Showing posts with label breaking news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breaking news. Show all posts

Marissa Mayer's brief maternity leave: Progress or workaholism?

Could the Yahoo CEO be setting unrealistic expectations for young women hoping to follow in her footsteps?

This article was originally published by Fortune.com on Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2012.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis, contributor

FORTUNE -- Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer will likely have the most scrutinized maternity leave and new motherhood in modern corporate history, which began on Sunday night with the birth of a healthy baby boy.

Mayer courted controversy by deciding to take just a week or two of leave and work from home throughout that time.

On one hand, it's a remarkable sign of gender progress that a new mother is now at the helm of a major corporation -- not to mention reassuring to Yahoo (YHOO) shareholders that the CEO's top priority is turning around the struggling Internet giant.

On the other hand, her decision seems emblematic of a workaholic culture that leaves too little time for family or even personal health, preventing either men or women from "having it all."

Could Mayer be setting unrealistic expectations for young women hoping to follow in her footsteps?

Maybe she's an outlier -- or making a mistake -- and shouldn't be held up as an example that mere mortals should emulate.

"She conveys the image of someone who's perfectly capable of combining her personal life and her public responsibilities without one derailing the other. That's a message we should applaud," says Kathleen Gerson, professor at New York University and author of The Unfinished Revolution: Coming of Age in a New Era of Gender, Work and Family. "It also suggests that somehow it's illegitimate for women -- and by implication for men as well -- to take some time off at critical moments in their own lives and the lives of their children. To that extent, it's a backward-looking message."

It's difficult to judge whether Mayer's abbreviated maternity leave plan will make it harder or easier for the millions of executive women who will follow her, certainly at this early stage. But there are three indisputable lessons that can be drawn from her situation.

Read the full article at Fortune.com.

After Yahoo: Why do powerful people lie?

Why do leaders risk so much over what, in the grand scheme of things, is a small dishonesty?

This article was originally published by Fortune.com on Wednesday, May 16, 2012.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis, contributor

FORTUNE -- In the wake of Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson's departure amid controversy over his padded resume, the question remains: why did he do it?

Whether Thompson embellished his bio with a college major he didn't earn, or simply signed his name to a document that someone else falsified, the lie cost him a flourishing career. It also added him to an ignominious list of powerful leaders who stepped down in disgrace over resume deceptions, including former RadioShack (RSH) CEO Dave Edmondson and Notre Dame head football coach George O'Leary.

Why do they do it? Why do they risk so much over what, in the grand scheme of things, is a small dishonesty?

Fed: Drags on economy worse than thought

This article was originally published by Bankrate.com on Wednesday November 2, 2011.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis • Bankrate.com

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke defended the central bank's efforts to stimulate the economy and encourage job creation while expressing sympathy for the frustration many Americans feel at the slow pace of economic recovery.

At a press conference following the regular Federal Open Market Committee meeting today, Bernanke acknowledged criticism from Republicans in Congress, GOP presidential candidates and Occupy Wall Street protesters.

"I certainly understand that many people are dissatisfied with the state of the economy. I am dissatisfied with the state of the economy," Bernanke said. "Increased inequality has been going on for at least 30 years."

The Fed intervened in 2008 to prevent the dire consequences of a financial sector collapse, not simply to shore up investment bankers' salaries as some protesters claim. "We were trying to protect the financial system to prevent a serious collapse of the financial system and the American economy," he said.

Bernanke's remarks came after the FOMC members voted to keep the federal funds rate near zero and maintain the current levels of monetary policy accommodation, while noting that more policy options remain if economic conditions worsen.


Treasury Plan to Wind Down Fannie and Freddie

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Friday, Feb. 11, 2011.

The Obama administration released a white paper proposing the gradual winding down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and overhauling the mortgage securities market.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

The Obama administration Friday laid out an ambitious vision for U.S. housing finance reform, in which the government gradually diminishes its role and private investors return to the mortgage securities market.

