TARP + Pay restrictions - working?

Bank of America is going to pay back the stimulus money, in order to get out from under the executive pay restrictions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34245560/ns/business-us_business

Which brings up the question, why the hell did they need that money in the first place? Oh, wait . . . at the time, they could only get it from the Feds; private lending was choked off. So . . . now private lending is available again, apparently.

But if they hadn't had those pay restrictions, they'd have been able to recruit a new CEO and they wouldn't have paid back the TARP money, is that what I'm reading here?

caw

I'm just trying to be a little analytical here.

1. They took the TARP money, out of desperation, because they were on the precipice of tanking and couldn't get funds privately, owing to the credit glaciation.

2. At first, it was okay. Then Obama became President, and shortly after, instituted limits on exec compensation.

3. The BofA CEO retired, and they are trying to attract another one. They pay limits have stifled that effort.

4. Oh, but wait! It's a year later now, and at least to some extent, the bank-to-bank credit crunch has dissipated, and BofA can now obtain the money to pay back the TARP (and almost certainly more than that) privately. So, they can now offer tens of millions of dollars in salary and maybe five or six times that in "bonuses" to a new CEO, once they clear their government books.

5. Consumers, of course, still can't obtain loans easily, mortgage or otherwise.

6. Does anybody else here smell "extortion", in the "fiscal crisis" of 2008?

In any case, I'm glad the emmeffers are repaying the money, and hope some of the other lampreys will be induced to do likewise. If all it takes is clamping down on exec compensation, that's a pretty good deal, seems to me.

caw