No shock: TARP funds used by banks for expenses, acquisitions

posted at 12:57 pm on July 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Get ready for another IG to go under the bus.  Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky, who has recently made headlines in a squabble over his independence from Treasury for his mission on the TARP and bailout funds, reported to Congress that the banks receiving TARP funds did not use the money to loosen lending, as intended.  Instead, they used the money to buy other banks, pay off their own debt, and make other investments:

Many of the banks that got federal aid to support increased lending have instead used some of the money to make investments, repay debts or buy other banks, according to a new report from the special inspector general overseeing the government’s financial rescue program.

The report, which will be published Monday, surveyed 360 banks that got money through the end of January and found that 110 had invested at least some of it, that 52 had repaid debts and that 15 had used funds to buy other banks. …

Officials have taken the view that the exact use of the federal aid cannot be tracked because money given to a bank is like water poured into an ocean.

“Although it might be tempting to do so, it is not possible to say that investment of TARP dollars resulted in particular loans, investments or other activities by the recipient,” Herbert M. Allison Jr., the assistant Treasury secretary who administers the rescue program, wrote in a letter to Barofsky.

Originally, the TARP bailout intended on having the federal government buy back the toxic assets on the books of major financial institutions, mortgage-backed securities created by mandate of Congress, in order to stabilize their balance sheets.  After winning approval for that from Congress, the Bush administration simply changed the rules and gave away the money (and at least in a couple of cases, strongarmed the banks into taking it) rather than alleviate the cancer at the heart of the financial system.  They claimed, as did the Obama administration afterwards, that the TARP funds would unlock lending and revitalize the economy.

Surprise!  The banks have begun turning big profits, mostly by getting a lot more choosy about their borrowers.  They used the money to their own benefit, as one would expect, through acquisitions and debt pay-downs, which have undoubtedly stabilized the financial institutions but did little else for the economy.  Lending has returned to the basis on which it should have operated all along — lending money to low-risk borrowers with the means to pay off the loans on time.  But that is not what both administrations promised with TARP, and Barofsky’s data shows just how much of a waste the twisted TARP became.

Now, rather than brag about unlocked lending, the Obama administration wants to claim that we can’t tell how the banks used the money, because all cash looks the same in the money ocean.  Well, that’s only true as long as Treasury doesn’t do any diligence on TARP spending and lending, the very problem Barofsky reveals.  It’s a tautology; Barofsky says that there isn’t enough transparency on TARP distribution because Treasury doesn’t demand it, and Treasury says transparency isn’t possible because they’re not demanding that kind of reporting.  Accounting exists to provide that kind of transparency, but apparently Treasury and the White House simply have no interest in it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I don’t if we do or don’t

gah.

“I don’t know if we do or don’t”

LimeyGeek on July 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM

LimeyGeek on July 20, 2009 at 4:08 PM

You are referring point to point cash transactions. TARP loans were intended to be flexible and the fed did not want to micromanage how banks operated. If they did, Ed would be screaming about that. The funds were used to provide balance sheet headroom so banks could continue to operate and keep the credit markets from seizing up. To that extent it seems to have been successful.

The government gets the warrants and the banks use the cash to augment their balance sheets. When companies raise money they don’t account expenses directly to their cap table!!!!!

lexhamfox on July 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM

lexhamfox on July 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM

You’re making flimsy rhetorical excuses now.

There is no need to be ‘micromanaging’ anything. The systems exist to ‘transparently’ audit the flow of TARP funds. There is no excuse for not doing so.

LimeyGeek on July 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM

I recall that the government made money on the Savings and Loan bailout years ago. They should have followed that pattern. I think the Bush administration had intended to and then everyone kind of panicked..and the fear was that if liquidity was not returned to the financial sector then everything would just go belly up. Even that would not have been such a huge mistake, if everyone involved had done a better job of keeping track of the expenditures. There should be some way to recover at least some of this money.

Terrye on July 20, 2009 at 6:00 PM

I wonder if part of the problem was the change of administration, people leaving and coming.

Terrye on July 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Okay, the Feds kind of blew this one. But at least they protected us from Martha Stewart!

Lovemm on July 20, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Nothing flimsy about what I am saying and if you paid attention when the TARP funds were distributed you would not be gnashing your teeth over ‘laundered funds.’ There was no ‘flow’ of TARP cash it was dolled out in single amounts and went straight tot he banks balance sheet as cash. The Government has it’s oversight… the cash isn’t missing. The issue is that you can’t add cash to the pool and then ask what that particular cash was spent on because it went into the general operation and the assets of the bank. The Government holds the warrant.

When you go out and buy stock from an IPO you don’t request a trace from the company of how specific cash you gave them was spent… you get an annual audit summing up the total operations. You aren’t going to see an audit trail of cash because the funds weren’t used to purchase tangibles or to build anything. It is not like government expenditure… it is an investment. Get it? It isn’t that hard and I am not being rhetorical… this is how public companies function and it is transparent.

It’s usually anti-capitalist liberals who hate the banking industry that make arguments like yours about money down the drain or that the banks are doing something naughty with the money. They aren’t. The taxpayers are going to get all the money back… via the warrants.

lexhamfox on July 20, 2009 at 6:15 PM

What did you expect from a TAX CHEAT?

belad on July 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM

We’ll just call him Turbo Treasurer!

onlineanalyst on July 20, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2