PDA

View Full Version : Watchdog: Bailouts created more risk in system



coyotes_geek
01-31-2010, 09:38 AM
By DANIEL WAGNER and ALAN ZIBEL, AP Business Writers Daniel Wagner And Alan Zibel, Ap Business Writers – 1 hr 56 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The government's response to the financial meltdown has made it more likely the United States will face a deeper crisis in the future, an independent watchdog at the Treasury Department warned.

The problems that led to the last crisis have not yet been addressed, and in some cases have grown worse, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the trouble asset relief program, or TARP. The quarterly report to Congress was released Sunday.

"Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car," Barofsky wrote.

Since Congress passed $700 billion financial bailout, the remaining institutions considered "too big to fail" have grown larger and failed to restrain the lavish pay for their executives, Barofsky wrote. He said the banks still have an incentive to take on risk because they know the government will save them rather than bring down the financial system.

Barofsky also said his office is investigating 77 cases of possible criminal and civil fraud, including crimes of tax evasion, insider trading, mortgage lending and payment collection, false statements and public corruption.

One case concerns apparent self-dealing by one of the private fund managers Treasury picked to buy bad assets from banks at discounted prices. A portfolio manager at the firm apparently sold a bond out of a private fund, then repurchased it at a higher price for a government-backed fund. A rating agency had just downgraded the bond, so it likely was worth less, not more, when the government fund bought it. The company is not being named pending the outcome of Barofsky's investigation.

Barofsky renewed a call for Treasury to enact clearer walls so that such apparent conflicts are less likely.

Treasury said it welcomed Barofsky's oversight but resisted the call to erect new barriers against conflicts of interest. The new rules "would be detrimental to the program," Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in a statement. The existing compliance rules "are a rigorous and effective method of protecting taxpayers," she said.

Much of Barofsky's report focused on the government's growing role in the housing market, which he said has increased the risk of another housing bubble.

Over the past year, the federal government has spent hundreds of billions propping up the housing market. About 90 percent of home loans are backed by government controlled entities, mainly Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The Federal Reserve is spending $1.25 trillion to hold down mortgage rates, and millions of homeowners have refinanced at lower rates.

"The government has stepped in where the private players have gone away," Barofsky said in an interview. "If we take government resources and replace that market without addressing the serious (underlying) concerns, there really is a risk of" artificially pushing up home prices in the coming years.

The report warned that these supports mean the government "has done more than simply support the mortgage market, in many ways it has become the mortgage market, with the taxpayer shouldering the risk that had once been borne by the private investor."

Barofsky's report echoed concerns raised by housing experts in recent months, as home sales and prices rebounded. They warn that the primary reason for the turnaround last year has been billions of dollars in federal spending to lower mortgage rates and prop up demand.

Once that spigot of cash is turned off, they caution, the market will be vulnerable to a dramatic turn for the worse. Daniel Alpert, managing partner of investment bank Westwood Capital, wrote in a report that national home prices are bound to fall 8 to 10 percent below the lows of last spring.

"The lion's share of the remaining decline will occur in markets that saw sizable bubbles but have not yet retrenched," he wrote.

Officials from the Obama administration counter that massive federal intervention has helped the housing market stabilize and prevented more dire consequences.

Barofsky's report also disclosed that, while the Obama administration has pledged to spend $75 billion to prevent foreclosures, only a tiny fraction — just over $15 million — has been spent so far. Under the Making Home Affordable program, only about 66,500 borrowers, or 7 percent of those who signed up, had completed the process as of December.

He said the key to preventing future crises is to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, create and improve loan underwriting and supervision of banks. He stopped short of endorsing specific proposals for overhauling financial regulation, but said many of the proposals would go far to improving the system.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100131/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bailout_watchdog

*****************

CG: The inspector general sure isn't painting a pretty picture.

clambake
01-31-2010, 12:12 PM
"an independent watchdog at the treasury department".

this is clearly not a hunting dog.

Cant_Be_Faded
01-31-2010, 12:26 PM
o rly

Winehole23
02-01-2010, 02:44 AM
Considering state shepherded megamergers in 2008-9 and beyond within the more general trend toward consolidation, it is hard to resist the conclusion that greatness of size presents *special problems* with respect to socially-guaranteed risk.

RandomGuy
02-01-2010, 04:10 PM
I agree.

This type of moral hazard should be at the top of the fucking politics page with dozens of replies.

what do we do about it?

Please can some "small government" person please give me a proposed solution?

boutons_deux
02-01-2010, 04:23 PM
The US govt is the Financial Division of AmericanCorporations, Inc.

bought, sold, and delivered a long time ago (George Carlin).

And still the Repugs block any attempt at regulation of the financial sector or consumer protections, and are proud of their shit.

Winehole23
02-01-2010, 04:55 PM
I agree.

This type of moral hazard should be at the top of the fucking politics page with dozens of replies.

what do we do about it?Be otherwise than we are.

We won't let the TBTF's fail, so we're basically fucked. They're gonna pump us and dump us repeatedly, and apparently there isn't anything we can do about it, other than bail them out whenever they do it the next time. Hopefully a new resolution authority will bring some of them in line, but I fear it's devised mainly for the other-than-TBTFs and potential future TBTFs. We'll see.

Marcus Bryant
02-01-2010, 05:21 PM
'It's inevitable, so lie back and enjoy it' isn't much of an argument, but unfortunately that constitutes policy-making at the federal level these days.

And if one had any illusions that there was really a difference in the leadership of the two major political parties, this should disabuse them of that notion.

Further, if we the people are going to be a backstop, then it's quite fair that the golden TBTFs are subjected to some mix of taxes/fees and regulation to mitigate and to pay for this insurance.

I recall Sen. "I'm not Santa Claus" Tsongas, when he ran for president back in '92, advocated some kind of industrial policy for the United States. Perhaps it is time that we accept that we in fact have a corporatist state in these United States, and demand that in exchange for all of these subsidies and benefits provided to various industries that the people get something in return (ie jobs).

Or, if we're going to be fleeced, then the cocksuckers who are fleecing us deserve it too.

coyotes_geek
02-01-2010, 05:25 PM
Gotta bust up the TBTF's. Of course to do that though we've got to elect politicians with the balls to take them on. Sadly neither political party has the neccessary testicular fortitude.

Marcus Bryant
02-01-2010, 05:26 PM
Or, if we're going to be bent over for our fellow 'citizens' Wal-Mart, GE, and Goldman Sachs so they can make a shitload of money off the death of American life, then we should bend them over. And spare me the free-marketeering rah rah shit. That went out the window when John Galt bought himself a politician.

Marcus Bryant
02-01-2010, 05:42 PM
A serious look needs to be taken at the Fed (of course, the Senate just endorsed its performance). Not in an investigation to find its link to the NWO and Skull and Bones and what not, but in how it led to this crisis and how to change its ways such that it does get back to removing the punch bowl when the party is getting started. A decade of cheap and easy credit is a major reason we are where we are today.

Winehole23
02-01-2010, 05:43 PM
And will be again.

RandomGuy
02-05-2010, 01:28 PM
Gotta bust up the TBTF's. Of course to do that though we've got to elect politicians with the balls to take them on. Sadly neither political party has the neccessary testicular fortitude.

Personally I fully agree.

But that would be "anti-free market" because the free market let those banks get that big in the first place.

Such a move would be painted as naked socialism.

Winehole23
02-05-2010, 01:33 PM
So was saving their asses to begin with.

baseline bum
02-05-2010, 01:38 PM
As long as politicians are required to take bribes to get elected, expect nothing to change.

mogrovejo
02-05-2010, 01:52 PM
Prediction: if private contributions to political campaigns are totally prohibited and the moneys comes from public financing, nothing will change.

Winehole23
02-05-2010, 01:52 PM
A bad ass, kick-balls resolution authority like the RTC seems more than called for.

The technical challenges would be immense, but so is the all the shitty risk that's still kicking us in the balls. Don't government agencies already exist to manage the effect of the risk on US taxpayers?

And why don't we have a resolution authority, so we can bus' a cap in some dead weight, write down obligations and reorganize, with the hope of selling it back to private money at some point?

You know. Like the RTC?

mogrovejo
02-05-2010, 01:53 PM
Are the countries where funding campaigns with taxpayers money is the rule more aptly governed than the others?

Winehole23
02-05-2010, 01:54 PM
mogrovejo's attempt to turn a bs counterfactual into a fortune cookie failed somewhat humorously at delivery.

Winehole23
02-05-2010, 01:55 PM
Are the countries where funding campaigns with taxpayers money is the rule more aptly governed than the others?I don't know. Are there?

mogrovejo
02-05-2010, 02:00 PM
Personally I fully agree.

But that would be "anti-free market" because the free market let those banks get that big in the first place.

Such a move would be painted as naked socialism.

Obviously. Just like bailing out the so-called TBTF was naked socialism. A market where you can't fail, no matter how big you are, is everything but a free-market.

Preventing companies to grow has the same effect of the bail-outs: inefficient allocation of resources.

Winehole23
02-05-2010, 02:15 PM
Allowing insolvent companies to exist on the dime of the US taxpayer is intolerable. There should be an orderly receivership process.

There once was, during the S&L debacle. We need to start managing the fucking problem.

coyotes_geek
02-05-2010, 02:40 PM
Personally I fully agree.

But that would be "anti-free market" because the free market let those banks get that big in the first place.

Such a move would be painted as naked socialism.

No doubt some would cry socialism. But they'd be wrong. A market dominated by firms so large that the taxpayers have to be made liable for their losses isn't free. Sometimes a free market requires government stepping in. This is one such instance IMO.

mogrovejo
02-05-2010, 02:44 PM
A market dominated by firms so large that the taxpayers have to be made liable for their losses(...)

or else?