[Senate Hearing 111-146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-146
TREASURY SECRETARY TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
----------
Printed for the use of the Congressional Oversight Panel
S. Hrg. 111-146
TREASURY SECRETARY TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Congressional Oversight Panel
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-177 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL
Panel Members
Elizabeth Warren, Chair
Rep. Jeb Hensarling
Paul S. Atkins
Richard H. Neiman
Damon Silvers
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Elizabeth Warren, Chair, Congressional
Oversight Panel................................................ 1
Statement of Hon. Jeb Hensarling, Member, Congressional Oversight
Panel, U.S. Representative from Texas.......................... 4
Statement of Damon Silvers, Member, Congressional Oversight Panel 5
Statement of Paul Atkins, Member, Congressional Oversight Panel.. 9
Statement of Richard Neiman, Member, Congressional Oversight
Panel.......................................................... 13
Statement of Hon. Timothy F. Geithner, U.S. Secretary of the
Treasury....................................................... 15
HEARING WITH TREASURY SECRETARY TIMOTHY GEITHNER
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Oversight Panel,
Washington, DC.
The Panel met, pursuant to notice, at 1:23 p.m. in Room SD-
419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Elizabeth Warren, Chair of
the Panel, presiding.
Present: Elizabeth Warren, Representative Jeb Hensarling,
Richard Neiman, Paul Atkins, and Damon Silvers.
OPENING STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH WARREN, CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT PANEL
Chair Warren. This hearing is called to order.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Secretary.
I also want to welcome Paul Atkins, who is the newest
member of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and we are glad to
have you with us here today. Thank you.
I also want to say, as we get started here, the panel has
agreed to keep their opening statements very short so that we
can focus on the questions, and we appreciate that you have
agreed to do the same, Mr. Secretary. So, thank you for being
here.
This hearing offers an important opportunity to hear
directly from you about the $700 billion investment that
taxpayers have made in the financial system. Almost exactly a
year ago, Secretary Paulson told Congress that the country was
in a dire state. Americans were alarmed. To restore confidence,
Congress quickly passed the laws that created the Troubled
Asset Relief Program, TARP.
Since that time, public fear has turned into anger. Savings
have evaporated, jobs have disappeared, and mortgage
foreclosures are now measured in the millions of families and
the billions of dollars. Taxpayers question what TARP
accomplished when, on an individual level, their financial
circumstances seem more precarious than ever. They feel like
they got stuck with the bill for this bailout, but they didn't
get the benefits.
In granting Treasury such enormous discretion with TARP
money, Congress expected an equal measure of transparency and
accountability. Taxpayers have a right to understand clearly
what Treasury is doing and why it is doing it.
Each month, the Congressional Oversight Panel has issued a
detailed report. In June, we evaluated the stress tests. In
July, we examined the repayment of TARP funds. And after we
reported that the first 11 banks had repurchased their warrants
from Treasury at a price that we believed was only 66 percent
of their estimated value, the next round of banks repurchased
their warrants at prices that were much closer to our estimated
value. In August, the panel examined the impact of the decision
to leave troubled assets on the books of the banks and how much
risk that leaves in the banking system.
Yesterday, the panel released a report examining the use of
TARP funds in the domestic auto industry and recommended that
taxpayers, who now own substantial amounts of both Chrysler and
GM, might be better protected if Treasury would put its shares
in a trust so that someone not in Government could actively
manage them and make decisions about the best time to sell.
Of course, taxpayers are now stakeholders in hundreds of
financial institutions as well. Taxpayers still want to know
how their money has been used and what difference their
enormous investment has made. Have these companies been
cleansed of toxic assets--the reason TARP was passed? Are these
companies better run today than they were a year ago? Do they
treat consumers better now than they did last year? And the
fear that no one wants to have to think about--what are the
chances these financial institutions will stumble again? Or to
put it more directly, are we going to change the rules that got
us into this mess before it happens again?
[The prepared statement of Chair Warren follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Again, thank you for coming, Mr. Secretary. We look forward
to hearing from you.
Congressman Hensarling.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEB HENSARLING, MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT PANEL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Madam Chair.
On occasion, I suspect we will disagree in the future, but
I do want to thank you for your public service at a time of
great challenge in our Nation's history.
I would note that this is your second appearance before the
Congressional Oversight Panel since the President was sworn in
in January. It is now September. I believe you have agreed now
to appear before this panel at least on a quarterly basis. I
would ask you once again to potentially reconsider appearing on
a monthly basis. Given that the President has made a commitment
that his administration would be the most transparent and
accountable administration ever, I would think that would
comport with that goal a little better.
We are clearly coming up on the 1-year anniversary of the
EESA legislation. TARP has never really been as advertised. As
we know, a toxic asset removal program became a capital
infusion program. I am not here at this point to continue the
debate on whether or not it was wise legislation at the time. I
think there are smart people on both sides of that debate.
Historians will one day record it. But I must admit almost 1
year later, I continue to be concerned and am curious as to
what TARP has evolved into as of today.
I think that many Americans share a fear that I have that
an emergency piece of legislation that was meant for economic
stability has now morphed into essentially a $700 billion
revolving bailout fund for the administration. I am concerned
that the previous administration crossed a line in investing in
GM and Chrysler, something that this administration continued
to do. I fear that this administration crossed another
statutory line in favoring members of the UAW in those
reorganizations over similarly situated creditors and secured
creditors.
I feel like the administration crossed another statutory
line in giving Fiat 20 percent of Chrysler, up to 35 percent--a
company that I understand was not owed one dime--and they will
receive this if they produce a car capable of making 40 miles
per gallon. I am having trouble somehow rectifying this with
the charge of taxpayer protection and of financial stability.
I continue to be concerned about the issue of taxpayer
protection, although certainly not all of it. I need not tell
you that we have the first trillion-dollar deficit in our
Nation's history. I need not tell you that recently OMB had to
change their debt outlook. They missed their figure by about a
third. They were looking at $7 trillion of debt instead of $9
trillion.
Part of this is TARP. Recently, the CBO came out with their
report that they expect $40 billion more of loss in the
Chrysler and GM programs. So that continues to be a concern,
and I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Secretary,
particularly after the President announced last night that your
administration has saved us from the brink of economic ruin--
and I paraphrase. I don't have the quote in front of me.
If that is true, why do we continue to need this TARP
statute that many of us believe is no longer about financial
stability? So I look forward to hearing your testimony.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chair Warren. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Silvers.
STATEMENT OF DAMON SILVERS, DEPUTY CHAIR,
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL
Mr. Silvers. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. Like my colleagues, I very
much appreciate your presence here with us today. As was noted,
this is the second time you have appeared, and we are grateful.
I also wish to express my appreciation to you for the
support you have given to Herb Allison as head of the Office of
Financial Stability. Mr. Allison is an outstanding business
leader, and it has been a pleasure to work with him these last
few months.
I believe Congress and the American people should ask
really three basic questions about the Troubled Asset Relief
Program. First, is TARP and the associated programs of the Fed
and the FDIC preventing and/or calming acute crises in our
financial markets? Secondly, is TARP leading to the private
financial system once again playing its appropriate role as
provider of capital to the real economy? And finally, is the
public, as provider of funds to the financial system through
TARP and these other programs, receiving fair terms?
When you last appeared before us, I focused on the question
of whether the public was being treated fairly. I remain deeply
concerned about whether inappropriate subsidies are being
extended in areas such as transactions with weak banks such as
Citigroup, credit enhancements in the PPIP, and the repurchases
of warrants from banks that have repaid Capital Purchase Plan
investments.
However, I believe that you and Mr. Allison have made
progress in these areas around the issue of fairness, as
evidenced, for example, by the price Treasury ultimately
received for Goldman Sach's warrants, a price very close to
this panel's estimate of their value in our July report.
Today, I hope to discuss with you the question of whether
TARP strategy is leading to the revival of the private credit
system with particular reference to the continued weakness of
three of our four largest banks, a subject addressed in some
detail in this panel's August report. This question is tied to
the important question of what Treasury, the Fed, and the FDIC
strategy is for ultimately withdrawing public support for the
financial system. And you addressed these matters in some
detail in your written testimony today.
Looming over this conversation is the precedent of Japan's
lost decade, in which you are quite expert, and the current
talk of W- and L-shaped recoveries. Despite optimistic
statements of the kind that we saw from the regional Fed banks
yesterday, the numbers that we see tell a tale of rising
unemployment, of rising foreclosures, a growing crisis in
commercial real estate, which has been addressed in this
panel's earlier reports, rising small bank failures, and
falling bank business lending.
