May 24, 2012

TARP Helped Stabilize Financial Institutions, but Future Success Questioned

The government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, established to stabilize weak financial institutions, faces challenges in getting repayments and in keeping the workers necessary to finish its work, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

President Bush started TARP in the 2008 financial crisis, allowing the U.S. Treasury to purchase or guarantee troubled assets held by financial institutions in an effort to strengthen the economy. The program has seen some success in stabilizing the financial system and restoring market confidence, while other challenges, like foreclosures and mortgage defaults, continue to linger.

Establishing TARP in a short time period presented staffing challenges. Over half of its 200 employees, including key management positions, are term appointments limited to 4 years. While some programs are ending, many have assets that must be managed, repaid and divested. Other active programs, like preserving homeownership and providing assistance to the American International Group (AIG), require ongoing attention.

Without a plan to address workforce issues, the management of TARP may find itself “unprepared to adequately manage and oversee the remaining TARP investments and programs,” GAO said.

Additionally, Treasury has not always exercised its authority when financial institutions miss interest payments. After missing six interest payments, the Treasury can restructure its assistance and appoint directors to the bank’s board. GAO said Treasury did not do this in seven cases.

FAST FACT: Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the GAO must update Congress on the performance of TARP every 60 days.

Following are other new watchdog reports released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), various federal Offices of Inspector General (OIG), and other government entities.

NATIONAL SECURITY

  • The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ National Response Team is not being used to its full extent by state and local law enforcement agencies. The team provides high—level expertise in investigations of arson and explosives incidents, but many agencies fail to take advantage of it. (OIG Department of Justice)

HEALTH

  • Medicare and its beneficiaries could have saved $111 million just by buying generics. Drug manufacturers are required to report average sale prices of drugs to Medicare 30—days after the end of a financial quarter. Medicare uses this data to calculate the payment amount for the next quarter, presenting a time lapse of two financial quarters. When a generic hits the market, payments are still made to the manufacturer at the higher, brand-name price for two quarters or more. (OIG Department of Health and Human Services)
Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Laurel Adams graduated cum laude from the University of Delaware in May of 2010 with majors in international relations, Spanish, and Latin American studies. She interned at Voices Without Borders in Wilmington, Del., and the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. While at the University of Delaware, Adams studied abroad in Argentina, helped start a Spanish conversation club, and served as an editor for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.