But the plan doesn't specify how to overhaul or eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instead setting out three possible options for the mortgage giants, which have been operating under government conservatorship since September 2008. Under the landmark Dodd-Frank financial overhaul legislation approved last year, the Treasury Department was supposed to present to Congress by Jan. 31 a report on the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to help lawmakers write legislation to reform the agencies.

"This is a plan for fundamental reform — to wind down the GSEs, strengthen consumer protection, and preserve access to affordable housing for people who need it," said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a statement. "We are going to start the process of reform now, but we are going to do it responsibly and carefully so that we support the recovery and the process of repair of the housing market."

At stake are the health of the real estate market, economic growth and, some argue, the future of the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. The challenge for policymakers is to attract private investors back into the mortgage market while retaining the benefits that Fannie and Freddie established — a liquid secondary mortgage market and greater access to homeownership. The administration and lawmakers are also attempting to prevent a repeat of the excessive risk-taking and inadequate supervision of the housing market that led to the 2008 financial crisis, while reassuring foreign investors in housing bonds and U.S. government debt.


Administration Split Over Fannie Freddie Strategy

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Thursday, Jan. 20, 2011.

With a Jan. 31 deadline looming for making recommendations, the Obama administration is badly divided over how to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the financially strapped and controversial mortgage giants.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

The Obama administration is sorely divided over how to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the controversial mortgage giants. Sources familiar with the discussions raise the possibility that the White House will miss its statutory deadline for submitting recommendations to Congress.

The dispute pits White House economic advisers, who favor merely offering lawmakers a menu of possible next steps without committing to a specific direction, against officials at the Treasury and Department of Housing and Urban Development, who want to endorse an explicit federal guarantee for the mortgage companies and throw the administration's support behind it, the sources said.

The controversy is as much over strategy as substance. White House advisers aren’t certain whether going out on a limb with a specific plan will drive reforms of the federal housing finance program in a constructive way, or present an easy target for opponents. Administration officials who object to offering an explicit guarantee so early in the process say it would make it harder to negotiate a compromise. Instead, they argue, the administration would be better off laying out a range of options, to give them maximum flexibility in talks with Democratic and Republican lawmakers and industry officials.

The government currently supports 97 percent of the mortgage market, and the two entities own or guarantee nearly three quarters of that amount, or $6 trillion in debt, which policy experts and stakeholders agree can’t be indefinitely sustained.

House Republicans' Latest Fight Against Derivatives Reform

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Thursday, Dec. 16, 2010.

Two House Republican lawmakers want financial regulators to slow down new rules for derivatives trading to avoid the effects on big corporations.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

Two key Republican lawmakers urged financial regulators to slow down the progress of new rules for the nearly $500 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market, an early sign that the new Republican House majority aims to delay and scale back the landmark financial regulatory overhaul that President Obama signed into law in July.

"As our economy slowly recovers, we have serious concerns that the Dodd-Frank bill for Wall Street reform will force American companies, which did not cause nor contribute to the financial crisis, to move billions of dollars in capital onto the sidelines to comply with the law," Reps. Spencer Bachus, R.-Ala., and Frank Lucas, R.-Okla., wrote in a letter dated Thursday, Dec. 16, to the heads of the Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve Board and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The two are the incoming chairmen of the House Financial Services and Agriculture Committees, respectively.

The Republicans' strategy is to delay implementation of the Dodd-Frank legislation until 2012, in hopes that a new Republican president and Senate will roll back or repeal the law, said David Min, associate director for financial markets policy at the Center for American Progress.

"They're trying to run out the clock a little bit," Min said. "They will try to delay the process through hearings, through tough letters and proposed legislation, but ultimately the presidency is held by Obama and the Senate is held by Democrats."

Banks Lose with New Derivatives Controls

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is considering new rules that could move derivatives trading to an exchange or clearinghouse, which would have a big impact on the profits of Wall Street banks.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

Federal regulators next week are set to propose new rules for trading over-the-counter derivatives, part of an effort to bring the $450 trillion market under government control for the first time, and shifting the balance of power between centralized exchanges and the world's largest financial institutions.

