Posts Tagged ‘Troubled Asset Relief Program’

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.”

Fannie Mae Asks Uncle Sam For More Money

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

In an attempt to dig itself out of a deepening hole, Fannie Mae has requested $4.6 billion in additional federal aid. “We think that we have reserved for and recognized substantially all of the credit losses associated with the legacy book,” Chief Financial Officer Susan McFarland said.  “We’re very focused on returning to profitability so we don’t have to draw (from Treasury) to cover operating losses.”

Although the nation’s banks seem to be recovering nicely, the same cannot be said for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Writing in Forbes, Steve Schaefer notes that “The mortgage finance giants have taken on a greater share of supporting the U.S. housing market as private players pared back their exposure in recent years, and the result has been billions of losses on the taxpayer dime.  Fannie Mae reported booking a $16.9 billion 2011 loss capped off by the loss of $2.4 billion in the 4th quarter.  Fannie Mae’s losses are still coming largely from its legacy book of business (from before 2009), which led to $5.5 billion in credit-related expenses tied to declining home prices.

“The black holes of Fannie and Freddie – Fannie’s Q4 report shows it has requested to draw $116.2 billion since being placed under conservatorship Sept. 6, 2008 while paying back $19.9 billion in preferred stock dividends – are the biggest black eyes of the 2008 bailouts.  Plenty of critics of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) have made their voices heard over the years, but at least most of the banks that received TARP injections – the biggest of which went to Bank of America and Citigroup – have paid back the government’s loans and are back to making profits, if modest ones. Even American Intl Group and the automakers  that received bailouts – General Motors and Chrysler – have moved beyond needing additional government dollars.  Fannie and Freddie, on the other hand, show few signs of becoming anything resembling productive companies until the housing market turns around or the pre-2009 assets are completely wiped off the books or new policies are necessary to encourage new refinancing beyond those currently in place that have had limited impact.”

“While economic factors such as falling home prices and high unemployment produced strong headwinds for our business again in 2011, we continued to grow a very strong new book of business as we have since 2009, “said CEO Michael Williams, who handed in his resignation in January but is still on board while the government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) looks for his replacement.

Bank of America last week announced that it had stopped selling some mortgages to Fannie Mae because of a dispute over requests from the government-run company to buy back defective loans.  “If Fannie Mae collects less than the amount it expects from Bank of America, Fannie Mae may be required to seek additional funds from Treasury,” the company said.

Fannie Mae blamed its loss primarily on pre-2009 loans and falling home prices, which pushed up the company’s credit-related expenses.  In the 4th quarter of 2010, Fannie Mae posted a slight profit to end a streak of 13 consecutive quarterly losses, though the company was back in the red in the following quarter and each since.  The net cost to taxpayers for bailing out Fannie and Freddie stands at more than $152 billion.

During the 4th quarter, Fannie Mae acquired 47,256 single family homes through foreclosure compared with 45,194 in the 3rd quarter.  The company disposed of 51,344 REO properties in the quarter, down from 58,297 in the 3rd quarter.  As of the end of 2011, Fannie Mae was holding 118,528 REO properties, a reduction from the 122,616 at the end of September and 162,489 on December 31, 2010.  The value of the single-family REO was $9.7 billion compared with $11.0 billion at the end of the 3rd quarter and $15.0 billion at the end of 2010.  The single family foreclosure rate in the 3rd quarter was 1.13 percent annualized compared with 1.15 for the first three quarters of the year and 1.46 percent for 2010.

Meanwhile, the federal government wants to sell approximately 2,500 distressed properties in eight locations to investors who buy them in bulk and rent them out for a predetermined period.  The properties, located in Atlanta, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles/Riverside, and three Florida regions, include single-family homes and co-op apartment buildings.  “This is another important milestone in our initiative designed to reduce taxpayer losses, stabilize neighborhoods and home values, shift to more private management of properties, and reduce the supply of REO properties in the marketplace,” said Edward J. DeMarco, the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees Fannie Mae.

The Fed’s Secret Bank Loans Revealed

Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

In a stunning revelation, Bloomberg has obtained 29,000 pages of Federal Reserve documents detailing the largest bailout in American history.  According to an article that will appear in the January issue of Bloomberg Markets magazine, the “Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on December 5, 2008, their single neediest day.  Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy.  And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates.”

The $7.77 trillion that the central bank made available stunned even Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009.  According to Stern, he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.”  It overshadows the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) program.  When you add up guarantees and lending limits, it becomes clear that the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March, 2009 to rescuing the financial system. That is more than half the value of the U.S. GDP that year.  “TARP at least had some strings attached,” said Representative Brad Miller (D-NC), a member of the House Financial Services Committee.  “With the Fed programs, there was nothing.”

According to Bloomberg’s editors, “Even as they were tapping the Fed for emergency loans at rates as low as 0.01 percent, the banks that were the biggest beneficiaries of the program were assuring investors that their firms were healthy.  Moreover, these banks used money they had received in the bailout to lobby Congress against reforms aimed at preventing the next collapse.  By keeping the details of its activities under wraps, the Fed deprived lawmakers of the essential information they needed to draft those rules. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, for example, was debated and passed by Congress in 2010 without a full understanding of how deeply the banks had depended on the Fed for survival.  Similarly, lawmakers approved the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue the banks without knowing the details of the far larger bailout being run by the Fed.

“The central bank justified its approach by saying that disclosing the information would have signaled to the markets that the financial institutions that received help were in trouble.  That, in turn, would make needy institutions reluctant to use the Fed as a lender of last resort in the next crisis.  Fed officials argue, with some justification, that the program helped avert a much bigger economic cataclysm and that all the loans have now been repaid.”

Derek Thompson, a senior editor at The Atlantic, argues that the Fed’s secret bailout is a sign that it was doing its job.  According to Thompson, “First, you can be furious that the Federal Reserve ‘committed’ $7.7 trillion — a sum of money equal to half of the U.S. economy — to save the financial system.  I understand the shock, but we were at the precipice of catastrophe and that money wasn’t ‘spent’ so much as it was put at risk and subsequently recouped.  The economy has struggled in the three years since, but we avoided meltdown.  The trillions worked.

“Second, you can be furious that the banks made a profit off of their own mistakes — but $13 billion is a small price to pay for staving off Armageddon.  Third, you can be furious that the Federal Reserve went to court to keep this information out of the hands of journalists.  There, I’d agree.  It’s Congress’s job (not the Federal Reserve’s job) to pass laws that govern the banking sector, but Congress needs information to make good decisions about regulating banks and it’s disappointing that the Federal Reserve withheld details about its bailouts while the commission and the Dodd-Frank debate were ongoing.  Fourth, you can be furious that our central bank basically did the right thing when it had to, and its counterpart in Europe won’t — at the risk of a continental meltdown.”

Times’ Massimo Calabresi agrees. According to Calabresi, “But the Fed saved the world economy through all this lending without losing a penny in the process.  And after its initial heavy breathing, the article does give the Fed an opportunity to explain itself.  ‘Supporting financial-market stability in times of extreme stress is a core function of central banks,’ said William B. English, director of the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs.  “Our lending programs served to prevent a collapse of the financial system and to keep credit flowing to American families and businesses.’  In other words, lending money to banks in a crisis is the whole point of the Fed:  saving the world economy by flooding the system with money when it is about to freeze up is exactly what the central bank was created to do.”

The Fed has been lending money to banks since just after it was established in 1913. By the end of 2008, the Fed had created or expanded 11 lending facilities catering to financial firms that were unable to obtain short-term loans from their usual sources.  “Supporting financial-market stability in times of extreme market stress is a core function of central banks,” said William English, director of the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs.  “Our lending programs served to prevent a collapse of the financial system and to keep credit flowing to American families and businesses.”

 

Want to Buy a Toxic Asset? The Treasury Department Is Selling Them

Monday, April 18th, 2011

The Treasury Department is planning to sell $142 billion worth of toxic assets that it acquired during the financial crisis.  According to Treasury, it wants to sell approximately $10 million worth of assets every month, depending on market conditions and hopes to end the program next year.  Treasury acquired the securities — primarily 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac –between October, 2008 and December, 2009 to stabilize the home loan market.

The Treasury has decided to sell the securities now because the market has “notably improved.”  According to Treasury officials, the sale could net $15 billion to $20 billion in profits for taxpayers.  The sale will have a negligible impact on the U.S. debt limit but could delay the ceiling’s arrival by a few days.  In early March, Treasury estimated the U.S. would hit the $14.294 trillion ceiling between April 15 and May 31.  The Treasury in 2008 retained State Street Global Advisors, a leading institutional asset manager, to acquire, manage and dispose of the mortgage-backed securities portfolio.

“We will exit this investment at a gradual and orderly pace to maximize the recovery of taxpayer dollars and help protect the process of repair of the housing finance market, Mary Miller, assistant secretary for financial markets, said.  “We’re continuing to wind down the emergency programs that were put in place in 2008 and 2009 to help restore market stability, and the sale of these securities is consistent with that effort.”

Congress gave Treasury the authority to buy securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The value of these mortgage-backed securities declined significantly after the housing bubble burst, prompting fears that write-downs could drag down individual banks and further plunge the financial system into panic.  The Treasury said that three years after the worst point of the crisis, the market for asset-backed derivatives is now much more robust.

