Bank got help, still sending workers to resort

[aggiesal]

Source: Associated Press

Associated Bank took bailout but still rewards 100 workers with Puerto Rico resort trip

Thursday February 12, 2009, 1:05 pm EST

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- Wisconsin's second-largest bank is sending about 100 employees to a Puerto Rican resort next week, nearly three months after its parent company accepted more than half a billion dollars in taxpayer bailout money.

Top employees at Associated Bank have earned the trip, chief executive Paul Beideman said, particularly since the bank is profitable and only accepted bailout funds as a precaution, not as a result of mismanagement.

"How are our associates going to react to it if we willy-nilly cancel the trip because of some issues people are having with other companies," he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Wednesday. "Given the set of facts that we have, canceling the trip and disappointing these high performers really just wasn't warranted."

Beideman did not immediately return a message from The Associated Press. An Associated Bank spokeswoman did not immediately respond to telephone or e-mail messages seeking comment.

...

Beideman said his company is performing so well it didn't need the money.

"We took the capital, and let me say this very clearly, we didn't have to," Beideman said. "We took it as an abundance of caution in what is a challenging environment."

...

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bank-got-help-still-sending-apf-14340689.html

---

How do these companies continue to think that they can get away with this?

If Associated Bank "didn't need the money", they should give it back.

[babylonsister]

1. They didn't 'need' the money but took it anyway?? Then the scumbuckets

should give it back. :grr:

[hugo_from_TN]

2. They will - with interest

They borrowed the money. That's the deal.

[babylonsister]

3. Not according to what I heard yesterday. In fact,

I heard that there was a stipulation in the first part of TARP that the funds couldn't be paid back unless certain conditions were met.

This should explain it better:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/companies/goldman_tarp/index.htm

snip//

But Goldman, or other banks for that matter, can't just simply write the government a new check for the money they received last year. And even if they could, it might not be a good idea.

Goldman Sachs and the other top banks that were recipients of the first round of TARP funding, including State Street (STT, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), weren't exactly given a choice about signing up when the program was first announced in October.

Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair defended the move at the time, saying it would help stabilize the shaky banking industry.

Credit market conditions may have improved somewhat since then, but it remains to be seen whether Goldman Sachs, or any other leading bank for that matter, is indeed healthy enough to shun government assistance and go it alone.

Mark Lane, an equity research analyst who tracks Goldman Sachs and rival Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), which also received $10 billion in TARP funds, at Chicago-based investment firm William Blair & Co., is one disbeliever.

"{Goldman} cannot fund their business on an unsecured basis," he said "To say we don't need TARP funds doesn't make a lot of sense to me."

[hugo_from_TN]

5. Thanks

That was an interesting read. I'm wondering if the huge banks like Goldman were treated differently than some of the other banks. From the OP link, here is the explanation for the Wisconsin bank:

"The bank, owned by Associated Banc-Corp, sold $525 million in preferred stock to the U.S. Treasury on Nov. 21 as part of the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program. The $700 billion program was designed to keep the nation's banking industry afloat.

Like other banks in the program, Associated Bank will pay the Treasury a 5 percent dividend for five years and 9 percent after that."

[demoborn47]

4. Trips, vacations, bonuses???

Are these people completely soulless? People are losing their jobs and homes and these people still get their perks? WTF. I know it's all been said before but I still can't wrap my head around the greed, it is astounding.

[eilen]

6. The same reason I had to clean my plate at dinner when I was 5--

people were starving in Biafra, you were thankful and respectful for what you had and did not expect/whine for extra.

Who raised these people? Soul-less virtue barren vultures??

[biopowertoday]

7. I just heard on the radion that the trip was cancelled

[skyounkin]

8. They continue to get away with it

because congress doesn't do a godamm thing to stop them.