I'm surprised that nobody posted this? (Snaps finger) That's right it's taboo here.
Also by interest alone, feds made an extra $3 billion reported by my local paper.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2009-06-09-banks-repay-bailout_N.htm?csp=34

By Pallavi Gogoi, USA TODAY
In a sign of confidence that the financial system is stabilizing, the U.S. Treasury on Tuesday said 10 large banks can repay $68 billion of taxpayers' money.
"We should be reasonably encouraged," said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, pointing to the banks' ability to raise billions from private investors by selling both shares and non-government-backed debt in the last month.

Just three months ago, financial markets were so shaken that many of the same banks had to rely on government guarantees to help raise money.

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is repaying the largest amount, $25 billion, followed by Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) at $10 billion each.

With this latest round, and another $2 billion that smaller banks have repaid, the Treasury will have gotten back $70 billion of about $300 billion handed out to banks.

President Obama said this is not a sign the economic troubles are over. "But it is a positive sign ... we're restoring funds to the Treasury," he said.


READ: Treasury Department Press Release
EXEC PAY: Fed seeks ways to stop banks from taking too much risk

The announcement was the culmination of a process initiated by the top U.S. bank regulators to take out uncertainty from a severely wounded financial system. To achieve that goal, they conducted "stress tests" that found 10 of the 19 largest banks would have to raise a total of $75 billion in extra capital.

Almost all the banks that are being allowed to repay the bailout money were identified as well-capitalized enough that they didn't need to raise more money. However, they had to prove they had access to both debt and equity markets. Investment bank Morgan Stanley was the only firm that is being allowed to repay even though regulators asked it to raise $1.8 billion after the stress tests.

These banks have established themselves as stronger institutions and now will get less scrutiny than they've received as bailout recipients — such as limits that Congress set on executive compensation.

There is plenty of scrutiny still on the other big banks that received bailout money.

Citigroup (C) said it will move ahead this week in making the U.S. government its biggest shareholder by converting the $25 billion investment into a 34% stake.

Meanwhile, Bank of America (BAC), which says it has raised enough capital to satisfy requirements of the stress tests, still finds itself under political pressure over its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

On Tuesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed the Federal Reserve to turn over documents related to the deal. The committee is investigating the acquisition, which the government had to give BofA $20 billion to help complete.

Before the merger was consummated, Merrill executives made $3.6 billion in bonuses even as the investment bank was preparing to report a $15.3 billion fourth-quarter loss. BofA CEO Kenneth Lewis is expected to testify at the hearing Thursday.

The amounts the banks could repay are:

• JPMorgan: $25.0 billion
• Morgan Stanley: $10.0 billion
• Goldman Sachs: $10.0 billion
• U.S. Bancorp (USB): $6.6 billion
• Capital One (COF): $3.6 billion
• American Express (AXP): $3.4 billion
• BB&T (BBT): $3.1 billion
• Bank of New York Mellon (BK): $3.0 billion
• State Street (STT): $2.0 billion
• Northern Trust (NTRS): $1.6 billion


Go ahead spin it so it looks bad.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

"the U.S. Treasury on Tuesday said 10 large banks can repay $68 billion of taxpayers' money."

so they have to get permission to pay it back?

also, do you know what they plan to do with the money they get back? use it bailout more industries. brilliant.


inB4webuymoreofourownbondstoprintcash


ps - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/obama-drops-tough-plan-bank-salaries/

yay

So, there PAYING BACK MONEY THATS OWED.

What a novel idea.


However this is good news I guess, but it is something that should have been EXPECTED.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

those banks did not ask for $hit!!, the government forced them to take the money

bottom line is those banks do not want the government telling them how to use their money.

also, those banks had to prove to the government that they did not NEED that money because they were no part of the financial crisis.





"is not that I don't care, it is not my responsibility"

True.


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

spoiler wrote:those banks did not ask for $hit!!, the government forced them to take the money

bottom line is those banks do not want the government telling them how to use their money.

also, those banks had to prove to the government that they did not NEED that money because they were no part of the financial crisis.

I'm sure someone put a gun to all the CEOs of these banks and made them take the money...

P.S. Could I interest you in a bridge kind sir? It will actually be free if you help me complete a small transaction where I will send you a $15,000 check and you need to wire only $10,000 of this back to my brother in Nigeria so he can re-open his school. Certainly no risk is involved in this good sir, I would not lie to you.

Your prompt and favorable reply will be greatly appreciated.

bk3k wrote:

spoiler wrote:those banks did not ask for $hit!!, the government forced them to take the money

bottom line is those banks do not want the government telling them how to use their money.

also, those banks had to prove to the government that they did not NEED that money because they were no part of the financial crisis.

I'm sure someone put a gun to all the CEOs of these banks and made them take the money...

P.S. Could I interest you in a bridge kind sir? It will actually be free if you help me complete a small transaction where I will send you a $15,000 check and you need to wire only $10,000 of this back to my brother in Nigeria so he can re-open his school. Certainly no risk is involved in this good sir, I would not lie to you.

Your prompt and favorable reply will be greatly appreciated.

When I was reading through the main points of the bank"bailout" BS, it was stated in there that the government would decide who needed the money regardless of what the company though and that the banks had no choice in the matter. They were "legally" required to take it and the lender had the decision as to when the money could be repaid regardless of what the "borrower" wanted. The only reason they are being allowed to give it back now is due to public outrage and lack of funding for other BS.

it problaby wasn't posted because people hadn't read it yet. its not a conspiracy.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Woah woah woah woah woah woah woah .................... waiting a freaking god damned second here...