The government bought $221 billion of these bonds, as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.  Treasury announced that it would buy the bonds on the day the government took over Fannie and Freddie.  “The primary objectives of this portfolio will be to promote market stability, ensure mortgage availability, and protect the taxpayer,” Treasury said at the time.  The portfolio is now just $142 billion.  The Congressional Oversight Panel, which supervised the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said that as of February of 2011, Treasury had received $84 billion in principal repayments and $16.7 billion in interest on the securities it holds.

“It was a bit of a surprise, though will likely be easy to digest,said Tom Tucci, head of government bond trading at Capital Markets in New York.  “We spent a year and a half at levels that were unsustainable because they weren’t based on economic fundamentals, they were based on fear.  “Now some of the fundamentals are starting to come back into place.”

Republicans are asking for deeper cuts in government spending before they will agree to raise the debt limit.  Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has cautioned that failure to raise the borrowing limit would cause an unparalleled default by the government on the national debt.  Without question, this would drive up the government’s cost of borrowing money.

TARP: Money Well Spent

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011

A top Treasury official defended the federal government’s $700 billion bank bailout financial crisis-response program at a hearing where the effort was criticized by members of a watchdog panel insisting that it did more for Wall Street than Main Street. “The cost of TARP is likely to be no greater than the amount spent on the program’s housing initiatives,” said Timothy Massad, acting assistant secretary of the Treasury for the Office of Financial Stability, to the Congressional Oversight Panel that oversees the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  “The remainder of the programs under TARP — the investments in banks, credit markets and the auto industry — likely will result in very little or no cost,” he said.

Panel member J. Mark McWatters, a Dallas-based CPA ad tax attorney, argued that it is difficult to call TARP a success when the unemployment rate is still approximately nine percent and millions of Americans are fighting foreclosure.  Panel Chairman Ted Kaufman – who was Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff of 19 years and temporarily replaced him in the Senate – said that Wall Street bankers ended up in better shape than Main Street.  “It’s not a tough economy on Wall Street, it’s a tough economy everywhere else,” Kaufman said.

According to Massad, TARP will end up spending no more than $475 billion; 86 percent of which has been disbursed.  To date, Treasury has received $277 billion back, including $241 billion in repayments and $36 billion in additional income. The Treasury expects to receive an additional $9 billion, which will leave $150 billion outstanding through various investments.  The department hopes to recover those funds over the next several years.  “TARP helped bring our financial system back from the brink and paved the way for an economic recovery,” Massad said.  “Banks are better capitalized, and the weakest parts of the financial system no longer exist.  The credit markets on which small businesses and consumers depend — for auto loans, for credit cards and other financing — have reopened.  Businesses can raise capital, and mortgage rates are at historic lows.  We have helped bring stability to the financial system and the economy at a fraction of the expected costs.”

William Nelson, deputy director of the Federal Reserve’s division of monetary affairs, agrees with Massad. In testimony about the Fed’s program to restart the asset-backed securities markets with backing from the Treasury’s TARP program, Nelson said even that program is unlikely to experience any losses.  “The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) program helped restart the ABS markets at a crucial time, supporting the availability of credit to millions of American households and businesses,” Nelson said, adding that of the more than 2,000 loans worth $70 billion that were extended through the Fed’s facility, 1,400 totaling $49 billion were repaid early.  Remaining loans are current, and the collateral backing the loans is retaining its value, “significantly reducing the likelihood of borrower default.”

“As a result, we see it as highly likely that the accumulated interest will be sufficient to cover any loan losses that may occur without recourse to the dedicated TARP funds,” Nelson said.  Europe, by contrast, did not act as aggressively to apply stimulus with the result that financial crises occurred in countries like Ireland and Greece.

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.

Geithner: The Patient is Out of Intensive Care

Friday, May 15th, 2009

It’s been a long, strange ride, but the nation’s financial system is finally starting what is certain to be an extended healing process. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner believes that “the financial system is starting to heal” as he promised to move returned bail-out funds to community banks that need help.bandaid-on-broken-and-cracked-piggy-bank

Improved lending circumstances are tempering concerns about systemic risk and reduced leverage at banks, according to Geithner, who noted that “a substantial part of the adjustment process” for the financial sector is now coming to an end.

Several of the larger banks – Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Capital One Financial – want to repay the funds they received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.  The Treasury will increase the money community banks can access to five percent of risk-weighted assets from three percent.  The government has already invested in preferred stock in 300 smaller banks.

“As in any financial crisis, the damage has been unfair and indiscriminate,” Geithner said.  “Ordinary Americans, small business owners and community banks who did the right thing and played by the rules are suffering from the actions of those who took on too much risk.”

Why the optimism?  Geithner points to declines in corporate bond spreads, lower risk premiums in inter-bank markets and cheaper default insurance on big banks as evidence that the financial system is healing.  “These are welcome signs, but the process of financial recovery and repair is going to take time,” he cautions.