Measure To Reform Fannie And Freddie Fails

A trio of Senate Republicans failed in their quest to put an end to the days of taxpayer bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Amendment, sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), would have forced the government to relinquish control of the two government-backed mortgage giants within two years.

Recently, Fannie Mae, which lost $13.1 billion during the first quarter of this year, asked the government for an additional $8.4 billion to stay afloat. Similarly, Freddie Mac asked the government for $10.6 billion in funds after reporting a loss of $8 billion for the quarter. Combined, the two companies have borrowed $145 billion from the Treasury Department since the government took complete ownership of them during the heart of the nation’s financial collapse in 2008.

"We are not saying that Freddie and Fannie have to go out of business. We're saying we want them to be a business that is on a level playing field with other private sector competitors," said McCain to reporters today, hours before his amendment went down in a 56-43 vote.

Though most Republicans supported the item, it had its fair share of skeptics.

First, critics, including many Democrats in Congress, believed the measure would unwind Fannie and Freddie so quickly that it would create chaos throughout the entire housing market. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who has said he supports reforming the two GSE’s, called the amendment a huge gamble.

“Simply to abolish Fannie and Freddie...and not do anything to replace the functions they are now performing with a conservatorship, would be a disaster for housing, and therefore for the economy as a whole,” he said last week.

Furthermore, the liberal Center for American Progress recently referred to the legislation as “The Credit Crunch Restoration Act of 2010,” arguing that by abolishing a large chunk of the mortgage backing industry, millions of Americans would lose access to credit.

Bank Of America Executives Defend Merrill Lynch Deal

By Ravi Bhatia - Talk Radio News Service

Bank of America (BOA) executives, including two members of the bank’s board of directors, testified Tuesday in front of the House Oversight Committee to explain how a private deal between BOA and Merrill Lynch turned into a federal bailout.

The $50 billion deal between the two banks occurred in September, 2008 and saved Merrill Lynch from bankruptcy. A January 2009 report of its earnings, however, showed that Merrill Lynch lost $21.5 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, requiring the government to subsequently provide it with an emergency $15 billion preferred stock investment through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Committee Chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), claimed during Tuesday's hearing that the government did not force Bank of America to take the bailout. Towns noted that it was former Bank of America Chairman Ken Lewis who asked former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on Dec. 17, 2008 to intervene.

“That one phone call put everything in motion,” Towns said. “Lewis claimed that he believed Bank of America could back out of the deal with Merrill Lynch based on the Material Adverse Change clause in the merger agreement - the so-called ‘MAC clause.’ [Former Bank of America General Counsel Timothy J.] Mayopoulos was suddenly fired nine days later without explanation and replaced by a senior insider who had not practiced law in years.”

Mayopolous testified Tuesday that, “Based on information [that was] already disclosed to shareholders, a reasonable investor would have been on notice that Merrill Lynch might well suffer multi-billion dollar losses in the fourth quarter of 2008.”

During his prepared remarks, Mayopolous also denied involvement in Bank of America's approving Merrill Lynch to pay billions of dollars in bonuses to its employees. However, he did advise Steele Alphin, Bank of America’s Chief Administrative Officer, that Merrill Lynch, not Bank of America, should determine year-end bonuses for Merrill Lynch employees.

“I also advised Mr. Alphin, however, that it was appropriate for him to make clear to the Chair of Merrill’s Compensation Committee that it would be inappropriate for John Thain, Merrill Lynch’s CEO, to be paid a year-end bonus,” Mayopolous said. “My advice was not legal advice that such a bonus would be illegal, but rather my business judgment as to what would be best for the combined company.”

Bank of America’s President of Consumer and Small Business Banking Brian Moynihan said Tuesday he was proud of the role his firm has played in the economy “during this period of economic difficulty,” and that Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch helped prevent a further financial collapse.

“We have extended $759 billion in new credit since we filed our first report in the fourth quarter of 2008,” he said. “That represents almost $17 for every dollar of the $45 billion of taxpayer assistance to the Bank of America.”


Frank Unveils Plan To Bailout Main Street

By Joseph Russell- Talk Radio News Service

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced the “TARP for Main Street Act of 2009” during a House Financial Services Committee meeting Thursday. The legislation is designed to use money made available under the Troubled Assets Relief Program, to help struggling homeowners and neighborhoods as the economy worsens.

Frank said “the program is one where money is provided to communities to buy-up property that was foreclosed.”

However, committee Republicans said that the program will continue to add to the massive national deficit. They also criticized the plan because it circumvents the appropriation process by taking $6.2 billion directly from the general fund, a procedure they say violates the Constitution.

“There seems to be a competition by Democrats, especially in this committee, who can come up with the most outlandish way to spend tax payer’s dollars,” Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) said. “The current proposal is to take the TARP program and turn it into something of a Madoff like Ponzi scheme.”

Frank plans to fund “TARP for Main Street” with money that was originally appropriated for bank bailouts. Some $68 billion has been given back by banks who did not need the money. Frank believes the money should be “recycled” and given to struggling homeowners.

TARP originally appropriated $700 billion in emergency bailouts as a measure to stabilize the financial markets.

Liveblog: AIG - Where is the taxpayer's money going?

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service


Talk Radio News Service will be liveblogging the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing with AIG CEO Edward Liddy today at 10:00. Refresh this page for updates.

AIG Chairman and CEO, Edward Liddy, will come before Congress today for the second time since it was revealed, in March, that AIG paid out $120 million in bonuses after receiving a $85 billion from the government bailout package.

Chairman of the Committee Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) said, "Eight months ago, the American taxpayer came to the rescue of AIG with an $85 billion bailout. That was followed by more money in November, more again in December and more money still in March. The taxpayers have now provided more than $180 billion in financial assistance to AIG.

"A few days ago, we learned that the aIG has put together a plan called Project Destiny. Project Destiny is described as "a multi-year roadmap for the restructuring of AIG. I requested a copy of this plan, but AIG says that disclosing the plan "would undermine its efforts to achieve its goals for the benefit of American taxpayers." AIG says it is consulting on the issue with the New York Fed. In other words, "trust us." Everything will be alright."

Adding, "I was surprised and disappointed to see that AIG continues to argue for secrecy. In his testimony, Mr. Liddy seems to argue that criticism of AIG will somehow hurt the company. Again we are hearing, "Trust us." But we are not willing to let $180 billion go just on trust. We will questions, we will inquire, we will verify, and we will not hesitate to probe every aspect of AIG management and operations to protect the taxpayer's investment."

Ranking Member, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said, "I want to acknowledge that none of this is the trustees' fault, they are simply operating within the organization that was created by others, and no doubt do so out of patriotic spirit of public service."

Adding, "The American people have a right to know what is being done with their money."

In his opening testimony Edward Liddy said, "We are working hard to determine the destiny of the component parts of AIG."

Adding, "We intend for taxpayers to realize the fullest possible value from every asset disposition, and we intend that every company that emerges at the end of restructuring will be strong, transparent, and a credit to all its owners.

In particular, we are transferring two major foreign life insurance companies - ALICO and AIA - into special purpose vehicles in exchange for a substantial reduction in AIG's debt to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. We expect to complete the contractual arrangements for these in the near future."

Liddy added, "We recognize our responsibility to work hand in hand with the government to preserve that value, and I assure you that is our goal. We continue to welcome a frank and open dialogue with Congress on our progress in restructuring, so that you can be in a position to support our efforts. That is essential and I will help us to preserve the value of AIG franchise for the benefit of AIG's stakeholders, the American taxpayer most of all."

Asked by Towns, "Can you confirm that AIG will not require any other additional government money?"

Liddy, "What I can say is we will do our best not to require any additional funding...that answer is very dependent on what happens around the financial globe...I can't give you a guarantee on that. I can't control what happens in the global market."

Towns asked Liddy to provide a copy of 'Project Destiny' by the end of the day.

Liddy responded by saying, "I will do my best."

Liddy will consult with AIG lawyers on this issue as he fears that releasing details of 'Project Destiny' could provide access to marketing information to their competitors and then impact AIG's ability to pay back taxpayers money."

Towns closed by saying, "Do you honestly believe you have a right to prevent Congress from reviewing how the taxpayers money is being spent?"

Frustrated at Liddy's response that he would need to talk to his counsel before providing Congress with details on 'Project Destiny,' Issa gave Mr. Liddy a chance to talk to his attorney sitting behind him.

After conversing for less than two minutes, Mr. Liddy concluded that it there would be limitations to what can be provided as there is "commercially sensitive" information in the plans that AIG would not want competitors to see.

Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-Penn.) said, "Do you have any opinion whether it would be helpful...if in someway we developed a Federal Insurance charter?"

Liddy replied, "There needs to be someone that looks at systemic risks."

Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), "Are you hoping to be able to pay back the taxpayer before the ceiling falls in....How long will it take to pay the taxpayers back?"

Liddy replied, "Somewhere between three and five years. What makes the answer so difficult is how strong will the economy be worldwide and how strong will the financial markets be worldwide."

Bilbray added, "When will you start repaying debt?"

Liddy replied, "As soon as possible....hopefully in a matter of months assuming we get all the Federal approval. "

Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) asked, "What can you tell them [people who have lost jobs and homes] about what they can expect to see as they see foreclosures signs in front of their houses and businesses?

AIG is looking at its contracts to ensure bonuses are paid on performance basis. Liddy said, "If there are bonuses you earn them."

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) asked Liddy to explain to the public what exactly AIG is.

Listing several branches, Liddy said, "It's an insurance company with a few exceptions."

Liddy told the committee, "My time today is focused on today and tomorrow and less on yesterday."

Fortenberry asked Liddy about new figures on AIG bonuses differing from those provided to Congress in March.

It has now been revealed that AIG paid $454 million to bonuses in to its employees in 2008, compared to the $120 million figure released in March.

Apologizing for any confusion on how much was paid exactly for bonuses. Liddy said, the discrepancy on the amount occurred when they were asked by Congress about different type of bonuses, specifically cooperate bonuses.

Appearing frustrated and angry at Liddy's responses throughout the hearing, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), told Liddy that AIG's behavior was "unacceptable." Adding, "You cheated people who saved lives, who save our children, what are you going to do about this?"

Liddy said he would work with Congress and offered to meet with Kucinich after the hearing.

Kucinich told Liddy that until this matter is resolved "Congress is not going to let you go," shouting that this was "unacceptable" behavior. He told Liddy that Congress "will keep calling you back here," until this issue was concluded.

Kucinich agreed to meet with Liddy following the hearing.

Congressman Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) asked Liddy, "Can you tell us what the administration's plans are with moving forward with AIG?"

Liddy said, "I cannot."

Congressman William Clay (D-Mo.) asked, "Is AIG really too bog to fail and has it already failed?"

Liddy said, "I would point out to you that this quarter's figures showed that losses for this quarter were not 62 billion...it was 4.3 billion, substantially less than it was in the first quarter of 2008. It's a very complicated institution. It's a very complicated operation."

Hearing was suspended until 12.15pm as Congress was called to vote.

Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) said he was “disappointed” with Mr. Liddy as he failed to address the question both in this written and oral testimony, relating to where the taxpayer’s money is going. Lynch said, “It’s a new ball game. One of transparency and accountability.”

Liddy replied, "The last time I was here we provided a very exhaustive document that explained where all the taxpayers money has gone...it was a very exhaustive analysis that explains that in some detail. I thought we had already answered that."

Lynch said, "We are going to have to have you back up this. I am with Kucinich on this. We will not be rolled on this. When we call you up here and ask you a question, we want you to answer the question. "

Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) asked, “With respects to the bonuses, how many people left the company?

Liddy said, “On the FP sector we had about maybe 10 to 12 to maybe 15 resignations...don’t know if the resignations are over yet.”

Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) asked Mr. Liddy to get and provide Congress with the number of lawsuits AIG are facing and to find out whether news reports on binding arbitration are true.

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) asked, “Have you paid the taxpayers back any of the money they have lent you to date?”

Liddy responded, “Yes.”

Kaptur: “How much?”

Liddy: “Several billion dollars”

Kaptur: “Several Billion?”

Liddy: “Yes”

Kaptur asked for a list of dates, sums to be submitted for the record. Liddy agreed.

Kaptur then questioned Liddy about his connections with Goldman Sachs which revealed that Mr. Liddy has shares to the market value of $3 million from Golden Sachs.

Congressman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) wants to work with AIG and Mr. Liddy to look at how to improve mortgage back loan to value ratios. Turner fears that if this is not addressed then, "I believe that what we are going the see is the largest theft or fraud in history."

Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) told Liddy, “We are all scratching our heads how can you possibly pay back the taxpayers?”

Liddy said, “It is possible...as I said you before it depends on market circumstances.”

Kucinich said, "Is it true that even if the United States took over AIG 100 per cent these bonuses would still be awarded?"

“No. We have been looking at how we keep people spirited but how we keep in line with Federal regulations.”

Kucinich read a letter sent to employees which asked them to keep bonuses confidential. Kucinich asked Liddy, to inform Congress about any future bonuses.

Towns asked Mr. Liddy to remember that the American public wants to know why a company that contributed to our current economic crisis paid out bonuses that rewarded failure.

Kaptur asked anyone in the committee room currently under contract with AIG to stand - 6 people stood. Kaptur has asked for the details of their contracts.

Kaptur continues to probe into Liddy's connections with Goldman Sachs. Asking the committee to obtain minutes from meetings Liddy attended.

Issa told Liddy, "Please do not think you will not be back before us if you cannot answer...what have the American taxpayers bought for $190 billion dollars?"

Adding, "Provide us with some understanding on how you will pay us back."

Liddy said, "Assets values should be sufficient to satisfy all of what the company owes."

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked, "Whether the life insurance sector of AIG needed a bailout?"

Liddy said, "The life insurance sector was solvent."

Maloney asked, "Do you foresee that in the future that youl will not need any additional public money?

Liddy sighed saying, "Again, I would say that I certainly hope so."

Towns in closing told Liddy that he needed to understand that the "American taxpayer is frustrated."

Edward Liddy was able to leave the hearing at 1.36pm.

It Looked Like A Good Idea At The Time

Coffee Brown, University of New Mexico, Talk Radio News


As an investment, it could have paid off. As a bailout, it’s likely to be the expensive consequence of a hasty yet necessary response, according to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who helped frame the $700 billion TARP bill and spoke about it today at the Brookings Institution.

Corker pointed that the $85 billion AIG funds were from the Federal Reserve, not the Treasury. He said that TARP, as designed, would have turned presently toxic investments into longer term equity, and taxpayers could have gotten their money back.

But since not enough requirements were included, and financial capital was used to shore up failing institutions, rather than buying assets, he thinks much of that money is never going to be recovered. If General Motors, for example, were to go Chapter Seven Bankruptcy, taxpayers would get nothing.

Corker said that financial principles are being made up on the fly, partly because the situation doesn’t lend itself to precedent. For example, the GM pensioners gave up about $12 billion in equity for a 2.5 percent stockholder share, while the UAW gave up about $10 billion in equity for a 39 percent share, and declined to accept a requirement to become competitive within 2009, he said.

Rather than regulate the past, “let’s move past this and figure out the right regulatory regime” which, he said, needs to work here and now, for the rest of the world and in unforeseen circumstances. “We have to come up with cause neutral regulations.”

Looking to the future, he said that the parties are just beginning to work together on Social Security and Medicaid which, if not addressed are heading into $86 trillion in obligations.