Posts Tagged ‘AIG’

Treasury Makes $25 Billion in Successful MBS Sale

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

The Treasury Department just raked in a cool $25 billion for the American taxpayer. It sold the agency-backed mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that it bought during the financial crisis.  “The successful sale of these securities marks another important milestone in the wind-down of the government’s emergency financial crisis response efforts,” said Mary Miller, Treasury assistant secretary for financial markets.  The Treasury’s mortgage purchases were one part of the government’s support for banks and the financial markets.  The associated takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cost another $151 billion.

Treasury bought the mortgage debt in an attempt to stabilize the housing industry, with funds approved by the Housing and Recovery Act of 2008.  Critics claim that it did more to prop up Wall Street than Main Street.  Anti-bailout anger fueled both the conservative Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street on the left.  Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner argues that the government’s action helped prevent a deeper economic downturn.  TARP funds enabled the government to purchase preferred stock in banks, other financial firms and some automakers in return for the public investment.  Some of the preferred stock ultimately was converted to common stock.  According to a Treasury official, to date $331 billion has been repaid, including dividends and interest earned on the preferred shares.  While TARP currently is $83 billion in debt, Treasury projects losses will eventually number about $68 billion.  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts a lower loss of just $34 billion.

The Obama administration has stressed the TARP bank program’s performance, which has returned about $259 billion, more than the $245 billion lenders received.  At present. there are 361 banks remaining in TARP.

In all, Treasury bought $225 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities during the depths of the financial crisis between October of 2008 and December of 2009.  Some of those securities were backing loans believed to be worthless, according to some financial analysts at the time.  Treasury’s portfolio, however, was comprised mostly of 30-year fixed-rate mortgage-backed securities and were guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, enhancing their value.  Congress authorized $700 billion for TARP, but Treasury only paid out $414 billion.  Of that, $331 billion has been paid back, including profits, interest and dividends made from investments.

Writing for The Hill, Peter Schroeder notes that “Now, with markets surging and the financial crisis in the rearview mirror — and with the presidential campaign rapidly approaching — the government is backing away from its outsized presence in the markets.  The move marks the latest in a series of steps by the government to exit its crisis-driven investments.  In July, the Treasury announced it was no longer invested in Chrysler, ending with a roughly $1.3 billion loss.  However, the government has fared better with investments in the banking sector.  The Treasury announced roughly one year ago that it had officially turned a profit on that portion of the bailout, and ultimately estimates it will turn a $20 billion profit on the $245 billion that was pumped into banks.”

All industry analysts are not as optimistic. Economist Douglas Lee, of the advisory firm Economics from Washington, said it is inevitable that the government will end up with “substantial losses” on the bailout, but that it was appropriate to try to reap gains where possible.  “A lot of these assets that were acquired were distressed at the time that they were bought so the chance of coming out ahead in selected areas is quite good,” Lee said.  For the long term, however, the effort to rebuild a reliable housing finance system means that costs for subsidizing operations of firms like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will continue to be expensive.  Investments in insurer AIG and in automakers might prove hard to recoup 100 percent.  Recently, Treasury said it was selling 206.9 million shares of AIG, which would reduce the government’s stake in the company to 70 percent from 77 percent.  “You have to say that these programs have worked in the sense that it’s restored a sense of stability that we sought,” Lee said, “but now it is right to have the government back out and let the private sector get on with their job.”

The Fed’s 2010 Profit? A Cool $81.7 Billion

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

The Federal Reserve made some serious money in 2010. The central bank’s profit soared to $81.7 billion, a record high, primarily from growing interest earnings on federal agency and government-sponsored enterprise mortgage-backed securities.  The Fed’s balance sheet — which also can be monitored monthly — ballooned to $2.43 trillion, up $193 billion from 2009, as holdings of the Treasury Department and mortgage-backed securities increased. The Fed gave back $79 billion to Treasury in last year, an 68 percent increase over $47 billion the Fed returned in 2009.  The Fed’s previous record high earnings was $53.4 billion.

In reaction to the financial crisis, the Fed acquired securities whose value had collapsed due to fear and uncertainty in markets.  Additionally, the Fed created emergency lending programs for banks and firms, which further boosted its balance sheet.  The central bank came under attack for taking too many risks with taxpayer money and putting itself in a position to endure losses.  So far the Fed’s crisis-lending programs have earned handsome profits.  The 2010 income rise primarily resulted from $24 billion in interest earnings from the $1.0 trillion mortgage-backed securities and agency bonds it bought to stabilize the housing market.  As of last week, the Fed held a virtually identical quantity of such securities.

The Treasury Department plans to slowly sell its $142 billion portfolio of mortgage-backed securities.  Although there’s no direct implication for Fed policy, the market reaction to the Treasury sale provides valuable input into how the central bank may go about selling its own significantly larger holdings, which analyst expect to take place early in 2012. That’s a significant increase over the $907 billion it held in August 2008, just before the financial crisis.  To help the nation’s economy recover, the Fed has created massive amounts of credit to support the banking system and buy bonds.

Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, Doug French notes that “Amongst the assets Mr. Bernanke and Co. are shepherding include sub-prime mortgage bonds that once belonged to American International Group (AIG).  The Wall Street Journal reports that AIG would like to repurchase these bonds as a part of its attempt to break free from government control through a public stock offering.  ‘Ahead of that, AIG wants to be able to show investors it is putting its cash to work and boosting investment income in its insurance units,’ reports the WSJ’s Serena Ng.  The rub is that AIG is offering 53 cents on the dollar for the mortgage bonds.  Maybe the Fed can do better in the marketplace.”

Federal Reserve Comes Clean on Who Received Bailout Money

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

Federal Reserve Comes Clean on Who Received Bailout MoneyAt the instruction of Congress, the Federal Reserve has released the names of the approximately 21,000 recipients of $3.3 trillion in aid provided during the financial meltdown –without doubt the nation’s worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Not surprisingly, two of the top beneficiaries were Bank of America and Wells Fargo, who received approximately $45 billion each from the Term Auction Facility.  American units of the Swiss bank UBS, the French bank Societe Generale and German bank Dresdner Bank AG also received financial assistance.  The Fed posted the information on its website in compliance with a provision of the Dodd-Frank bill that imposed strict new financial regulations on Wall Street.

One of the biggest surprises on the list is the fact that General Electric accessed a Fed program no fewer than 12 times for a total of $16 billion.  Although the Fed originally objected, Congress demanded accountability because there was evidence that the central bank had gone beyond their usual role of supporting banks.  In addition, the Fed purchased short-term IOUs from corporations, risky assets from Bear Stearns and more than $1 trillion in housing debt.

Reactions to the revelations are both positive and negative.  On the positive side, Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker said “We owe an accounting to the American people of who we have lent money to.  It is a good step toward broader transparency.”  Sarah Binder, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, disagrees, noting that “These disclosures come at a politically opportune time for the Fed.  Just when Chairman Bernanke is trying to defend the Fed from Republican critics of its asset purchases, the Fed’s wounds from the financial crisis are reopened.”

Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) said “We see this (list) not as the end of a process but really a significant step forward in opening the veil of secrecy that exists in one of the most powerful agencies in government.  Given the size of these commitments, it is incomprehensible that the American people have not received specific details about them.”

TARP’s Ultimate Tally Could Be Just $25 Billion

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

TARP’s Ultimate Tally Could Be Just $25 BillionThe estimated cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) keeps falling, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).   The latest estimate is that TARP will cost the taxpayers just $25 billion – significantly less than the $700 billion allocated for the financial bailout in the fall of 2008.  The CBO’s last estimate – made in August – was that TARP would add up to a $66 billion loss, so the newest numbers represent a significant improvement.

This optimistic prediction is thanks to funds returned to the Treasury Department as banks repaid their loans and bought back stock warrants.  Another factor in the revised numbers is that less money than anticipated went to bailing out AIG and General Motors, the latter of which recently had an extremely successful initial public offering.  “Clearly, it was not apparent when the TARP was created two years ago that the cost would turn out to be this low,” according to the CBO.  “At the time, the U.S. financial system was in a precarious position, and the transactions envisioned and ultimately undertaken through the TARP engendered substantial financial risk for the federal government.”

TARP was originally created so the government could buy toxic mortgage-backed securities from big banks.  Former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson ultimately altered the program to infuse cash into banks and other companies that were likely to fail.  The majority of banks have repaid their loans; in fact, the federal government has made approximately $12 billion from those transactions.  Because the financial system was stabilized more quickly than originally anticipated, only $433 billion of the TARP fund was spent, which reduced the potential for losses, according to the CBO.  President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have hailed the revised projection as a sign that the extremely unpopular program was effective and not the corporate giveaway as some opponents have accused.

Fannie, Freddie Bailouts Could Cost the Taxpayers $154 Billion

Monday, November 8th, 2010

Taxpayer bill for Fannie, Freddie bailout could reach $154 billion. The ultimate cost of bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could cost as much as $154 billion unless the economy improves, according to a government report.  The mortgage giants rescue – which has kept the housing market on life supports – already has cost $135 billion to cover losses on home loans in default.  The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, says the most likely scenario is that house prices will have to fall slightly during a slow economic recovery, then rise a bit.  If that occurs, the Fannie and Freddie bailout will cost taxpayers an additional $19 billion.  A more upbeat prediction sees the housing market recovering sooner, which would require just $6 billion more for a total bill of $141 billion.

Washington, D.C., research firm Federal Financial Analytics believes the FHFA projection provides a sound indication of what the bailout will cost, but “nowhere near a definitive picture of it.”  Fannie and Freddie issued a joint statement that said “It’s simply impossible to forecast reliably now how much foreclosuregate will cost.”  Fannie and Freddie’s plight stands in sharp contrast to the success of the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP), which is now expected to cost just 10 percent of the $700 billion originally forecast.

Federal regulators seized Fannie and Freddie in September of 2008 in the wake of the financial crisis.  Since then, the government has kept the agencies solvent, with President Obama pledging unlimited support.  “From the beginning, the Obama administration has made it clear that the current structure of the government’s role in housing finance, while necessary in the short-term to provide critical support to a still-fragile housing market, is simply not acceptable for the long term,” said Jeffrey Goldstein, Treasury Department undersecretary for domestic finance.

Kenneth Feinberg Widens Review of Rescued Bank Compensation

Thursday, April 1st, 2010

The nation’s pay czar is widening his review of how much money hundreds of banks paid their top executives during Pay czar is asking for details on compensation at U.S. banks that took TARP money.  the 2008 financial crisis. Kenneth R. Feinberg, officially the Special Master for Executive Compensation, is asking for details on compensation at 419 banks that were bailed out by the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  Because Feinberg’s authority over compensation only started on February 17, 2009 – when President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill into law and gave Treasury the ability to shape compensation at bailed-out companies – he can do nothing about bonuses paid at the end of 2008.

The standards for deciding that compensation is excessive must be “contrary to the public interest.”  Feinberg’s “look back letter” gives the firms 30 days to provide the information requested.  The compensation review applies only to managers who earned upwards of $500,000 during the four-month period that is under assessment.  Scott Talbott, senior vice president of the Financial Services Roundtable, said the big banks “will work with Mr. Feinberg to demonstrate that the industry has eliminated pay practices that encouraged excessive risk-taking.”

Last fall, Feinberg cut executive paychecks by approximately 50 percent for the seven biggest bailout recipients.  Of those, Citigroup and Bank of America have since repaid the government.  Feinberg was able to pressure AIG employees to return a percentage of their compensation.  James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, said, “On one hand, some of these banks were effectively forced to take TARP money.  But you could also argue that the executives of surviving banks should not be compensated highly because it wasn’t really their particular skill, it was their luck that they were in an institution that survived when the government bailed out the financial system.”

TARP’s Price Tag: $109 Billion

Monday, March 29th, 2010

CBO predicts that TARP’s ultimate price tag will not be as high as expected.  The Congressional Budget Office has determined that the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will cost the government $109 billion – just 16 percent of the $700 billion set aside to rescue the nation from the great recession.  Insurance giant AIG and the auto industry are TARP’s largest beneficiaries.

The federal government bought $40 billion in AIG preferred stock and created a $30 billion line of credit for the firm.  Earlier CBO estimates that AIG would cost the government $9 billion; since AIG hasn’t paid the Treasury Department the quarterly dividend it owes, the CBO increased its projected loss to $36 billion or more than half of the bailout cost.  The CBO estimates that TARP will lose $34 billion from its bailout of Chrysler and General Motors.

TARP’s mortgage modification program is estimated to use less than $20 billion, less than half of the $50 billion set aside to help people stay in their homes.  The CBO says that fewer people will participate in the program than anticipated.  When President Barack Obama announced the program in February of 2009, he said that as many as four million homeowners could reduce their monthly payments to no more than 31 percent of their pre-tax incomes.  At the end of February, only 170,000 distressed homeowners had taken advantage of the mortgage modification program.

$700 Billion Financial Bailout Plan Still Evolving

Friday, November 21st, 2008

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is sitting on $350 billion dollars of the taxpayers’ money, and can’t quite settle on the best way to spend it.  When approved by Congress in October, the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bill’s purpose was to purchase bad mortgage assets that had frozen the credit markets. The Treasury Department has already used approximately half of the money to capitalize banks and prevent insurer American International Group (AIG) from going into financial default.  The problem with the TARP bill is that conditions keep changing and Treasury is altering its focus to one of helping banks that are sound to stay healthy – with the ultimate goal of thawing credit.  Meanwhile, Treasury is coordinating with the Federal Reserve to restore consumer confidence so people start buying cars, taking out student loans, or even using their credit cards again.  The question is:  which version of TARP eventually will unfreeze the debt markets.  Given the complexity of the situation, there is no simple answer.  Because both Wall Street and Main Street are equally impacted, TARP is likely to end up providing some amount of relief to both groups.

So, the question is, which TARP is it?  We invite your comments.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4AB7P820081112

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu-crisis-bailout-shift-nov13,0,2664351.story