Congress tasked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with shedding light on the opaque derivatives markets and bringing the majority of market activity -- possibly 80 or 90 percent -- into clearinghouses and centralized trading facilities. At stake is which market participants will profit and the cost of the new rules. Derivatives, financial contracts whose value is based on the price of an underlying asset such as a commodity, interest rate or currency, have been wildly profitable for Wall Street in recent years. The five largest U.S. dealers reaped an estimated $28 billion in 2009, according to an analysis by Bloomberg News.

Virginia farm supplies D.C. eateries despite animal-care violations

This article was originally published by TBD.com on Thursday, Nov. 18, 2010.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

Mie N Yu, Potenza, Zola -- they're all among a movement in Washington culinary circles toward locally grown, all-natural ingredients.

Another thing they have in common: dealings with Black Eagle Farm, a producer in rural Virginia that was found to have violated animal-care statutes and that lost its organic and humane certifications. Last December, a Virginia state veterinary inspector found that many of the animals at the Nelson County farm were emaciated and in need of veterinary care; the farm's working dogs ate raw meat rather than appropriate food; and one hen house contained eight chicken carcasses.

"The place was completely filthy," said Karen Davis, president of United Poultry Concerns, a Machipongo, Va.-based animal rights group that reviewed state records and photographs of the farm. "The company just stopped feeding the birds."

The state investigation was sparked by "numerous complaints" about maltreated dogs, livestock, and poultry on the farm, which is about 45 miles southwest of Charlottesville. A dead goat was tied to a fence, according to the records, and six dogs were allegedly being locked in a trailer full of feces for four days without water, and at least one was dying. The allegations and findings are spelled out in state records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by Gina Schaecher, general counsel for the Appalachian Great Pyrenees Rescue, based in Richmond, Va., which tried to rescue dogs on the farm.

Justice quizzed on death penalty

This article was originally published by Gannett News Service and the Jackson Clarion-Ledger on Thursday, Sept. 30, 2010.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

WASHINGTON — Mississippi Justice James Graves Jr. clarified his position on the death penalty Wednesday during a Senate hearing on his nomination for a federal judgeship.

Responding to a question from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Graves explained that he joined a dissenting opinion in a capital murder case for reasons related only to claims by the defendant, Anthony Doss, that his attorneys had been ineffective and that he was mentally retarded.

"I take responsibility for joining that opinion, but I have not now nor have I ever subscribed to any point of view that the death penalty was unconstitutional," Graves told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The United States Supreme Court has determined that the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. I would follow the law as handed down by the United States Supreme Court."

Graves, 56, is a nominee for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which hears appeals from case in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

He pointed to his nine years as a Mississippi justice, during which he voted to affirm convictions and the death penalty in at least a dozen capital punishment cases.

Graves is the only black justice on the court, which he joined in 2001. Before that, he was a Hinds County Circuit judge for 10 years.

He holds a bachelor's degree from Millsaps College and law and master's degrees from Syracuse University.

Are There Still Banks Too Big to Fail?

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Friday, Sept. 3, 2010.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that federal regulators must be ready to close down the largest banks and financial institutions if they once again threaten to bring down the global financial system.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

Two years after Washington had to spend hundreds of billions to bail out much of Wall Street, members of a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission said Thursday the country still has a problem with financial institutions that are "too big to fail."

Federal officials and most financial experts agree that so-called too-big-to-fail-institutions like AIG and Citigroup helped cause the crisis and were a huge drain on the Treasury and Federal Reserve.

The major financial overhaul legislation pushed through by President Obama this year put in safeguards to try to avoid a repeat of the crisis in which federal officials were forced to decide which firms would go under or be auctioned off and which had to be propped up because of their importance to the financial world. But commissioner Byron Georgiou, a skeptic, noted that the six largest financial groups in 2009 constituted 63 percent of gross domestic product, an increase over the 58 percent of GDP they represented in 2007, at the height of the housing bubble, and both up from a mere 17 percent in 1995.

“Given their increasing size, do you really believe these institutions would be allowed to fail today?” said Georgiou, a personal injury and financial fraud lawyer. “Are we really in any better shape today to avoid the bailouts that have been so criticized in the last few years?”

