Shocking story: TARP payments made on idiotic basis!

Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:03:52 AM PDT

What a joke.

The Bush administration received assets that were worth $78 billion less than the amount it invested as part of the massive infusion of capital into the country's banks, congressional investigators have found.

The investigators concluded that the Treasury under the federal bailout had invested $254 billion into companies but the preferred stock it got in return had a market value at the time of only $176 billion, or 69 percent of what the government paid, according to a congressional oversight panel report scheduled to be released today.

Apparently, though, this doesn't necessarily mean the government has lost that money. Not yet, anyway:

The panel's findings do not imply that the government has lost money on the investment because companies are still required to repay the amount invested plus interest.

Gee, I wonder what we'll do when it comes time to repay that money, but banks claim hardship?

Anyway, file this under "No one could have foreseen..."

"Isn't that a terrible way to look after the taxpayers' money and to make purchases anywhere?"  Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, said at a hearing on oversight of the bailout.

Warren replied, "Senator, Treasury simply did not do what it said it was doing."

"In other words, they misled the Congress, did they not?" said a visibly flustered Shelby.

Duh. Where have you been, Shelby? Are you kidding me?

How come Republicans (and not a few Democrats) only believe this was possible when money's been lost?

  • ::

Tags: TARP, bailout, oversight (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 4 comments

  •  The 'No one could have foreseen' file (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SciVo

    is full.  

    The Republican Party, courting the female vote for 2010 by clubbing us over the head and dragging us back to the polling place.

    by truesteam on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:46:13 AM PDT

  •  OK, I'm stupid... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SciVo, Englishlefty

    So somebody has to explain this to me.  The report says that the program paid the banks more for these assets than their current market value, right? Wasn't that the whole point? If the banks could have gone into the market and gotten the same price for these assets, why would you need to have the Treasury intervene?

    •  Sort of. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      SciVo

      Which is one of the problems. The notion of paying "fair market value" for these assets is insane, since the people being bailed out are themselves the market makers for these assets.

      How much is your toxic asset worth, Mr. Banker Man? A billion dollars you say? Well, who am I to argue? Here's a check.

      What? It's worth a dollar? Dang! Somebody should get some oversight in here!

      Now, who's next? You don't say! Yours is worth a billion dollars too? Well, I'll be!

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      It's fucking stupid for us to overpay them for their assets. If they're broke, then they need to go through the FDIC's liquidation or reorganization process for bankrupt banks. If they're necessary, then they need to be nationalized and recapitalized. This overpaying is just a reverse Robin Hood racket to transfer wealth from the middle class to the upper class.

      Okay, so there is actually good meta. Who knew?

      by SciVo on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:40:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 4 comments