Public-private plan vulnerable to fraud
Watchdogs for the bank bailout program have launched 20 criminal investigations into potential fraud. The public-private toxic buy-up plan could also be prone to fraud and abuse. Steve Henn reports.
Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. (Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)
More on Crime - Law, America's Financial Crisis
TEXT OF STORY
Bob Moon: For all the positive spin the Treasury secretary was giving Congress about the bank bailout today, there was a counterpoint from the man charged with rooting out fraud and abuse in the program. Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky released a 250-page report. And as Marketplace's Steve Henn reports, the watchdog office has already launched 20 criminal investigations.
STEVE HENN: Neil Barofsky's looking into a wide range of allegations of abuse, everything from insider trading in the $700-billion bank bailout to allegations of fraud in the mortgage-modification program.
BERT ELY: I am skeptical.
Bert Ely is a banking consultant.
BERT ELY: I think we need to see a lot more in the way of specifics and details.
Several analysts say that major banks -- already on the ropes and dependent on the government for their survival -- would have to be nuts to risk breaking the law.
But Bill Black, a former bank regulator and law professor, believes that the public-private partnership designed to help investors buy troubled assets from banks could be a disaster in the making.
BILL BLACK: The TARP II program is a complete invitation to fraud and abuse.
And the Special Inspector General -- Neil Barofsky -- seems to share some of those concerns. He says the program is quote "inherently vulnerable" to fraud and collusion between investors.
So how would that work?
BLACK: A cash for trash scheme.
Black worries that Bank A could agree to buy Bank B's bad assets at inflated prices if Bank B returned the favor. Normally that would be nuts.
BLACK: Except that I, of course, don't have to put up my own money.
They borrow it from taxpayers instead, and if the assets lose value they don't have to pay back the loans.
So Black says banks, by working together, could get high prices for bad assets and leave taxpayers with the bill.
In Washington, I'm Steve Henn for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
04/22/2009
With the removal of Mark to Market, why do we need this public private venture again? Geithner need to chill.
There is just too many ways to game this toxic asset buy back program.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.