Business

Bank Bailout: How Was The Money Spent?

Published

15 years ago

August 14, 2009

Although, hundreds of well-trained eyes are watching over the $700 billion that Congress last year decided to spend bailing out the nation’s financial sector, it’s still difficult to answer some of the most basic questions about where the money went.
Despite a new oversight panel, a new special inspector-general, the existing Government Accountability Office and eight other inspectors general, those charged with minding the store say they don’t have all the weapons they need. Ten months into the Troubled Asset Relief Programme, some members of Congress say that some oversight of bailout dollars has been so lacking that it’s essentially worthless.
“TARP has become a programme in which taxpayers are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money, have still not been told how much their substantial investments are worth, and will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested,” a special inspector-general over the programme reported last month. The “very credibility” of the programme is at stake, it said.
Access and openness have improved in recent months, watchdogs say, but the programme still has a way to go before it’s truly transparent.
For its part, the Treasury Department said it’s fully committed to transparency, and that it’s taken unprecedented steps to report the status of TARP to the public. It regularly posts information on which banks have received money, as well as details about each of those transactions. Further, Treasury said, it doesn’t agree with all of its watchdogs’ recommendations, which it said could hamper the programme’s effectiveness.
TARP was passed in the midst of last fall’s financial meltdown as a way to keep American banks from falling deeper into the abyss.
The programme was controversial from the start. Its supporters say it’s helped spark bank lending in the country, but critics say it’s unfairly rewarded the big banks and Wall Street firms that pushed the economy to the brink.
The programme also has undergone a major transformation. When the Bush administration first went to Congress for the money, TARP’s main purpose was to buy up hundreds of billions of dollars in bad mortgages and so-called mortgage-backed securities that were bought and sold on Wall Street.
Today, TARP consists of 12 programmes that sent those hundreds of billions of dollars to big banks, but it’s also bailed out auto companies, auto suppliers, individuals delinquent on their mortgages, small businesses and American International Group, the big insurance company.
The watchdogs now must oversee the maze that TARP has become.
Just because a lot of people are watching, however, doesn’t mean they get everything they want to see.
One of the most prominent watchdogs is Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor who chairs a TARP oversight panel created by Congress.
Her panel has released 10 major reports that examine TARP’s plans and policies, finding that much of the work by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve has been opaque, with unclear or contradictory goals.
One report took Treasury to task for vastly undervaluing more than $250 billion in transactions with the country’s major banks, and another suggested several ways to revamp federal regulation over the financial sector. Other reports have criticised the Treasury for its initial defensiveness in opening its books.
Despite its mandate, however, the panel doesn’t have subpoena power. That means it can ask, but can’t compel, officials from Treasury, the Federal Reserve or the nation’s banks to testify.
Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary under former President George W. Bush, repeatedly stiff-armed the panel. Timothy Geithner, the current secretary, has been more open, but so far has testified just once before Warren’s group. Geithner is scheduled to appear again in September, and has agreed to do so quarterly, and two other senior Treasury officials also have appeared.
The relative lack of testimony from top officials, however, is one reason why critics of Warren’s panel think it hasn’t delivered on its promise.
In June, in an otherwise mundane congressional hearing, Republican Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas surprised Warren with an aggressive critique of the panel, saying it’s failed to help taxpayers understand what Treasury is doing with the billions at its disposal.
“There’s been very little value that the panel has brought to this issue or even insight on how these bailout dollars have been used,” he said. “I frankly believe at this point, given the reports that we’ve seen again with little value, I think the panel needs to be abolished.”
Warren defended the panel’s work, saying the lack of subpoena power means we “only have the capacity to invite” witnesses.
“So you asked Secretary Paulson in the first month of existence?” Brady asked.
“I believe we asked him repeatedly,” Warren said. “We asked him in our first month, in our second month, in our third month.”
Warren said she took the criticism seriously, dropping by Brady’s congressional office as soon as the hearing adjourned. The two had never met before, she said, and “I was really surprised,” by his comments.
“He said he felt frustrated,” she said. “He wanted us to be even blunter” in the panel’s reports.
Brady amplified his comments in an interview last month, saying that some of the panel’s work seem like a “PR ploy” and that “the moment has passed” for Warren’s group to play the role Congress envisioned.
His feelings have been partially echoed by two other members of the panel, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas and former Sen. John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, both Republicans appointed by congressional GOP leaders (the other three members were appointed by Democrats).
Both have accused the panel of mission creep of straying from the central goal of determining exactly how, and how well, Treasury is doing its job.
Hensarling said that “taxpayers have not received answers as to whether the TARP programme works, how decisions are being made or what the banks are doing with the taxpayers’ money.” While he praises the “very smart people on the panel,” he said too many questions have been left unexplored.
He acknowledges that the lack of subpoena power makes things tough. “But even if we had it, I’m not sure we would have used it,” said Hensarling, who’s pushing to abolish TARP.
The other primary watchdog is Neil Barofsky, a special inspector-general named in November by Bush specifically to track TARP funds. His office does have subpoena power, and a growing staff that’s expected ultimately to have 160 people pursuing audits and criminal investigations.
It’s also made a series of recommendations to the Treasury, asking that it do more to reveal how TARP money is being spent. Treasury has adopted some of its recommendations, but rejected others including one of the most important: Giving taxpayers precise details on how TARP funds have been used by banks.
The recommendation involves one of the most visible aspects of TARP: investing $218 billion in 650 banks, helping them to strengthen their balance sheets and boost lending to American businesses and homeowners.
Barofsky’s office has long advocated that the Treasury require banks to detail how the TARP money they’ve received has been used. The department has refused, saying that once an investment is made in a big bank, it’s not possible to track how it’s used.
Barofsky’s office rejected that assertion, and did its own survey of 360 institutions, finding that most could say how they’d used the money.
“Treasury’s reasons for refusing to adopt this recommendation have been squarely refuted by the inspector general,” his office reported to Congress.

