Via Kevin Drum, we get some context Goldman Sachs’ “noble” desire to pay back $5 billion in TARP funds.
Back in September, Goldman Sachs received a $5 billion capital investment from Warren Buffett that requires interest payments of 10%. A month later they received a $10 billion capital injection from the Treasury that requires interest payments of only 5%.
So this should mean that if Goldman is animated by shareholder best interest, it would pay off the Buffet loan first, right? After all, the interest will cost the company — and shareholders — much more the longer it sits on the books, so this should be a no-brainer. Analyst Richard Bove sheds some light.
“If you were thinking of shareholders first, you would get rid of the most onerous amount first, and that would benefit shareholders. … However, if you pay off TARP you are eliminating all of the restrictions on paying management,” Bove told TheStreet.com. “You shouldn’t be diluting existing shareholders to pay off TARP so you can pay management more money.”
I suppose you could make the argument that the best interest of shareholders would be best met by the PR boon associated with unshackling the company from more rigorous government oversight, but I think given the financial industry’s history over the past couple years, it’s pretty safe to assume this isn’t the true motivating factor. Further, this logic would be rendered even more incredulous when you consider that TARP money aside, financial firms are still the benefactors of significant government aid.
Even as they clamor to exit the most prominent part of the bailout program by repaying government investments, firms continue to rely on other federal programs to raise even larger amounts of money….The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has helped companies  borrow more than $336 billion through the end of March, by guaranteeing to repay investors if the firms defaulted. And financial firms hold more than $1 trillion in emergency loans from the Federal Reserve.
Goldman Sachs declared a “duty” to repay the Treasury after posting a first-quarter profit. The chief executives of several large banks at a meeting last month urged President Obama to accept repayments. But no company has similarly pledged to leave the government’s other aid programs.
The explanation appears to be simple: Only the capital investments by the Treasury require the companies to make significant sacrifices, such as restricting executive pay.
I’m aware that the strict government oversight is legislatively codified in the TARP bill, but Congress ought to pass a law extending the jurisdiction of these powers to cover banks currently relying on government loan guarantees. The legislation should be written loosely enough to allow leeway in determining who is subject, but the recent spate of news suggesting banks are all of a sudden “profitable” is insulting to one’s intelligence. After all, if Goldman was doing well enough to pay off the TARP funds, why did they need to raise $5 billion in stock to do it?
Finally, these measures represent a significant gamble by the part of the banks that the populist rage engendered by the AIG bonus mess has finally subsided. They might be right to assume that the more complicated nature of the situation won’t result in the same level of outrage, but it’s not a lock. It’s hard to speak for “the public”, but I can tell you that I’m not yet comfortable enough with the idea that finance should return to its status quo to let this slide — and Barney Frank is no fool.