Bush overpaid banks in bailout, watchdog says.

vhx

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2006
1,151
0
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...e/bailout_oversight_13

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, deemed by the Treasury Department 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.

The misgivings come as new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is preparing 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.

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, it concluded that the government in effect paid $78 billion more than the actual value of the asset 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."

Panel Chairwoman Elizabeth Warren, testifying to the Senate banking committee Thursday, said: "There may be good policy reasons for overpaying, but without a clearly delineated reason, we can't know that."

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 that Geithner will announce on 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."

Another fund watchdog urged the Obama administration to be clearer about the true value of the nearly $300 billion the Treasury has infused into more than 300 institutions through purchases of assets such as preferred stock.

"Treasury needs, in the near term, to begin developing a more complete strategy on what to do with the very substantial portfolio that it now manages on behalf of the American people," said Neil Barofksy, the special inspector general for the rescue program.
$40.8 billion for assets valued at $14.8 billion? Someone made off like a bandit. I guess overpaying $78 billion more than their worth (in only 10 instances) will help prop them up to make them 'too big to fail'.... again.

/sigh
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Uh, did you guys happen to forget who controlled the Treasury and who handed out the payments? D'oh!
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I could of sworn the Democrat controlled congress passed the bill....

And I also remember President Bush not wanting to sign it.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
i know hateing bush is the cool thing. but err he didnt do this.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
I could of sworn the Democrat controlled congress passed the bill....

And I also remember President Bush not wanting to sign it.

Bush Selective Memory Disorder? BSMD? You should have that checked out, dude, because you were either high during Bush's televised appearance before the nation, appealing for massive $700 Billion aid to the banks, or you were struck stupid.

Either way.


 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Thats one bill that should never have been. Everyone that voted for it should be taken out back, and well, you know. I'm glad 98% of the country are retards, gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling. :roll:
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,917
2,880
136
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here, let me remind you who Paulson is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson

You can thank me later.

I read that whole wiki page, and I didn't see it say that Henry Paulson and George Bush are the same person.

Let me help you out: He's a Bush appointee! Duh.

OK thanks, so what you're saying is that because Bush appointed the man, you can now say "Bush did xyz..." when Paulson in fact did it. I like that logic. My next thread will be titled "Barack Obama did not pay his taxes".
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Isn't that kind of the point, that they paid more than the stuff was worth, otherwise somebody else would have, right?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,917
2,880
136
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Isn't that kind of the point, that they paid more than the stuff was worth, otherwise somebody else would have, right?

Stop trying to derail the thread. The point of this thread is that Bush is evil and we should vote him out of office. Please stay on topic.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here, let me remind you who Paulson is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson

You can thank me later.

I read that whole wiki page, and I didn't see it say that Henry Paulson and George Bush are the same person.

Let me help you out: He's a Bush appointee! Duh.

OK thanks, so what you're saying is that because Bush appointed the man, you can now say "Bush did xyz..." when Paulson in fact did it. I like that logic. My next thread will be titled "Barack Obama did not pay his taxes".

I'm sure anyone with two brain cells to rub together can infer "Bush" with "Bush Administration." You think Paulson did jack shit without Bush's approval?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
That's such a transient measurement. You can't take such a gross valuation on face and get the whole story. What was the liquidity premium on the assets?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: winnar111
Sounds like that was the entire point.
In other words, it's OK when Bush does it?!? Buhhhh buhhhhh but Bush, indeed!

The entire point of TARP was to help the banks out. What's the problem?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Ok OK, lets not blame GWB for the fact that Henry Hank Paulson is a lying sack of shit. And if we could buy Paulson for what he is worth and sell him for what he thinks he is worth, we could finance the entire national debt on the proceeds.

For the US congress to trust Paulson in any way has proved to be a huge disaster. Why do we trust some of the people who broke it to fix it?

Its time for us to realize that these over priced bankers can't create wealth out of thin air like they promise and that banking is a service Industry. And should be paid as such, and if these overpriced jerks were like McDonald's workers, they would have been fired for incompetence years ago.

Where comes this crap that they deserve multi mega bonuses when they deserve minimum wage?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
"Doing heckuva job there, Pual-lee!" Damn, deja vu all over again!!! And again and again!!!!
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Ok OK, lets not blame GWB for the fact that Henry Hank Paulson is a lying sack of shit. And if we could buy Paulson for what he is worth and sell him for what he thinks he is worth, we could finance the entire national debt on the proceeds.

For the US congress to trust Paulson in any way has proved to be a huge disaster. Why do we trust some of the people who broke it to fix it?

Its time for us to realize that these over priced bankers can't create wealth out of thin air like they promise and that banking is a service Industry. And should be paid as such, and if these overpriced jerks were like McDonald's workers, they would have been fired for incompetence years ago.

Where comes this crap that they deserve multi mega bonuses when they deserve minimum wage?

Sounds like those mega bonuses are stimulating the economy.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Ok OK, lets not blame GWB for the fact that Henry Hank Paulson is a lying sack of shit. And if we could buy Paulson for what he is worth and sell him for what he thinks he is worth, we could finance the entire national debt on the proceeds.

For the US congress to trust Paulson in any way has proved to be a huge disaster. Why do we trust some of the people who broke it to fix it?

Its time for us to realize that these over priced bankers can't create wealth out of thin air like they promise and that banking is a service Industry. And should be paid as such, and if these overpriced jerks were like McDonald's workers, they would have been fired for incompetence years ago.

Where comes this crap that they deserve multi mega bonuses when they deserve minimum wage?

So why are Barney Frank or Dodd not before questioning?

What's even more funny is we were doing pretty damn good before 2006 elections. And now look at the mess we are left with.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
I tell you what...you guys can bash Bush all you want, make fun of the man for the way he talks, question his intelligence and his policies and state that he was the worst president ever......but the truth for the last 2 years the dems were in congress and had control, he man handled the shit outta your guys.

I mean the way you guys make it sound as he was making policies and forcing the dems into situations that they really didn't want and they had no choice but were forced to comply with otherwise they were going to get butt raped and they just bent over and took it like the they cry bitches they are.....so you can fault him all you want, but the truth is for someone who is as stupid and as ignorant and as worthless as you guys would like the rest of the world think he is...he obviously knew what the fuck he was doing to make all of congress especially the democrats open up and say ahhh.