Business

Fuel Scarcity: IPMAN threatens shutdown over bridging claims

Published

5 days ago

May 3, 2024

The Tide

The Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) Depot Chairmen Forum, has exonerated its members from the current fuel scarcity in the country.

According to IPMAN, this is caused by its inability to source petroleum products.

The IPMAN Depot Chairmen Forum also threatened to withdraw its services over non-payment of N200 billion bridging claims by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) to its members, since 2022.

Alhaji Yahaya Alhassan, the Chairman, of the Forum said this while briefing newsmen in Abuja, yesterday.

Alhassan said the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd.) was the sole importer of the product, but the marketers could not source products from NNPC Ltd. deport, rather from the private depots at high rate.

“We cannot buy fuel from the private depots at N950 and transport the product from Lagos to the North and other parts of the country with N2 million and still sell it at N900 or N1, 000.

“It is expedient for us to state that we are more pained by the non-availability of petroleum products in the country, which has given rise to another round of untold hardship for Nigerians.

“Contrary to claims that IPMAN members are hoarding Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) known as fuel, we would like to categorically state that PMS scarcity is wholly triggered by inability to get fuel from NNPC and not IPMAN,’’ he said.

Meanwhile, the NNPC Ltd. Chief Corporate Communications Officer, Olufemi Soneye said the disruption was due to logistical issues which had since been resolved.

“We currently have an availability of products exceeding 1.5 billion litres, which can last for at least 30 days. Unfortunately, we experienced a three-day disruption in distribution due to logistical issues, which has since been resolved.

“However, as you know, overcoming such disruptions typically requires double the amount of time to return to normal operations.

“Some folks are taking advantage of this situation to maximise profits. Thankfully, product scarcity has been minimal lately, but these folks might be exploiting the situation for unwarranted gain,’’ Soneye said.

He however, said the lines would clear out soon.

On the non-payment of bridging claims, the IPMAN forum said it was distressed and depressed by the laidback attitude of the NMDPRA towards the survival its member’s businesses, arising from its refusal in paying the claims.

“It is with deep frustration that we have assembled here today as the IPMAN Depot Chairmen Forum. It is also disheartening to note that some of our members have completely shut down businesses and retrenched employees.

