Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret

[karyn]

from yahoo

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer – Mon Dec 22, 9:52 am ET

Elizabeth Warren, who chairs an oversight committee set up by Congress to AP – Elizabeth Warren, who chairs an oversight committee set up by Congress to oversee the bailout, is interviewed …

WASHINGTON – It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?

But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.

"We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?

None of the banks provided specific answers.

"We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.

"We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.

The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands' economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.

There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't comply.

"It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.

But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.

Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.

"Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?"

Nearly every bank AP questioned — including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money — responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.

A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.

But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.

"We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.

Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.

Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story."

Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret.

"We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government.

Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."

The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent.

Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.

"What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as we're going."

Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money.

"It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said.

But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask.

"If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said.

Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.

"A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said.

___

Associated Press writers Stevenson Jacobs in New York and Christopher S. Rugaber and Daniel Wagner in Washington contributed to this report.

[Mr Karl]

well, duh, what does anyone expect?

[Jax]

Wow, surprise.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

They're hoarding it to keep up their capital, using some of it to buy other banks and aren't lending a dime of it to anyone.

The sad part is most of these big banks didn't even need any of it. Then the smaller community banks, like where I work, who could really use it, are told "Fuck you" from the government because we're not big enough for the government to give a shit.

The government lent out this money so banks could lend again. So then why aren't the bank's lending it out? Because they don't want anymore bad loans on their books and it this bad economic climate, they have no idea who they should approve for loans for. Although the newpapers constantly bring up bad loans due to sub-prime lending, a bigger portion of the loans that went belly up are from people who had good credit scores and salaries to justify the loans. These same people now either lost their jobs and can't pay the loans anymore or they were investing in the housing market and don't "feel" like paying the loans anymore because now the houses aren't worth close to what the investors paid for them. The latter can suck my balls, btw. So, if you lent money to people who had the means to pay it back at the time, NOW who can you lend it too and can be assured that the loans will be paid back....Especially when people are losing their jobs left and right. I think the banks are essentially "terrified" to lend out more money.

[OliX]

Well.. how to fix this?

And then what did bailout money did exactly? Did it bailed out anyone yet?

[Ajax Knucklebones]

Well.. how to fix this?

And then what did bailout money did exactly? Did it bailed out anyone yet?

Nope. Not in my eyes.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.

My personal favorite line in the whole story. He says the deal would have gone through regardless which brings up the question, if you can afford to buy insurance companies, why do you need my money?

The second this administration said "trust us" and "we need to act now" congress should have shit themselves with worry. I can't say I am surprised, but then again they worked hard to crank my cynicism to 11 so Paulson giving the entire bailout to Cheyney Co then asking for another 700 billion wouldn't have surprised me.

A friend lent me a steinbeck book to read to help with a personal project I am working on... I am way too sympathetic to the commies to finish it now. Even their bad traits seem ok in light of our bad guys.

Well, merry christmas.

[Morning Glory]

honestly, I would have preferred it if they just spent it on hookers and booze. The implications are far more frightening for banks to be "not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking". Gee, you think maybe that could have been the problem in the first place? What the fuck is the point of being a bank if you aren't keeping track of your money?

[Ajax Knucklebones]

honestly, I would have preferred it if they just spent it on hookers and booze. The implications are far more frightening for banks to be "not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking". Gee, you think maybe that could have been the problem in the first place? What the fuck is the point of being a bank if you aren't keeping track of your money?

Don't believe those banker comments for a second. They know EXACTLY where the money going. They also know that they're not using it for the purposes intended, hence the "We don't know" answer. Better to always act ignorant then to tell the guilty truth.

[Morning Glory]

Better to always act ignorant then to tell the guilty truth.

That's the Christmas Spirit.

[Mr Karl]

everybodys pleaded ignorance at least once................................bankers will be bankers

[Ajax Knucklebones]

That's the Christmas Spirit.

Sadly, more like "That's the American way".

[Bikerpunk]

Don't believe those banker comments for a second. They know EXACTLY where the money going. They also know that they're not using it for the purposes intended, hence the "We don't know" answer. Better to always act ignorant then to tell the guilty truth.

Mission accomplished.