Author Topic: Obama Admn Hid $40 Billion A.I.G. Loss, TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky Says  (Read 1333 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Treasury Hid A.I.G. Loss, Report Says
Published: Tuesday, 26 Oct 2010 | 8:37 AM
Mary Williams Walsh
www.cnbc.com

________________________ _______________


The United States Treasury concealed $40 billion in likely taxpayer losses on the bailout of the American International Group earlier this month, when it abandoned its usual method for valuing investments, according to a report by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

 
The United States Treasury concealed $40 billion in likely taxpayer losses according to a report by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
“In our view, this is a significant failure in their transparency,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the inspector general, in an interview on Monday.


In early October, the Treasury issued a report predicting that the taxpayers would ultimately lose just $5 billion on their investment in A.I.G. [AIG  41.73    0.63  (+1.53%)   ], a remarkable outcome, since the insurance company was extended $182 billion in taxpayer money in the early months of its rescue. The prediction of a modest loss, widely reported as A.I.G., the Federal Reserve and the Treasury rushed to complete an exit plan, contrasted with an earlier prediction by the Treasury that the taxpayers would lose $45 billion.

“The American people have a right for full and complete disclosure about their investment in A.I.G.,” Mr. Barofsky said, “and the U.S. government has an obligation, when they’re describing potential losses, to give complete information.”


RELATED LINKS
Current DateTime: 06:00:59 26 Oct 2010
LinksList Documentid: 39846547

AIG CEO Benmosche Diagnosed With CancerBailout Cost Estimates Were Misleading: WatchdogRepublicans Ready to Target Wall Street

Reform Law

An official of the Treasury disputed Mr. Barofsky’s conclusions, saying the department appropriately used different methods for different purposes. He said the smaller loss was a projection of future events, and the larger one was the result of an audit, which includes only realized gains and losses.

The Treasury will include more information about A.I.G. when it issues its own audited financial statement in November. Because those numbers must pass an auditor’s scrutiny, the loss it reports is likely to grow once again, to more than $5 billion.

Members of Congress who have been critical of the federal bailouts jumped on Monday to commend the special inspector general and challenge the varying numbers.

“If a private company filed information with the government that was just as misleading and disingenuous as what Treasury has done here, you’d better believe there would be calls for an investigation from the S.E.C. and others,” said Representative Darrell Issa, the senior Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He called the Treasury’s October report on A.I.G. “blatant manipulation.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, said he thought “administration officials are trying so hard to put a positive spin on program losses that they played fast and loose with the numbers.” He said it reminded him of “misleading” claims that General Motors had paid back its rescue loans with interest ahead of schedule.

Mr. Barofsky said he had written to the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, in mid-October, after widespread reports in the news media about the possibility that the Treasury could wind down its position in A.I.G. with just a $5 billion loss. He recommended that the Treasury correct the October report, perhaps by adding a footnote saying the methodology for calculating its losses had changed.

The Treasury declined. It sent back a letter saying its methodology for calculating losses had not really changed, although its assumptions had. For instance, it based the values of several future transactions on the current price of A.I.G.’s common stock. The letter, signed by Timothy G. Massad, the acting assistant secretary for financial stability, said this reflected the fact that a crucial component of its exit strategy would be the exchange of preferred for common stock.

Mr. Barofsky said the government failed to account for the volatility of A.I.G.’s common stock. A relatively small portion of the company is publicly traded, and that portion will be soon diluted further. The government now has a 79 percent stake, which will rise to about 92 percent, in the form of common stock, under the exit plan.

It is not clear whether the Treasury will be able to sell so much stock without making the price fall. Mr. Barofsky said the Treasury’s projection also assumed that all the other steps for the federal government to withdraw from A.I.G. would go smoothly.

He said the Treasury’s statements tended to contribute to a “widespread, but mistaken, belief that TARP is at or near its end.”


As inspector general, Mr. Barofsky has extensive powers of investigation but no enforcement power.

This story originally appeared in the The New York Times


________________________ ______________________


HOPE & CHANGE BITCHES!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Admn Hid $40 Billion A.I.G. Loss, TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky Says
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2010, 10:22:31 AM »
“In our view, this is a significant failure in their transparency,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the inspector general, in an interview on Monday.


ADD THIS TO THE MANY LIES OF OBAMA


Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama Admn Hid $40 Billion A.I.G. Loss, TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky Says
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2010, 12:07:19 PM »
Wasn't this admin supposed to be all about transparency?  ???

225for70

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3127
  • Suckmymuscle is OneMoreRep's little bitch
Re: Obama Admn Hid $40 Billion A.I.G. Loss, TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky Says
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2010, 12:20:58 PM »
Wasn't this admin supposed to be all about transparency?  ???

Yes, it's the most transparent Admin to date..As Americans we can see the bills for 5 whole days before congress votes on them.. :D


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/tarp-even-worse-think-abysmal-failure-barofsky-says-161743679.html


 
Most Americans have a sense TARP was a badly managed program that bailed out "fat cat" bankers at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Well, it's even worse than you think, according to Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general for TARP (SIGTARP).
 
Officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations took the attitude "bankers know best," Barofsky recalls. "It was somewhat shocking how much control big banks had over their own bailout [and] the overwhelming deference show by Treasury officials to the banks."
 
Much has been made about Barofsky's criticism of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who told CBS News he is "deeply offended" by how he's portrayed in Barofsky's book Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.
 
Barofsky pulled no punches in our earlier segment about the ongoing rate-rigging scandal. (See: "I Hope We See People In Handcuffs": Neil Barofsky Weighs in on LIBOR Scandal)
 
In the accompanying video, we focused more on TARP's failings to live up to its promise to help individual Americans, not just the big banks.
 
Congress never would've passed TARP if not for programs included in the program to help homeowners facing foreclosure and generally spur bank lending. "TARP was an abysmal failure on those very important goals the reason why they got that money to give to the banks in the first place," Barofsky says.
 
TARP "did help prevent financial Armageddon," he concedes. "But there's a reason why Congress required and Treasury promised TARP would do a lot more. It's not complicated to take hundreds of billions [of dollars] and pour them into institutions ... and they don't fail. You really can't evaluate TARP" exclusively on how it impacted the banks.
 
Similarly, Barofsky takes offense to Treasury's repeated proclamations that TARP has been profitable.
 
While the big banks have paid back their loans, the overall program is now projected to lose somewhere between $32 billion to $70 billion, with $109.1 billion owed as of June 30, according to SIGTARP. Most of those losses are tied to AIG -- Treasury still own 61% of the company -- but more than half of the 325 banks that received TARP aid have missed dividend or interest payments.
 
"The bottom line is [the government] still expects tens of millions of losses on TARP," Barofsky says. "The losses are a lot less than originally anticipated but this resorting to trickery really shows you they're trying to cover up how badly TARP has failed in its other goals of helping homeowners and increasing lending to the economy."
 
Aaron Task is the host of The Daily Ticker. You can follow him on Twitter at @aarontask or email him at altask@yahoo.com
.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6370
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Barofsky has actually been a vocal critic of TARP and such for a long long time.