PDA

View Full Version : Bush overpaid banks in bailout Congressional Oversight Panel says



VooDoo6Actual
02-06-09, 12:37
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bailout_oversight

AP – From left, Gene L. Dodaro , acting Comptroller General for the United States Government Accountability … WASHINGTON – The Bush administration overpaid tens of billions of dollars for stocks and other assets in its massive bailout last year of Wall Street banks and financial institutions, a new study by a government watchdog says.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released Friday, said last year's overpayments amounted to a taxpayer-financed $78 billion subsidy of the firms.

The findings added to the frustrations of lawmakers already wary of the $700 billion rescue plan, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Congress approved the plan last fall, but members of both parties criticized spending decisions by the Bush administration and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Financially ailing insurance giant American International Group, which the Treasury Department deemed to be too big to be allowed to fail, received $40 billion from the Treasury for assets valued at $14.8 billion, the oversight panel found. In December, in response to questions from the oversight panel, the department wrote that the value of preferred stock purchased by the government was "at or near par," meaning Treasury paid $1 for every $1 dollar of asset.

"The way the Treasury secretary described it does not fit with the numbers that were produced in our much more extensive valuation analysis," panel chairwoman Elizabeth Warren told reporters Friday. "The secretary of the Treasury described it in December that these were par transaction and that is not supported by the numbers."

The continued scrutiny comes as new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner prepares to place the Obama administration's imprint on the program with a sweeping new framework for helping banks, loosening credit and helping reduce foreclosures. Geithner plans to unveil the changes Monday.

And while Paulson is gone and Geithner is in charge, the program itself remains in the hands of Neel Kashkari, a holdover from the Bush administration.

In December, Kashkari defended the Treasury purchasing strategy as bank stock prices dropped.

"We're not day traders, and we're not looking for a return tomorrow," he said. "Over time, we believe the taxpayers will be protected and have a return on their investment."

In a bright spot for the rescue program, the same banks that received capital infusions from Treasury have already paid $271 million in dividends to the federal government and are expected to pay $1.5 billion more in dividends by the end of this month. Wells Fargo, which received a $25 billion infusion, has already announced it would pay Treasury $371 million in dividends this month.

The oversight panel examined 10 transactions, including eight made under a capital purchase program designed to put liquidity into the banks in hopes of easing credit. That money went to banks considered "healthy" financially but in need of capital to make loans.

Two other transactions went to AIG and to Citigroup Inc. under programs designed to help companies that were facing serious financial difficulties.

Overall, the panel and the analysts it retained to conduct the valuation study found that the Treasury used taxpayers' money to pay $62.5 billion more than the value of assets in the 10 transactions it examined. By extrapolating to the more than 300 institutions that received money, the panel concluded that the government in effect paid $78 billion more than the actual value of the assets at the time.

"Treasury chose to offer 'one size fits all' pricing in order to encourage all institutions to participate, and in so doing disregarded apparent differences in their financial condition," the report states. "A consequence is that Treasury effectively offered weaker participants greater subsidies than it offered to stronger participants."

Reacting to the panel's conclusions, Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said in a statement: "Treasury's efforts since the fall prevented a systemwide collapse, but more needs to be done to stabilize the financial sector, increase lending and protect taxpayer dollars."

He said the plan Geithner will announce Monday aims to free up credit, "while strengthening transparency and accountability measures so that taxpayers know where and how their money is being spent and whether it's achieving real results."

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said the overpayment was sure to "raise eyebrows."

"I can understand some gap," he said. "No one is expecting perfection between the price you pay and what you think you're getting. But that's a pretty large disparity."


TA DA !

The HITS just keep on coming...


http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-020609-report.pdf

Mo_Zam_Beek
02-06-09, 14:01
This was a red herring for the masses to watch and say 'Bush bad, Obama Good'.


Anyone remember that the 'bailout' plan has had a few iterations now? The current version - TARP is stupid. The root problem is non performing assets on the balance sheet. However, banks don't have to disclose this info. So what we have are banks loaded with NPAs, loan / loss ratios that were not anticipated, failure, TARP money used by a bigger bank to buy smaller failing bank, and a carry over of the NPAs - which are still NPAs.

Historically both here and in Japan a Resolution Trust Corp set up is what has worked. The NPAs are absorbed into the RTC and then sold off at a loss. The margin of book value vs sold price is absorbed by the tax payer. The banks once shed of the NPAs can go back to using loan review in the normal way they do (not based on the ratios that the bank currently needs as a result of the bag full of NPAs on the books). Under the current set up, TARP funds are merely being used to consolidate - not solve the underlying problem. We will have somewhere around 15%- 20% fewer banks nationally at the end of all of this.

The public needs to understand something - TARP has done NOTHING to put money into the system or ease credit. While rates are still reasonable, lending has gotten much tighter. 12 months ago a generic commercial real estate transaction was 25% down, and a DBCR (debt coverage ratio) of 1.15 - 1.2. Today, down of more like 35% and a DBCR of 1.35. The home loan side is flat ****ed up with loan programs literally disapearing in mid transaction. This in turn creates more uncertainty and risk aversion (read lower values / stagnation) within the market.

The way they are going about this is stupid. While it doesn't solve the problem it does protect those in high levels of management within the financial sector as it doesn't expose them and what they have done; and it keeps the paradigm largely unchanged.

Good luck

Saginaw79
02-06-09, 14:25
Oh BUSH did that huh, not the assholes in the House and Senate who passed the bill...riiight!

thopkins22
02-06-09, 14:27
The public needs to understand something - TARP has done NOTHING to put money into the system or ease credit. While rates are still reasonable, lending has gotten much tighter. 12 months ago a generic commercial real estate transaction was 25% down, and a DBCR (debt coverage ratio) of 1.15 - 1.2. Today, down of more like 35% and a DBCR of 1.35. The home loan side is flat ****ed up with loan programs literally disapearing in mid transaction. This in turn creates more uncertainty and risk aversion (read lower values / stagnation) within the market.

Making credit easily available again and keeping home prices(and all prices) high is like treating a heroine addict with more heroine. When what's needed is withdraw(recession.)

It's why the 90's are referred to as the lost decade in Japan. Price fixing ALWAYS fails and encouraging debt financed consumption is retarded. What this country needs to come to terms with is that we need to start saving again. It's a good thing that banks are requiring more money down, it's the market fixing itself...the government needs to stop pretending that it has the answers and complaining in press conferences that they'll make the banks lend again. People need to stop expecting their homes to be a source of income. Yada yada yada.

Shareholders and people who bought homes/took loans at artificially high prices are who need to take the hit, NOT the American taxpayer. Both because it's immoral to expect me to bail out some a-hole, and also because it flat out won't work.

thopkins22
02-06-09, 14:32
While it doesn't solve the problem it does protect those in high levels of management within the financial sector as it doesn't expose them and what they have done; and it keeps the paradigm largely unchanged.

While I agree that the current plan protects the management of poorly run businesses, I don't see them as the real problem. Let the SOBs go bankrupt(or to jail if there was fraud) and you won't see lending nor derivatives get out of hand again for a very long time. What needs exposing is the dumbass politicians from both parties who thought that the answer to perpetual prosperity was cheap money flowing freely from the federal government...and that this tampering with the market wouldn't have consequences.

Ridge_Runner_5
02-06-09, 15:06
Bush was bullied into this by the incoming Democratic super majority...he didn't want to do it, but was forced to by Congress.....once again, the Left screws it all up and blames the previous administration...now that Dems are in total power, it should be fun to at least watch them pass the blame around while the place burns to the ground...

FromMyColdDeadHand
02-06-09, 15:22
Sorry, just have and MBA, but I'm not an accountant or a finance guy, but something struck me as I read this. They seem to say that while the govt paid par value, the assest were worth less than par. From my understanding the par value for the CDOs would be their original value. The whole issue was that these CDOs where not being traded and had almost no value. To me the whole bailout was set so that we bought the assets at a price closer to their original value, so the banks would remain solvent. Buying them all at rock bottom prices isn't much help, the banks equity ratios go bonkers. So of course we bought them at above their street 'price' if that is even an obtianable number.

Here is the long play (3-4 years) to watch. All these assest we bought now will actually bring in more money since in the long run, while the spending in Obama's plan will only increase the debt.

Still don't know why they bought them, they should have just set a floor ontheir value and then let people trade them in the knowledge that they would not become worthless.

Oh, the lies that will be told to our childrena and our grandchildren about these days.

BAC
02-06-09, 15:50
Oh BUSH did that huh, not the assholes in the House and Senate who passed the bill...riiight!

That was my first thought...

Seems like when most of the country and every major economic think tank says "BAD ****ING IDEA!", Gov't hears "DO IT!"


-B

Mo_Zam_Beek
02-06-09, 17:11
Making credit easily available again and keeping home prices(and all prices) high is like treating a heroine addict with more heroine. When what's needed is withdraw(recession.)

It's why the 90's are referred to as the lost decade in Japan. Price fixing ALWAYS fails and encouraging debt financed consumption is retarded. What this country needs to come to terms with is that we need to start saving again. It's a good thing that banks are requiring more money down, it's the market fixing itself...the government needs to stop pretending that it has the answers and complaining in press conferences that they'll make the banks lend again. People need to stop expecting their homes to be a source of income. Yada yada yada.

Shareholders and people who bought homes/took loans at artificially high prices are who need to take the hit, NOT the American taxpayer. Both because it's immoral to expect me to bail out some a-hole, and also because it flat out won't work.


I agree about - recession. However run away inflation (possibly our only chance of paying back the debt though), deflation, and depression are words that concern me. The difference in recession and the others is based on policy.

With respect to 'credit' - the public as a whole thinks of credit in terms of mortgages and credit cards. It doesn't think about short term commercial credit - the type used to make payrolls on time or to purchase goods and services. The availability of credit is integral to the function of the US econ. On a personal basis - I agree with much of what you are saying about savings and debt fueled purchases. However, when taken out of the personal context - things that translate into jobs, wages, and the expansion of the economy as a whole aren't done with cash.

While it may be a good thing that the bank wants more money down - it shrinks the economy. The real question is 'why'?

- If I as a bank tell you the developer doing a build to suit building that you need to come up with 10% - 25% more cash than one year ago - there is good chance you won't do the deal. There are ripple impacts to that. Now it is one thing if the credit risks of either the build to suit tenant or the developer were shaky but if not, it is merely stifiling the economy - this is happening now.

- If you as a home builder agree to build a home for someone and they put down and release to you money while being promised by the bank a loan program that doesn't exist when the house is complete and they are ready to close - and now they can not because the ratios have changed and the buyer needs to come up with more cash or loose the house and the money that they have released - that creates uncertainty and makes people not want to make purchases or stagnates the econ - that is going on right now too.

The take away is - inspite of all of the rhetoric, 'credit' is harder to get than ever. It is the lack of credit that is in part killing us. The way the gubbermint is going about it is wrong.

Good luck

madisonsfinest
02-06-09, 18:40
Saying that Bush was bullied into allowing this to happen by the incoming administration is a bunch of bs. What did he stand to lose if he didn't give into the bail out money? His term was all but over, and I doubt there was anything he could do at this point to change what history will say. The simple fact is that he and Paulson came up with that crappy plan, and he has been a poor excuse for a conservative. This two party system sucks in my opinion. The lack of competition leaves us with crappy options.