Skip navigation

Current DateTime: 01:01:34 24 Mar 2009
LinksList Documentid: 24355697

Current DateTime: 01:01:46 24 Mar 2009
LinksList Documentid: 24890560
  • Your Job, Your Life

      A survival guide on the job market, from job-hunting tips to coping with unemployment to starting over in a new field.

  • Love and Money

      Money can divide a house even in the best of times, so we may all need some advice to cope during the economic crisis.

  • The Madoff Mess

      The public unraveling and aftermath of investment manager Bernie Madoff's alleged multi-billion dollar "ponzi scheme."

The Unintended Consequences of Gov't Intervention
By: Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, CNBC Reporter | 23 Feb 2009 | 11:47 AM ET
Text Size



Michelle Caruso-Cabrera
General Assignment Reporter

Senator Christopher Dodd’s executive compensation amendment is having unintended consequences that are damaging the very banks Congress is supposedly trying to help.

Follow me here.

As part of Senator Dodd’s last-minute amendment about executive compensation, he put in a provision making it easier for the banks to pay back the TARP money to the government.

This is directly from the bill signed into law:

“…the Secretary shall permit a TARP recipient to repay any assistance previously provided under the TARP without regard to whether the financial institution has replaced such funds from any other source…”

Under the old TARP rules, a bank could only give the money back after it had replaced it with other capital, presumably raised from private investors. With the above words, that requirement is gone.

Now, here's where the unintended consequences start to play out. On Friday, Standard & Poor’s said the Dodd provision changes the way they view the QUALITY of TARP money. The credit rating agency, which determines the ratings on the banks and decides whether a bank lives or dies, says the provision means that capital is on no longer "permanent" in their eyes. That's crucial because, as a result, they are no longer going to use it when determining certain capital ratios, which help them determine their ratings on banks. 

Banks have to maintain a certain amount of capital to make sure they can cover any losses they have from bad loans. If they don't, regulators can shut them down, or, at a minimum, they face downgrades by the ratings agencies. If they are downgraded, their borrowing costs go up. If their borrowing costs rise enough, they can no longer stay in business.

In other words, as a result of Dodd’s ammedment, banks will have a tougher time convincing the ratings agencies they are in good financial health. I can't imagine that's what he intended, but that's the problem with government intervention: it causes painful results no one wanted, but now we all have to live with them.  

Citigroup [C  Loading...      ()   ], Bank of America [BAC  Loading...      ()   ], Wells Fargo [WFC  Loading...      ()   ], Goldman Sachs [GS  Loading...      ()   ], Morgan Stanley [BOI  Loading...      ()   ], are just some of the banks that have recieved this government money.

Copyright 2009 Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Tools:
Print EmailAdd This share icon


Current DateTime: 01:35:34 24 Mar 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29778428

Current DateTime: 01:06:26 24 Mar 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29779196

Current DateTime: 01:18:05 24 Mar 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29779199

Current DateTime: 01:03:43 24 Mar 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29779198
  Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data and Analysis

© 2009 CNBC, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
Thomson ReutersThomson Reuters