

For some thoughts on this and other issues let's go over and meet tonight's next blogger.

Christian Bjornnes's picture
Christian Bjornnes - Apr 20, 2009

I find it absolutely absurd that the Government will not take this $ back! I've heard the Administration is forbidding the pay back of funds so quickly is b/c it will signal to the People which banks are truly in trouble (those that aren't paying the funds back promptly).

Well, aren't releasing the Stress Tests going to have the same effect!?

Yes, the Gov't should get some return on it's investment, but it shouldn't get it when it forces banks to take $ they didn't need.

Also, if the banks were "<i>forced</i> to take this $ why didn't they put up a bigger fight?

Allen's picture
Allen - Apr 18, 2009

"But since the banks agreed to the 5%, they need to let it go. If public perception is a big issue, stop whining, give the money back and go about your business."

Hundred of billions of taxpayers dollars are being pissed away and you're going to take a stand on...... what? 5% payment for the loan? Seems a bit like worrying about the jay walkers while others are getting away with murder.

Scott Jagow's picture
Scott Jagow - Apr 19, 2009

Allen, come on, I've taken a stand on plenty more than that. I've talked about this issue for weeks.

Ryan's picture
Ryan - Apr 20, 2009

I wouldn't mind getting back 5% on hundreds of billions of dollars...maybe that's just me.

mark b's picture
mark b - Apr 17, 2009

From where I'm standing, the financial stability of the banks hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is that mark-to-market is now mark-to-model, and the models are yielding higher valuations on worthless assets. So, if they needed the money months ago, they still need it now. But now their books look artificially better, so they see an opportunity to return the money. Will they be back again with their hands out when worthless assets turn to indeed be worthless?

In addition to that, returning the money will cut into available capital, which ought to reduce the amount they are able to lend. That is precisely the opposite of the intent for TARP funds.

Thirdly, in most cases if I take out a 30 year mortgage from one of these banks and decide to repay in the first year (windfall, refinance, whatever) there is sure to be an pre-payment penalty. We can argue about whether 5% is appropriate, but it's what they agreed to, and a pre-payment penalty seems not only reasonable but warranted.

John H's picture
John H - Apr 17, 2009

The TARP fund were really given out with a fixed repayment return rate of 5%... not 5% APY or a time-based value of any sort?

Wow, I guess I didn't catch that detail in the initial press coverage... but this heavily shakes my confidence in our treasury department. Outside of small loans between family and friends I thought the industry standard has long been to charge interest as a function of time. What is the trasury thinking making this a flat non-time-sensitive rate?

Regardless, the banks should have read the fine print before they took the money. Changing rules retroactively is understandably inappropriate on behalf of the government; but along the same lines the banks shouldn't be able to back out of an aspect of the TARP loans any more than the government can change the rules required for having taken the money.

I don't see how a financial downturn should suddenly alter the nature of contract law. The banks and the Treasury both willingly (?) entered into this agreement. Let's just hope this isn't dragged through the justice department as well, or it'll take many years to play out even after this recession plays out.

Ned D.'s picture
Ned D. - Apr 17, 2009

If they can give it back, then that means they didn't really need it in the first place.

I like the rules. I think it SHOULD be a pain in the @$#! to have to take taxpayer money. That way only the people who really need it will line-up.

gb gb's picture
gb gb - Apr 17, 2009

Banks are just twisting the govt help. Govt did more than TARP.

1. They funnelled money through AIG
2. FDIC backing for DEBT
3. govt. backing for CITI debt etc

We should not even be having this discussion from banks. Govt should not have messed up free markets. If govt stayed, I am sure most of the investment banks would have been bankrupt and the argument agaisnt TARP would have been moot. Most of these CEOs would be out jobs.

Now that FED/Govt pumping of Trillions of dollars has stabilized, banks are trying weazle out of their mistakes and blame TARP for all the problem.

Thats what happens when govt interfers with free markets. Nobody wins and always tax payers loses via socializing the losses of these banks and their mistakes.

Ned D.'s picture
Ned D. - Apr 21, 2009

Hey gb,

You DO realize that it's the "free-market" that's lobbying government with corporate cash for all those bailouts, don't you? GM just reported spending like 3.5 million on lobbyists. I can't even begin to imagine how much CITI and AIG spend.

There's your "FREE MARKET" for you...

Pages