« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama Reinterprets the TARP. Don’t Be Fooled.

Yesterday, Obama asked President Bush to formally request Congress to approve the second $350 billion tranche of the TARP fund. Bush complied, and sent his letter to Congress last night.

This little dance is necessary because Congress split up the $700 billion TARP fund into two halves. The first $350 billion has all been committed or spent now, with the last of it serving as a downpayment on the coming, still-indeterminate Detroit Three bailout.

The two-step process was a fig-leaf added to the original TARP back in October, so that Congress could claim they were overseeing the program in the uniquely tough, objective, fair-minded and knowledgeable way that we’ve come to expect from them. Now that the President has requested the second tranche, Congress has fifteen days in which to grandstand, cluck over how poorly the money has been spent, haul Paulson et al in for a tongue-lashing, and wring their hands over how much the American people hate the idea. Their work of oversight done, they will then approve and release the second tranche.

Partly this is nice for Obama because Congress can have their media circus before he takes office. And partly he can start the 15-day clock now, so the rest of the TARP fund is available sooner.

But Obama made several statements in his remarks that indicate a very big problem we need to be concerned with. He’s rewriting the objectives of the TARP in an evil way. And he’s getting away with it because most people who aren’t finance experts don’t really understand what TARP was intended to achieve in the first place.

In remarks in Washington quoted by news services, Obama said that the TARP funds have been managed badly by the Bush Treasury Department. That’s a cheap political score, but fair enough.

He also said that he’s been disappointed with the “failure to take bold action with respect to areas like housing, consumer credit.” Obama cat’s-paw Barney Frank also said, arguing for approval of the second tranche of TARP funds, that we shouldn’t let our disappointment prevent Obama from using the funds in “more appropriate ways.”

We know from many past statements that Frank has long wanted to put Federal money directly into the hands of distressed mortgageholders. Obama’s statement indicates a similar turn of mind.

In a letter to Congress, Obama adviser Larry Summers said that Obama wants to be handing TARP money out to community banks, small businesses, consumers unable to borrow money, and people in danger of being foreclosed on their mortgages.

In short, these people are looking at the TARP as a big welfare program. That’s not what it was supposed to be.

Where the TARP Came From

The TARP was a break-glass-in-case-of-fire program, originally conceived as a last-ditch response to an extreme emergency. That emergency materialized in mid-September as the institutional money markets crumbled in the wake of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.

TARP proponents Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke initially proposed TARP to Congress in closed sessions that scared Hell out of everyone who heard them. Since time was of the essence, no thought whatsoever was given to explaining the program to the public, much less selling it.

This was a PR failure of gargantuan proportions, right up there with the worst ever. Almost instantly, the people were told by the news media that Wall Street was looking for a $700 billion handout from taxpayers to ensure that the best-paid people on earth would get their multi-million dollar bonuses this year, even though they were losing money. And that, for some unexplained reason, the world would end if we didn’t give them what they wanted.

To this day, many people think that’s what the TARP plan is all about.

On balance, I was in favor of the original TARP plan, even though it created tremendous moral hazard by permitting certain companies to stay in business after making terrible mistakes. The true goal was to keep the global banking system from collapsing, as one trillion dollars in losses nearly wiped out the industry’s entire capital.

If we had allowed that to happen, we might today be looking out at a world in which quite a few of the largest banks in the world were out of business and simply gone. Barack Obama’s stimulus plan would have been a nonstarter because there wouldn’t have been anyone to even give the stimulus money to. Things really were potentially that bad.

It’s true that the implementation of the TARP plan was improvised. But for all Obama’s cheap criticism, there’s no way he could have done any better. In the end, the plan of forcing large banks to give issues of preferred stock to the Treasury in return for TARP cash was a fairly reasonable way to assure market participants that these banks would not fail.

But keep in mind how the TARP funds are being used. They’re not being used to fund spending, consumption or pork-barrel projects. Those monies have been added to the balance sheets of financial institutions. They represent senior claims on the assets of the institutions. Yes, there is the potential for losses on these capital positions, but it’s not the same as ordinary spending.

Think about if you had $500 and you blew it on dinner, movies, and presents for some girl you’re trying to impress. That’s one kind of spending. The other way you could spend it is to buy stock in a business corporation.

Whatever you expect to get out of blowing your money on fun and games, you certainly don’t expect to get your money back. When you invest in stock, you DO expect to get your money back.

That’s the fundamental difference between the disposition of TARP funds, which Obama professes to be so disappointed in, and ordinary spending. It’s also why Paulson steadfastly refused all the non-bank people who stuck their hands out for TARP funds, including the Detroit automakers.

The TARP plan is not “spending” in the ordinary sense of the term. It’s a stabilization fund. The worst-case estimates I’ve seen suggest that total taxpayer exposure created by the TARP will probably amount to $50 billion, maybe $100 billion. It’s just as likely that the liability will be zero or negative, suggesting a positive return on the taxpayer investment.

But that’s not how Obama understands the TARP. Remember, this man is all about fiscal stimulus. He wants to spend as much borrowed money as he possibly can, as fast as he can, to buy whatever he can think of, because he’s become convinced that somehow that’s a good idea.

Obama is trying to blow as much as a trillion dollars on dinner, movies, and presents for favored governors and other politicians. He’s disappointed because Paulson chose to use the TARP narrowly and efficiently, for financial stabilization.

What Obama is trying to do is to add the remaining $350 billion in TARP funds to his New New Deal program. He doesn’t want to invest it. He wants to spend it.

Don’t be fooled.

Tags:

COMMENTS

  • Andy W.

    Not even my brother in law the banker explained TARP so well. I finally understand.

  • Wubbies World

  • bk

    Think about it – How much hot air did the Dems expel talking about how much scrutiny and oversight they would perform? Heck, they didn’t even do a lick of it while Bush’s people were pulling the strings. Obama will have even more of a carte blanche, so it’s totally out of control.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      Are you falling for the MSM’s failure (perhaps intentional) to distinguish between spending on garage sale items and investments that grant the US taxpayers rights to get their money back before the stockholders of the TARP recipient financial institutions?

      And where would we be without that govt investment? Let’s consider what the supply curve of money before and after the credit crunch. (Ball park numbers from my unsourced, non-intensive monitoring of the market. Feel free to correct specific #s, but I’m darn sure the story will remain the same.)

      Here’s a link to a (rather) technical article from a previous Francis diary entry. Conclusion: Any TARP-induced transfers of taxpayer wealth have gone to financial institution creditors, not the financial institutions themselves

      Don’t be alarmed by the term “Gift” in the title. It’s chump change compared to the garage sale spending spree. And then ask yourself how much worse the “diagram” below would look if financial institution creditors (i.e. the credit market) hadn’t got the message that the Fed/US govt wasn’t going to stand behind the US financial system.

      ↑    15.00%                                    Subprime

      |
      |
      |
      |

      R
      a   12.00%
      t
      e

      i
      n
           10.00%
      P
      e
      r
      c
      e
      n     8.00%                                    Small bus
      t
      a
      g
      e

      O
      v
      e
      r     5.00%

      T
      r    4.00%
      e
      s
      u    3.00%          Subprime
      r
      i
      e    2.00%          Small bus                 Mortgages (agency backed)

      |
      |    1.00%           Corporates
      |          Mortgages (agency backed)
              |          Banks (swaps)
      ⊥     0.00%           Treasurys                  Treasurys

                        Pre-crunch                 Present

      • 6eorge Jetson

        In the “diagram” above…

        The left “column”/positions graphically represent pre-crunch funding rates.
        The right “column”/positions graphically represent present funding rates.

        In tabular form:
        Class              Pre-crunch           Present
        Subprime           3.00%             15.00%
        Small bus           2.00%              8.00%
        Corporates           1.00%              8.00%
        Mortgages*           0.60%              2.00%
        Swaps           0.30%              ??%
        Treasurys           0.00%              0.00%

        *W/ very strong partially explicit/partially implicit US govt guarentee

        • bk

          How long after passage of TARP did the focus switch from “toxic assets” to “today’s crisis area”? It seemed the ink was barely dry…

          Have there been any details of how the TARP money was used? Maybe whom it went to, but not what they did with it. Don’t you recall a spate of stories just before Christmas about this?

          And here is one from Robert Reich, with whom normally I’d disagree, asking if it’s just changing to a giant slush fund if car makers get TARP money right after being denied when asking Congress for a targeted direct bailout.

          Here is all sorts of yapping from the TARP oversight panel about lack of accountability. And great friend of the taxpayer Barney Frank is saying that the release of the other half will be different.

          If there was basically no oversight and no accountability and changes rules through the TARP’s short life under Bush, does anyone really think Frank or the Dems are interested in tying Obama’s hands? No way – they will give stern speeches rightly furrow their brows, but all they want to make sure is that their favored constituents or contributors or causes get a nice big slice of the pie.

          So I stand by my statement that TARP handling was a joke under Bush and it will only get worse under Obama. Will it work? No doubt some of it will and some of it won’t, but we’ll never know how most of the money was spent.

          • JSobieski

            “We need to do this now, no debate, or else we are all DOOMED”

            Of course the “this” changed over time, and many people in the public square raising questions were closer to where we ended up than Paulson was.

            But sure, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The Great and Powerful Paulson . . .

          • 6eorge Jetson

            But to date, the Big3 diversion involved a $15 billion loan (lots of terrible precidents there but no where near the money Obama is talking).

            In fact the analysis of the article below (it’s a model analysis, not the absolute truth) concludes that the original toxic asset purchase would have been less efficient in taxpayer dollars than the path chosen by Paulson.

            From the WSJ article

            The report faulted Treasury on a variety of fronts, saying it has:
            1) no ability to ensure banks lend the money they’ve received from the government;
            The alternative is for the govt to get directly involved in the lending business. We saw how that worked w/ CRA. And of course, the banks aren’t lending with the basically risk free alternatives that this environment provides
            2) no standards for measuring the success of the program;
            No, but Paulson didn’t exactly have the luxury of time as the financial system teetered on collapse. See Link courtesy of Francis for a working paper that attempts to develop a framework.
            3) and that it ignored or offered incomplete answers to panel questions.
            Guilty. But good answers would involve explaining and debating concepts such as those in the aforementioned link. No easy task in our sound byte media.

          • 6eorge Jetson
  • janis

    be screwed just the same, fooled or not, correct? Meaning that there’s not a blessed thing we can do to shift the outcome since no one on either side seems to want to offend O’s delicate sensibilities by saying, “NO!”

    That about the size of it?

  • izoneguy

    over to the US Treasury?
    Just like the libs hated the war, conservatives hate the TARP.
    Where is the end game? When will the money spent show
    some results? The government would be better off
    giving the money to venture capital groups that actually
    invest in new ventures. Ventures that might actually
    produce something in the future. To throw billions at
    bad and failed business is about the worst thing you
    can do. Please send me 10 Million. I can make a feature film
    that will make 20,000,000 – double your money.
    (I might need 5,000,000 more for advertising, trust me it will be worth it)
    The title of the film: TARP – The Obamanator Years

  • Aaron Gardner

    The first time I ever invested in the stock market a friend of mine gave me one peice of advice…don’t chase your loses.

    How is TARP anything other than chasing loses in it’s implemented form?

    How will buying preferred stock in dying banks that still won’t loan money going to turn a profit, and how long until this profit can be expected to occur?

    Thanks

    • Francis Cianfrocca

      The idea is to stabilize them so they don’t fail at a time of systemic fragility, and consequently make all the other banks susceptible to failure, in a cascading “domino effect.”

      There’s an interest rate penalty built into the TARP preferred-stock purchases, which as you remember were mandatory, not optional, for the ten largest banks.

      Each assisted bank is required to pay the Treasury a 5% annual coupon on the value of their TARP money. After a certain number of years (I forget how many, perhaps three?) the coupon jumps up to 9%. This rate would make TARP money close to the most expensive part of these banks’ capital structure, and they’ll want to pay the TARP off and get them off their backs as soon as possible.

