Auditors fault Treasury oversight of bailout funds

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JIM KUHNHENN | December 2, 2008 09:26 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Trader David O'Day works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2008. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

WASHINGTON — The government must toughen its monitoring of the $700 billion financial bailout to ensure that banking institutions limit their top executives' pay and comply with other restrictions, federal auditors said Tuesday in the first comprehensive review of the rescue package.

The Treasury Department has no mechanism in place to track how institutions are using $150 billion in taxpayer money that the government injected into the banking system as of last month, the Government Accountability Office concluded in its report to Congress.

The auditors acknowledged that the program, created Oct. 3 to help stabilize a rapidly faltering banking system, was less than 60 days old and has been adjusting to an evolving mission.

But the 72-page report was bound to feed congressional concern that banks and other institutions are not being properly monitored and are not using the money to increase lending.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve said it was extending the life of lending programs aimed at smashing through credit clogs and restoring stability to financial markets. The Fed said the programs, originally slated to last through Jan. 30, would be extended through April 30 "in light of continuing strains in financial markets."

On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrials rose 270 points, making at least a dent in Monday's huge drop of nearly 680.

As for the bailout plan, auditors specifically cited weaknesses in determining whether institutions that received bailout money are complying with limitations on executive compensation and dividend payments. For instance, some top executives at institutions that receive rescue funds must repay any incentives or bonus pay that was based on inaccurate financial statements.

"Treasury has not yet determined how it will monitor compliance with this or other requirements such as limitations on dividend payments and stock repurchases," the report states.

Story continues below
advertisement

Auditors recommended that Treasury work with government bank regulators to determine whether the activities of financial institutions that receive the money are meeting their purpose.

In a response to the GAO, Neel Kashkari, who heads the department's Office of Financial Stability, said the agency was developing its own compliance program and indicated that it disagreed with the need to work with regulators.

"The GAO's discouraging report makes clear that the Treasury Department's implementation of the (rescue plan) is insufficiently transparent and is not accountable to American taxpayers," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

So far, the government has pledged to pour $250 billion into banks in return for partial ownership. It also has agreed to provide $40 billion to troubled insurer American International Group. In addition, $20 billion of the money was invested in Citigroup and another $20 billion went to the Federal Reserve to help ease credit stresses.

Initially, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the money would be used to buy distressed mortgage-related securities from banks. His switch in strategy drew criticism from lawmakers as a confusing mix of messages to the public and investors.

Responding to criticism, federal regulators urged banks to use the money they receive from the bailout to bolster lending. The advice, however, isn't legally binding.

The GAO is one of three watchdogs that Congress has assigned to monitor the dispensation of the extraordinary $700 billion financial rescue package, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. A congressional oversight panel is scheduled to issue its report on Dec. 10. In addition, Congress created an office of inspector general to oversee the program, but the appointment to the post has been anonymously blocked in the Senate.

Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus used the GAO report as an opportunity to demand the confirmation of veteran federal prosecutor Neil M. Barofsky to the inspector general's job. An anonymous Republican senator has placed a hold on his confirmation.

"This report proves the immediate need for oversight of the taxpayer dollars being expended right now as part of TARP," Baucus said in a statement. "Because of one senator's anonymous block on this nomination, three weeks have been lost _ a key element of the TARP oversight program is not in place."

Senators are allowed to single-handedly block nominations. They have six days during which Congress is in session to reveal their holds. But those six days have not elapsed since the hold on Barofsky occurred.

Of the senators who attended Barofsky's confirmation hearing on Nov. 19, only Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., who opposed the bailout plan itself, voiced reservations about the nomination.

"Ultimately, I believe Mr. Barofsky, with his impressive legal skills, can serve the public far better in the Southern District of New York, where he can continue to prosecute mortgage fraud," Bunning said at the time.

Bunning spokesman Mike Reynard would not comment on whether Bunning had placed the hold. He noted that the senator has co-sponsored legislation that would give the inspector general greater oversight authority.

___

AP Economics Writer Jeannine Aversa contributed to this article.

WASHINGTON — The government must toughen its monitoring of the $700 billion financial bailout to ensure that banking institutions limit their top executives' pay and comply with other restrictio...
WASHINGTON — The government must toughen its monitoring of the $700 billion financial bailout to ensure that banking institutions limit their top executives' pay and comply with other restrictio...
 
Comments
14
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

If they really start following the money to find where it goes, who wants to bet that it won't trickle down? Now, who wants to bet that much of it will go over seas.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 12/02/2008

So it's out now... 41% for GM and 47% for Chrysler. Yep. That's a good way of going out of business. Ford, Honda and Toyota are in the 30% range. OK, lights out at GM and Chrysler. Let's save Ford. There is a bit of hope there.

:-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:48 PM on 12/02/2008
photo

I am perfectly happy with my Mazda B2500 1998 that still manages to get 28 MPG. It's just big enough and not too big.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 12/02/2008

anybody really surprised? . . . I just saw a tv ad for the Chevy Volt; they are soo PROUD! they are going to have a car in 2 years, that is as good as a 4 year old Prius Oh Yeah, lets give these fools $25B

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 12/02/2008

Nope, it was bound to happen. The overpriced, not fuel efficient , overproduction to say the least was going to get them in a bind and it did.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 12/02/2008

The Prius 50 MPG tops.. the Volt 200 MPG.. and no gas used if your commutes are less than 40 miles or if you can re charge at work....

I would say thats better than a Prius.

Regards

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:55 PM on 12/02/2008

New fan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 12/02/2008

Show me a car the size of the Prius that gets 60mpg (real world, not EPA) and I will buy. I have the money right here. I will pay cash. Honest, all you need to do is to show me that you have the goodies and I will walk into your dealership today and get one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 12/02/2008

if they'd stop stockpiling their cars and let the market (haha) decide what the cars are worth, i'd buy one. how can they continue to make them when there are thousands just sitting in lots? they can't even sell them overseas anymore either. how 'bout some half price sales on vehicles? surely recouping some of the costs is better than paying to keep them warehoused.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 AM on 12/02/2008
photo

The Big 3 are using the recession as a scapegoat for their lousy sales instead of accepting the fact Americans don't want their big bloated gas guzzling machines. If they produced what we wanted, we would be buying.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 AM on 12/02/2008
- feo I'm a Fan of feo permalink

Not exactly true. The Ford F-150 is still the biggest seller in 2008.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 PM on 12/02/2008

Which is part of the problem. If a company bets its future on the bad taste of its customers, it is inevitably getting itself cooked. Smart companies know that and they are always ahead of their customers, not in their behinds.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 PM on 12/02/2008

They still have over 50% of the U.S. sales... some body was wanting their cars!

Regards

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on 12/02/2008

The people may have wanted or were marketed to want SUVs, but it was their job to project what would be sustainable and they should have calculated the effect it would have had on gas consumption in this country and the world economy. They should have known if gas prices were to go up, nobody would want these cars they invested so much in. They should have known this. It makes you wonder if there was collusion to give these tax breaks for these kind of cars, market them, ignore fuel efficiency, and sell as many as they could just to bring up gas prices and then to speculate on that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:12 PM on 12/02/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect