Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
2.7%  Q1 GDP    4.57%  avg. 30-year mortgage     9.5%  Unemployment

White House: Dividend Payments Okay

Top White House officials today defended allowing banks to use federal bailout funds to pay dividends to shareholders, arguing that doing so was part of the effort to revive the foundering economy.

Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and President Bush's top economic adviser, also emphasized in remarks at the White House moments ago that the bailout plan passed by Congress does not bar participating banks from continuing to pay dividends at current levels.

"The law was quite specific on what rules to follow," Lazear said. "...We're going to follow the law and make sure there are not abuses, but we want to make sure we get the economy going."

On the overall $700 billion bailout plan, Lazear said: "Taxpayers will not lose significantly on this and may make some money."

White House press secretary Dana Perino said dividends are an important source of income for a wide variety of investors, including pension funds and small business owners.

"Some people believe that only rich people get dividend payments," Perino said. "That is not the case...A lot of people could suffer if they don’t have dividend payments."

The Post's Binyamin Appelbaum reported today that U.S. banks getting more than $163 billion from the Treasury Department for new lending are on pace to pay more than half of that sum to their shareholders, with government permission, over the next three years.

The U.S. approach contrasts with decisions by foreign governments, including Britain and Germany, to require banks that accept public investments to suspend dividend payments until the government is repaid.

The U.S. government similarly required Chrysler to suspend its dividend payments as a condition of the government's 1979 bailout.

-- Dan Eggen

By Frank Ahrens  |  October 30, 2008; 11:54 AM ET
Categories:  The Ticker  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Amex to Cut 7,000 Jobs
Next: White House Won't Confirm Homeowner Bailout


This just seems so wrong.

Posted by: biggirl90 | October 30, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: a_DC_denizen | October 30, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me ... would there have been even reluctant support for this "leave no banker behind" package if the dividend issue had been known?

Failing businesses LEGITIMATELY DO NOT PAY DIVIDENDS when in trouble.

This is worse than sick.

Posted by: AlanBrowne | October 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

are you [expletive] kidding me?!

and how is this not wealth redistribution?

Posted by: millionea7 | October 30, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

This is just an extension of the trickle-down theory. It goes: put public money into the hands of investors. That will raise stock prices, creating the impression that the economy is improving. But since our present economic problems stem from the loss of purchasing power, bailing out banks and investors will not help put people to work. If companies can't sell their products, they need capital just to stay alive - and banks won't lend to them anyway. Why not let government create public sector jobs, like finding alternative energy sources and maintaining bridges. That will put money into worker's pockets, and rebuild consumer confidence. Enough of this trickle-down nonsense.

Posted by: loyalsyst | October 30, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I could have sworn dividends were so shareholders get their share of the PROFITS. If these companies are making huge profits, why are they getting bailed out? If they're not, why are they paying dividends?

Posted by: nashpaul | October 30, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company