U.S. Bank head: TARP is "lousy"
And he confirms what our reader told us here -- that healthy banks were pressured to participate in taking the feds' billions, even if they didn't really want to.
Meanwhile, another Oregon bank got a little TARP action recently: an outfit called PremierWest Bank, based down in Medford.
| Posted at 4:21 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (5)
I'm glad you posted this. Richard Davis is about as straight a shooter as you'll find in the C-level of any Fortune 500.
I call myself lucky to work for him. (By which I mean many rungs down the ladder!)
Anyway, I'm hoping that the 3-tiered approach Mr. Greenspan endorsed today is taken seriously in the Oval Office - banks that are insolvent but whose failure would pose systemic risk (Citi and BofA) are nationalized, broken up, sold off, and reprivatized. Banks who are insolvent but whose failure would not pose systemic risk would be allowed to fail, and solvent banks would simply be left alone.
Posted by Don Smith | February 18, 2009 5:15 PM
According to the PBS show FRONTLINE: Inside the Meltdown which aired a day or two ago, the banks weren't "pressured" to take TARP. Paulson TOLD them they WERE taking TARP.
The Frontline show was a facinating look at what happened last fall.
Posted by mp97303 | February 18, 2009 7:18 PM
Fine. Davis should name names in the Bush administration. Who is guilty of this extortion? Then he should resign (without any golden parachute) for being to weak to withstand the pressure.
As for your assertion that readers told you here that the big bank CEO's were all "pressured" to participate, of the 5 readers' comments, only one claims banks were "forced" to participate.
I call shenanigans.
Posted by East Bank Thom | February 19, 2009 3:58 PM
Hahaha! Thom, that's a good one. Weak. *hooo* Man, gotta catch my breath. I'd LOVE to see your reaction when the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed tell you your company needs to do something you don't really want to do. That would be awesome.
The facts are out there. Paulson and Bernanke were both behind the plan and they crammed it down. There was no negotiation. That doesn't make the CEO's weak. Weak is not asking hard questions about what your company is investing in, or where the revenues of the companies you're looking to acquire are coming from (I'm lookin' at you, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, and Bank of America).
As for Umpqua, they received an unsolicited phone call and said yes. What do you think would have happened if they said, "Naw, we're good for now, thanks."?
Posted by Don Smith | February 19, 2009 10:41 PM
"What do you think would have happened if they said, 'Naw, we're good for now, thanks.'?"
Then they wouldn't have gotten any TARP money. I would like to know the extent of the pressure put on these poor CEOs. Was there wining? Dining? Water boarding?
Posted by East Bank Thom | February 20, 2009 8:03 AM