Steve Rattner

Talk Of Intensified Investigation As Rattner Resigns

Rachel Slajda | July 14, 2009, 1:27PM

Steve Rattner may be leaving his post as the head of Obama's auto task force because of an intensifying investigation into wrongdoing by the private equity firm he co-founded.

Anonymous sources say the investigation into Quadrangle Group LLC has intensified in recent weeks, according to Reuters and the New York Times, which may have lead to his stepping down.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is leading the probe into whether Quadrangle paid middlemen to win state pension business. From the Times:

Mr. Rattner, according to people close to the investigation, arranged for his investment firm to pay $1.1 million to an agent who helped Quadrangle obtain New York pension business. The agent who received most of that money has been indicted and accused of selling access to the pension fund, but neither Mr. Rattner nor Quadrangle is expected to face criminal charges, according to people close to the matter.

Rattner left Quadrangle in order to work on the task force, and a source said he won't return now. His post on the task force is being taken over by Ron Bloom, but the Treasury Department hasn't said when the change goes into effect.

Bank of America

Cuomo: Paulson Kept SEC Out Of The Loop On B Of A

Zachary Roth | April 23, 2009, 12:19PM

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has just released documents from his investigation into Bank of America, its receipt of government money, and those billions in bonuses that went to Merrill Lynch executives.

Here's one quick nugget we found: It looks like then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson didn't keep the SEC -- whose role, of course, is to protect investors -- informed on the government's intense December 2008 discussions with B of A about Merrill's losses, and possible government assistance for B of A.

Read more »

Bailout

Bailout Fraud Prosecutor Nets First Catch

Zachary Roth | April 22, 2009, 1:41PM

In an interview with The Hill published yesterday, Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the bailout, said that he was pursuing 20 criminal and civil investigations into potential fraud in the TARP program.

And it looks like at least one has now paid off.

Read more »

Bailout

Conflicted Sununu: The Real Problem Is That CEO Pay Limits Are Too Tough

Zachary Roth | April 8, 2009, 3:00PM

Yesterday, the panel overseeing bailout spending on behalf of Congress issued its latest hard-hitting report, which criticized the Treasury Department's approach to the program and called for top execs at major banks to be fired.

But perhaps the most interesting thing about the report is the "alternative view" that accompanied it, from Republican panel member John Sununu.

Read more »

AIG

Warren: Fire Top Management At AIG and Citi

Zachary Roth | April 7, 2009, 5:25PM

We're late to this, but it looks like Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law professor who chairs the Congressional Oversight panel for the TARP funds, is upping the ante.

After several months of raising the alarm about the Treasury Department's failure to attach strings to the bailout funds, to little apparent effect, Warren will issue a hard-hitting report this week that broadly indicts the Obama administration's approach to the financial crisis, reported the British paper The Observer over the weekend.

Read more »

Bailout

Bush Bailout Architect Lands On His Feet -- Helping Private Clients Adjust To Brave New World Of Finance

Zachary Roth | March 30, 2009, 1:29PM

We should have seen this one coming -- government officials who helped respond to the financial crisis, now cashing in by helping private sector clients "navigate the new world of finance."

That's what David Nason, a former assistant treasury secretary under Hank Paulson will be doing for clients of Promontary Financial Group, which he's joining as a managing director, reports the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.). Nason, who had a major hand in drawing up Treasury's bailout plan last fall, "is expected to advise big financial institutions on everything from how to participate in the government's rescue programs to meeting regulatory requirements."

Read more »

Bailout

Lawmakers Call On Bailout IG To Probe AIG Counter-Party Payments

Zachary Roth | March 27, 2009, 11:45AM

The effort to get to the bottom of those payments by AIG to its counter-parties is heating up.

Earlier this week, we noted that several different efforts to investigate that question. Now, reports the New York Times, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) has sent a letter, signed by 26 other House Democrats, to Neal Barofsky, the inspector general for the TARP funds, calling on him to probe the matter.

Read more »

AIG

Is Probe Of AIG Bailout, Payments To Counter-Parties, In The Offing?

Zachary Roth | March 25, 2009, 2:48PM

Is the momentum building for an investigation into the real beneficiaries of AIG's latest bailout?

Earlier this month, the Treasury Department announced it was rescuing the fallen insurance giant yet again, bringing the total amount of taxpayer assistance given to the firm since last September to $170 billion. It soon became clear that much of that money -- over $49 billion, to be exact -- was going right through AIG to the counter-parties on its credit default swaps, both American banks like Goldman Sachs, and foreign ones like DeutscheBank.

Defenders of the move have argued that not giving the counter-parties this indirect bailout would have risked a wider financial collapse.

Read more »

AIG

Wall Street To Washington: "I Want My Campaign Contributions Back"

Moe Tkacik | March 25, 2009, 1:33PM

Yes, that was an actual sentence spoken -- or more specifically "groused" -- by an anonymous Wall Street executive concerned for his "personal safety," though not enough to be dissuaded from attending or talking to a reporter at yesterday's Wall Street Journal 'Future Of Finance' Conference, where the future sounded like it had gone back in time and purchased a hundred billion dollars worth of extra credit protection, which is to say suspiciously like Finance Past.

It looks like Wall Street, no doubt emboldened by the recent 20% runup in the S&P 500, the fourteen bucks in matching leverage the government is offering them for every dollar they invest in toxic/"legacy" assets and the prospect of better-than-awful numbers at Citigroup and Credit Suisse, got its hubris back along with its proverbial groove. In the six months since it nearly triggered global financial Armageddon, the investment banking community has seemed, if not quite chastened, at least somewhat subdued amidst the nation's ever-heightening awareness that their industry engineered the ever-intensifying economic morass. But not anymore!

This morning the New York Times ran as an op-ed the resignation letter of one Jake DeSantis, a securities trader and executive vice president at AIG's infamous financial products division and recipient of one of those million dollar bonuses ($742,006.40 after taxes.) That's right: he's keeping it. And don't ask him if he feels guilty about it because he will tell you: NO.

Read more »

Goldman Sachs

Government Sachs: TARP Funds Just The Tip Of The Iceberg For Goldman

Zachary Roth | March 24, 2009, 12:39PM

Goldman Sachs is planning to give back the TARP money it got last fall, "ideally in the next month," reports the New York Times.

The firm is saying it just can't handle the level of government oversight that comes along with the funds, especially amid the outrage over AIG bonuses. "It's just impossible to run our business in this environment," one exec told the Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin.

Sounds great.

Read more »

Bailout

Bailout IG: "Who Knew What, When, And Why" On AIG Bonuses?

Zachary Roth | March 19, 2009, 1:06PM

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the bailout, told Congress this morning that he'll probe the AIG bonuses -- including what role the Treasury Department played.

In words that may send a chill up Tim Geithner's spine with their invocation of Watergate, Barofsky, asked specifically by Republicans about the Treasury Secretary's role, said his probe would seek to find out "who knew what, when and why," in regard to the bonuses.

He continued:

Preliminary information we have seen indicates that the TARP contract between AIG and Treasury that was entered into back in November specifically contemplated the payment of bonuses and retention payments to AIG employees, including AIG's senior partners.

Barfosky added that he'd work with Justice Department, as well as the office of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is probing the bonuses, to look at ways that the money can be returned to taxpayers.

Maxine Waters

Letters Bolster Waters' Claim On Bank Conflict

Zachary Roth | March 13, 2009, 5:08PM

Rep. Maxine Waters is stepping up her campaign to show she took no inappropriate action on behalf of OneUnited bank.

Waters' office has released to TPM two letters sent by the National Bankers Association (NBA), a trade group for minority-owned banks, to the Treasury Department, in reference to a September 2008 meeting Waters had helped set up between NBA and Treasury. The letters appear to back Waters' contention that the meeting, at which OneUnited's CEO reportedly asked explicitly for bailout money, was not set up exclusively to help OneUnited, but rather on behalf of minority-ownded banks more broadly.

That doesn't contradict anything the New York Times reported, it's worth noting. But it does appear to bolster Waters' claim, made in a statement she put out earlier today, that she wasn't looking out for OneUnited's interests above those of other minority-owned banks. Waters has long been an advocate in Congress for minority-owned banks.

Waters also released a 2007 document showing that she disclosed her ties to OneUnited -- her husband had previously served on the board, and owned stock -- before questioning witnesses at a House hearing on minority-owned banks.

It seems clear that Waters should have disclosed those ties again when she set up the 200 meeting. But it also appears that that meeting, which Waters has said she didn't attend, was arranged on behalf of minority banks broadly, not as a way to benefit OneUnited.

Given the general level of greed and hypocrisy we've seen in regard to the bailout, this looks at this point like a minor misstep.

Maxine Waters

Waters: I Didn't Take Improper Action For Bank

Zachary Roth | March 13, 2009, 2:15PM

Yesterday we noted a report by the New York Times about Rep. Maxine Waters' ties to OneUnited, a bank that got bailout money after Waters set up a meeting between Treasury Department officials and the heads of minority-owned banks, including OneUnited's CEO.

Now Waters is pushing back.

In a statement on her website, Waters asserts that the stories "revealed one thing: I am indeed an advocate for minority banks. Despite my public and consistent advocacy, news reports suggest that somehow I have acted improperly."

The full statement follows after the jump...

Read more »

Maxine Waters

Report: Waters Set Up Treasury Meeting For Bank She Had Ties To

Zachary Roth | March 12, 2009, 5:56PM

This doesn't look good....

The New York Times reports that last September, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) set up a meeting with Treasury Department bank regulators for several minority-owned banks, including OneUnited, one of the nation's largest black-owned banks. At the meeting, OneUnited's CEO, Kevin Cohee, bluntly asked the officials for $50 million in bailout money.

But what Waters didn't disclose was that her husband, Stanley Williams, had served on the bank's board of directors until early 2008, and has owned at least $250,000 in stock in the bank. Treasury learned that fact only later.

One official told the Times:

"It angers me. You got to know you have to be careful when you are dealing with people who you have personal relations with.

In the end, OneUnited didn't get that $50 million, but it did get $12 million in TARP funds, becoming the first minority owned bank to cash in through the program.

This is hardly the first allegation against OneUnited. Adds the Times:

[I]t had been harshly criticized by regulators in 2007 for failing to give a sufficient number of loans to lower income residents in Miami, while favoring wealthier customers there.

And:

[T]he F.D.I.C. sanctioned the institution in October 2008 for "unsafe or unsound banking practices," including excessive compensation for Mr. Cohee. The bank had provided him with a 2008 Porsche SUV and maintained his $6.4 million beachfront compound in Santa Monica. Calif., with views of the Pacific and a spa and pool.

For his part, Cohee suggested to the Times that race is at the heart of the issue. "This is where the race issue comes in," he said.

The Wall Street Journal detailed some of the ties between Waters, who sits on the House Financial Services committee, and OneUnited, in a report (sub. req.) published earlier today.

AIG

Warren: Is AIG Bailout Money Going To Pay Off "Speculators"?

Zachary Roth | March 11, 2009, 12:31PM

Looks like you can add Elizabeth Warren to the growing list of people who want the federal government to tell us more about that latest AIG bailout.

Warren, who chairs the panel that's monitoring bailout spending on behalf of Congress, went on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show last night, and all but demanded more disclosure from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Maddow raised the fact that AIG has reportedly passed bailout money onto its counterparties on those credit default swaps, and that it currently has four PR firms on its payroll. In response, Warren, appearing perhaps more frustrated than in any of her other numerous media appearances over the last few most, responded:

It doesn't seem strange to me, and the fact that it doesn't seem strange to me tells you something really awful about what it's been like to be in Washington for the last few months.

These financial institutions have figured out that they're bleeding red ink, and their best solution is to persuade the Treasury Department to give them lots of money. And when the Treasury Department starts to say, there may be some problems here, the American people don't want to go along with this, then lets see if we can spin the American people on it.

The Treasury Department has not asked for the critical information about where this money has gone, from AIG. We've poured the money into AIG, and it has somehow poured it out the other end. The Treasury Department has not asked, and has not revealed, what it is that's happening with that money.

And so as long as that's the case, maybe some of the money is going to other financial institutions. Maybe some of the money is going to pay off these credit default swaps that are essential for saving other institutions that have counted on it for credit and insurance. And maybe some of where this money is going is just off to speculators, who just played the game of speculation, and would now like to collect a hundred cents on the dollar form their speculations, and collect it indirectly from the American taxpayer.

You can see the video here. (The excerpt quoted above begins around the 9:00 mark.)

The Federal Reserve, which has been at the center of the latest AIG bailout, has declined to reveal much information about the maneuver, including the identity of AIG's counterparties, saying that doing so could affect confidence in the institutions at issue.

Reports by Warren's panel have grown increasingly critical of Treasury's level of transparency and accountability in regard to the bailout.

Allen Stanford

Stanford Said He Talked To Treasury About Changing Tax Law

Zachary Roth | March 10, 2009, 5:40PM

We told you earlier today about Allen Stanford's lobbying to get some businesses taxed at the US Virgin Islands rate rather than the US rate. And about how Stanford had lately been in the process of moving his Caribbean headquarters to St. Croix, in the Virgin Islands.

Well, one Virgin Islands paper, the St. Thomas Source, has some more interesting details on those subjects...

The paper reports that, in a speech at a 2007 economic summit in St. Croix, Stanford made his pitch for more favorable tax laws that he said would spur more investment. He sought changes that would have allowed money from companies headquartered in the Virgin Islands (like his own) to flow into the US virtually tax free.

Stanford presented this change as a boon to the whole region:

"If that were to happen, the Caribbean Basin as a whole, and the Virgin Islands in particular, would see serious investment begin to flow in almost overnight."

Stanford even said he brought up the idea to US Treasury Department officials, and hoped to have "draft legislation" ready to present by mid October.

He repeated the pitch at a ceremony to break ground on his new planned Caribbean headquarters in the V.I.

"The law must include all Caribbean-created revenues, as long as the company is headquartered in the Virgin Islands," he told the crowd, which contained local dignitaries and lawmakers.

There is no record of any such legislation being introduced since at least 2005, says the paper.

AIG

AIG Counter-Party List Is Heavy On Foreign Banks

Zachary Roth | March 9, 2009, 11:11AM

Last week, we rounded up some reports from last fall that named some of the banks that AIG did business with on those credit-default swaps -- and therefore offered a first pass at where the fallen insurance behemoth's latest round of bailout money might ultimately be going.