Could Lehman Brothers Have Been Saved?

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010.

The former CEO of Lehman Brothers testified during one of the final hearings of the commission investigating the U.S. financial crisis that federal regulators prematurely forced the firm into bankruptcy before all other options were exhausted.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

Just days before the two-year anniversary of Lehman Brothers' collapse, banking regulators passionately defended their handling of the crisis at a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearing, while the former Lehman CEO insisted the government prematurely forced the firm into bankruptcy before all other options were exhausted.

"Lehman was forced into bankruptcy not because it neglected to act responsibly or seek solutions to the crisis, but because of a decision, based on flawed information, not to provide Lehman with the support given to each of its competitors," said Richard S. Fuld Jr., the former chairman and chief executive officer. "We had the collateral. We had the capital."

In testimony Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke countered that charge, saying it was impossible for the Fed to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy in 2008 because the Wall Street firm lacked sufficient collateral to secure a loan. Asked how the Lehman case differed from that of American International Group Inc., which received $182 billion in taxpayer aid, Bernanke said there was a fundamental difference.

AIG, as the biggest insurance company in the U.S., had valuable assets which could back up the Fed's emergency loan, he said. "The Federal Reserve will absolutely be paid back by AIG," Bernanke said.

Whether it would have been possible to save Lehman Brothers is one of the most perplexing questions to emerge from the financial meltdown that led to one of the worst recessions in U.S. history. That question clearly divided the 10 members of the commission, whose questions at each were other almost as pointed as the ones they posed to witnesses, who gave sworn testimony.

The hearings underscored a hard truth: that for all the new laws and pending regulations Congress and the Obama administration have put forth in response to the meltdown, future crises will only be averted if industry professionals and the regulators who oversee them use good judgment and pursue hints of trouble even in the face of rosy conventional wisdom.

Scott Brown Blocks Financial Reform Vote

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Wednesday, June 30, 2010.

Freshman Republican Sen. Scott Brown objected to a stiff new banking fee which would cover the $19 billion cost of implementing new financial regulation.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

Just as Congress was on the verge of passing the broadest overhaul of financial regulation since the Great Depression — following hundreds of hours of debate over the last year — lawmakers are back at the drawing boards. Freshman Republican Sen. Scott Brown objected to a stiff new banking fee which would cover the $19 billion cost of implementing the new regulation.

"It is especially troubling that this provision was inserted in the conference report in the dead of night without hearings or economic analysis," Brown, R-Mass., wrote to the Democratic lawmakers shepherding the legislation through Congress. "Costs would be passed on to the millions of American consumers and small businesses who rely on major U.S. financial institutions for their checking, ATM, loans or other services."

Brown's constituents include the country's largest mutual funds, such as Fidelity Investments and State Street Corp., which objected to paying a fee when it was excesses in the banking industry at the heart of the financial crisis that sparked a worldwide recession.

Banking Bill Leaves Huge Gaps in Financial Reform

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Monday, May 24, 2010.

Financial regulation legislation silent on key issues.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

The Senate's action last week to discourage high-risk behavior and regulatory failures has been hailed as the most sweeping reform of the banking and financial system since the 1930s, yet the landmark legislation leaves huge gaps in addressing the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, according to analysts and experts.

Most notably, the Senate-passed bill doesn't address the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants at the center of the credit market collapse, which hold $5.5 trillion of residential housing loans, about three-quarters of the market. Nor does the massive, 1,500-page bill establish comprehensive regulation of insurance companies, such as American International Group. Instead, the bill would create an insurance office at the Treasury Department merely to collect data from state insurance regulators.

Obama Administration Speeds Up Hiring

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Tuesday, May 11, 2010.

The Obama administration has ordered sweeping changes to speed up the federal hiring process and to make it less frustrating to apply for a job.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

The Obama administration implemented sweeping changes to the federal hiring process Tuesday to make it easier and faster to hire new government employees. Following years of complaints that federal hiring practices were hopelessly mired in red tape and bureaucratic delays, the change is expected to reduce by half the time it takes to fill vacancies and enhance the government’s ability to compete with the private sector for strong talent.

Under the old method, the hiring process took an average of five months, with as many as 40 individual steps and 19 signatures needed, said John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, in unveiling the changes. The overhaul eliminates required knowledge skills assessment essays, which will allow people to apply for a job with a simple cover letter and resume, saving millions of hours and getting rid of cumbersome paperwork. "This initiative is the biggest step forward for fixing federal hiring in over three decades," Berry said. "It will substantially reduce the time and aggravation it takes to find and hire the best. When we've achieved that goal, all of government will work better."

Each year, the federal government adds about 330,000 employees to its 2 million person workforce, through a process that has long been criticized as byzantine and cumbersome by lawmakers, according to the Government Accountability Office and academics. Streamlining hiring will save time and money, and result in better talent, Berry told an audience of government employees, managers and journalists.

"Mounting deficits and debt are placing enormous pressure on government spending. At the same time, trust in government is on the decline," said Jeffrey Zients, Obama's chief performance officer, noting that only 22 percent of Americans trust the government -- a half-century low. "To make sure every tax dollar is spent wisely, we have to get the right people."

In addition to throwing out the knowledge essays, Berry said the changes will:

  • Eliminate the "rule of three," which limited hiring managers to evaluating the top three applicants for a position.
  • Implement "shared registers" so that different divisions of the same agency can view the same applicants' qualifications, rather than having to start the hiring process anew.
  • Cut in half the average length of time to make a hire, to about 80 days. In some agencies, it can take up to 200 days to process a hire, and 140 days is not uncommon.
  • Simplify the lengthy descriptions of open positions to three pages in plain English.

Senate Showdown Over Too Big to Fail

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Sunday, April 18, 2010

Democrats and Republicans disagree on the methods to prevent future emergency bailouts.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

In the wake of a major government fraud case against Goldman Sachs, the Obama administration and Senate Democrats are poised to forge a consensus this week on a sweeping overhaul of financial regulations. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner declared yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Democrats and some Republicans "are very close on this," and suggested that the Securities and Exchange Commission's civil suit last week, charging Goldman Sachs with selling investors a subprime mortgage investment designed to lose value, might provide added impetus for the financial regulatory legislation.

As Senate leaders and the White House attempt to push legislation that responds to the lessons of the global financial crisis, perhaps the single most important question will be whether they can successfully address the potential damage from financial institutions deemed "too big to fail."

It was the collapse of Lehman Brothers and near-death of American International Group (AIG) and other major banks and institutions that prompted unprecedented government intervention in the financial markets in the fall of 2008. As Senate negotiators and the administration exchange ideas this week on the final shape of a financial regulatory reform package, Democrats and Republicans agree on the essential goal of preventing future emergency bailouts, but they disagree markedly on the methods.

Treasury Reaps Big Returns on TARP Investments

This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010.

The numbers quell criticism that the bailout would be too costly to taxpayers.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

The Treasury has recouped nearly a third of the $545 billion it invested to help rescue U.S. financial institutions and in some cases has reaped substantial returns on those investments.



The strong showing is preliminary, as much of the government’s investment in banks is still outstanding. But it contrasts sharply with widespread criticism that the government bailout of Wall Street was excessive and costly to taxpayers.

The Treasury, for example, made a nearly 24 percent return on its investment in American Express Co., 20 percent on its rescue of Goldman Sachs Group and nearly 17 percent from Morgan Stanley Group, according to an analysis of Treasury data prepared by Linus Wilson, an assistant finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and an expert on the government’s response to the financial crisis.

Overall, the Treasury has realized more than $15 billion in dividends and equity growth in its investments in the once-troubled financial institutions, according to Treasury Department figures.

"The perception that most of the public had, that this was money poured down a rat hole, was always wrong," said Douglas J. Elliott, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "We've gotten more back than we expected because the financial sector and even the economy turned around a lot faster than we thought."