      A big motivation of the TARP is to make it attractive for private investors to add new equity capital into the largest banks.

      What will it take for banks to start actually lending again? That question is related, but different. TARP is concerned with ensuring survival of the system as a whole.

      Wouldn’t it have been more desirable, and congruent with the free-market principles generally beloved by conservatives, just to let undercapitalized banks go under and let the markets recover on their own?

      Sure. And who’s going to cash your paycheck or lend you money to buy a house or a car for the next ten or twenty years while you wait for some new banks to be formed?

      • JSobieski

        and if this crisis showed anything, it showed that a small credit union is less vulnerable than large international banks.

        Moreover, ALL banks would not collapse. There was an article in a Michigan business publication showing how little TARP money was making its way to local and even regional banks.

        So in terms of cashing paychecks or buying houses/cars. I believe you have overstated the impact of a TARP-free America.

        • 6eorge Jetson

          There’d be a free lunch in there somewhere for those that ignore the market price of credit.

          • JSobieski

            Credit unions loan money they receive in deposits. The degree of leveraged debt for your average credit union is far far far lower than for the Big Banks benefiting from TARP.

            We didn’t need TARP to have the Fed expand its balance sheet.

            We didn’t need TARP to have the Fed reduce interest ratesto 0%.

            We didnt’ need TARP to have the Fed increase the money supply.

            My argument with TARP is and always has been that other alternatives were superior. If banks like Citigroup really are too big to fail, then they need to be subject to greater regulation than the smaller banks which are not. TARP is primarily geared towards Big Banks—the institutions that are the primary cause of the problem.

          • JSobieski

            What I meant to say was debt to equity ratio.

          • 6eorge Jetson

            Quoting a line I read somewhere, “If they’re too big to fail, then make them smaller”.

            But unfortunately, the horse has left the barn already.

            I think about the role govt plays in three categories

            1. Defense and Risk Mgmt

            Besides the obvious (defense, police), govt needs to specify the rules, to keep party A from benefiting from costs he/she imposes on party B. (E.g. leveraging yourself up to 35-1, heads = multimillionaire, tails = TARP. Blame Bush appointed SEC chairman Chris Cox for allowing investment banks to double leverage in 2004 up to ~35-1. Similarly, blame Democrats for blocking Republican efforts to reign in Fannie & Freddie from similar leverage levels. (Pre-crisis)As of 9/30/07 Freddie levered itself up through a meager 3.2% capital ratio while Fannie ran at 4.8%

            2. Value-adding activities where the private sector lacks incentives to provide

            E.g., highways, bridges, basic scientific research etc

            3. Value-adding activities where the private sector is already present

            Govt has no business here.

          • JSobieski

            what has government done, what were the alternatives, and what appears to have had an impact?

            Seems to me the Fed and FDIC are doing things that are helpful. Not sure what legal basis they have for those actions, but given the Fed and FDIC actions, I think the TARP was not necessary.

            TARP is opening the barn door for a whole lot of pork and Keynesian nonesense that will take decades to recover from

          • Francis Cianfrocca

            Back in early October, there was serious question when and at what rate private banks would ever lend money to each other again. Every kind of finance that depended on short-term credit was at a locked-down, frozen standstill, from institutional money funds to secured commercial paper.

            Overnight repo rates for Treasury specials were negative almost every night, and the rate of fails was so high that the Treasury even added penalties on them for the first time that I can remember.

            The Fed funds rate was tracking between 0.20 and 0.35 almost every night, even though the Fed’s target at that time was 1 percent.

            The swap spread on 30-year Treasury bonds was negative almost every day. One day it hit -60 basis points.

            All of this stuff was just totally insane, bat-excrement crazy. The financial markets were fully expecting the world to end. The stock markets, by behaving with relative calm (only falling 23% in one week), showed yet again how good they are at denying reality.

            All of that panic has subsided and calmed down since then. The TARP and the wide range of extraordinary Fed actions get the credit. They applied the defibrillator paddles over and over again, and the heart finally started beating again.

            Now, a small amount of risk-tolerance is finally starting to creep back into the system. We’ve got a basis for further improvements. There’s a very long way to go, but anyone who thinks the TARP was a dismal failure either wasn’t paying attention, or has an exceptionally high pain threshold.

          • JSobieski

            From what I have read, I would rank the various remedial emergency actions as follows:

            (1) Fed Actions – 0%prime rate, increased balance sheet
            (2) FDIC – raise guarantee to $250k
            (3) TARP

            How much worse would we be if there was no TARP?

            I think your order is wrong. Fed action was and is more important than the TARP.

            Was the TARP truly necessary given the other actions?

            I would rather have the Fed push the limits of government intervention than Congress and the Treasury department.

        • 6eorge Jetson

          the annual $500 or so billion of capital that we rely on foreigners for?

          • JSobieski

            Not all banks would fail. THose that didn’t could sell all sorts of things—and buy all sorts of things as well.

            State and regional banks are getting virtually none of the TARP money, at least in Michigan.

            Those same banks are the ones doing all of the lending . . as well as credit unions.

            Let the Chinese by T-Bills from the smaller banks–thats the kind of fiscal stimulus we could use.

          • 6eorge Jetson

            their investments in mortgage backed securities, agency debt, and corporates are substantial also.

          • JSobieski

            Would cutting back on foreign investrment have an impact on our economy? Sure. But it might result in a more rational and stable economy.

          • Francis Cianfrocca

            What’s your background, JSobieski? Are you a local banker?

            I’m not convinced you have a clear grip on the structure of the Treasury debt market at the issuing end. I don’t know enough about small banks and other intermediaries like credit unions to understand where you’re going with this.

            It’s not enough for large banks not to fail. We have to get through a long period of time, at least a few quarters, in which there are no major failures at all. The last thing you can do is lend money overnight to someone that might not be there in the morning. That happened so many times over the past year that there’s no confidence out there.

          • JSobieski

            I’m sure I don’t have a complete and accurage understanding of how things work. I am a small businessman who works primarily with other small businesses. I did expand a letter of credit before TARP was passed and after the crisis started, so I am skeptical of the “credit is totally dried up” meme. I am still getting 0% APR credit card offers as a consumer.

            I may not be a finance guy, but i have pretty good business instincts and read quite a lot of economic issues. I am not persuaded by the analysis that I read.regarding TARP and the financial crisis.

            For example, I have yet to hear someone explain why in light of actions by the Fed and the FDIC, why the TARP was necessary.

            Why couldn’t the Fed simply have increased its balance sheet by another $700B?

            Until someone explains why not, its hard to take the TARP stuff seriously. I mean, Paulson changed his mind on the specific actions to be performed under TARP almost immediately after passage. Given the seat-of-the-pants aspect of this crisis, the definitiveness of “we needed TARP” is not persuasive to me.

            So why couldn’t the Fed simply have increased its balance sheet by another $700B?

            I mean, if you are going to go up to $2.2 T why not go to $2.9T?

      • Aaron Gardner

        Your explanation actually made me think of another question though….

        Essentially, TARP is the Fed playing loanshark with an annual vig of 5% and a jump to 9% if the suckers don’t pay the full loan off in time. So yeah the gov’t will get their money in the vig, but if the banks can’t reconstitute their capital through private investment the Fed will have to start breaking legs…eventually leading to the Fed taking the banks for a ride with the Bank sitting in the front passenger seat.

        So my question is what’s gonna happen if the private investment never materializes due to the uncertainty of the Banks continued life span?

        • 6eorge Jetson

          I s’pose we should sneeze at the 500,000 jobs lost in BOTH Nov & Dec.

          No big deal.

          • Aaron Gardner

            My question was serious, I phrased it in a way that made sense to me because I am not a financial guy per se…now if you would like to answer my question that would be great…or would you prefer I just stay ignorant and just call you and every other TARP proponent Keynesian Socialist whack a doodles?

          • 6eorge Jetson

            and SO underservedly so, since they bear every bit as much responsibility as Republicans.

            McCain clearly failed to explain the issue. I probably wouldn’t be here posting if not for the mis-attribution of blame that’s got us headed in the socialist direction. This pisses me off to no end. And now Obama is going to use the $700 billion quoted figure to push through, not the facilitation of private activity, but the purchase of billions/trillion of actual garage sale like stuff. All sales final.

          • Aaron Gardner

            But really would someone please answer my question????….;^)

          • 6eorge Jetson

            First Claims Bondholders/Depositors/Creditors

            Second to Last Preferred Equity Holders
            Last Common Stockholders

            BTW, the article above concludes that any transfer of wealth from the TARP program has thus far gone to the Bondholders/Depositors/Creditors claimants above the govt, not to the common stockholders below.

            (Now, ensuring that the funds don’t get weaseled away on excess pay, dividends, etc. is another issue.)

          • Aaron Gardner

            Continued life support in the form of loans until investors feel confident enough to reconstitute the lost capital.

            At what point does this megate any possible ROI that may or may not actually occur?

          • Aaron Gardner
          • E Pluribus Unum

            They blocked oversight of Freddie/Fannie back in 2005 – we have the youtube videos of their committee discussions — while the Repubs were screaming that a crisis was in the offing. They played the race card going and coming.

            I accept not one iota of responsibility. It was the Democrats. All the way, 100%.

        • Francis Cianfrocca

          If private banks are not able to attract private recapitalization, the world as we know it will end. Full stop.

          The TARP and the Fed’s liquidity programs are intended to stem the effects of panic and systemic crisis. They’re supposed to get the system back to something like normal without a meltdown.

          If we get back to near normal, and banks then find themselves unable to attract capital, the global economy will either get smaller, invent some new ways to intermediate credit, spend a lot of years promoting some new banks, or all of the above.

          • JSobieski

            Why not just expand the Fed’s liquidity program by $700B and keep Congress (and Treasury) out of it?

            Why couldn’t the Fed simply have increased its balance sheet by another $700B?

          • 6eorge Jetson

            As you state, the Fed has increased it’s balance sheet from ~$800 billion to $2.2 trillion. However, it acted in a much higher range of the credit quality spectrum than the range addressed by TARP. While the Fed had to lower its credit criteria for some new instruments it added (e.g. high quality MBS), it didn’t drop anywhere near the risk level of the preferred stock vehicle chosen (or the original subprime debt that no one knew how to price).

          • JSobieski

            nt

      • asleep06

        … for those in Virginia. Neither of them were undercapitalized or made risky decisions, and now both are being competitively shafted because they can’t reap the market share gains their prudence earned for them.

        • 6eorge Jetson
          • JSobieski

            the worst kind of distortions.

            Kind of like how Ford can not sell cars at 0% financing, but GM can, because GM and GMAC received government money.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      in this environment. And therein lies one of the problems.

      If a financial institution has been granted a “bank” charter (a very valuable thing at present), it can gather deposits near the 0 percent Treasury spread (because depositors are insured up to $250,000 through the FDIC) and turn around and invest that money in mortgages backed by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which in turn is backed* by the US govt.

      If someone from 2006 were to enter a time warp and come out today, they’d never believe that opportunity existed. Pretty sweet arbitrage. In fact, any financial institution that can convert to bank status is doing so in this environment.

      *Mortgages backed by the Government Sponsored Entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have always had the implicit backing of the US Govt. Recently, the US Govt has added some (but as I understand temporary) explicit backing.

      In practical terms, however, foreigners own so much of these bonds, that if the US didn’t stand behind them, almost surely there would be a “bank run” on US captial.

      • 6eorge Jetson

        on the higher yielding agency mortgages.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Youda Man!

  • USNJIMRET

    What difference does it make if I, just another citizen of the country, am fooled or not?
    It’s not as if my opinion, or even that of many like me, has any real world impact on what is going to happen, is it?
    No, not saying surrender, or anything like that.
    But considering how the whole TARP thing has been sold to the American people, even in the face of exhaustive evidence that it’s a bust, what are the rest of us to do?
    More and more it seems that there truly is only ONE answer, and not enough people are ready to go there, yet.
    Maybe in another 5 or 10 years, but not just yet.
    And 10 years from now will likely be to late.
    Might already be.