But over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal offered some updated reporting (sub. req.) on that score. It obtained a confidential document listing banks that have been paid a total of roughly $50 billion by AIG, since it was first bailed out last fall.

Here's the Journal's list:

* Goldman Sachs
* Deutsche Bank
* Merrill Lynch
* Société Générale
* Calyon
* Barclays
* Rabobank
* Danske
* HSBC
* Royal Bank of Scotland
* Banco Santander
* Morgan Stanley
* Wachovia
* Bank of America
* Lloyds Banking Group

That includes $6 billion each for Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank.

As you can see, there's some overlap there with what we told you the Journal and the New York Times had previously reported.

But the new list shows how many of AIG's counter-parties were European -- a fact that's likely to add to frustration, among members of Congress and the public, that US taxpayer dollars are ultimately being used to save foreign banks from the consequences of their disastrous decisions to do credit default swaps with AIG. It's also likely to further fuel congressional demands that the federal government identify all of AIG's trading partners.

AIG

Who Are The AIG Counterparties? Here Are Some...

Zachary Roth | March 5, 2009, 4:58PM

Over at TPM, Josh has been doggedly highlighting the refusal of both AIG and the federal government to reveal the identity of AIG's counter-parties in its disastrous credit default swaps. And several lawmakers have in recent days pressed Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke on the issue.

The question matters, of course, because AIG needed to make its most recent multi-billion dollar trip back to the public trough (that's over $160 billion in all for AIG, if you're counting) in order to pay back its creditors on those disastrous swaps -- and thereby, we're told, prevent a wider financial collapse. So identifying who those swaps were made with will tell us, in effect, who this latest portion of our money is ultimately going to.

It's worth noting, then, that, thanks to some great reporting from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, we do in fact have some preliminary information about who AIG's partners were on the swaps.

This Journal story from October 2008 names the following nine American and foreign banks as having bought swaps from AIG: Goldman Sachs; Merrill Lynch; UBS of Switzerland; Credit Agricole SA of France; Deutsche Bank of Germany; Barclays, and Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of Britain; and CIBC, and Bank of Montreal, of Canada.

Merrill is described by the Journal as a "big client" of the AIG unit that did the swaps.

By the end of 2007, with the value of the underlying assets plummeting, many of these banks had asked for collateral on the swaps, according to the Journal.

For instance, the paper reports that Goldman held swaps that insured about $20 billion of securities. In August 2007, Goldman demanded $1.5 billion in collateral from AIG. It ultimately got $450 million, then another $1.5 billion last October. At that point, says the Journal:

Goldman hedged its exposure by making a bearish bet on AIG, buying credit-default swaps on AIG's own debt.

That picture of Goldman's exposure jibes with a New York Times story from September 2008 about the credit default swaps, which reported that Goldman was AIG's "largest trading partner," and likewise gave a figure of $20 billion for Goldman's exposure to AIG.

The Times also implicates another domestic firm: JP Morgan (now JP Morgan Chase). In fact, it recounts that it was derivatives traders from that company that a decade ago, first brought to AIG's London-based financial products unit, run by Joseph Cassano, the ill-fated idea of doing credit default swaps.

It reports:

Ten years ago, a "watershed" moment changed the profile of the derivatives that Mr. Cassano traded, according to a transcript of comments he made at an industry event last year. Derivatives specialists from J. P. Morgan, a leading bank that had many dealings with Mr. Cassano's unit, came calling with a novel idea.

Morgan proposed the following: A.I.G. should try writing insurance on packages of debt known as "collateralized debt obligations." C.D.O.'s. were pools of loans sliced into tranches and sold to investors based on the credit quality of the underlying securities.

It's not 100 percent clear, then, that JP Morgan Chase is a current counter-party of AIG on the swaps -- but it certainly wouldn't be surprising.

That same Times story offers another hint, albeit a vague one, about the identity of the counter-parties.

While clients and counterparties remain closely guarded secrets in the derivatives trade, Mr. Cassano talked publicly about how proud he was of his customer list.

At the 2007 conference he noted that his company worked with a "global swath" of top-notch entities that included "banks and investment banks, pension funds, endowments, foundations, insurance companies, hedge funds, money managers, high-net-worth individuals, municipalities and sovereigns and supranationals."

What to make of all this? Well, here's one thing. As Josh has noted, the usual argument given against disclosing the identities of the counter-parties is that it would reduce public confidence in the banks that were named, with potentially disastrous consequences for their positions. But there's little evidence we're aware of that any of the banks named above suffered such an effect when, for instance, the Journal and the Times published their stories -- whose accuracy have not been questioned.

In fact, Geithner and Bernanke haven't deigned to explain their position in even this much detail -- so it's difficult to know whether there are factors we're not considering. But in the absence of a fuller explanation, we'll keep pressing...

