Northern Trust Gives Back Bailout Money

United States
March 2, 2009 7:42am CST
So apparently the Northern Trust Bank did not ask for bailout money, but was given money anyway. Then they were criticized for throwing lavish parties, so they gave the bailout money back. What is up with giving bailout money to banks who don't need it and didn't ask for it?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
2 Mar 09
Interesting. Some local banks here didn't take the money either. However, the way they put it there was a tight deadline to make a request for funds. Everybody essentially quickly rather put in a request not knowing whether they might really need the money than missing the deadline, needing the money, and losing out on getting funds. Once the actual offer came in, banks were in better position to decide whether they needed the money or would be fine. And some refused to take it. I can see how the bigger ones might have been forced into taking funds in order to buy up the small faultering ones. This all went to quick with not enough thought behind it. IMO a bailout was needed but they wanted to put a lid on the credit crisis as quickly as possible and didn't think things through. After all, Bush can always be blamed. People forget that congress majority was democratic at this point in the game.... Well, look at AIG, they are still throwing money at the banks, need it or not. Northern Trust would have kept it, if they wouldn't have been criticized for their partying. Don't be mistaken there.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
2 Mar 09
Hello Ellen_mom, Welcome to MyLot. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your time here. Bank bailouts -- grrrr! It seems that there's always a 'dirty little secret, isn't there? Here's the malodorous grossly uncovered fact -- banks were REQUIRED to take the bailout money. It wasn't optional, and it was non-refusable!!! This fact got alot of alternative media coverage, but zero coverage from the mainstream media -- which means that a great many Americans have no idea what really went on with TARP. This was none other than a strong-arm power grab. The new administration and the Dem. leadership had warned well in advance that tighter regulation was needed. Though, they never let the cat out of the bag that they would impose those new regulations, essentially changing the rules in the middle of the game. Good for Northern Trust! I hope they sent the money back with a matter-of-fact note saying "Chuck you Farley"! This is perhaps the most egregious governmental power grab in the history of our nation, and every private enterprise who tells them where to stick it deserves the gratitude of every American who values having a job! Oh, and perhaps now Northern Trust should seek compensatory damages for breach of contract! That's what I'd do if I was the NT CEO!!! Let's hear it in Bancorp's CEO Richard Davis' own words: [i][b]"I will say this very bluntly: We were told to take it. Not asked, told. 'You will take it,' " Davis said. "It doesn't matter if you were there on the first night and you were told to sign on the dotted line before you walked out of the office, or whether in the days that followed, you were told to take it." "We were told to take it so that we could help Darwin synthesize the weaker banks and acquire those and put them under different leadership," he said. "We are not even allowed to mention that. ... We were supposed to say the TARP money was used for lending." [/b][/i] http://www.ask.com/bar?q=banks+were+required+to+take+tarp+money&page=1&qsrc=0&zoom=Truck+%3CKW%3ETarps%3C%2FKW%3E%7CMesh+%3CKW%3ETarps%3C%2FKW%3E%7CCanvas+%3CKW%3ETarp%3C%2FKW%3E&ab=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riehlworldview.com%2Fcarnivorous_conservative%2F2009%2F02%2Fbank-exec-trashes-tarp.html
@laglen (19759)
• United States
2 Mar 09
Isn't that crazy?? It is all about control. Sad state of affairs.