Browse by Tags

The Federal Reserve had another good investment year, making $76.9 billion in profits off of treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities and the like. But the Wall Street Journal 's Jon Hilsenrath says not to get too excited. While the Fed was able to turn over that tidy profit to the US Treasury this year, there is still quite a bit of risk in its portfolio.

When Congress created the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the fall of 2008, it also established the Congressional Oversight Panel to keep an eye on the Treasury 's actions, and effectiveness, in meting out TARP dollars. On April 3, COP will close up shop, as mandated in the legislation that created TARP. From October 2008 on, COP has released a monthly report on TARP actions. The 30 reports provide a compelling historical record of TARP, and of the federal government's response to the Global Economic Crisis. This final report is a comprehensive one--a summary of Treasury's efforts. And it reads as a tough-but-fair report: In order to evaluate the TARP‘s impact, one must first recall the extreme fear and uncertainty that infected the financial system in late 2008. The stock market had endured triple digit swings. Major financial institutions, including Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers, had collapsed, sowing panic throughout the financial markets. The economy was hemorrhaging jobs, and foreclosures were escalating with no end in sight. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that the nation was on course for "a cataclysm that could have rivaled or surpassed the Great Depression." It is now clear that, although America has endured a wrenching recession, it has not experienced a second Great Depression. The TARP does not deserve full credit for this outcome, but it provided critical support to markets at a moment of profound uncertainty. It achieved this effect in part by providing capital to banks but, more significantly, by demonstrating that the United States would take any action necessary to prevent the collapse of its financial system. Some of the more interesting themes of the report include the public stigma that COP says "burdened" the Treasury Department: Because the TARP was designed for an inherently unpopular purpose - rescuing Wall Street banks from the consequences of their own actions - stigmatization was likely inevitable. Treasury's implementation of the program has, however, made this stigma worse. For example, Treasury initially insisted that only healthy banks would be eligible for capital infusions under the CPP. When it later became clear that some TARP-recipient banks were in fact on the brink of failure, all participating banks, even those in comparatively strong condition, became tainted in the public eye. Further, many senior managers of TARP-recipient institutions maintained their jobs and their substantial salaries, and although shareholders often suffered meaningful dilution, they were not wiped out. To the public, this may appear to be evidence that Wall Street banks and bankers can retain their profits in boom years and shift their losses to taxpayers during a bust - an arrangement that is anathema to market discipline in a free economy. And transparency (or lack thereof): Beginning with its very first report, the Panel has repeatedly expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in the TARP. In too many cases, especially in late 2008 and early 2009, Treasury either declined to release information that it possessed about the program or declined to require TARP-recipient institutions to reveal information about their use of taxpayer funds. In perhaps the most profound violation of the principle of transparency, Treasury decided in the TARP's earliest days to push tens of billions of dollars out the door to very large financial institutions without requiring banks to use the funds in any particular way or even reveal how the money was used. As a result, the public will never know to what purpose its money was put. Other transparency problems include Treasury's refusal to explain how it valued the stock warrants it received in exchange for its TARP investments and the joint failure of Treasury and the Federal Reserve to disclose enough details of the 2009 stress tests to permit the results to be duplicated or challenged by outside parties. Read the full report here . Here is COP Chair Ted Kaufman introducing and summarizing the final report:

If the purchasing of Super Bowl ads is any indication, then the market for cars is much brighter than years past. And two US automakers--GM and Chrysler--that were on the verge of collapse two years ago are among the big spenders this year, according to the Detroit Free Press . So does this mean the Treasury's so-called bailouts of GM and Chrysler were clear successes? Maybe, maybe not, seems to be the answer from the Congressional Oversight Panel (tasked with evaluating the Treasury's handling of TARP funds). From the January COP report: Treasury is currently unwinding its stakes in GM, Chrysler, and GMAC/Ally Financial. Of those companies, GM is furthest along in the process of repaying taxpayers. It conducted an initial public offering (IPO) on November 18, 2010, and Treasury used the occasion to sell a portion of its GM holdings for $13.5 billion. This sale represents a major recovery of taxpayer funds, but it is important to note that Treasury received a price of $33.00 per share - well below the $44.59 needed to be on track to recover fully taxpayers‟ money. By selling stock for less than this break-even price, Treasury essentially "locked in" a loss of billions of dollars and thus greatly reduced the likelihood that taxpayers will ever be repaid in full. Treasury has explained its decision to sell at a loss by saying that it wished to unwind government ownership of the automobile industry as quickly as possible. This justification may very well be reasonable, but it is difficult to evaluate. Because Treasury has cited different, conflicting goals for its automotive interventions at different times - saying, for example, that it wished to save American jobs, to produce the best possible return to taxpayers, or to return the company to private ownership as rapidly as possible - it is difficult for the Panel or any outside observer to judge whether Treasury‟s results in fact qualify as successful. Read the full report here . And watch COP Chair Ted Kaufman introduce the report:

The Congressional Oversight Panel 's June Report is now out, and in it the members of the panel are critical of the federal government's rescue of AIG in September, 2008. First, the panel argues that the Hank Paulson led Treasury Department did not do its due diligence in examining all the options it had before it committed $85 billion of taxpayer funds to keep the insurance giant from collapsing. But their bigger criticism comes with the actual rescue plan, which COP members say shifted the burden of AIG's failings from its creditors to all taxpayers and "distorted the marketplace by transforming highly risky derivative bets into fully guaranteed payment obligations." From the report: In the ordinary course of business, the costs of AIG‟s inability to meet its derivative obligations would have been borne entirely by AIG‟s shareholders and creditors under the well-established rules of bankruptcy. But rather than sharing the pain among AIG‟s creditors – an outcome that would have maintained the market discipline associated with credit risks – the government instead shifted those costs in full onto taxpayers out of a belief that demanding sacrifice from creditors would have destabilized the markets. The result was that the government backed up the entire derivatives market, as if these trades deserved the same taxpayer backstop as savings deposits and checking accounts. One consequence of this approach was that every counterparty received exactly the same deal: a complete rescue at taxpayer expense. Among the beneficiaries of this rescue were parties whom taxpayers might have been willing to support, such as pension funds for retired workers and individual insurance policy holders. But the across-the-board rescue also benefitted far less sympathetic players, such as sophisticated investors who had profited handsomely from playing a risky game and who had no reason to expect that they would be paid in full in the event of AIG‟s failure. Other beneficiaries included foreign banks that were dependent on contracts with AIG to maintain required regulatory capital reserves. Some of those same banks were also counterparties to other AIG CDSs. Here is COP chair Elizabeth Warren discussing the key findings of the June report: Read the full report here .

Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a new book out in which he gives his first-hand account of what transpired during the near economic collapse of 2008. And with the release of On The Brink , Paulson is becoming a public figure again. He is getting a lot of screen time with CNBC this week, after giving Steve Liesman an interview over the weekend. Here is an excerpt of that interview, in which Paulson discusses pushing for TARP with certain political figures: Read the transcript for Liesman's interview with Paulson here .

When the Treasury introduced the Troubled Assets Relief Program late last year, the government guaranteed the values of hundreds of billions of dollars in bank assets. The move was made, to put it very simply, to prevent a panic and protect the assets of millions of American taxpayers. The Congressional Oversight Panel , in its November report, concludes that the federal guarantees did that successfully. But the report also shows that the guarantees now account for the "single largest element of the government's response to the financial crisis," and that raises some timely questions for Treasury: These guarantee programs also created significant moral hazard. Guarantees create price distortions and can lead market participants to engage in riskier behavior than they otherwise would. In addition to the explicit guarantees analyzed in the Panel's report, the government's broader economic stabilization effort may have signaled an implicit guarantee to the marketplace: the American taxpayer stands ready to provide a financial backstop for certain markets and large market players to avert possible economic collapse. To the degree that investors, lenders and borrowers believe that such an implicit guarantee remains in effect, moral hazard will continue to distort the market. The extraordinary scale of these guarantees, the significant risk to taxpayers, and the corresponding moral hazard leads the Panel to conclude that these programs should be subject to extraordinary transparency. The Panel specifically identified the guarantee of Citigroup assets under AGP -- the largest single guarantee offered to date -- and strongly urges Treasury to provide regular, detailed disclosures about the status of the assets backing up this guarantee. Treasury should disclose greater detail about the rationale behind guarantee programs, the alternatives that may have been available and why they were not chosen, and whether these programs have achieved their objectives. This should include an analysis of why Citigroup and Bank of America were selected for AGP and not others. Here is COP Chair Elizabeth Warren introducing the November report: You can read the full report here .

The Congressional Oversight Panel addressed the problem of foreclosures in its March report , and is now revisiting the issue in its October report. Since March, the Treasury Department has initiated the Making Home Affordable (MHA) program. And COP has concerns over the scope, scale, and permanence of the MHA's programs: While Treasury must consider programmatic changes to meet these challenges, so too must it adapt and improve the existing programs in several key ways. Given the issues facing MHA, Treasury must be fully transparent about the effectiveness of its programs, as well as the manner in which they operate. Although Treasury‟s data collection has improved significantly since the Panel‟s March report, it should be expanded, and the information should be made public. Treasury should release its Net Present Value (NPV) model, which is used to determine a homeowner‟s eligibility for HAMP. The new denial codes should be implemented to provide borrowers with a specific reason for denying a modification and a clear path for appeal. Denial information should also be aggregated and reported to the public. Here is COP chair Elizabeth Warren discussing the October report: You can read the full report here . And a dissenting view from COP member Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) here .

The US Treasury is set to auction off a record amount of debt this week, according to the Wall Street Journal 's Tom Lauricella . Defying conventional wisdom, the market for U.S. government debt is rallying thanks to an unusual combination of buyers including American households, banks and the Federal Reserve. The rally has taken Treasury yields -- which move opposite the bonds' price -- to their lowest levels since spring, and have helped push mortgage rates to their lowest levels in three months. The Fed's active presence has also raised questions of whether the rally is sustainable. The appetite for Treasurys, generally considered safe, points to an undercurrent of wariness about the health of the economy long term, even as investors have lately loaded up on riskier investments, like stocks and junk bonds. Typically, stocks and other risky investments move in the opposite direction of Treasurys in the short term. News of this "unlikely rally ," as Lauricella calls it, provides a good opportunity to step back and help people understand the difference between the Treasury bonds, notes, and bills. And Paddy Hirsch provides a nice primer on the latest Marketplace Whiteboard . Take a look: