Banking News: TARP Bailout Money: How was the $700 Billion Spent?
Last fall, the country was in a major financial crisis, in response, the Department of the Treasury with authorization from Congress gave over $700 billion to banks and financial institutions under the troubled asset relief program (TARP). Originally, the money was designated to purchase mortgage-backed securities which had lost significant value because of the rise in foreclosures.
The Treasury Department ended up using the bailout money for just about everything other than purchasing troubled assets. It turns out that some of that money was actually used wisely by the banks. A recent survey by special inspector general Neil Barofsky found that 80% of banks that participated in the TARP program are now benefiting from the money that they borrowed under the program and are increasing their lending even though the economy is still in a recovery mode. The survey also found that 40% of the 360 banks that were reviewed have taken actions to better prevent unexpected losses.
So how exactly was the money used? The government has had a bit of a hard time explaining how all of the money has been used and even as to where some of the money went. Since most banks mixed the funds they received from the Troubled Asset Relief Program with the rest of their capital and assets, it’s hard to determine exactly how all of the money was spent. The Barofsky survey was able to get a pretty good picture of where the money went.
Here are the results of the survey:
- 360 banks were surveyed and 83% of the respondents (or 300) used their bailout funds for lending purposes.
- 104 institutions (29%) applied their funds to residential loans.
- 64 institutions (18%) used their funds for commercial mortgages.
- 61 banks (17%) applied the money to consumer lines of credit, car loans and other personal loans.
- 52 banks (14%) applied TARP money to existing debt.
- 15 banks (4%) used bailout funds to take over failing banks under the recommendation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC).




I would love to see the source data on this. This leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
How many of the top 19 US banks are among the 60 that did not use the money for “lending purposes”?
What did those 60 banks do with the money?
Is lending to the Fed or the Treasury considered “lending purposes”?
Is writing down a foreclosure loss a “lending purpose”? Writing down a defaulted credit card account? Writing down losses from other assets?
If you break the numbers down by percentage of the total money spent by the program, what percentage of it actually got out to businesses and consumers?
What is the average interest rate on loans made using TARP funds?
I have a feeling that if these questions were answered – honestly answered, that is – the picture wouldn't look anywhere near as rosy as these numbers show. What was the purpose of collecting these statistics when they tell us very little about what is actually going on with the money?
Icanhasbailout,
Here's a link to the July 2009 SIGTARP Report: http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2009/Ju...
The American Spectator also did an amazing job of getting some links to related content for this article:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/26/sigtarp-ne...
Thanks for the links, interesting stuff – especially the SIGTARP document. I can't find the information I am seeking in either place, though. Perhaps I am just not seeing it? Can you help me find the breakdown on what the recipients claim to have spent the money on?
I guess I'm not sure where it's at in the report, but here are two articles that also discuss how the money was used:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5...
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article...
Those also state numbers in terms of percent of institutions rather than percent of the money.
I suspect that the vast majority of the money, that went to the top 19 institutions, isn't getting lent out, at least not to the private sector. Even if 80 percent of recipients are lending with it, if they only get a small percentage of the money because they are small and medium sized banks, this tells us little about where the TARP money actually went and what is being done with it. Furthermore, with no definition of what exactly they mean by supporting lending, even what is stated to have gone for that purpose could have been used in ways not consistent with the stated goal of the program. For example, if TARP dollars being used as a backstop for writing down loan losses on foreclosures, that could technically fall under some definitions of lending support while actually being poured down a bottomless pit of bubble-era debt.
Icanhasbailout,
Here's a link to the July 2009 SIGTARP Report: http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2009/Ju...
The American Spectator also did an amazing job of getting some links to related content for this article:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/26/sigtarp-ne...
Thanks for the links, interesting stuff – especially the SIGTARP document. I can't find the information I am seeking in either place, though. Perhaps I am just not seeing it? Can you help me find the breakdown on what the recipients claim to have spent the money on?
I guess I'm not sure where it's at in the report, but here are two articles that also discuss how the money was used:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5...
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article...
Those also state numbers in terms of percent of institutions rather than percent of the money.
I suspect that the vast majority of the money, that went to the top 19 institutions, isn't getting lent out, at least not to the private sector. Even if 80 percent of recipients are lending with it, if they only get a small percentage of the money because they are small and medium sized banks, this tells us little about where the TARP money actually went and what is being done with it. Furthermore, with no definition of what exactly they mean by supporting lending, even what is stated to have gone for that purpose could have been used in ways not consistent with the stated goal of the program. For example, if TARP dollars being used as a backstop for writing down loan losses on foreclosures, that could technically fall under some definitions of lending support while actually being poured down a bottomless pit of bubble-era debt.
I would love to see the source data on this. This leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
How many of the top 19 US banks are among the 60 that did not use the money for “lending purposes”?
What did those 60 banks do with the money?
Is lending to the Fed or the Treasury considered “lending purposes”?
Is writing down a foreclosure loss a “lending purpose”? Writing down a defaulted credit card account? Writing down losses from other assets?
If you break the numbers down by percentage of the total money spent by the program, what percentage of it actually got out to businesses and consumers?
What is the average interest rate on loans made using TARP funds?
I have a feeling that if these questions were answered – honestly answered, that is – the picture wouldn't look anywhere near as rosy as these numbers show. What was the purpose of collecting these statistics when they tell us very little about what is actually going on with the money?
Icanhasbailout,
Here's a link to the July 2009 SIGTARP Report: http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2009/Ju...
The American Spectator also did an amazing job of getting some links to related content for this article:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/26/sigtarp-ne...
Thanks for the links, interesting stuff – especially the SIGTARP document. I can't find the information I am seeking in either place, though. Perhaps I am just not seeing it? Can you help me find the breakdown on what the recipients claim to have spent the money on?
I guess I'm not sure where it's at in the report, but here are two articles that also discuss how the money was used:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5...
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article...
Those also state numbers in terms of percent of institutions rather than percent of the money.
I suspect that the vast majority of the money, that went to the top 19 institutions, isn't getting lent out, at least not to the private sector. Even if 80 percent of recipients are lending with it, if they only get a small percentage of the money because they are small and medium sized banks, this tells us little about where the TARP money actually went and what is being done with it. Furthermore, with no definition of what exactly they mean by supporting lending, even what is stated to have gone for that purpose could have been used in ways not consistent with the stated goal of the program. For example, if TARP dollars being used as a backstop for writing down loan losses on foreclosures, that could technically fall under some definitions of lending support while actually being poured down a bottomless pit of bubble-era debt.