Dow
     -89.23
12801.23
-0.69%
|
     -9.31
1342.64
-0.69%
|
     -108.90
14000.51
-0.77%
|
     -23.35
2903.88
-0.80%
|
     -1.03
53.27
-1.90%
|
     +1.09
116.27
+0.95%
|
     +0.01
2.01
+0.42%
October 5, 2009 11:01 AM

Report Questions Claims On Banks' Health

(AP)  The credibility of the government's $700 billion financial rescue program was damaged by claims a year ago that all of the initial banks receiving support were healthy, a new report contends.

Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky generally found that the government had acted properly in October 2008 as it scrambled to implement the Troubled Asset Relief Program to avert the collapse of the U.S. financial system.

But the report said that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and other officials were wrong to contend at an Oct. 14 press conference that all nine institutions receiving the first round of support - $125 billion - were sound.

"These are healthy institutions, and they have taken this step for the good of the economy," Paulson had declared at the time.

Read Paulson's 10/14/08 statement

Barofsky said that the fact that Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. soon required billions in additional assistance highlighted the inaccuracy of that claim and raised questions about the whole effort. In addition, Merrill Lynch, which was also in the original nine, was in the process of being acquired by Bank of America because of its weakening financial position.

"Statements that are less than careful or forthright - like those made in this case - may ultimately undermine the public's understanding and support," the report said. "This loss of public support could damage the government's credibility and have long-term unintended consequences that actually hamper the government's ability to respond to crises."

In announcing the $125 billion in support to the nine institutions, Paulson had said that by building up the capital reserves of these healthy institutions, it would allow them to resume normal lending to businesses and consumers and help stabilize the financial system.

The nine institutions, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., held about 75 percent of the assets of the U.S. banking system at the time.

A joint statement from Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. also referred to the nine institutions as healthy.

In commenting on Barofsky's report, the Federal Reserve generally supported the findings, saying "transparency and effective communications are important to restoring and maintaining public confidence, especially during a financial crisis."

But Assistant Treasury Secretary Herbert Allison Jr., who now heads the bailout program for the government, said that any critique of the announcements made a year ago should take into consideration the unprecedented circumstances facing financial regulators at the time.

"We believe the most important lesson from this history is that quick, forceful action prevented a catastrophic meltdown of the system," Allison wrote in his response to Barofsky's findings.

Barofsky serves as the auditor for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a position that was created by Congress when it passed the $700 billion bailout fund on Oct. 3, 2008.

In his new report, Barofsky reviewed Paulson's decision to switch the focus of the program from buying up toxic assets from banks to spur new lending to direct injections of capital. The report cited developments that supported Paulson's contention that financial conditions were deteriorating so quickly that the government did not have the time needed to get the toxic asset program up and running.

The government just announced last week that two large investment funds have raised the minimum amounts needed to begin purchasing toxic assets from banks, a full year after Congress authorized the program.

The new report also provided information on interviews conducted with embattled Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis and Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke over their conversations regarding Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

A congressional committee has investigated whether the government pressured Lewis, who announced this past week that he would leave Bank of America at year's end, to continue with the merger despite sharply rising losses at Merrill Lynch and to delay revealing those losses.

The report said that it had "found nothing to indicate Treasury and Federal Reserve officials instructed Bank of America executives to withhold the public disclosure of losses," the report said.


For more info:
Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP
financialstability.gov
By AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 11 Comments
by olyboy October 5, 2009 9:24 PM EDT
This is silly. The FDIC, the Fed and the Treasury have always painted a pretty picture of troubled banks. If they did otherwise, the public would run and the banks would fail. If that happened we'd all be in trouble. Grow up.
Reply to this comment
by bradkt1 October 5, 2009 3:11 PM EDT
The way I take this report is that it is saying that the top people at Treasury didn't level with the American people about how bad a shape these banks were in.

On the one hand, did that really matter? After all, we as a nation have followed a policy toward the private sector of letting several financial institutions get too big to fail. If they failed, the economy failed with them. Maybe there is such a thing as too big...and that's why I have a problem with all of these corporate mergers. Maybe the ultimate solution in the future is to start enforcing the antitrust laws again.

On the other hand, while I sympathize with those who argue that we should just let a private sector institution fail, it looks like we are already past the point where we can not afford to do so and have to give them the money.

The most disturbing thing to me, however, is that Congress hasn't done squat...not a single, solitary thing...to prevent this from ever happening again. They are just giving these same irresponsible financial institutions the taxpayer's money. No one has gone to jail or been sued to recover any losses, despite the fact that these people pay themselves yearly salaries that would make the average American a multimillion dollar lottery winner. This is nothing but legalized grand theft.

I don't know who it was, but someone said the best way today to steal money isn't to rob a bank...it's to own a bank. They are right.
Reply to this comment
by th9876 October 5, 2009 12:59 PM EDT
Henry Paulson is a liar and a crook.
Reply to this comment
by SkirtLifter October 5, 2009 12:12 PM EDT
I can't believe some of these comments...the 1st two have "Bush" & "Obama" in them. Holy Cats! Get over it folks.

OK...now to my comment:

From the article: ""Paulson had said that by building up the capital reserves of these healthy institutions, it would allow them to resume normal lending to businesses and consumers and help stabilize the financial system.""

""allow them to resume normal lending"" Scares me to think what "normal lending" means nowadays. Business as usual? Back to the teet of the American Taxpayer? Back to the cookie jar?

"Normal lending" might be more of the lending to people that can't pay, then getting rich on taxpayer money.

Who ever thought you could lend money to people that can't possibly pay it back, and get rich? It happened. Exec officers took huge "bonuses" and collapsed their companies, then received our money. What a sham.

Normal lending - shut up Hank!
Reply to this comment
by Orlandojon October 5, 2009 12:00 PM EDT
Citizens may be the primary victims of the economic downturn, but they are not the primary actors in the public depiction of it. Instead, a new study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression has been covered in the media largely from the top down, told primarily from the perspective of the Obama administration and big business, with coverage reflecting the concerns of institutions more than the lives of everyday Americans.
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns1 October 5, 2009 11:44 AM EDT
If anyone would like to know how their specific bank's ratings are - that is which banks are in trouble and which are'nt - go to MAPlight.org

Right on the front page they have a listing of every bank in the USA that is in trouble. The site also gives the total assets each bank currently has.
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns1 October 5, 2009 11:46 AM EDT
Oh. And the ratings are only those banks with a rating of D+ or worse. So if your bank is not listed, it probably has a fair to excellent rating.
by Marc_1986 October 5, 2009 10:27 AM EDT
Looks like another attempt to deflect bad news about the current economy back to Bush's shortcomings.

Fact of the matter is, 'sound' banks shouldn't be getting TARP money in the first place. Obviously the reason they got the first round of money was because they were in trouble.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 5, 2009 11:38 AM EDT
So you think that everything that were going through now, happened because of Obama?

Or are you going to claim that "he hasn't done enough", while the other half or the conservatives are telling him to "stay out of the private sector"?
by jxknowles October 5, 2009 11:54 AM EDT
It's not an attempt to deflect anything on anyone. There was a lot of uncertainty about the world's banks, then and now. Bush's Treasury Secretary was correct to allocate TARP money. President Obama was correct to continue the program and Congress correct to provide a stimulus package.

The current state of the economy is due to years of neglect and zero enforcement of any regulations. We're digging out of a deep, deep hole along with the rest of the world.
See all 11 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook