El Tesoro de EEUU invierte 1.150 millones de dólares en 42 bancos - 3/02/09 - elEconomista.es

El Tesoro de EEUU invierte 1.150 millones de dólares en 42 bancos
Reuters | 138 - 3/02/2009

El Departamento del Tesoro estadounidense inyectó en los últimos días 1.150 millones de dólares (885 millones de euros) a 42 bancos bajo un programa de emergencia de compra de capital destinado a ayudar a estabilizar el sector financiero.

Desde su inicio en octubre, el Tesoro ha invertido 195.330 millones de dólares (150.346 millones de euros) en 359 instituciones.

Bajo el programa, el Tesoro compra una participación en bancos para estimular sus reservas de capital y entregarles recursos para aumentar el préstamo.

__________________

La Fed prolonga por seis meses sus programas de inyección de liquidez - 3/02/09 - elEconomista.es

La Fed prolonga por seis meses sus programas de inyección de liquidez
Agencias | 17:18 - 3/02/2009

La Reserva Federal de Estados Unidos (Fed) ha anunciado que prolongará por seis meses, hasta el 30 de octubre, cinco de sus programas temporarios destinados a asegurar suficiente liquidez para los mercados financieros, así como sus acuerdos swap de intercambio de divisas con 13 bancos centrales entre ellos, el Banco Central Europeo (BCE) y el Banco de Inglaterra.
La Fed permitirá así dejar a un número mayor de establecimientos acceder a su ventanilla de descuentos y prorrogar la vigencia de su programa de préstamos semanales de bonos del Tesoro a los bancos. Asimismo, conservará durante seis meses adicionales dos mecanismos de apoyo a los fondos monetarios y un programa de ayuda al financiamiento de las empresas.
La Fed ha explicado en un comunicado que esta decisión se adoptó "a la luz de las tensiones persistentes en numerosos mercados financieros".

__________________

Alucinante...no si al final los conspiracionistas van a tener razón.

US FDIC seeks power to charge 'systemic risk' fees

By Karey Wutkowski

WASHINGTON, Feb 3 (Reuters) - The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp asked U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday for permission to impose special fees on "a range of entities" if they pose a high risk to the stability of the financial sector.

John Bovenzi, chief operating officer of the FDIC, told Congress that the authority to impose "systemic risk special assessments" would be consistent with the agency's current powers to charge the banking industry to cover losses.

Bovenzi said it would impose the assessment on banks that take insured deposits, those banks' holding companies, or both, as the FDIC sees fit.

The FDIC is an independent agency created by Congress that maintains the stability and public confidence in the U.S. financial system by insuring deposits, examining and supervising financial institutions and managing failed banks.

The statutory change would also allow the FDIC to shift the timing of when it charges the banking industry to recover losses in a way that does not excessively burden banks during tough times, Bovenzi said.

In his prepared testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, Bovenzi also asked Congress to give the FDIC additional support to handle future bank failures.

He asked that Congress more than triple its existing line of credit with Treasury to $100 billion from $30 billion.

"The FDIC believes it would be appropriate to adjust the statutory line of credit proportionately to ensure that the public has no confusion or doubt about the government's commitment to insured depositors," Bovenzi said.

The FDIC also asked that the line of credit be adjusted further in "exigent circumstances."

The move comes as the FDIC's deposit insurance fund has been shrunk by a significant uptick in bank failures over the past year. The insurance fund's value dropped 24 percent in the 2008 third quarter to $34.6 billion. The FDIC said in December it expects the fund to drop to about $29 billion in the first quarter of this year.

Bovenzi also addressed a bill being prepared by Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the committee, that would make permanent Congress' October decision to increase deposit insurance temporarily to $250,000 per customer account.

He said if Congress goes forward with permanently increasing the level of deposit insurance, the FDIC should also be able to charge banks increased fees against the increased coverage.

MORE LIQUIDITY NEEDED

Bovenzi said more needs to be done to stabilize banks' liquidity, as many bank failures in late 2008 occurred because of a lack of access to cash, not their capital levels.

"While the assets of these institutions were quickly deteriorating, their liquidity positions were deteriorating at a faster rate," Bovenzi said.

"Stabilizing liquidity could potentially avoid unnecessary costs to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) by eliminating the need to close, or prematurely close, otherwise viable institutions."

A total of 25 U.S. banks were seized by bank regulators in 2008, up from only three in 2007. So far this year, six banks have failed as the financial system grapples with mortgage securities and other distressed investments weighing down their balance sheets.

Bovenzi said banks have been able to improve their access to funding through the FDIC's temporary liquidity guarantee program. That voluntary program was established in October and provides a government guarantee to certain senior unsecured debt and to banks' transaction deposit accounts.

The programs were established to boost confidence in the U.S. banking industry and reduce the risk of bank runs.

As of Jan. 28, outstanding debt covered by the FDIC guarantee program totaled about $221 billion, Bovenzi said.

"Indications to date suggest the program has improved access to funding and lowered banks' borrowing costs," he said.

But Bovenzi said a lack of liquidity in the financial services sector remains "a major obstacle to efforts to return the economy to a condition where it can support normal economic activity and future economic growth."

And he said recent data has led the FDIC to upwardly revise its bank failure cost estimate over the 2008 to 2013 period.

The agency had previously forecast a cost of $40 billion. Bovenzi did not say how much that estimate has gone up.

UPDATE 2-US FDIC seeks power to charge 'systemic risk' fees | Deals | IPOs | Reuters

__________________

Senado EEUU suma ayuda inmobiliaria a plan rescate | Titulares | Reuters

__________________

Bailout watchdog: Treasury overpaid - Feb. 5, 2009

Bailout watchdog: Treasury paid too much
Government's assets acquired in the financial sector bailout are worth less than what they initially paid for them, according to an oversight official.

By David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: February 5, 2009: 12:03 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Treasury Department overpaid for the assets it purchased as part of the $700 billion financial sector bailout, according to testimony of a bailout oversight official before Congress on Thursday.

At a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Elizabeth Warren, head of the Congressional Oversight Panel, testified that the more than $254 billion in assets that the government purchased in 2008 are worth just $176 billion - $78 billion less than what Treasury paid for them.

Warren said the shortfall happened on the date of the transaction, and is not representative of the market's movements since then. She noted that Treasury has failed to delineate a clear reason for such an overpayment.

"At various points Treasury has articulated policy objectives which could result in a program involved in paying substantially more for investments than they appear to have been worth at the time of the transaction," said Warren. "The American people want to know what's going on and they deserve answers."

Warren's panel will release its full report on the shortfall Friday. She said the panel arrived at the figures after it hired an independent valuation firm and finance experts to analyze publicly available data on the banks receiving bailout funds.

The study follows a separate report released last month, in which the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Treasury has lost $64 billion on its investments in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

But Warren said the experts hired by her panel valued each transaction using multiple methods, and arrived at the conclusion that the CBO's estimates were too low.

Warren said Treasury failed to price in risk for its capital purchase program, buying assets that would likely decrease in value.

"It's as if I said I'd pay $1 million for 10 paintings, but one was a Picasso, one was a Rembrandt and the others were not," Warren argued.
Concerns about accountability

The committee heard from the heads of the three key TARP oversight bodies: Warren; Neil Barofsky, special inspector general; and Gene Dodaro, acting comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office. All three said Treasury needs to implement a more transparent asset management strategy to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

"They need to ... articulate a clear strategy, otherwise they are spending billions of dollars on an ad hoc basis," said Warren.

Committee members and oversight officials expressed concern that banks in receipt of bailout funds are not required to account for how they use the money. Lawmakers especially expressed outrage regarding bailed-out banks' purchases of planes and luxury hotel rooms.

"Too many banks are given a free pass; too many TARP recipients use these funds for everything but lending," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., committee chairman. "The public is outraged by this behavior with good cause."

Barofsky recommended Treasury address the public's concerns in a report that he submitted to Congress on Thursday. The report said Treasury must tighten regulation of the bailout and implement a better investment strategy and new fraud prevention standards.

In testimony, Barofsky said Treasury must make known "what the recipients have done with the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been invested."

So far, the Treasury has injected into 360 banks more than $195 billion of the $250 billion allocated for capital injections. It has also sent another $20 billion each to Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) in emergency funding, $40 billion to American International Group (AIG, Fortune 500),and $21 billion to General Motors (GM, Fortune 500), Chrysler and GMAC. In exchange, Treasury has collected preferred shares or warrants, and amassed a large portfolio of investments.
Treasury 'not candid'

Dodd and ranking member Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., both said they were worried that Treasury did not have a coherent and consistent plan.

