Big surprise -- Citigroup and banking regulators disagree on bailout repayment

From Washington comes word that it could be months before U.S. government banking regulators allow banking giant Citigroup to repay billions of dollars it took from taxpayers in three separate capital bailouts last year and in 2009. Citigroup wants to escape from the tight regulatory regime imposed on it after the bank accepted taxpayer money to stay afloat during the height of the economic downturn, but the multifaceted rescue has made repayment an unusually complex process, according to the Reuters international news service. While rival Bank of America's proposed path out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program involves the raising of some $20 billion to repay the government, Citigroup must figure out how to let the government sell 7.7 billion shares of stock it owns -- nearly a third of outstanding shares -- and how much to pay for the U.S. guarantee of $182 billion worth of bank securities. The government never purchased Bank of America stock and never signed an agreement to protect its assets, Reuters said. In light of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair's statement that the government would have to "be very careful" in allowing banks to buy their way out of TARP, and the array of agencies that would have to sign off on Citigroup's exit, the timeframe is most likely months, rather than weeks, Reuters said. Knowing all this, and understanding how much taxpayers have paid and will paying in the future to keep Citigroup around -- since the bailout funds were borrowed money -- it doesn't make sense for the financial institution to argue with regulators who are the only reason the bank is still around.

Are U.S. regulators proposing covering bank failures with accounting tricks?

Could it possibly be true that regulators are proposing to use an accounting trick to replenish the beleaguered FDIC fund that protects bank deposits? That's what it seemed like Tuesday when the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s five-member board voted to require banks to prepay $45 billion in quarterly fees but not require them to account for the money until later, according to the Reuters international news service. The proposal, released for a 30-day public comment period, is intended to help shore up the FDIC's bank failure fund, which is expected to pay out $100 billion through 2013. The fund is expected to be in the red later this year and remain in the red through 2012, Reuters said. Ninety-five banks have failed so far in 2009, compared with 25 last year and three in 2007. The prepayment will enable the banking industry to avoid another emergency assessment like the $5.6 billion fee levied on banks in May, Reuters said. "Everybody has bailout fatigue," said FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, explaining that the prepayment would avoid forcing the agency to use its $500 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury. The proposal would require banks to prepay their regular assessments for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012 when they pay their regular assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 on Dec. 30. Bair said her agency had plenty of money to protect depositors despite the negative balance in the fund. "We have tons of money to protect insured depositors," she said. "This is really about the mechanics of funding." Actually, it sounds some kind of game-playing, precisely the wrong signal to send to nervous depositors all over the country. If adopted, the proposal would be the first time the agency has ever asked banks to prepay regular fees, Reuters said.