John Sununu

Sununu: New Board Membership Doesn't Conflict With TARP Oversight Work

Zachary Roth | March 3, 2009, 10:51AM

John Sununu has denied the charge that he has a conflict of interest in regard to his work on the Congressional Oversight Panel for the TARP funds.

Over the weekend, we reported that the former New Hampshire GOP senator has joined the board of a firm that's an affiliate of Bank of New York Mellon -- which, in addition to receiving bailout funds itself, has contracted with the Treasury Department to help administer the program.

Yesterday, the Associated Press picked up the story, and got a response out of Sununu.

"ConvergEx Group is an independent company," Sununu said in an e-mail Monday. "It is not eligible to apply for or receive funds through any programs established under TARP." He pointed out that the bank "holds a minority position only" with ConvergEx.

That's a 33.8 percent stake to be exact, the AP reports. Not enough for Bank of New York to control ConvergeEx, but perhaps enough so that ConvergeEx's interests are at least somewhat affected by the TARP program.

Separately, a spokeswoman for the COP told TPMmuckraker that the panel has not yet formally addressed the issue, since it not met since Sununu's appointment to ConvergeEx's board was announced last week. We'll keep you posted if and when it does.

Bank of America

B of A's Lewis: Actually, Taking Public Money Was A Mistake

Zachary Roth | March 2, 2009, 4:34PM

Ken Lewis, the embattled Bank of America CEO, has told the Financial Times that taking $20 billion of government money to help it digest Merrill Lynch's losses was a "tactical mistake."

Lewis told the paper that the move made B of A appear as weak as Citigroup.

He also said that he intended to stay on atop B of A until the firm had paid the government back the $45 billion in total it has received from taxpayers, saying that could happen in 2-3 years.

Lewis has seen calls for his resignation over the mishandled Merrill merger. Merrill's massive losses in the fourth quarter of 2008 forced B of A to go to the federal government for help. Merrill's billion-dollar bonus awards, which are currently being probed by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, have not helped the situation. Lewis recently stayed mum when questioned by Cuomo's investigators about what he knew about the bonuses.

John Sununu

Sununu Sits On TARP Oversight Panel, And On Board Of Firm Owned By Bank That Administers TARP

Zachary Roth | February 28, 2009, 12:00PM

John Sununu, who serves on the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the government's bailout program, has joined the board of a subsidiary to Bank of New York Mellon -- a firm that, in addition to receiving bailout funds, has been hired by the Treasury Department to administer the program.

Given that the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) is charged broadly with assessing how the TARP program is working, in order to help Congress determine whether to continue injecting capital into the financial sector, the arrangement would appear to create a significant conflict of interest for the former New Hampshire GOP senator.

On Wednesday, the investment firm BNY ConvergEx Group announced that Sununu had joined its board of governors. "His experience as a thoughtful leader and champion of innovation makes him an ideal match for ConvergEx's entrepreneurial spirit," said company chairman Joseph Velli of Sununu.

According to its press release, the company is an affiliate of Bank of New York Mellon (BONY). Founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1784, BONY received $3 billion in TARP funds back in October -- less than some Wall Street firms, but not chump change.

Just as significantly, it was also picked to be the master custodian for the bailout funds. According to reports, that means it's charged with handling accounting and record-keeping for the program, and even with tracking limits on executive pay at banks that got TARP money.

Sununu was appointed to the COP by GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell in December -- a little over a month after he was defeated by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen in his bid for reelection to the Senate.

Sununu's conflict, then, appears clear. As a member of the COP, he's in part responsible for evaluating whether taxpayers got a good deal through TARP, and for assessing whether Treasury and the banks are doing enough to track the bailout money, as well as whether banks are using the money to make loans, as they were supposed to. On the broadest level, COP's job is to help Congress figure out whether the TARP program is working as it should, and how to adjust it going forward. It's not hard to see how that responsibility could conflict with his activities as a member of the board of a company that both administers the TARP program, has received funds from it, and could potentially be in line for more.

In his work on the panel so far, Sununu has hardly been an advocate for taking a hard line on the banks. Earlier this month, the COP, which is chaired by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren, released a report detailing the kinds of far-reaching reforms to bolster the financial regulatory system that the crisis has pointed up the need for. But Sununu and the panel's other Republican, Rep. Jeb Hensarling didn't sign on. Instead, they attached their own alternative report, that recommended an approach to financial regulation that was more friendly to Wall Street, and emphasized the need to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage firms.

No one answered a listed number for Sen. John E. Sununu in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

We've also contacted COP to ask whether Sununu discussed his ties to Bank of New York Mellon with panel staff. And we're hearing there's more to this story ... so we'll keep you posted.

Bailout

Deutsche Bank Analyst: Overpay For Our Assets, Or You'll Regret It

Zachary Roth | February 12, 2009, 3:49PM

For a while now, it's seemed like Wall Street's message to government has been: We screwed up. But if you don't rescue us on our terms, you're all gonna be in trouble.

But you don't usually see that expressed quite as clearly as it was in a research memo sent out yesterday by a senior Deutsche Bank analyst, and obtained by TPMmuckraker.

In the memo -- one of Deutsche's daily "Economic Notes" sent out to the firm's clients, and to some members of the press -- Joseph LaVorgna, the bank's chief US economist, essentially, appears to warn that if the government doesn't pay high prices for the toxic assets on the books of Deutsche and other big firms, there will be massive consequences for the US economy.

Writes LaVorgna:

One main stumbling block to the purchasing of troubled assets has been pricing, specifically how does the government price a diverse set of assets in a way that does not put the taxpayer on the hook. However, this should not be the standard by which we judge the efficacy of the plan, because a more prolonged deterioration in the
economy will result in a higher terminal unemployment rate and a greater deterioration of the tax base. As such, the decline in tax revenues will crimp many of the essential services provided by the government. Ultimately, the taxpayer will pay one way or another, either through greatly diminished job prospects and/or significantly higher taxes down the line to pay for the massive debt issuance required to fund current and prospective fiscal spending initiatives.

We think the government should do the following: estimate the highest price it can pay for the various toxic assets residing on financial institution balance sheets which would still return the principal to taxpayers.

One leading economist described the memo to TPMmuckraker as a "ransom note" to the US government. And David Kotok of Cumberland Advisors, who writes such research memos for his own clients, acknowledged that the memo, like all such communications, could be interpreted as an attempt to influence policy-makers.

Still, seeing the memo as a threat to the government to drive the softest of bargains wouldn't be entirely fair. Kotok that cautioned that the effects of a single analyst's memo are limited: "Joe LaVorgna doesn't have enough clout to hold the US government hostage."

LaVorgna himself was blunt: "I don't write editorials," he told TPMmuckraker.

At the very least, the memo can be seen as a frank statement of position from the chief economist of a major bank: if the government doesn't cave and buy up all the banks' toxic assets at inflated prices, the country will suffer.

Nice fix we've got ourselves into.

Bank of America

B of A's Lewis Defends Compensation

Zachary Roth | February 11, 2009, 10:00AM

The CEOs of the eight banks that received the most bailout money are about to testify before the House Financial Services committee, starting any minute. But the committee has already posted the CEOs' prepared statements on its website.

Here are some highlights:

Bank of America's Ken Lewis will say that executive pay and bonuses are intended "to grow our business, enhance profitability and generate returns for investors." That includes "the investors that are the focus of this hearing: U.S. taxpayers."

Citigroup's Vikram Pandit will say that he "removed the people responsible for Citi's financial distress."

JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon will advocate a new bank regulatory system, which would include a "systemic risk regulator."

On compensation, Dimon will say:

Our employees worked harder than ever and performed admirably for the company and for clients under enormously challenging conditions in 2008. I believe the compensation we paid them was appropriate.

We'll be blogging the hearings as they happen, so stay tuned...

Bailout

Obama: Nationalization "Wouldn't Make Sense"

Zachary Roth | February 10, 2009, 6:57PM

In the wake of Tim Geithner's speech this morning, laying out the Treasury's plan, such as it is, for Bailout 3.0, most smart observers have concluded that the Obama administration has at least left the door open for a possible nationalization of failed banks at some point, if it decides circumstances warrant that step.

But in an interview with ABC News' Nighline, set to air tonight, the president seemed to all but rule out that idea. He told ABC:

[Sweden"] took over the banks, nationalized them, got rid of the bad assets, resold the banks and a couple years later, they were going again. So you'd think looking at it, Sweden looks like a good model. Here's the problem -- Sweden had like five banks," he said, laughing. "We've got thousands of banks. You know, the scale of the U.S. economy and the capital markets are so vast and the, the problems in terms of managing and overseeing anything of that scale, I think, would -- our assessment was that it wouldn't make sense. And we also have different traditions in this country.

True, Obama, like Geithner, has always seemed skeptical of nationalization. But his answer to ABC would appear to go further than he yet has in declaring that he'll avoid adopting any version of that approach.

Of course, things might look different once we get done with these "stress tests," and find out how many major banks are truly insolvent. But as of now, the president seems dead set against even short term nationalization.

Barack Obama

Ex-IMFer On Geithner's Speech: "This Is Not A Plan"

Zachary Roth | February 10, 2009, 12:30PM

Timothy Geithner's speech laying out the Treasury's plan for bailout 3.0 struck us as devoid of key details that might have settled some of the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the Obama administration's approach.

That's how it struck Simon Johnson, the former chief economist for the IMF, too.

Johnson told TPMmuckraker that the Treasury Secretary's speech laid out some important principles, especially in regard to the need for transparency and accountability. And he said that Geithner's willingness, in contrast to his predecessor, Henry Paulson, to criticize bankers and policy-makers -- implicitly himself -- was also welcome.

But then, said Johnson, the speech went into "Paulson-land," as Geithner said he would take input from the public on the public-private investment fund the Treasury is considering creating.

That lack of specificity, said Johnson, isn't helping restore confidence, pointing to a sharp drop in the market today, especially in the financial sector. "The market is responding to vagueness," said Johnson. "This is not a plan. In the annals of plan-announcing, this is very vague."

The "stress test" that Geithner discussed today, said Johnson, is a promising idea, but again wasn't fully enough fleshed out to know whether it'll be effective. The proposal, used effectively by Sweden in the early 90s, would require banks to lay their cards on the table, allowing the government to make a rough -- and conservative -- valuation of their assets. That would then allow the government to take over those banks that are truly insolvent, rather than continue to try to prop up failing institutions and suffer a "death by a thousand paper cuts."

Johnson had harsh words for the administration's plan, announced late last week, to modestly limit executive compensation. He called it "a joke," and said Geithner had lost credibility because of it. "No one in the markets is buying those [limits] as meaningful."

Geithner will testify before Senate committees this afternoon and tomorrow morning. So we'll see how many more details we get then. But it looks like this is all still a work in progress.

Ben Bernanke

Report: Bernanke Threatened B Of A Over Merrill Deal

Zachary Roth | February 5, 2009, 11:45AM

We already knew, that, after it got wind of Merrill Lynch's massive fourth-quarter losses back in December, Bank of America had thought about pulling out of its deal to buy the troubled investment bank -- before being talked into it by the federal government.

But today, the Wall Street Journal adds some fascinating detail (sub. req.) about the level of hardball that the government played in making sure the deal went through.

Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed chief Ben Bernanke reportedly warned B of A CEO Ken Lewis that if his firm pulled out, Merrill would collapse. They added that such a move, in the Journal's words "could undercut confidence in Bank of America, both in the markets and among government officials."

But that was just the start. Two days later, on a conference call, Bernanke told B of A that if it abandoned the Merrill deal, and came back to the Feds in the future seeking more bailout money, the government would consider removing the firm's executives and directors.

The threats, of course, seem to have worked, since Bank of America went ahead with the deal -- getting an additional $20 billion in bailout money to help digest Merrill.

Bernanke and Paulson may have been right to take such a hard line. But the episode suggests the level of control of day-to-day control that the government has had over the financial sector, since stepping in to rescue it last fall. Nationalizing the banks is still seen, in the mainstream debate as an extreme solution. But if the Feds are essentially making major operational decisions for the big banks, some would say they've been nationalized already -- it's just that no one wants to it.

Bailout

What, No Subpoena? Frank Invites Bailed Out CEOs To Testify

Zachary Roth | February 4, 2009, 5:38PM

Barney Frank, the chair of the House Financial Services committee, has invited the heads of the first eight banks that received bailout funds to testify at a hearing next Wednesday on the bailout, reports CNNMoney.com.

Those CEOs are:

Ken Lewis of Bank of America; Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase; Vikram Pandit of Citi; Ronald Logue of State Street; Robert Kelly of Bank of New York; John Stumpf of Wells Fargo; John Mack of Morgan Stanley; and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.

But notice that word "invite." It appears that the corporate titans are free to choose not to attend -- even though Frank is seeking crucial information about what their firms did with the hundreds of billions in taxpayer money we gave them.

Indeed, CNNMoney.com adds:

A press secretary declined to comment on whether any of the CEOs have accepted the invitation.

So it sounds like a real possibility that at least some of those CEOs might just go ahead and decline Frank's polite invitation.

We've contacted the committee's press office to ask whether subpoenaing the CEOs was considered, or might still be in the future. We'll let you know what we hear.

Bailout

Obama Planning Bailout Board

Zachary Roth | February 2, 2009, 11:41AM

In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer that aired this morning, President Obama offered a concrete proposal intended to help his administration ensure that bailout money is spent more wisely than it has been until now.

Obama referred to "an independent board ... that actually looks at these programs, and the money, before it goes out the door."

Watch the clip:

Of course, how effective such a board will be is still entirely to be determined. But at least nominally this adds to the evidence that the new Congress and administration appear to understand the need to exert much tighter control over the bailout money than we saw initially.

Chris Dodd

Cuomo's Office Looking At Several Fixes For Merrill Bonuses

Zachary Roth | January 30, 2009, 2:06PM

As we told you earlier today, Bloomberg reported last night:

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo may demand the return of $4 billion in bonuses paid by Merrill Lynch & Co. just before it was acquired by Bank of America Corp.

But it turns out that may overstate the case a bit. A person familiar with the matter told TPMmuckraker that the investigation is considering several other possible remedies, including imposing fines and alleging violations of securities law -- as the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday.

The probe of Merill is still at an early stage. Depositions haven't yet been taken from former Merrill CEO John Thain, and Bank of America chief administrative officer J. Steele Alphin, both of whom have been subpoenaed to give investigators details on just when Bank of America learned about the bonuses, and about Merrill's massive fourth quarter losses.

If Cuomo doesn't try to get the money back, Congress might. Chris Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking committee, declared at a press conference yesterday:

I'm going to be urging -- in fact not urging, demanding -- that the Treasury Department figures out some way to get the money back.

Bailout

Another Government Report Finds Treasury Is Screwing Up TARP

Zachary Roth | January 30, 2009, 12:08PM

Another day, another earnest report finding that the Treasury has messed up the bailout.

A new GAO report on issues of "transparency and accountability" in the TARP program finds that Treasury lacks "a clearly articulated vision" for TARP and "has made limited progress in ... communicating an overall strategy" for it.

From a summary of findings:

Treasury has continued to develop a system for detecting noncompliance with key requirements of the program but has not yet finalized its plans. Further, Treasury has made limited progress in formatting articulating and communicating an overall strategy for TARP, continuing to respond to institution- and industry-specific needs by, for example, making further capital purchases and offering loans to the automobile industry. In addition, it has not yet developed a strategic approach to explain how its various programs work together to fulfill TARP's purposes or how it will use the remaining TARP funds. While GAO does not question the need for swift responses in the current economic environment, the lack of a clearly articulated vision has complicated Treasury's ability to effectively communicate to Congress, the financial markets, and the public on the benefits of TARP and has limited its ability to identify personnel needs.

So it's not like we didn't know any of this. But it's worth being reminded, as often as possible, just what a mess of this program the federal government has made so far.

Barack Obama

UPDATED: Report: Cuomo May Demand Return Of Merrill Bonuses

Zachary Roth | January 30, 2009, 11:44AM

Bloomberg has a few more details about the developing investigation, conducted by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, into the bonuses awarded last month by Merrill Lynch.

It reports, sourced to "a person familiar with the matter," that Cuomo may demand the return of the bonuses -- estimated at as much as $4 billion, and apparently awarded on an accelerated schedule just before the firm came under the control of Bank of America at the start of 2009.

Bloomberg adds that Cuomo is also probing what Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Ken Lewis knew about the bonuses, and about Merrill's huge losses in the fourth quarter, which appear to have ben revealed B of A around the time the bonuses were awarded.

More broadly, Bloomberg reports, the investigation is focused on "whether the companies' shareholders had all necessary information about Merrill's finances and whether federal bail-out loans to Bank of America were used properly."

John Thain, Merrill's former CEO, was ousted as a Bank of America exec shortly after news of the bonuses, and the losses, became public. According to reports, Cuomo has already subponaed Thain.

President Obama yesterday called Wall Street's awarding of billions of dollars in bonuses "outrageous." Congress is considering adding "claw back" provisions to the next round of bailout money, which would allow the Treasury to get back money it invested in banks that was then spent in ways that departed from the purpose of the government's investment.

We've got our own contact in to Cuomo's office, and will let you know what else we find out...

Late Update: Looks like Bloomberg's report may have overstated the case a bit.

Timothy Geithner

Treasury Issues New Rules On Bailout Lobbying

Zachary Roth | January 27, 2009, 11:43AM

On his first day on the job, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has issued new rules designed to curb lobbyists' influence over the bailout, limit conflicts of interest and increase transparency over the department's investment decisions.

From a Treasury statement:

Combating lobbyist influence in the EESA process: The Treasury Department will implement safeguards to prevent lobbyist influence over the program, including restricting contacts with lobbyists in connection with applications for, or disbursements of, EESA funds.

Keeping politics out of funding decisions: The Treasury Department will ensure that political influence does not interfere with EESA decision making, using as a model for these protections the limits on political influence over tax matters.

Certification to Congress on objective decision making: In reporting to Congress, the Office of Financial Stability (OFS) will certify that each investment decision is based only on investment criteria and the facts of the case.

The investment process will be transparent and based on objective criteria:

-Only banks recommended by the primary bank regulator will be eligible for capital investments.

-OFS will publish a detailed description of the investment review process undertaken by the regulators and OFS.

-The Treasury Department will ensure adequate resources exist to process applications as quickly as possible with priority to the date of the application as received by OFS and will formulate procedures to ensure integrity and regularity in the application process.

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that many of the banks receiving bailout funds continued to lobby the government -- including on the bailout itself.

The devil, of course, will be in the details -- and those details don't yet appear to be forthcoming. What sort of safeguards, for instance, will limit the lobbying and political influence? How will OFS guarantee that investment decisions are on the level? Etc. Etc.

Still, combined with Geithner's assurance in his confirmation testimony that Treasury will insist that banks do more to track the funds they receive, we can at least hope that the second half of the bailout will be slightly better run than the first.