Treasury, before the bill was passed, told Congress that it would buy up toxic mortgage-backed securities from banks' asset portfolios. Soon after the bailout bill was enacted, Treasury said it would instead inject capital into healthy banks, but few would argue that all the banks receiving funds qualify as "healthy."

Shelby asked Warren if she felt Treasury had purposefully misled Congress.

"It suggests the Secretary's [Paulson's] de******ion of the program was not entirely candid," Warren responded. "They did not do what they said they were doing. They announced one program and implemented another."

Many lawmakers voted to halt the release of the second half of the bailout funds, though the motion eventually failed and Treasury received the second $350 billion.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and President Obama hinted that they may detail a revised bank bailout as soon as this week. The plans are likely to include a program that would relieve banks of troubled mortgage assets, and may also feature promises for additional capital infusions or an offer to guarantee the value of some bank holdings.

The oversight group representatives said they had met with Geithner and were encouraged by early indications that the new secretary would take up many of the recommendations they had made to the previous administration. To top of page
First Published: February 5, 2009: 10:08 AM ET

__________________

Supervisora: Tesoro EEUU pagó 78.000 mln dlrs de más en rescate | Reuters


Supervisora: Tesoro EEUU pagó 78.000 mln dlrs de más en rescate
jueves 5 de febrero de 2009 13:59 GYT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - El Tesoro de Estados Unidos pagó cerca de 78.000 millones de dólares de más durante la primera serie de transacciones del programa de rescate financiero de 700.000 millones de dólares, dijo el jueves a legisladores la jefa de un panel de supervisión del plan.

Elizabeth Warren, que preside el Panel de Supervisión Legislativa del Programa de Alivio para Activos Bolivianos, dijo que los datos indicaban que el Tesoro inyectó 254.000 millones de dólares en varias instituciones financieras, pero que sólo recuperó valor por 176.000 millones de dólares.

"Eso es un déficit de unos 78.000 millones de dólares cuando se mide la fecha de la transacción. Queremos enfatizar que habría buenas razones de políticas para el sobrepago", dijo Warren.

La funcionaria señaló, además, que el ex secretario del Tesoro Henry Paulson "no fue totalmente franco" en su descripción del programa de inyección de capital a los bancos por 250.000 millones de dólares.

(Kevin Drawbaugh y Karey Wutkowski)

__________________

Avisan que el lunes día 9 se presentará el nuevo plan de rescate financiero (supongo que lo dicen para evitar mañana un castañazo bursatil tras los datos del desempleo)

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

__________________

Fannie Mae rebajará los requisitos para que puedan refinanciar las hipotecas los poco solventes (subprimerefinanciar)

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

__________________

¿ Razones pa pagar de más 78.000 miyoneh de Iusdolars, cohones, eh que los americanos sanvuelto gilipoyas de repente o qué? . Al pipol americano lan robao la cartera y ni se han enterao, igual que a los españoles nos la están robando y no nos estamos enterando. ¿ De dónde se creen los americanos que han cobrado la paga extra de navidad los ejecutivos de Wall Street ?. Enga, amos.

__________________

Goldman y JP Morgan no se van a ver afectados por el tope salarial...¿Tenemos por ahí la lista de las donaciones a Obama?

Goldman, JPMorgan Won’t Feel Effects of Executive-Salary Caps

Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Executives at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and hundreds of financial institutions receiving federal aid aren’t likely to be affected by pay restrictions announced yesterday by President Barack Obama.

The rules, created in response to growing public anger about the record bonuses the financial industry doled out last year, will apply only to top executives at companies that need “exceptional” assistance in the future. The limits aren’t retroactive, meaning firms that have already taken government money won’t be subject to the restrictions unless they have to come back for more.

The new guidelines are the first salvo in a broader financial-rescue plan Obama plans to announce next week. The president and Congress have had to defend billions in aid to banks that continue to provide generous bonuses and luxury perks while posting record losses. Pay caps may provide the political cover the administration needs to deliver additional infusions of capital into the financial sector that may be necessary.

Some analysts said the new rules wouldn’t have much effect.

Obama, 47, “is not proposing to go back and get that $18.4 billion in bonuses back,” Laura Thatcher, head of law firm Alston & Bird’s executive compensation practice in Atlanta, said of the cash bonuses New York banks paid last year, the sixth- biggest haul in history. “Right now, we have not clamped down” on pay at banks.