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), enacted in 2008 at the height of the sub-prime mortgage financial crisis, allowed the government to intervene and stabilize many tottering banks and financial institutions by infusing cash when private capital markets dried up. Critics decried the government bailout as an excessive rescue of Wall Street fat cats at the expense of taxpayers and other sectors of the economy, and the Treasury's handling of the program remains a major point of contention on Capitol Hill.

To be sure, the government's $70 billion investment in American International Group (AIG) and the $85 billion spent to bail out General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC are unlikely ever to turn a profit, leaving the overall TARP program in the hole. Moreover, the healthiest banks repaid TARP first, so that bank investments that remain in the program aren't likely to be as profitable. The combination of an improving economy and limits on executive compensation for TARP recipients has encouraged banks to repay the funds as soon as they are financially able, even when it means taking a loss.

"The fact that we're talking about positive returns is a sign that things have stabilized more than people thought possible, particularly in late '08 or early '09," said David Min, associate director for financial markets policy at the Center for American Progress. "To do a victory lap now would be making the same mistake many banks made, which is focusing on the short term at the expense of long-term health."

The revenue flowing into the TARP program is so robust that President Barack Obama proposed using some funds to make small business loans. "I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat," Obama said in his State of the Union address last month.

This scenario would have seemed unimaginable to many in the fall of 2008, when the world financial markets seemed one nervous trader away from collapse, and the government hurriedly put together the TARP program, initially estimated to cost $700 billion but more recently pegged by Treasury at $545 billion, thanks in part to faster-than-expected improvement in the financial sector.

Recent news reports highlighted the Federal Reserve's most profitable year ever in 2009, as the central bank earned $45 billion on its loans and trading of securities. The Treasury earnings are different, coming directly from the government rescue of the financial sector.

Currently, the bulk of the government's TARP investments falls into seven programs. In descending order of dollar value, they are the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the auto industry financing program, the AIG bailout, the consumer and business lending initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Program, the Targeted Investment Program (TIP), which is now fully repaid, and the public-private investment program.

So far, Treasury has been repaid $161.9 billion of its initial investments through CPP and TIP, the two TARP vehicles for investing in banks. On top of that, the Treasury has received a return on bank investments of $11.3 billion in dividends and $4 billion in stock warrant proceeds, for a total of $15.3 billion, according to figures the Treasury makes available.

Under the CPP, Treasury bought $205 billion of preferred shares in more than 500 financial institutions, which pay a five percent dividend for the first five years and nine percent a year thereafter. The government also received warrants, which give Treasury the right to buy common stock at a set price. Thus, Treasury receives three forms of revenue from banks participating in this program: (1) repayment of the initial investment, (2) dividends and (3) proceeds from warrant auctions or stock sales, after first redeeming the warrants for stock.

Treasury received a 12 percent rate of return on an annualized basis from the 10 major financial institutions under CPP that have repaid the government and have no outstanding stock warrants, according to an analysis performed for The Fiscal Times by Wilson.

Treasury made 23.4 percent on American Express, 20 percent on Goldman Sachs, 16.8 percent on Morgan Stanley, 11.1 percent on Northern Trust Corp., 10.2 percent on Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 9.2 percent on State Street Corp., 8.8 percent on U.S. Bancorp, 7.8 percent on BB&T Corp., 6.7 percent on Capital One Financial Corp. and 6.4 percent on JP Morgan Chase & Co., according to Wilson’s analysis.

In December, Wells Fargo & Co. repaid its $25 billion CPP investment, on top of $2.7 billion in dividends, and Bank of America Corp. repaid the $45 billion it received through CPP and TIP, after paying $1.4 billion in dividends. Wells Fargo is likely to repurchase its warrants for roughly $910 million, and the Bank of America warrants should fetch approximately $1.3 billion at auction, Wilson estimated. Adding those estimates to the total proceeds would boost Treasury's profits to about $17.5 billion.

"We're doing better than expected because many of the banks repaid TARP sooner than expected," Wilson said. "Whenever anyone pays you back in full with interest, you're never going to lose money."

The Treasury has recouped nearly a third of the $545 billion it invested to help rescue U.S. financial institutions and in some cases has reaped substantial returns on those investments.

The strong showing is preliminary, as much of the government’s investment in banks is still outstanding. But it contrasts sharply with widespread criticism that the government bailout of Wall Street was excessive and costly to taxpayers.

The Treasury, for example, made a nearly 24 percent return on its investment in American Express Co., 20 percent on its rescue of Goldman Sachs Group and nearly 17 percent from Morgan Stanley Group, according to an analysis of Treasury data prepared by Linus Wilson, an assistant finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and an expert on the government’s response to the financial crisis.

Overall, the Treasury has realized more than $15 billion in dividends and equity growth in its investments in the once-troubled financial institutions, according to Treasury Department figures.

"The perception that most of the public had, that this was money poured down a rat hole, was always wrong," said Douglas J. Elliott, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "We've gotten more back than we expected because the financial sector and even the economy turned around a lot faster than we thought."

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), enacted in 2008 at the height of the sub-prime mortgage financial crisis, allowed the government to intervene and stabilize many tottering banks and financial institutions by infusing cash when private capital markets dried up. Critics decried the government bailout as an excessive rescue of Wall Street fat cats at the expense of taxpayers and other sectors of the economy, and the Treasury's handling of the program remains a major point of contention on Capitol Hill.

To be sure, the government's $70 billion investment in American International Group (AIG) and the $85 billion spent to bail out General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC are unlikely ever to turn a profit, leaving the overall TARP program in the hole. Moreover, the healthiest banks repaid TARP first, so that bank investments that remain in the program aren't likely to be as profitable. The combination of an improving economy and limits on executive compensation for TARP recipients has encouraged banks to repay the funds as soon as they are financially able, even when it means taking a loss.

"The fact that we're talking about positive returns is a sign that things have stabilized more than people thought possible, particularly in late '08 or early '09," said David Min, associate director for financial markets policy at the Center for American Progress. "To do a victory lap now would be making the same mistake many banks made, which is focusing on the short term at the expense of long-term health."

The revenue flowing into the TARP program is so robust that President Barack Obama proposed using some funds to make small business loans. "I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat," Obama said in his State of the Union address last month.

This scenario would have seemed unimaginable to many in the fall of 2008, when the world financial markets seemed one nervous trader away from collapse, and the government hurriedly put together the TARP program, initially estimated to cost $700 billion but more recently pegged by Treasury at $545 billion, thanks in part to faster-than-expected improvement in the financial sector.

Recent news reports highlighted the Federal Reserve's most profitable year ever in 2009, as the central bank earned $45 billion on its loans and trading of securities. The Treasury earnings are different, coming directly from the government rescue of the financial sector.

Currently, the bulk of the government's TARP investments falls into seven programs. In descending order of dollar value, they are the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the auto industry financing program, the AIG bailout, the consumer and business lending initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Program, the Targeted Investment Program (TIP), which is now fully repaid, and the public-private investment program.

So far, Treasury has been repaid $161.9 billion of its initial investments through CPP and TIP, the two TARP vehicles for investing in banks. On top of that, the Treasury has received a return on bank investments of $11.3 billion in dividends and $4 billion in stock warrant proceeds, for a total of $15.3 billion, according to figures the Treasury makes available.

Under the CPP, Treasury bought $205 billion of preferred shares in more than 500 financial institutions, which pay a five percent dividend for the first five years and nine percent a year thereafter. The government also received warrants, which give Treasury the right to buy common stock at a set price. Thus, Treasury receives three forms of revenue from banks participating in this program: (1) repayment of the initial investment, (2) dividends and (3) proceeds from warrant auctions or stock sales, after first redeeming the warrants for stock.

Treasury received a 12 percent rate of return on an annualized basis from the 10 major financial institutions under CPP that have repaid the government and have no outstanding stock warrants, according to an analysis performed for The Fiscal Times by Wilson.

