Ask The Man Who Knows- Barofsky Thinks “It’s Unrealistic…We’re Going to Get All That Money Back…”

Travis's picture

As the Obama Administration prepares a new TARP-like program, this time targeting smaller, community and local banks, Inspector General Neil Barofsky thinks “it’s unrealistic to think we’re going to get all that money back” in a statement made Wednesday according to Associated Press sources.


The Treasury has spent in excess of $450 billion through TARP programs, and just a few under fifty recipients have paid back about $73 billion worth.


Later today, Obama is expected to announce a community bank assistance plan, as the American Bankers’ Association has asked for some $5 billion in aid, in an effort to extend lending to Main Street.


Barfosky graded TARP “an incomplete” on CBS’s “The Early Show” but noted, its “pulling us back” from the brink of collapse. 


A quarterly report, scheduled for release later today, will further detail Barofsky’s findings.


Notes an article published by the Associated Press:

"Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success," he wrote, "Treasury's actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP."

Barofsky was quick to note, that the plan has come under “suspicion” fed by the Treasury’s decision to not require banks to disclose how they’re using the rescue money, fueled by “less-than-accurate” statements about the actual financial conditions of nine large institutions that benefited from TARP.


The upcoming report will describe initiatives under the TARP plan, some to help Wall Street, others to bailout Main Street.


In his report, Barofsky credits the Fed and the Treasury for adopting some accountability recommendations, but several of his agency’s ideas for greater transparency to taxpayers have gone unnoticed. 



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Rainman's picture

As with any residential burglary, it would be unrealistic to think you are going to get all your stuff back.

drbill's picture

But when its the "cops" who are doing the stealing.....

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

You get even less of your stuff back. I think they call it "shrinkage" or something like that.

Gilgamesh's picture

If this hasn't been posted elsewhere:

Bailout watchdog expects much to remain unrefunded

ArkansasAngie's picture

Denninger's call for a Boycott is an excellent idea -- Had Enough? Time For A Boycott


Put your money where your mouth is.

Buy local.  Who's son's/daughter's tution would you rather pay for ... your neighbors or the bums on Wall Street.

If you don't like what they are doing with your money then give it to somebody else.

Anonymous's picture

It's not the call for a Boycott so much as the "spreading" of the call for a boycott that counts!

colonial's picture

Since Congress is not going to vote another TARP and global markets are pounding the US$ believing that Obama will continue to federalize/monetize every US problem, TARP is the only game in town.  The IG has his hands filled as TARP is basically an active slush fund that will be targeted to the next financial crisis.  TARP is truly an incredible federal program.  Its akin to something the Fed would use, only its far more transparent. 


One more point, if the next use of TARP helps the Democrats, look for Barney Frank to say that he alone thought of that use months ago... 


Anonymous's picture

The 9/24/09 testimony is an interesting 10 page read:

waterdog's picture

Ok, this stuff is nuts also. These big old banks are owned by stockholders and the stock is publicly traded. These big old banks are required to disclose earnings and changes in assets on a quarterly basis. A simple analysis of the quarterly financial statements should disclose the amount and uses of the funds.

If they are not on the books, then how do the stockholders know the true earnings and changes to assets?

Is this not why Mr. Lewis has eaten his finger nails to the bone?

BetterOffDead's picture

What you're saying is logical and makes perfect sense - shouldn't we just look at the financials?  The fact of the matter is that bank financials are indecipherable.  Not only that, most banks can't keep track of the capital they have, much less having more thrown into the mix.  Because they are levered so heavily, you have 30 potential uses for every $1 of capital.  So take your pick as to which one you report. 

Very likely, most of the cash infusions went to cover existing write-downs/losses and did little to increase lending.  Excess capital seems to have gone straight into the stock market.

Anonymous's picture

no one can deny that barofsky is a master of understatement....

and what's all of this crap about lending 5b usd for community banks? how do you put that in perspective against 23.7 trillion usd used to backstop 19 banksters plus a few gses? 5b usd is less than gs makes in a year.....

5b usd is about how much the federal government spends a day.....why squander so much money on a few community banks....

obama, go fuck yourself bitch.....

Anonymous's picture

This is the same thing as saying:

It is REALISTIC to expect that taxpayer money will permanently enrich certain individuals.

... where the fuck are the clawbacks people? Find the ones who benefited, and make them pay. Its not that complicated.

Personal wealth is *not* sacred when the assets are in fact stolen goods.

Anonymous's picture

Whatever happened to the investigation of the Fed and the court ruling due around September 25? So far no news on a court ordered investigation.

crosey's picture

Is it me, or do you too get the feeling that we've crossed the tipping point into bailout spending careless sentiment.  As though TPTB lose more prudence every day.  Just keep printing money and spending it, because it's what we did yesterday.

"Keep pouring gasoline on the fire until we drown it!"....I heard them say.

What is this big, nasty beast of which we are staying but one step ahead?


Anonymous's picture

Does it bother anyone that mr Neil Barofsky JD's law firm represents Hank Greenberg/AIG? Any conflict of interest here? Of the millions of attorneys available, they selected a New York lawyer that represents Aig/hank Greenberg? Really? Really?

unemployed's picture

Barofsky says investigating AIG CDS counterparty claims from 2008 is next on the menu.

What are the chances that Hank was a victim to the London crew of CDS sellers?  

Was AIG made into a Pinata for a bear raid?

Which side of a bear raid was Spitzer on?