“As businessmen and women, our members acquired bank loans to keep their fuel retail outlets running on a daily basis across the nooks and crannies of Nigeria in order to serve the teeming population of Nigerians,’’ Alhassan said.

He recalled that Sen. Heineken Lokpobiri, Minister of State Petroleum Resources (Oil), at a stakeholders meeting in February mandated the NMDPRA management to clear the entire debt in 40 days.

“However, today, we have crossed the 40 days’ time lapse given to the NMDPRA to clear the debt, and it is shameful to state that only the paltry sum of N13 billion has been paid, ignoring minister’s directive.

“We are not happy with the indiscriminate increment in the issuance and renewal of Sales and Storage Licence, by the NMDPRA, and the subsequent delays in acquiring the licence, which our members are recently subjected to.

“We are also calling on President Bola Tinubu to look into this unwholesome figure which is highly detrimental to our business and reverse it forthwith, as it is bound to impact negatively on the masses.

“We are poised to take far reaching decisions that may cripple the supply and sales of petroleum products across Nigeria if our demands are not met within the shortest period of time.

“We are collectively prepared to withdraw our services, shut down every single outlet, and suspend lifting of products forthwith till our demands are fully met, and the consequences will be terrible.

“We call on our members to however remain resolute and law abiding, even as we draw close to the immediate ultimatum for our demands to be met by the NMDPRA,’’ the chairman said.

Reacting to the IPMAN’s claims, the Acting Head, Corporate Communications, NMDPRA, Seiyefa Osanebi said the bridging claims payment was ongoing.

“The bridging claims payment is always an ongoing process,” she said.

Maritime

Shippers’ Council Registers 160 Port Operators

Published

1 week ago

April 29, 2024

The Tide

The Nigerian Shippers Council (NSC) says it has registered 160 Port stakeholders into its Regulated Port Service Provider and Users platform since the initiative began in 2023.
Executive Secretary, NSC, Mr Pius Akutah, made the disclosure on the sideline of a sensitisation programme by the commission for port operators in Lagos, with the theme, “Regulated Port Service Provider and Users”.
Represented by the Director, Consumer Affairs, Chief Cajetan Agu, Akutah emphasised the significance of the programme for stakeholders.
He said the sensitisation programme was the second edition after its commencement during the last quarter of 2023.
The Secretary said the 160 registered port operators consist of agencies, terminal operators, shipping companies, individual port users as well as service providers.
“We invited the ports stakeholders for enlightening them on the processes for online registration of Regulated Port Service Provider and Users.
“We have demonstrated to them how to register and how to make payment and we were able to present before them the various categories of the registration.
“The rate of payment is also in the registration. The payment of each group depends on the operation. A shipper pays N30,000, terminal operators and shipping companies pay N300,000, truckers also pay N30,000, while some pay N50,000 and N100,000.
“The Council was able to intimate them on the benefits, because port users benefit more as we help to interface on reducing port charges from time to time”, Akutah said.
He said that there was a need to continue to work with port operators to stop delays and eliminate high costs to make the port efficient.
Also speaking, the Deputy Director, Stakeholders, Service, NSC, Mr Celestine Akujobi, said “the sensitisation exercise was important for the council to enable us bring all the port stakeholders together”.
According to him, this is to avoid challenges during the implementation of the council’s responsibilities.
“By the time we introduce sanctions on defaulters, no operators will complain that he or she is not aware of the registration.
“I’m happy with the turnout of this sensitisation. This shows that the operators are well informed of the statutory friction of the council as the port regulator.
“The final implementation will commence as soon as we discover that all the operators have keyed into the portal.
“We are engaging other ports across the country and we’re hopeful that before the last quater of 2024, the council will implement sanctions on defaulting operators”, Akujobi said.
Earlier, Vice Chairman, National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwards (NAGAFF), Dr Ifeanyi Emoh, said port challenges were enormous, adding that they originated from some of the government agencies.

Emoh urged the council to look into regulating other government agencies, so that there could be a window through which they can collect port charges collectively instead of indiscriminately.

By: Chinedu Wosu