Treasury made 23.4 percent on American Express, 20 percent on Goldman Sachs, 16.8 percent on Morgan Stanley, 11.1 percent on Northern Trust Corp., 10.2 percent on Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 9.2 percent on State Street Corp., 8.8 percent on U.S. Bancorp, 7.8 percent on BB&T Corp., 6.7 percent on Capital One Financial Corp. and 6.4 percent on JP Morgan Chase & Co., according to Wilson’s analysis.

In December, Wells Fargo & Co. repaid its $25 billion CPP investment, on top of $2.7 billion in dividends, and Bank of America Corp. repaid the $45 billion it received through CPP and TIP, after paying $1.4 billion in dividends. Wells Fargo is likely to repurchase its warrants for roughly $910 million, and the Bank of America warrants should fetch approximately $1.3 billion at auction, Wilson estimated. Adding those estimates to the total proceeds would boost Treasury's profits to about $17.5 billion.

"We're doing better than expected because many of the banks repaid TARP sooner than expected," Wilson said. "Whenever anyone pays you back in full with interest, you're never going to lose money."

Congress Takes a Knife to Obama's Budget


This article was originally published by the Fiscal Times on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis and Elaine S. Povich

A week after President Barack Obama unveiled his $3.8 trillion budget, a deeply divided Congress is using the proposal's perceived weaknesses as a starting point for carving up and rewriting the document.

'Sloppiness,' Not Wrongdoing, Led to Probe, Says WNET Chair

This article was originally published in Current, on Monday, Sept. 21, 2009.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

The leadership of WNET said a federal investigation into the station's use of federal grants totaling almost $13 million is wrapping up, and the organization is financially sound.

"There was sloppiness as opposed to real wrongdoing in terms of our accounting systems, which has been addressed," said James Tisch, chairman of the WNET Board, in an interview.

The station has hired a new chief financial officer and created the position of executive director, financial control, to ensure compliance with federal grant rules, said Neal Shapiro, president.

"We have a new CFO. We have a new compliance person to make it very clear we take all these rules very seriously," Shapiro said. "The systems we've put in place, the people we've hired, will make us a stronger institution."

The federal probe, reported last week by Crain's New York Business, is looking into whether the station's use of federal grant money violated federal civil statutes and is likely to be referred to the Justice Department's civil division, according to WNET.

"The grants at issue began in 2000 and include funds provided by the National Science Foundation for the animated children's math series Cyberchase," the station said in a statement.

"WNET.org's management, as a cautionary measure, elected to slow its draw down on certain grants by adding further compliance measures so as to be certain that there will be no accounting or compliance questions going forward. WNET.org and its subsidiaries continue to receive federal grants, including from NSF for Cyberchase."

Financial companies face new, strict rules

This article was originally published by Bankrate.com on Tuesday, July 7, 2009.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

Highlights
The proposal will likely change as it goes through Congress.
Officials hope the financial meltdown will spur passage of the proposal.
A new agency will be able to write rules that promote transparency.


President Barack Obama has proposed overhauling the U.S. regulatory structure to create a consumer-oriented regulator, consolidate existing agencies and set more strict rules for financial companies.

For individuals, the proposal offers greater consumer protection and relief from the hidden fees and confusing disclosure documents that have become commonplace in the market for mortgages, credit cards and other banking products.

Both houses of Congress must approve legislation for the plan to become law and the proposal will likely change along the way.

"There's going to be a big push to get it done before the end of the year," according to David Min, associate director for financial markets policy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive think tank. "A lot of it depends on how the banking sector does in the next six months."

Regulators Urged to Review Target-Date Funds

This article was originally published by Financial Planning on Thursday, June 18, 2009.

By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

Government regulators should standardize the naming of target-date funds and require mutual fund companies to assume a fiduciary duty in providing such funds to retirement plans, witnesses told a joint hearing of the Labor Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"We believe there should be a consistent standard, although we don't believe there should be a mandate on investment options," said Mark Wayne, speaking on behalf of the National Association of Independent Retirement Plan Advisors. "Fund managers should explain in plain English what the landing point will be."

The plummeting market of 2008 cost investors dearly—up to 30 percent drops in some funds targeted to 2010—and has focused attention on target-date funds, since they are often the default choice in employer retirement plans.