Huge Paydays

In addition, some executives may be compensated for the potential reduced salaries with restricted stock grants, which may result in huge paydays after the bank repays the government assistance with interest.

“They’re just allowing companies to defer compensation,” said Graef Crystal, a former compensation consultant and author of “The Crystal Report on Executive Compensation.”

The restrictions are “a joke,” he said, because “if the government is paid pack, you can be sure that the stock will have risen hugely.”

According to the new guidelines, announced at the White House yesterday by Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, senior executives at banks that negotiate “exceptional assistance” deals with Treasury, such as the targeted relief provided to Citigroup Inc. last November or to Bank of America Corp. in January, would be limited to annual compensation -- salary plus bonus -- of $500,000.

Office Redecoration

Other perks that enraged Americans -- such as a $1.2 million office redecoration by the chief executive of Merrill Lynch & Co., which took $10 billion in government funds, or a four-day Las Vegas junket for executives at Wells Fargo & Co., which accepted $25 billion -- will be subject to new disclosure rules.

A White House official called it the name-and-shame provision, based on the idea that banks would limit such benefits if forced to disclose them.

“For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste, it’s a bad strategy, and I will not tolerate it as president,” Obama said yesterday.

Yet none of the new rules will apply to any firm until it negotiates an extraordinary deal with the federal government to remain solvent.

‘Double Dippers’

“What I’m a little bit surprised by is that those pay restrictions don’t apply to what I would call the double dippers, which is basically Citigroup and Bank of America, which have come back for capital,” said Charles Peabody, an analyst at Portales Partners LLC in New York. Both banks received money under the Treasury’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, and required additional bailout funds and a government guarantee of their assets.

The Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington-based trade group representing banks, called the restrictions “a measured response” in a news release yesterday.

For some firms, the rules are insignificant. Morgan Stanley is among companies that don’t expect the restrictions to affect their business because they foresee no need for additional government help.

“We have one of the highest Tier 1 capital ratios among financial services firms, so we do not anticipate the need for additional government capital,” said Mark Lake, a spokesman for Morgan Stanley in New York, when asked about the new restrictions.

Repaying TARP

Goldman Sachs said yesterday it wants to repay $10 billion it got from Treasury under the TARP to signal the firm is healthy and to escape limitations that came with that infusion of money. “Our financial condition is sound and, subject to approval from regulators, we hope to repay TARP money as soon as practicable,” said Lucas van Praag, a spokesman for New York- based Goldman Sachs.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said Feb. 3 that the firm didn’t need capital and didn’t ask for TARP funding. The lender accepted the $25 billion it received from the first capital injection at the request of the government and to help stabilize the banking system, he said.

Other restrictions on banks that get major new bailout packages include a “say on pay” provision that would require new executive pay packages to be subjected to nonbinding shareholder resolutions. Companies also must have in place provisions to reclaim, or “claw back,” bonuses and incentives from the top 25 senior executives if they are found to engage in deceptive practices. Bans on so-called golden parachute severance payments will be extended to more executives.

Treasury Discretion

Jen Psaki, a White House spokeswoman, said Treasury “will have discretion to apply” the restrictions “to the top leadership of the firm, but the size of that group will vary depending on the structure and size of the institution.”

Some of the new rules, including disclosure of luxury perks and the ban on golden parachutes, will also apply to banks taking part in generally available government capital programs, similar to the TARP, which has provided capital to some 360 financial institutions so far. The rules do not apply retroactively to TARP participants, however.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the rules weren’t intended to be “overly punitive,” while a senior administration officials said their primary goal is to align the interests of top executives at bailed-out firms with those of shareholders, who now include U.S. taxpayers.

Right Direction

Nell Minow, founder and president of the Corporate Library, a corporate-governance research company in Portland, Maine, said the rules are in the right direction.

“Not allowing the restricted stock awards to vest until the government’s been paid back goes a step toward the goal,” she said.

Bill Black, a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said the entire Wall Street pay structure is dys********al and needs to be revamped.

“Compensation is the root that created the perverse incentives and led to the current financial crisis,” he said.

Yet the new guidelines won’t bring about that change, said Sharyn O’Halloran, a professor of political science at Columbia University in New York.

“The goal is for accountability and the argument is that if a large portion of executive pay is based on excessive risk- taking, then you would anticipate them taking excessive risk,” she said.

Bloomberg.com: Politics

__________________