These bailouts where loans? If thats true why the hell can the government tell them how to run things if it was "just a loan" and not a major investment?

Weebel wrote:These bailouts where loans? If thats true why the hell can the government tell them how to run things if it was "just a loan" and not a major investment?

Either way, it's unconstitutional anyway. However, the fact that they are telling some banks that they can't pay it back, while still telling them how to run, is bullsh!t. The government needs to let failing companies fail, and stay the hell out of it. The strongest will survive, and our economy will be better for it.

Quiklilcav wrote:
Either way, it's unconstitutional

This IN AND OF ITS SELF is where I draw the Line.


This Government is unconstitutional, Our forefathers would be disgusted with us.


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:
Either way, it's unconstitutional

This IN AND OF ITS SELF is where I draw the Line.


This Government is unconstitutional, Our forefathers would be disgusted with us.


Chris

yeah, what happend to the "learn from your mistakes"







Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, April 07, 2014 11:01 AM

"is not that I don't care, it is not my responsibility"

Welcome to the fascist states of america..

spoiler wrote:those banks did not ask for $hit!!, the government forced them to take the money bottom line is those banks do not want the government telling them how to use their money.

also, those banks had to prove to the government that they did not NEED that money because they were no part of the financial crisis

I really don't know where this rumor came from, but it's false. The banks were never shoved down their throats with money, it was offered, banks took it. Some other banks asked/begged for it. Government bought "troubled" assets that are difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions. The idea was intended to improve the liquidity of these assets by purchasing them using secondary market mechanisms, thus allowing participating institutions to stabilize their balance sheets and avoid further losses. Now some has to be monitored (much like a financial check when you ask for a personal loan), remember banks were lending money to people who could not afford it, banks buying extravagant vacations, company private jets, and CEOs getting bonuses when their company was failing.
But hey, I don't support this BS one bit, I'm for "if you can't run a company right, just fall with the company." But being that the US "lives a lie" in terms we need credit (don't pay in cash anymore) for almost everything we do, it would be REALLY risky for our economy to survive or continue chugging forward, so in that aspect I can see why DC did what they did. We are in the hole now we gotta dig our way now, and this was some sort of good news, with hoping better things to come.





THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:...Now some has to be monitored (much like a financial check when you ask for a personal loan), remember banks were lending money to people who could not afford it...

This is at the heart of the financial crisis, but if you want to fix it, how about fixing the legistation that created the ability for them to do so (CRA)? It was tried twice in the last 8 years, and shot down by none other and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. If they really want to fix the mortgage industry, they will close up those loop holes, and stop trying to villify every big corporation in the banking industry.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:[

The banks were never shoved down their throats with money, it was offered, banks took it. Some other banks asked/begged for it. Government bought "troubled" assets that are difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions. The idea was intended to improve the liquidity of these assets by purchasing them using secondary market mechanisms, thus allowing participating institutions to stabilize their balance sheets and avoid further losses. Now some has to be monitored (much like a financial check when you ask for a personal loan), remember banks were lending money to people who could not afford it, banks buying extravagant vacations, company private jets, and CEOs getting bonuses when their company was failing.
But hey, I don't support this BS one bit, I'm for "if you can't run a company right, just fall with the company." But being that the US "lives a lie" in terms we need credit (don't pay in cash anymore) for almost everything we do, it would be REALLY risky for our economy to survive or continue chugging forward, so in that aspect I can see why DC did what they did. We are in the hole now we gotta dig our way now, and this was some sort of good news, with hoping better things to come.

I agree here and with QuickCav, something that he said kind of stuck out though about buying "troubled" assets, now the government was investing in a down spiriling business, by paying billions of dollars (the exact numbers escape me right now, so forgive me). so since that is the case with the government buying "troubled" assets. what is to say of the american tax payer, we have been investing into this country and it becomes the mess we have now. this country and economy has been troubled for some time, think about it we are paying billions of dollars in taxes and for what? just to see our congressmen give themselves raises, vacation extensions, be lax and to top it off send our country to war whole heartedly off a false allegation? I am/was an Obama supporter whole-heartedly but all this give money to the people who are "responsible" for this down fall, not fully but we have been putting in our money that we earn just to see it handed or like someone mentioned before force fed (don't know of the validity of that though). We have crooked government divisions where just about anything goes. I know first hand because i work for one, our leadership is inconistent and our legislative branch is. american citizens invest, invest invest only to have the investment demand more money and hand our invested money over to an undeserving group of pocket stuffing CEO's. that just crossed my mind so hey just a thought.


"I've got veins, that carry blood all over my bady"

banks take money?

what is this world coming to!


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

^^^^^ I had a bank tell me they wouldn't take my money once LOL

time to bail out california

.

to hell with that.

Flush it down, Arizona bay!


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:to hell with that.

Flush it down, Arizona bay!

I was thinking a few well positioned detonations along the San Andreas would work wonders.

Quiklilcav wrote:

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:to hell with that.
Flush it down, Arizona bay!

I was thinking a few well positioned detonations along the San Andreas would work wonders.

DO IT. Property values here would skyrocket with a beach nearby lol. I wouldn't mind the temperature drop either...




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster