Another bank having fun with our money?

Northern Trust based in Chicago Illinois received 1.6 billion government bailout money, hosted a golf tournament this month, spent money on private jets and other perks.

Rep Barney Frank has co-signed a letter along with 17 colleagues demanding the money is returned to the government.

Senator John Kerry said he would introduce a bill banning firms from getting U.S. aid from paying for conferences and parties.

"I'm sick and tired of picking up the newspaper and reading about another idiotic abuse of taxpayer money while our country is on the brink", Kerry said.

Their rebuttal?

John O'Connell , a spokesman for Northern Trust said in an e-mail that these events are "a part of a business decision regarding an annual event to show appreciation for clients"

New legislation seeks to impose a fine of 100,000 on fine on TARP recipients who misuse the funds as well as requires reimbursement to the government. It would also ban companies from hosting or sponsoring conferences and events for the year they receive TARP funds.

Here is the link for more:

https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aQUs3vSIIvpI&refer=us

A trillion just won't buy what it used to.
Monopoly money?
The economic airplane has had it's tail gear shot off by an RPG.

Golden parachutes for some.

The rest eat cake.

I agree, there is no reason whatsoever that banks should be rewarding themselves with the bailout money they were getting that was supposedly being used to free up credit for their customers. Especially since the customers are the ones who are going to be paying for it in the long run.

Businesses don't host these kinds of parties and conferences because it's just an assload of fun for their own executives.

They do it to schmooze with clients, woo investors, and bring attention and prestige to their businesses.

In other words, they do it to make money. I'm not sure it's a good idea to ban these things.

I know that they use it to schmooze clients, but it's not the type of clients who are going to hit in the long run. They do it to keep the wealthy clients at their bank. High income businesses and CEO's of other companies. It does make the bank money, but that was not what the bailout was intended for. *from my understanding of it*.

I see the value in parties, I get it, but it still hurts the people it was intending to help.

The bailout was to keep the banks solvent and prevent them from simply shutting down.

Losing the wealthiest clients is hardly going to help that.

Oh, I was under the understanding that it was to help ease the teetering mortage crisis and help those who are on the brink of foreclosure keep their houses and allow some leway in the lending process.

I fully admit that the whole thing confused the hell outta me from the start, so, I'm hardly an expert.

I agree, you have to be able to keep the wealthiest clients when your a bank. It makes sense to try and make those with high investments happy.

The mortgage crisis (really the foreclosure crisis) is why so many institutions were on the brink. Essentially these institutions were out of cash because so many people simply stopped paying their mortgages.

The bailout was an infusion of cash to keep the companies afloat.

So they could take private jets to country clubs and have parties with other rich people living off the poor.

Sounds like a good business decision to me.

Well, yeah, it kinda is actually.

Businesses don't make money by being charitable. Those banks didn't get rich by declining business parties, conferences, and sponsorships in favor of frugality and being overly nice to poorer people.

You have a point, you can't really make money off of people who don't have any money to begin with. Now, I can see where this is frustrating to the general public. Although I get what jonny is saying on their behalf. I do think, though, that buying a private jet is wrong of the companies.

Ban the vacas and cars and private jets, but, I suppose that leaving the parties to shmooze wealthy clients maybe should be considered a business expense.

You're absolutely right.. They didn't get rich at all.. They invested foolishly, and needed MY money to save their skins. Now that they have it, they're doing the exact same things that got them into trouble in the first place, and I'll never see a return on my money.

Good businesses do what is right. And good businesses make money, and stay in business.

If the Board of Directors thinks that this sort of thing is so important, then they can fund it from their own pockets. After all, It's still my money, since I had to loan them enough to pay themselves.

At the very least, they could send us all a postcard.

I couldn't agree more. When you hear how much some of these people are paid using our money for things like this feels like a big kick in the teeth.

John Varley
Chief executive, Barclays
Salary: ?2.4m

Eric Daniels
Chief executive, Lloyds Banking Group
Salary: ?2,884,000

Stephen Hester
Chief executive, Royal Bank of Scotland
Salary: ?1.2m

How? The bailout money is the only cash they have.

If you believe so strongly that the government is better equipped to save the banking industry from the brink of collapse than the corporations themselves, why not have the government simply nationalize the entire banking industry? Do you think that would be more economically viable?

Do you really think that a government bureaucracy is better equipped to handle all of the nation's investments than privately-owned competing companies?

Don't put words in my mouth the way you do with everyone else here..

I really think that the banks should be acting frugally. If they want to woo rich clients, do it at home, not at some country club. When they travel, they should travel business class. And rather than spend my money buying each other, they should be investing in solid properties, and selling off foreclosed homes at reasonable prices, so that owners can pay mortgages on them.

I never said anything about nationalizing the banks. Don't try to bait and switch.