Together, this data warns of the danger of a vicious circle
that could overwhelm both the stimulus and Treasury's apparent
strategy of hoping the banks earn themselves back to health. I
believe the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC, under
this administration and the prior administration, can take
credit for calming the acute crisis of last fall, another
matter you address in your written remarks.
I also believe that the decision to infuse capital rather
than to buy troubled assets that Secretary Paulson made, and
which I think you have largely carried forward, was the correct
decision and has borne substantial fruit for our country and
the world. I also believe the stimulus package is a critical
part of the recovery plan that is intertwined with these
matters, although it is not really proper subject for today.
The question now is, are we addressing the fundamental
financial weakness in our banking system? Or are we hoping that
if we close our eyes, it will go away?
I look forward to your thoughts on these matters. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Silvers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Warren. Thank you.
Commissioner Atkins.
STATEMENT OF PAUL ATKINS, MEMBER,
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL
Mr. Atkins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Good afternoon, and I join my colleagues on the panel in
welcoming Secretary Geithner, and it is a privilege to be here
today. And thank you very much for appearing today in what I
understand is the meeting for the third quarter of 2009.
It is a privilege for me to be here today to serve the
American taxpayers on this panel in our oversight role over the
Troubled Asset Relief Program. In the context of the current
Federal budget and the talk today in Washington of programs
costing trillions of dollars, TARP's size of $700 billion seems
almost quaint.
Since we are in the building named after him, I am reminded
of Senator Everett Dirksen's famous tongue-in-cheek line about
the Federal Government's spending habits. ``A billion here and
a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real
money.''
TARP is large. And frankly, the slush fund aspect of it
invites potential problems. Thus, Congress has set up this
robust oversight framework with a special inspector general, a
separate audit under GAAP and GAAS, not Government accounting
rules, and of course, this panel.
I take this accountability and transparency mandate from
Congress very seriously. Press reports indicate that you and
Mr. Barofsky have resolved any ambiguities in his reporting
relationship to the Treasury in favor of independence. I think
that is an appropriate result of the unusual nature of the
program.
I also understand that the information-sharing relationship
between Treasury and this panel has been problematic in the
past and perhaps can be improved. There is now a special
liaison, I understand, in Treasury assigned to work with this
panel. So I look forward very much to working with you all and
experiencing for myself the state of interaction.
We are approaching the 1-year anniversary of the passage of
the EESA, as Representative Hensarling said, that set up TARP.
Since its passage, Treasury has created an alphabet soup of
programs under TARP, and that does not include the other
programs of the Fed, the FDIC, and other banking agencies.
Several questions arise. How effective has each of these
programs been? Have some been more effective than others? Has
TARP achieved its original purpose and mission? What are the
costs, not just in terms of out-of-pocket expenses, but also of
the real, if latent, costs such as moral hazard?
The authority under EESA expires on the 31st of this year.
The Treasury Secretary, of course, has the authority under EESA
to extend TARP until October of 2010. Will TARP be extended?
Has that decision already been made? If not, what criteria will
be used in making the decision? What are the conditions under
which you might make the decision?
The statute provides only vague guidelines. For example, it
requires a quantification of the expected cost to taxpayers of
an extension, and that cost cannot be quantified without a
rigorous economic analysis, including direct and indirect
costs. And that includes the moral hazard that I mentioned.
So, with that, Madam Chairman, I yield my time, and I look
forward to the testimony of the Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Atkins follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Warren. Thank you, Commissioner Atkins.
Now, Superintendent of Banking for the State of New York,
Superintendent Neiman.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD NEIMAN, MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
PANEL
Mr. Neiman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here today.
And I will keep my comments brief as well to maximize the time
for questions.
First, I do want to acknowledge Treasury's responsiveness
to the panel's inquiries on behalf of taxpayers. When we first
met with you 5 months ago, you pledged that you and your staff
would be available to us and maintain open lines of
communication. From our public hearings over the summer with
Ron Bloom and Herb Allison, to the many conference calls and
face-to-face meetings we have had with other members of your
staff, I thank you for your level of cooperation and for
supporting our oversight work.
You also responded to nearly 30 questions that I put to you
directly from members of the public, some of which were very
tough and candid. These questions and responses are now posted
on the Internet to serve as a resource for all concerned
Americans.
Second, although financial stability has not yet been fully
achieved, you deserve credit for making substantial progress.
We are by no means out of the crisis, but there are positive
signs, such as decreasing credit spreads and the revival in
areas of the securitization markets.
Nevertheless, our gains in financial stability remain
fragile. Addressing the millions of homeowners facing
foreclosures is key to breaking the downward cycle and
achieving sustainable results. The Home Affordable Modification
Program is integral to this effort, but initial results have
been mixed.
I intend to explore several of these issues with you during
my time here, including issues around delays in servicer
participation and uneven servicer performance, borrower
frustrations around eligibility standards and access to account
information, and the need to complement the HAM program with
additional initiatives to address foreclosures stemming from
job loss and recession.
Finally, with Congress returning this week, it is widely
expected that your regulatory reform proposals will experience
significant movement and debate. I will be asking about your
vision for developing a regulatory architecture that best
supports consumer protection and long-term financial stability.
I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neiman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Warren. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Secretary, we received your remarks this morning. Thank
you very much. They will, of course, be part of the record.
So that we will have more time to be able to question you
and hear your answers, I am going to ask that you keep your
oral remarks to five minutes. Of course, anything else that you
wish may be entered in the record.
Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, U.S. SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY
Secretary Geithner. It is a pleasure to be here again. Let
me just begin by saying this is my 16th time testifying before
the Congress of the United States and the oversight panel this
year. Glad to hear you still want to see more of me. Happy to
come and try to do it again, and I think this is an important
part of the process.
And Congress, when it acted last fall, didn't just give the
executive branch unprecedented authority to try to resolve this
crisis, it created an unprecedented level of oversight not just
with the Congressional Oversight Panel, but with the
establishment of the SIGTARP and, of course, giving the GAO its
usual mandate for oversight.
We take that process very seriously. We have examined
carefully everything you have written, recommendations you have
made, adopted many, many of the recommendations of the
oversight panels, and I think they have made our programs more
effective than they would have been. So I welcome that role and
compliment you for the thoughtfulness and seriousness of your
approach.
I also want to thank you particularly, Mr. Silvers, for
what you said about Herb Allison and just say that I have the
privilege of working with just exceptionally talented,
dedicated people at the Treasury. It is a good thing about our
country that people are willing to come, work in Government at
a time of crisis, and bring great expertise and talent. You
want to have working for the American people, people with the
greatest sophistication about financial markets and these
things, so that they can drive a hard bargain in the interest
of the taxpayer. And I think that the team at Treasury is doing
a good job of that.
Just a few initial remarks. Last September, of course, we
faced the risk of catastrophic financial failure and the risk
of a great depression. And today, I believe because of
comprehensive policy actions put in place since then, we are
back from the edge of the abyss. The consensus among private
forecasters now is that the U.S. economy is now growing again.
The financial system is showing very important signs of repair.
Cost of credit has fallen dramatically not just for homeowners,
for households, but for businesses as well.
Because of these signs of progress, we are now in a
position to start to adjust our strategy, moving from crisis
response, from the emergency response to recovery, from
rescuing the economy to repairing and rebuilding the financial
system, to repairing and rebuilding the foundations for future
growth. And as we enter this new phase, we have to begin
winding down in programs that are no longer necessary and that,
by design, are less needed, less important as the economy
recovers.
Let me just highlight a few things that underscore this
transition we are in the midst of now. Earlier this year, we
put a reserve fund in the President's budget, recognizing the
possibility we might need additional $750 billion of authority
to fix this problem. Today, we believe that money is unlikely
to be necessary. We have removed it from the budget
projections. We are borrowing less already than we expected to
resolve this crisis.
Later this month, the Treasury's money market guarantee
fund will be allowed to expire, earning more than $1 billion in
income, no cost to the taxpayer. The FDIC's program to
guarantee senior debt, which has generated more than $9 billion
in fees, has seen very, very dramatic declines in usage. The
suite of facilities the Federal Reserve put in place to provide
liquidity to markets, to provide broad support to credit
markets, have seen dramatic reduction in usage.
So we are now at a point where reliance on these facilities
is down 80 to 90 percent from their peak, from swap lines for
foreign central banks to a backstop for the commercial paper
market, et cetera. The details are in my testimony.
When I took this job, the Government had outstanding
commitments in terms of capital to the U.S. banking system in
the range of $240 billion. Today, we have $180 billion
outstanding. So that is a dramatic reduction in the scale of
our exposure, direct exposure in terms of capital to the
financial system, due in large part, to the success of our
efforts to force a greater level of disclosure and to make it
more possible for private capital to come in and recapitalize
this damaged financial system.
The dividends paid on those investments and the warrants
you have received now total $12 billion. And for the 23 banks
that have fully repaid, Treasury has earned an annualized
average return of roughly 17 percent.
Now, all these steps underscore our commitment to unwind
these extraordinary programs put in place during the crisis as
soon as conditions permit. At the same time, though, we have to
recognize that we have to continue to reinforce this process of
repair and recovery until it is truly self-sustaining, led by
private demand. The classic errors of policy during crises once
that governments not only act too late with insufficient force,
but they put on the brakes too early. We are not going to
repeat those mistakes because to do so would increase the
ultimate cost of this crisis not just to taxpayers directly,
but in terms of the damage it causes to the fabric of the
American economy.
Now, millions of Americans are still suffering deeply from
this crisis, still facing probably the most challenging
economic and financial environment we have seen in generations.
Unemployment is still unacceptably high. The mortgage market,
outside what is supported directly by Fannie, Freddie, FHA, is
still significantly impaired. Commercial real estate financing
remains strained. Small businesses, in part because they are
more dependent on banks, have less options to access credit in
this difficult environment. And of course, among----
Chair Warren. Mr. Secretary, we are at 5 minutes. So----
Secretary Geithner. I am winding it up. And foreclosures
are rising significantly because of the high rate of
unemployment we are seeing as a country.
Because of those challenges, we need to make it clear that
we are going to keep those programs that are necessary for
recovery as long as conditions require. There is a lot of
concern that as things have improved, that we are going to let
the market go back to the conditions it enjoyed before the
crisis, and we are not going to let that happen.
We have seen dramatic restructuring in our financial system
already. If you look at the list of the top 20 firms in the
country 2 years ago, a substantial fraction of those firms no
longer exist today as independent entities. The financial
system is going to be smaller, but it is going to be stronger,
and that is a fundamentally healthy, desirable thing for our
economy. But for that to happen, the Congress of the United
States need to come join with us in passing comprehensive
financial reforms so we have much stronger rules of the road
and constraints in place to prevent this from ever happening
again.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Geithner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Warren. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Geithner. I was only about 6 minutes.
Chair Warren. And 19 seconds.
[Laughter.]
Chair Warren. A year ago, Secretary Paulson told us that we
were in a financial crisis because of toxic assets on the
banks' books. In fact, he came to Congress and explained that
Congress needed to give $700 billion to the Treasury Department
to deploy in order to remove those toxic assets, and we have
had a year to get rid of them.
Does Treasury know how many toxic assets remain on the
books of the banks? Do you have a dollar figure for that?
Secretary Geithner. Given the stress tests we put the U.S.
banking system through, you now have an unprecedented level of
disclosure for the 20 largest banks in the country about
exactly what loans and securities they hold, with a pretty
careful estimate of the potential losses on those exposures you
might face in a worse economic environment. That gives a much
better picture today.
But the critical thing to recognize is and the reason we
care about these toxic assets and their losses is because they
require capital. And we came into this crisis with a banking
system that did not have enough capital to cover losses in a
deep recession, and that is what helped produce the worst
financial crisis in generations.
Because we put the system through this incredibly exacting
set of stress tests with much more disclosure, the banking
system today has much more capital in it, and that makes it
much less likely that the financial system is going to be a
source of headwinds, a constraint on future recovery.
Chair Warren. I understand----
Secretary Geithner. Now, if they had not been able to raise
private capital, if they were still left with too little
capital against potential losses, then we would be facing a
much greater challenge. But the problems posed by those assets
are substantially addressed by the dramatic improvement in
capitalization of the financial system.
Chair Warren. So let me see if I can just pin this down,
though. You say for the 20 largest banks for which we have
stress tests, you believe we have a sense of how much is left
in the way of toxic assets on their books?
Secretary Geithner. Absolutely.
Chair Warren. Do we have a dollar figure for that?
Secretary Geithner. Well, again, I would be happy to----
Chair Warren. For the 20?
Secretary Geithner [continuing]. Summarize for you or have
the Fed summarize for you. They put out a lot of detail on
exactly very detailed composition of exposures by those banks.
Chair Warren. And for all the banks for which a stress test
was not run, do we have any sense of how much remains in the
way of toxic assets in the banks, in these books?
Secretary Geithner. My compliments to you for highlighting
this question. We are a country of 9,000 banks, not just 20
banks.
Chair Warren. Yes. That is right, although fewer every day.
Secretary Geithner. Fewer every day, but that is sort of a
necessary process of repair and restructuring that we are going
through. But many of those banks came into this crisis with
more capital than the big banks held, but many of them also had
more concentrated exposure to commercial real estate, other
real estate investments. So there are challenges ahead for the
financial system as a whole.
Now, we decided not to put the rest of the U.S. banking
system through the kind of exacting stress tests that we
applied to the biggest institutions. A lot of complicated
judgments went into that, and so you are right to point out
that we are left today with somewhat less disclosure of that.
But the supervisors of the country are spending a lot of
care and attention looking at those risks in those
institutions, helping them work through that. But you are right
to highlight this is a significant challenge ahead.
Chair Warren. Okay. So when----
Secretary Geithner. But it is important to recognize that
those remaining 9,000 banks together account for between a
quarter and a third of the U.S. banking system.
Chair Warren. All right.
Secretary Geithner. Or a much smaller share. So we are
probably likely as a country to be able to manage and withstand
those remaining pressures, and we can do so with much greater
confidence because of the actions we took to stabilize the rest
of the system.
Chair Warren. So when the Washington Post this morning
summarized yesterday's Federal Reserve report, the Beige Book,
they summarized it by saying the banking sector remains a mess.
Would you take issue with that characterization?
Secretary Geithner. I guess I would say it this way. I
think the U.S. financial system today is in substantially
stronger shape than it was 3 months ago, 6 months ago, 9 months
ago, and on the eve of this recession. There is, again, more
capital, greater recognition of losses, and we are in a better
position to get through this.
But remember, this is just the first quarter. We are just
starting to see signs of growth. It is very early, and we did a
lot of damage to the financial system of this country, and it
is going to take a while to get through this. And it is going
to take longer to do it because we are going to do it right.
So I would not want anyone to be left with the impression
that we are not still facing really substantial challenges
throughout the U.S. financial system. And where there has been
improvement, it has been dramatic, much more than I would have
expected at this stage in the crisis. But a lot of that has
come through the direct effects of policies--to put capital in
banks and to provide support for the markets that were most
damaged.
We do not have a mortgage market today except for that
directly supported by the Government, and that sort of
underscores the basic fact that we have got a lot of challenges
ahead.
Chair Warren. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Congressman Hensarling.
Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, under the EESA statute, how do you define
financial institution?
Secretary Geithner. I was looking forward to this
discussion, and I think I understand where you are going. The
statute was written, as you implied in your opening statement,
really quite broadly. And as you also said in your opening
statement, my predecessor--the previous administration--made a
judgment not just that it was in the economic interest of the
country to provide support for the automobile industry, but
that it was legal and appropriate to do so using the EESA
legislation.
Mr. Hensarling. And you concurred in that opinion?
Secretary Geithner. And obviously, we would not have spent
a penny of taxpayers' money using that authority if we did not
concur in both those judgments.
Mr. Hensarling. If you concur, then clearly, you believe
that Chrysler and GM are financial institutions. Is AT&T a
financial institution?
Secretary Geithner. If you look at the plain facts of what
I inherited in terms of judgments like this, I understand why
it might be hard to explain why an automobile industry is a
financial institution. But again, that was the judgment made by
my predecessor and under----
Mr. Hensarling. I understand that, Mr. Secretary. But you
voluntarily chose to continue the practice----
Secretary Geithner. Only----
Mr. Hensarling [continuing]. And I am still trying to
figure out your legal interpretation of the EESA statute. And
so, clearly, I assume you don't believe you are breaking the
law. So you believe that Chrysler and GM meet the statutory
definition of a financial institution. So we have a number of--
--
Secretary Geithner. As the law was written.
Mr. Hensarling. Well, of course. So, again, the question
is, is AT&T a financial institution? Is American Airlines a
financial institution? Is Walmart----
Secretary Geithner. No and no.
Mr. Hensarling. No and no.
Secretary Geithner. But Congressman, I think it is
important to recognize two important things. One is that I did
not design this statute. I was not in office when it was
written into legislation.
Mr. Hensarling. I assure you I didn't either, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Geithner. But it did what was necessary for the
country, which is to give the executive branch of the United
States broad authority and discretion to fix this. And the fact
that we waited so long to make that authority available made
this crisis more damaging and worse.
One important fact--In a crisis of this severity, a
recession this deep, we have things that we would never want to
do.
Mr. Hensarling. Mr. Secretary, I understand that. As you
well know, Congress had--the House had legislation that dealt
specifically with the automotive industry. So there were at
least some members of the House who clearly did not believe
that Chrysler and GM came within that statutory limit.
So what I hear is Chrysler and GM, yes, are financial
institutions. AT&T, American Airlines--happen to be two Dallas-
based companies--are not. So, is there any additional clarity--
and I believe one of the things the markets continue to demand
is clarity of public policy.
Who will you bail out? Who will you not bail out? And so, I
again ask you for some clarity on what is a financial
institution?
Secretary Geithner. Congressman, I don't think we are going
to be able to take this further.
Mr. Hensarling. Okay.
Secretary Geithner. But I want to revise slightly how I
responded to your question about AT&T and American Airlines. I
would say it slightly differently, which is I do not believe
you can read the statute today to justify action beyond the
scope of the actions we have taken in this context.
Mr. Hensarling. Well, I personally----
Secretary Geithner. Now, things might change in that case.
Mr. Hensarling [continuing]. Hope, Mr. Secretary, that the
legal interpretation of a statute doesn't change with the
passage of a handful of months.
In the remaining time I have on this question----
Secretary Geithner. No. That is clarity in the sense that
we have to pass two tests to use this authority. One test is
does the law give us the authority to act? And the other is,
are those actions necessary and prudent in the interest of
fixing this mess, restoring financial stability?
It is not the simple test of what----
Mr. Hensarling. Mr. Secretary, forgive me. Unfortunately,
our time is constrained, and I may have time for one more
question here. Leaving the question of the definition of a
financial institution, there are roughly, I don't know, six,
eight major programs under TARP now. And I am curious, having
been serving on this panel for almost a year, I think with
perhaps one exception, I am having trouble discovering where
Treasury has identified any particular metrics of success
beyond financial stability----
Secretary Geithner. I would be happy to help you on that.
Mr. Hensarling. Well, I look at the Capital Purchase
Program. Its purpose is to stabilize the financial system, the
automotive program, prevent significant disruption of the
automobile industry that could pose systemic risk to the
financial market stability----
Chair Warren. I am going to have to stop--I am going to
have to stop you there, Congressman. I am going to be
disciplined about time.
Secretary Geithner. But could I say I think that----
Chair Warren. I will give you 20 seconds.
Secretary Geithner. Okay. You can look at each of these
programs, and this is the great virtue of the markets, and you
can see almost day-to-day evidence of whether they are having
an effect in lowering borrowing costs, improving confidence in
the stability of the system.
For example, you can look at the cost of borrowing for
businesses and families, the cost of mortgages, confidence in
financial institutions, price advantage. Those things are a
good day-to-day indication of where these programs are having
effect, and you can see a big impact----
Chair Warren. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Silvers.
Mr. Silvers. Yes, Mr. Secretary, I want to pick up, I
think, on the threads of your testimony, which I think flow
very nicely into the real issues facing the country right now,
which do include the question of the unemployment rate.
A couple of weeks ago, in two parallel stories in the
Washington Post, the following statement was made on the front
page. The wounded U.S. economy, and I quote, ``has shown signs
of improvement in recent weeks, but many economists are
accentuating the negative, bracing for headwinds''--you
mentioned headwinds--``that could cause the recovery to be
weak. Huge swaths of the financial system have been damaged,
which could lock consumers and businesses out of loans for
years to come.''
Next to that story was another story about Asia. You are
smiling. You probably read the same papers I do. And that story
says the Asian recovery was--I won't quote it, but to the
effect of the Asian recovery has been far more robust than
ours, and a key factor in that has been the relative strength
of Asian banks.
Now, do you agree with this characterization that appeared
in The Post of the circumstances we find ourselves in?
Secretary Geithner. There are several important points to
start with. In the best of times, we grow roughly an average of
2.5 percent a year. For an emerging market economy, in China,
India, Brazil, Mexico----
Mr. Silvers. Mr. Secretary, I think Japan was the--Japan
was the comparative here.
Secretary Geithner. Yes, I doubt that you are going to see
a more robust recovery there than here. But I would say, again,
you need to think about that relative comparison. I think that
we are in a position where it is much less likely today that
weakness in the banking system or in the rest of the financial
sector proves to be a substantial constraint on the pace of
recovery here.
The dominant constraint on pace of recovery here is the
basic reality that as a country we borrow too much, save too
little, live within our means, and the process of correcting
that pattern of behavior is going to necessarily produce a
slower recovery for the United States.
Mr. Silvers. Mr. Secretary, why is it, in your view, that
the weakness of the banking system, and particularly the three
out of the four largest banks, whom you are, I believe,
correctly not allowing to repay TARP money--in light of your
comments about the fact that, to take an example, the mortgage
market is a creature right now of your efforts, and secondly,
as you noted in your written testimony that business lending--
not just small business lending, but business lending by banks
is going the wrong direction quite seriously, why is that not a
problem?
Secretary Geithner. I think it is a problem, and I said we
are in a much better position today than we have been and we
could have expected to be. So it is much less likely today that
it will be a constraint.
But just a few observations. Bank lending, as you point out
correctly, is declining, but it's declining much, much less
than it has in past recessions and much less than the decline
in economic activity in part because we have been, again,
relatively effective in restoring some confidence and
stability. The decline in bank lending has been more than
offset by the increase in borrowing in the securities markets.
So, overall, what we are seeing is a reduction in demand
for credit. Again, as people improve their balance sheets, save
more, spend less, there is less evidence of a substantial
contraction in the supply of credit. But it is still early.
Largely because of the forceful actions we took and the support
we will continue to provide, it would not be appropriate or
prudent for us to infer from that sign of progress that we are
at the point where we can wind it back completely.
Mr. Silvers. Just to come back to that one sentence in your
written testimony, which I found by far the most interesting--
no offense to the rest of it--is that is it really a good thing
that essentially credit provision has moved away from the
banking system to the extent that it is going on, particularly
with respect to the fact that most employers, most creators of
jobs, can't access the bond market?
Secretary Geithner. It is an interesting question. But
remember, our banking system took on too much leverage.
Mr. Silvers. Unquestionably.
Secretary Geithner. So, inevitably, the banking system
leverage was going to have to come down. That was a necessary.
The consequence is that you are going to see less growth in
lending by banks. I think it is important to the future
stability of our system, that there are alternatives to banks
in the capital markets that actually work.
So if there is weakness in banks, there is an offsetting
source of strength, and vice versa. So part of the reform
process we are all committed to is not just to make sure there
is stronger capital in banks, much stronger shock absorbers in
banks, much better capacity to absorb future risk, but that the
securities markets, asset backed and others, have a stronger,
more robust framework because that will make our system more
stable in the future.
Mr. Silvers. My time has expired. I will come back to you
next round.
Chair Warren. Thank you.
Commissioner Atkins.
Mr. Atkins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to start out by looking ahead, I guess, if we
could. Because as I said before, the authority under EESA
expires at the end of this year, and you have the authority to
certify that it should be extended with appropriate
justifications under the statute. And no one would be happier
than I to see it meet its end.
But according to the statute, your certification should
include a justification why the extension is necessary to
assist American families and stabilize financial markets, as
well as the expected cost to the taxpayers for such an
extension. So I guess my first question is, have you made a
decision yet one way or the other?
Secretary Geithner. No. I have not yet decided. We are
going to think through that carefully.
Mr. Atkins. Well, and that is what I wanted to explore
because this is rather for a statute--no offense to the
congressman here who didn't vote for it anyway--but it is very
squishy, and it is really questionable to me what it means, for
example, to stabilize financial markets. You just said that you
have been relatively effective in restoring stability.
So when you determine that the markets have been
stabilized, are you comparing it to a year ago, in which case
they are much more stable; 3 years ago, in which case they
might not be? What kind of markets would you look at--U.S.
stock market, commodities, international markets, the dollar? I
mean, I think all of these things need to be carefully looked
at, but I don't know if you have started this process.
Secretary Geithner. I completely agree with you, and I
think you listed a range of important factors. You want to look
at, again, what is the capacity of the financial system to live
on its own now without these exceptional supports? How likely
is it that you are going to see enough repair and strength in
the securities markets, not just in the banking system, for us
to withdraw that support?
I think that some of these programs realistically are going
to take a longer time for them to work. For example, the
expected path of foreclosures in the United States is going to
last for a long time. So it is very, very unlikely that we are
going to be at the point in the next few months to have said
that the housing market is at a point where we can be confident
that we can withdraw these exceptional actions.
There are parts of the credit markets in asset-backed
securities where there has been very substantial improvement,
but a lot of that has come on the strength of the basic
backstop we have provided. So we want to look at a broad set of
measures of basic health in the system, and we want to make
sure that people are confident that we are going to get the
economy on a strong foundation before we withdraw it.
Because as I said, again, I think the classic mistake
people make is that they declare victory too soon. They put on
the brakes too early. They withdraw support and then the system
has to go back and build more insurance against the risk of a
bad outcome, which could intensify the recession or reignite--
--
Mr. Atkins. Well, but contrary wise, too, you can also make
a mistake of leaving the crutch on too long, and the patient
then gets too dependent on that.
Secretary Geithner. You are exactly right.
Mr. Atkins. And we are talking about moral hazard, which I
hope that as you all do your cost analysis here, you have to
take that into account because I think that is a huge usually
undermining factor of our financial system.
Secretary Geithner. I completely agree with you, and I
think you said it exactly right. But let me just point out one
thing that is helpful on that front.
Largely, these programs are designed so that they will be
expensive when things normalize. And that is why you have seen
use of these programs dramatically decline as conditions have
improved. This helps mitigate the risk that people rely on
these programs too long.
Mr. Atkins. But I think you could argue that, for example,
the warrants are, even now, relatively under priced. I mean,
sure, the taxpayer is making a nominal profit. But query
whether or not in relationship to the humongous risk that the
taxpayer took a year ago, is that recoupment commensurate with
the risk that was taken?
Secretary Geithner. I like the way you frame it. I think we
need to look at two things in measuring the effectiveness of
these programs. One is what was the direct measured benefit to
the taxpayer in terms of the return on the risk we took? But
that is not sufficient.
The best way to measure the effect of these programs is to
take a broader view of what you did to help get this economy
out of crisis into recovery. And that is a harder thing to
measure.
Mr. Atkins. Right.
Secretary Geithner. But still, if you look at almost any
measure of cost of credit--confidence in the financial system,
availability of credit, concern about risk--all of those
measures are dramatically lower, and that is the fair way to
capture the return on these investments, not just the 18
percent return on average we have gotten on our investments and
warrants.
Mr. Atkins. So that argues in a way for ending the
program----
Secretary Geithner. No, I don't think it does because,
again, I think the art of this--and there is no science to it.
The art in this is if you commit to do enough and you make that
credible to people, you are not going to be behind always
chasing a crisis, and you are more likely to solve it at lower
cost.
If you prematurely pull it back, you are going to live with
too much risk. It is going to be more expensive in the future.
That is the basic central design of effective strategy in
financial crises.
Chair Warren. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Superintendent Neiman.
Mr. Neiman. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, the new Treasury servicer report on mortgage
modifications represents, I think, an important step in data
access and accountability. But it also confirms in the report
just issued this week that there are wide disparities among the
rates of modifications. Some firms, as you well know, have not
started any trial modifications, while many more firms have
started rates in the low single digits.
You held an important meeting with servicers on July 28th
to discuss these very issues. I was also encouraged yesterday
to hear Assistant Secretary Barr's House testimony with respect
to new commitments that have been made in key areas such as the
speed of implementation, data collection, and borrower
outreach.
Now the report that was just issued shows that there are
trial modifications started, and the number is around 360,000.
These would indicate only about 12 percent of estimated
eligible borrowers. Secretary Barr indicated that servicers
have committed to increase that number to a total of around
500,000 trial modifications by November 1.
Based on that, your benchmark of reaching 3 million to 4
million homeowners who are at risk, are you satisfied we are on
that track? Have we set realistic expectations? And even more
importantly, is the real risk and challenge in converting those
trial mods to permanent sustainable modification?
Secretary Geithner. You describe the facts and the progress
and the challenges absolutely right. It is not enough just to
have sent out $1.8 million of solicitations to participate in
modification, which is the numbers we have approached now, or
almost that level. It is not enough that you have close to
500,000 offers extended, it is not enough that you have more
than 350,000 households now benefiting from substantial
reductions in mortgage interest rates. You need to make sure
these modifications are going to work over time, and we are
very focused on making sure this program reaches as many
eligible homeowners as possible.
Two important points. It is very helpful to put in the
public domain every month detailed numbers that allow the
American people to see the number of people these banks are
reaching. And I am quite confident that will produce much, much
faster modifications much more quickly because institutions do
not want to live with the consequences of being so far behind
the curve of what is possible in helping families get through
this exceptional set of problems.
We also want to make sure that we are going in after the
fact and looking at whether people are denying eligible
homeowners access to modification. So there is a so-called
second look program. That is a softer form of what it actually
is, which is a program of auditing to make sure that they are
not denying eligible homeowners the chance to participate.
So I think this is going to reach a substantial share of
people that are eligible. But it is important to recognize that
this was just one part of a set of actions we took to help
stabilize the housing market, to bring down mortgage interest
rates. And those actions when viewed in total, have helped
bring down mortgage interest rates to very low levels, and it
helped bring a measure of stability to housing markets, housing
prices, housing activity faster than many economists had
forecasted.
And it is that broader measure that should be the ultimate
test of this program.
Mr. Neiman. I think I would be interested in your comments
about the continued obstacles to effective and increasing the
effectiveness of servicer participation. I will do that in a
follow-up QFR.
But what we are hearing in talking to servicers is there is
still concern about outreach, getting documentation back from
servicers. Some creative approaches that I have heard from
servicers are, because people are not responding, to going out
physically and visit. I would like your thoughts on other
creative approaches.
I have suggested in the past possibly even letters from
yourself or ideally, the President of the United States to
assure that people are opening their mail, realizing that this
is not just another creditor notification, but a real response
and involvement from the Government.
Secretary Geithner. We welcome those suggestions. And of
course, we are very pragmatic. We want this to work, and we
will take and act on any reasonable suggestion.
I think you are right to point out for this to work, people
need to take some initiative, to ensure they get help. But,
350,000 families today have seen a dramatic reduction in the
cost of carrying their mortgage, there is more money in their
hands at a time when they are going through an enormous
challenge.
Chair Warren. That is our time.
Mr. Neiman. In my 10 seconds I have left, I just want to--
we will be holding a hearing on September 24th in Philadelphia
on this very issue, and we would look for support from your
office to assure that we have representatives from the Treasury
and Fannie Mae and Freddie to go over those very programs that
you reference, particularly the second look.
Chair Warren. A good use of your extra 20 seconds there.
Mr. Neiman. Thank you.
Chair Warren. Thank you, Superintendent Neiman.
So I would like to return, Secretary Geithner, to a point
you raised, and that is that the stress tests are effectively
the tool by which we have measured the strength of the 20
largest financial institutions, and that is what gives you
confidence both that we understand the risk of exposure on the
toxic assets and the overall projections on how stable these
institutions are.
But the worst-case scenario under the stress test for 2009
projected average unemployment for the year at 8.9 percent. As
you know, the current unemployment rate is 9.7 percent. The
average for the year has now reached 8.9 percent. So the panel
has recommended that under those circumstances, the stress
tests be repeated for these financial institutions. Does
Treasury plan to do that?
Secretary Geithner. It is important to start determining
whether this was a conservative enough stress test, and the
measure of the forecast for growth in employment that was
framed as part of that scenario is not significant. The most
important thing to observe was the loss rates that were assumed
in the worst-case scenario. And if you look carefully, as you
have done, at what the Fed designed and produced, the loss
rates that were assumed in the stress scenario were worse than
peak losses experienced by this country in the Great
Depression.
So they assumed roughly loss rates in the stress test could
rise as much as 9 percent. We are now more in the 2 to 3
percent range. Over the last quarter, losses are running well
below that level and in earnings are running substantially
above the assumptions. So----
Chair Warren. Mr. Secretary, I am sorry. Let me stop there
because you are the one who put out what the appropriate
details were in the stress test.
Secretary Geithner. Actually, the Fed designed it, as you
would expect, and they are the ones who put it out.
Chair Warren. That is right. The Fed designed. But you are
the one who advanced it and said we could rely on it. And one
of the featured elements was unemployment, and we all know that
unemployment relates very closely to the level of foreclosures,
which, in turn, relates very closely to the value of the toxic
asset, the declining value.
Secretary Geithner. But the framing constraint in the
stress test was the loss estimates that were applied and the
earning estimates that were constrained. Those did not relate
to the unemployment forecast. So, again, what matters----
Chair Warren. Is not what you advertise?
Secretary Geithner. No, we put in the public domain for
everyone to see and assess for themselves what the loss rates
were.
Chair Warren. You know, Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Geithner. So people can judge on their own.
Chair Warren [continuing]. That raises the question. We
would like to be able to rerun the stress tests, and I
understood from conversations with you that we would have
enough information about how the stress test is composed that
reasonable people could sit down, build in other assumptions,
and see how the stress test would come out with these major
banks. And in fact, we don't have the risk model, and we don't
have the data inputs----
Secretary Geithner. Again, I would be happy to----
Chair Warren [continuing]. That make it necessary to repeat
them.
Secretary Geithner. I would be happy to remedy that. And I
would be happy to spend as much time as you would like going
through this.
Chair Warren. That is--I will take yes for an answer.
Secretary Geithner. But I need to slightly change the way
you framed it. These were an important improvement in the
market's capacity to assess risk in these institutions. And on
the strength of that improved capacity, you have seen a
substantial amount of private capital come into the U.S.
financial system.
Now, we never said it was sufficient. There is no certainty
in life. Things could change going forward. But I think we have
a basis for people to independently assess whether these
assumptions were rigorous enough and whether they need to be
revisited.
Chair Warren. And so, let me ask the other half of that,
and that is we also asked the question about expanding the
stress test to mid-size banks and perhaps even smaller banks in
a somewhat modified form. Is Treasury willing to do that?
Secretary Geithner. Well, as I said, we said publicly--and
I am not going to change this view--at the time of the stress
test results that were not going to conduct a similar exercise,
bank by bank, across the 9,000 other banks in the country. But
what supervisors have done----
Chair Warren. How about the next 100?
Secretary Geithner. Well, again, let me explain what the
supervisors have done because this is their job. What they have
done is apply a carefully structured framework through the
supervisory process to the rest of those institutions. Then, we
can have a better sense for making judgments about the rest of
the strength of the remaining system. But it is not realistic
or feasible for the Fed and the supervisors to conduct the
level of detailed assessment required for this to be credible
for a banking system that has 9,000 additional banks.
Chair Warren. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Congressman Hensarling.
Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I don't want to replow the old ground on
financial institutions. I agree with you we have probably made
about as much headway between ourselves as we are going to make
on that.
Secretary Geithner. We could try.
Mr. Hensarling. But I certainly think it is reasonable for
anyone to conclude that there is a fair amount of subjective
power that is assumed by Treasury in deciding who will receive
bailout or economic recovery funds under EESA. I do want to
start replowing some old ground in my earlier line of
questioning because I am concerned the American people need to
know what are we getting for our $700 billion today?
And again, having been on this panel, I started reading
from Treasury's Website on the purpose of these programs. And
frankly, with the exception of the Foreclosure Mitigation
Program, where you offer the goal of assisting 7 million to 9
million homeowners--I think today we stand at roughly 350,000,
if my records are correct--I can find no demonstrable metric of
success by the administration. So can you enlighten me as you--
--
Secretary Geithner. Again, I would be happy to walk you
through, like I do a Murton testimony and the substantial
reports the Fed and the Financial Stability Oversight Board
have provided. But I just don't think what you are saying is
fair.
With these programs, you can see directly not just how much
money we are spending, where we are spending it, but what is
actually happening to borrowing conditions in those markets
because--I will give you an example. One of the most important
things we did with the Fed was this program called the Term
Asset-Backed Lending Facility, which was designed to provide a
backstop of support to the lending markets critical for small
businesses, for auto finance, for student loan finance, for
credit card receivables, et cetera.
And you can see in detail how much issuance has come with
this program, what has happened to the cost of issuance, how
much has been directly funded by these programs rather than
indirectly supported by it. In the banking----
Mr. Hensarling. Mr. Secretary, what you are asking us to
do, though, is draw, in essence, the cause and effect. Happy to
look at the statistics in the economy, but again, coming from
an oversight panel here, it is hard not to conclude that
essentially you have the subjective power to invest $700
billion on a revolving basis on any institution you deem is a
financial institution and that any program will be judged as a
success if you deem it a success after the fact. All I am
saying is that----
Secretary Geithner. No, I don't agree with that.
Mr. Hensarling [continuing]. I can't find----
Secretary Geithner. And I would never claim that. I would
just remind you of two things. The Congress of the United
States designed the authority Treasury was provided. We are
using that authority----
Mr. Hensarling. And Mr. Secretary, you have the ability
under the programs that you design to say here are the metrics
for success.
Secretary Geithner. Right. However, the great virtue of
this program is that you can see not just the return we are
getting when people repay, the price we are getting relative to
the market, but you can see directly, program by program, what
is happening to credit conditions, which is the ultimate test
of what we are trying to do.
In fact, you can do better than that----
Mr. Hensarling. Well, Mr. Secretary, let me ask, if what is
happening in the credit markets is the ultimate test--and
again, we can question cause and effect--clearly, the LIBOR-OIS
spreads 1 month were incredible back in the crisis in September
of '08. By the time your administration took office, they went
down from 300 basis points to 20 basis points.
Now since your administration has come into power,
apparently they are down to 10 basis points. So, certainly,
that is an improvement. But it sounds like a lot of this
happened on the previous watch.
Secretary Geithner. Well, hold on.
Mr. Hensarling. And again, I don't know what the cause and
effect relationship is.
Secretary Geithner. Cause and effect is difficult in
economics and finance, but it is much easier and more clear in
these programs than in these markets where we try to measure
the effects of economic policy. And you are right to point out
that the actions taken by my predecessor, which, of course, I
was part of, did have an important effect in breaking the panic
in the fall of 2008. But it is also true that almost any
measure of financial health for this country, in January of
this year, was still in signs of emergency. And----
Mr. Hensarling. But Mr. Secretary, again, the question is
what is the taxpayer getting for their money today? We can
debate what purpose it served a year ago.
Secretary Geithner. I will tell you what the taxpayer is
getting. You have a financial system that is more stable.
Credit is more available. People can borrow at much lower cost.
And the taxpayer of the United States can observe the returns
in the investments we have made in the banking system in terms
of actual billions of dollars.
Mr. Hensarling. Well----
Secretary Geithner. There is no better measure than the
return of these programs, and I would be happy to----
Mr. Hensarling. How about an additional 2.5 million jobs
lost, the highest unemployment rate that we have seen in 25
years, mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures up? Mr.
Secretary, it is a mixed report card at best.
I see my time is up.
Secretary Geithner. But Congressman, no one is going to----
Chair Warren. Our time is up.
Secretary Geithner. I was very clear in my statement. It is
only now we are seeing positive growth for the first time.
Unemployment is still very high and could stay high for some
period of time. We are not close to being through this. But on
the clearest, direct measures of the program we were tasked
with executing, we have made more progress than I think people
reasonably expected. Not enough yet, though. And we are going
to keep at it.
Chair Warren. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Silvers.
Mr. Silvers. Mr. Secretary, I want to take this up from a
sort of different angle. I think one of your achievements--
clearly yours, not the prior administration's--in the stress
tests was to put an end to the fiction that all banks were
equally healthy. I understand why that fiction was indulged
originally. I don't think it was done out of bad faith or for
anything other than the best of reasons, but it was important
to put an end to it.
However, I think many of the characterizations of success
that you have just indulged in with my colleague are due to
unwinding funds that were given to strong banks. And when they
paid them back, they paid them back at a profit, and that was
never where the risk was embedded anyway. I mean, there was
always some risk, but the big risks were not there.
So I want to turn to weak banks. And I hope you will
indulge me in what may seem a little peculiar sort of
questioning. Can you explain to me and to the listening public
what is a ``zombie bank,'' and why is it so dangerous?
Secretary Geithner. I don't ever use that term myself
because I don't think it helps anything. I think the risk in
any financial crisis is if you have a banking system that
doesn't have enough capital, they will have to reduce lending.
And viable businesses or families will not have access to
credit, and therefore, they will be forced to shrink or go out
of business or delay a college education for their children.
That is why the health of the banking system matters, and
that is why it is a good use of policy and financial resources
to try to make sure you bring capital in. So you are not living
with a set of institutions that are too weak to lend.
Mr. Silvers. Too weak to lend. Is it fair to say that those
people who like the term ``zombie bank'' mean by it the walking
dead, meaning an institution that is not in receivership or
insolvent, but is too weak to lend? Is that a fair
characterization of that term?
Secretary Geithner. I think I just said it. Again, I
don't----
Mr. Silvers. You know----
Secretary Geithner. I am being less graphic than you, but I
think you have got the right concept.
Mr. Silvers. Okay.
Secretary Geithner. Where are you going with this?
Mr. Silvers. Well, I thought I got to ask the questions.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Silvers. Where I am going with this is whether or not
you like graphic terms, graphic terms sometimes have the
ability to clarify things that otherwise seem very mysterious.
Whether or not you like graphic terms and whether you use the
terms I just used or the terms you used, in your view, is
Citigroup such an institution today?
Secretary Geithner. No.
Mr. Silvers. Why?
Secretary Geithner. This won't satisfy you, Mr. Silvers. I
can't talk in this context, and I will never talk in this
context about the detailed outlook for individual institutions
in our country, no matter which they are in this case. So I
want to return to where I began, which is that the best test of
whether these programs are working is whether you are seeing
private investors in this country and around the world willing
to come in and provide capital to those institutions, to
provide funding for them.
And one of the great virtues of the stress test was it gave
them a chance to make that choice, and they basically voted
with----
Mr. Silvers. Mr. Secretary, how can you be sure? And I
recognize the cause and effect issues that you mentioned
earlier are real in these areas. But how can you be certain
that what you didn't really do in the stress test was signal
that you, the Treasury Department and the Fed, were not going
to further hammer the capital structures of these banks and
that they could be invested in because there was an implicit
guarantee behind them, even though they remain at their core
not really functioning institutions or, to use the graphic
term, zombies?
Secretary Geithner. Again, you are right to point out that
we did a range of other things besides just making it possible
for private capital to come into these banks. Part of that
included the set of guarantees, liquidity facilities that the
Government and the Fed provided together. Those were important
and necessary and have been helpful in restoring confidence.
But again, I think, by any measure, you have the system
that we have today, which is in a smaller, but stronger
capacity to support the economy going forward. That is the
ultimate test of what we are trying to do.
Mr. Silvers. Mr. Secretary, I am going to refrain because I
think folks at Citigroup may feel I am picking on them. I was
going to ask you about Bank of America and Wells in order. I am
not going to spend the time doing that because you are not
going to answer, and I appreciate why you feel it would be
inappropriate for you to be specific with respect to particular
institutions.
Those three institutions are a macroeconomic problem,
right? And they go directly to jobs. As this panel has gone
through the country talking to people who are trying to create
jobs, we hear over and over again that in various ways--whether
it is agriculture or with commercial real estate or large firms
or small firms--we hear over and over again that the system is
weak, and the large institutions are not stepping up.
Chair Warren. Mr. Silvers, that is our time.
Mr. Silvers. I am done.
Chair Warren. Commissioner Atkins.
Mr. Atkins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I wanted to go back to the statute a bit because one of the
other provisions of the statute regarding TARP is that the
Government Accountability Office is to do an audit, and I
think, significantly, it is not under Government accounting
rules, but under GAAP and GAAS, which will be, I think,
interesting. So they are going to have to get to some of these
issues if they are going to do a balance sheet and a P&L
statement and all that sort of thing. They are going to have to
look at cost and what not.
So I guess my question is, first of all, has this been
scoped out yet as far as the audit goes? Where does that stand?
Secretary Geithner. I don't think I can do adequate justice
to that today, but I would be happy to get back to you in
writing with exactly where that process stands.
Mr. Atkins. Okay.
Secretary Geithner. I know that we have a response to put
out in terms of a broad financial statement of the Government,
which will include some estimates of those measures. But in
terms of the GAO process itself, I don't know the details of
that right now.
Mr. Atkins. Okay. So as far as when it might be public?
Secretary Geithner. I just can't tell you, but I would be
happy to have them get back to you or we can do it ourselves
directly.
Mr. Atkins. Okay. Another issue, and you brought this up in
your opening statement, is regulatory changes that you all have
proposed to Congress. And I guess having come from an
independent agency, I value that sort of tradition of
independence from the administration.
And earlier this year, there were reports in the press
about I guess I would term it as maybe excessive pressure from
the administration, especially the Treasury Secretary, with
respect to your colleagues on the President's working group and
elsewhere. So I wonder where that stands as far as you are
concerned, as far as dealing with others as independent
agencies that are not part of the administration, of course,
and how you view your interaction?
Secretary Geithner. I actually believe that, just by what
you read, that there is a lot of agreement across those
agencies on the core things we try to achieve. And I think on
the broad structure--that is, the framework for protection of
derivatives and on resolution authority for dealing with failed
institutions in the future. This is evident by the core
provisions on capital you heard us outline a couple of weeks
ago. There is a broad base of agreement across those agencies
on the core parts of reforms.
There are some areas, though, where they would prefer that
we leave the existing authority they have. And so, the focus of
their concerns have been on taking authority from them and
putting it in a different place, most conspicuously in the area
of consumer credit protection, where I think by any measure, it
failed.
And our belief is to put in place a stronger system. You
had to put in a single entity, both the authority to write
rules and to enforce them. But that is, I think, where there is
still disagreement across these institutions. And you would
expect to have disagreement. There is nothing surprising in
that.
Mr. Atkins. Well, people have vested interests and
everything else. But I guess we can--we will have another
chance to talk about these particulars later on.
With respect to the programs under TARP, do you have any
expectation of expanding the list that you have now?
Secretary Geithner. Again, what we tried to do earlier in
the year was to lay out a broad framework to recapitalize the
system and to provide targeted support for the credit markets
that are necessary for recovery. And as many of you said, we
put out a broad framework of programs in that area. It was our
best judgment at the time.
We want to have some capacity to modify and adapt those
over time to make sure they are doing what they need to do and
to wind them down and redeploy capital as necessary.
At this stage, we don't have any specific plans to
substantially expand the scope of the entities into areas we
would target, but it is possible that----
Mr. Atkins. Well, if----
Secretary Geithner [continuing]. Looking at the damage in
the system remaining, we might make that judgment. But we would
want to set a very high bar for doing so because we want to be
able to demonstrate an appropriate use of taxpayers' money,
measured by returns we are going to get.
Mr. Atkins. Well, speaking of which, one of the issues I
think that is still in question is whether or not TARP is a
revolving type of arrangement, whether the monies that are paid
back are then available for the future? Do you have any legal
analysis of this?
Secretary Geithner. Yes, in previous testimony, we provided
extensive responses to the Congress on how that authority was
drafted. And I actually think there is broad acceptance in the
Congress by the architects of that legislation that the process
works as follows:
If a dollar comes back--and, of course, as I said, billions
of dollars have come back to the Treasury from the financial
system--that goes directly to the general fund to reduce debt
outstanding.
Chair Warren. I am sorry----
Secretary Geithner. But the law is designed----
Chair Warren. Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Geithner [continuing]. To still give us the
authority to use that if we think we need to do it to help
protect the system.
Mr. Atkins. Well, I guess I would like to see the legal
analysis.
Secretary Geithner. Happy to do that.
Chair Warren. Thank you.
Superintendent Neiman.
Mr. Neiman. Thank you.
A major aspect of regulatory reform is the streamlining and
modernizing of our regulatory structure. Your proposal includes
merger of the OCC and the OTS, and I support that change. Some,
including our Nation's largest banks, however, propose going
further to create a single monolithic Federal bank regulator,
which raises, in my opinion, serious concerns. Creating a
single regulator as a means of improving financial regulation
relies, in my opinion, on the faulty assumption that regulatory
consolidation leads to a stronger and safer banking system in
itself.
In my opinion, the opposite is true. Such a proposal would
increase the fragility of the system by increasing industry
consolidation, by eliminating needed checks and balances, and
subordinating the interests of the consumer to the business
goals of a handful of mega banks. In my experience, multiple
regulators yield better results for consumers and for financial
stability, much like multiple judges are used in the Olympics
to arrive at the right score.
What are your concerns about the proposals to create a
single monolithic regulator? And how important was it for you,
in drafting your proposals, that the FDIC and the Federal
Reserve retain examination authority to better inform their
respective missions of deposit insurance and lender of last
resort?
Secretary Geithner. Thank you for raising that question,
and I think you have framed the choices thoughtfully.
One of the most important things we decided that we had to
do was to eliminate the weakest parts of supervision in the
system and eliminate the opportunity for people to take
advantage of weaker supervision by flipping their charter or
shifting risk to those parts of the system.
One of the principal examples of that, unfortunately, was
in the difference between the standards applied to thrifts and
applied to banks. So we thought eliminating that was a
necessary, essential condition for reform.
If you look beyond that, there is less evidence that having
two entities responsible for different types of State-chartered
banks alongside a single Federal supervisor, would create
really meaningful risk of arbitrage in the future. In fact, if
you look at the standards applied by our bank supervisors, in
general, they were more evenly applied and more effectively
enforced.
So we don't think it was necessary or desirable to try to
force all of that into one new entity, partly because of the
concerns about concentrated power and partly because we are
asking the Congress to do a lot in a very short period of time.
And a guiding principle that affected our choices was to say we
want to make sure they are focusing on the things that are
essential to do. It should not be on those that might be
desirable to some people, but would not offer a benefit that
was proportionate to the political difficulty or the practical
difficulty of doing it. Further dramatic consolidation of bank
supervisors we didn't think met that test.
But of course, we are open to suggestions, and if there is
the desire in the Congress and the interest in going further in
terms of consolidation, we would, of course, be happy to
support that. But I think you have to balance the factors that
you laid out in your comments.
Mr. Neiman. And you would share my concerns over the role
of the checks and balances that I often use as an example, the
role of the independent FDIC in raising issues of the
importance of the leverage ratio--is it an important check and
balance in the regulatory scheme?
Secretary Geithner. I think you are right that there is
virtue in multiple pairs of eyes looking at these institutions.
But on the other hand, competition across regulators creates
risk, too. We didn't get that balance right. We thought we had
to propose how to fix the weakest parts of the problem, the
greatest opportunities for evasion of arbitrage. But of course,
we will be open to suggestions about how to get that balanced
better.
Mr. Neiman. Thank you.
I yield my time. I am going to pick up regulatory reform in
the next round.
Chair Warren. Thank you.
Mr. Neiman. Assuming we are going to have a next round?
Chair Warren. I hope so.
Mr. Neiman. Right.
Chair Warren. Thank you.
So AIG has received about $70 billion in TARP money, about
$100 billion in loans from the Fed. Do you know where the money
went?
Secretary Geithner. Absolutely. I am happy to provide any
detail that you would like to see on this. The money helped
prevent default and helped to stabilize a very damaged
institution that would have posed, we think, very substantial
risk of systemic failure----
Chair Warren. Well, maybe I should ask it with more
specificity. Was Treasury aware of who the counterparties were
that were going to receive payment in full on the credit
default swaps when $170 billion went to AIG?
Secretary Geithner. They have hundreds, maybe thousands of
counterparties. I am sure that the supervisor is involved and
the Fed would have access to detailed information.
Chair Warren. So they knew who was going to get the money,
the counterparties?
Secretary Geithner. Well, I think they could have known.
Now, whether they knew at the time, I am not sure they knew.
But of course, they would have access to that.
Chair Warren. Do you know if they spoke with any of the
counterparties?
Secretary Geithner. In what sense?
Chair Warren. In any sense.
Secretary Geithner. About what?
Chair Warren. About the fact that they were----
Secretary Geithner. Remember, many of the counterparties
are institutions that are supervised all the time. So I suspect
they were talking at all times.
Chair Warren. They were holding pieces of paper from an
entity that was clearly insolvent, and the question of the
Government infusion of dollars there was going to make the
difference between whether they got paid off in full or they
ended up with nothing.
Secretary Geithner. Right. But maybe I should let you
finish. So where are you going? What would you like to know?
Chair Warren. I just want to know.
Secretary Geithner. What?
Chair Warren. Did Treasury have conversations with any of
the counterparties----
Secretary Geithner. And I don't----
Chair Warren [continuing]. Who ultimately profited from
this infusion of cash?
Secretary Geithner. I was not Secretary of the Treasury at
that time of the initial investment, but I was the president of
the New York Fed. And of course, I was central to the basic
judgment we reached together to prevent default by AIG. I am
sure that was the right judgment at the time. You are right to
point out that that action did help make the system more
salient and did have broad benefits to the stability of the
system, including the counterparties.
But more importantly, the reason why AIG posed systemic
risk was not principally because of the direct exposure of
those institutions, those counterparties. The biggest risk to
the system was in the damage it would have done to both retail
people who bought insurance protection, saving protections from
AIG and systemic risk. So it was a more complicated picture----
Chair Warren. So let me then follow up. I understand your
point and the distinction you are drawing. We just finished our
auto report, and Chrysler and GM, insolvent company. AIG,
insolvent company. Chrysler and GM have bondholders, unsecured
creditors, secured creditors, and employees, and they all took
big haircuts. AIG had people holding credit default swaps, and
they took no haircut at all.
Secretary Geithner. AIG had----
Chair Warren. They ended up with money from the Federal
Government 100 cents on the dollar, and I am trying to
understand why those two are different from each other.
Secretary Geithner. This is the tragic failure about the
regime we came in with because we did not have the legal
capacity to manage the orderly unwinding of a large, complex
financial institution. We do have the capability to unwind
small banks and thrifts, but did not have it for an entity like
AIG. And that forced us to do things that we would not ever
want to do.
But as an----
Chair Warren. Are you saying that you couldn't find a way
to pay less than 100 cents on the dollar there, but since you
could find a way in the auto industry, you did?
Secretary Geithner. Of course not. I mean, we would have
done that immediately if we could have done that. But in
deciding that a default by AIG would have presented the risk of
further systemic damage to a very fragile system, we made the
judgment to prevent this. By preventing default, we helped AIG
meet its financial obligations not just to people that bought
insurance protection, savings protection products, but to its
broad counterparties. That is the consequence of that decision.
And if you think through----
Chair Warren. But not the same for the auto industry?
Secretary Geithner. Completely different situation, you are
right. But if you think through what happens when you let
default happen, consider the trauma caused by Lehman's default
to get a sense of the damage that can result. And then, again,
that is why we moved so quickly to propose broad resolution
authority to give us better tools for dealing with these in the
future.
Chair Warren. And I appreciate that. Let me ask one quick
question, if I can slip it in before we run out of time, and
that is a year ago, we were worried about banks that were too
big to fail. But in the last year, big banks have gotten
bigger, while 84 small banks have been allowed to fail. And
some experts are estimating that 1,000 smaller and mid-size
banks could disappear before this crisis is over.
I just want to know, are we more at risk on the question of
concentration than we were a year ago?
Secretary Geithner. You know, I don't think so. But it
depends largely on what Congress ultimately decides to do in
terms of financial reform. The only way to deal effectively
with the moral hazard risk created by the consequences of this
crisis and by the too big to fail problem is to make sure there
is a set of reforms in place that make us better able to
withstand the failure of large institutions so we don't have to
intervene to put taxpayers' money at risk to prevent them from
or to provide for more orderly resolution.
And that requires resolution authority, stronger capital,
better derivatives protection, a whole set of cushions and
safeguards to limit the risk of contagion spreading, and that
is why, again, reform is so important. And that is the only
way, I think, to make the system safer----
Chair Warren. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Geithner [continuing]. From future failure.
Chair Warren. Thank you.
Congressman Hensarling.
Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I continue to be concerned over the
precedent being set for the taxpayer and our financial markets
with the Chrysler and GM intervention. You are well acquainted
with the facts since it was your team that helped put together
the reorganizations. And GM bondholders were asked to swap $27
billion in debt for initially 10 percent common equity. The UAW
agreed to swap $20 billion for 17.5 percent of common equity,
$9 billion in preferred stock, and the UAW, through their VEBA,
ended up with 55 percent of Chrysler. They ended up with 17.5
percent of GM.
When you talk about the success of your administration in
stabilizing the financial markets, I am just very concerned
about how when senior secured bondholders are treated less
equally than those who are unsecured and equally unsecured
creditors, still we see the UAW receives preferential
treatment. Warren Buffett, perhaps the most famous investor in
America, has said, ``If priorities don't mean anything, that is
going to disrupt lending practices. Abandoning that principle
would have a whole lot of consequences.''
The Wall Street Journal, some would say I guess the
investor journal, wrote an op-ed back in May. ``By stepping
over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary
behavior of men, President Obama may have created 1,000 new
failing businesses. That is businesses that might have received
financing before, but now will not since lenders face the
potential of future Government confiscation.''
Investors Business Daily. ``This undermines the reason for
buying a bond at all. Accepting the lower returns in exchange
for legal guarantees, that, in turn, will reduce the
willingness to buy bonds.''
Now I must admit it is somewhat anecdotal, but when I speak
to investors, I believe there are hundreds of billions of
dollars that are sitting on the sidelines because investors are
concerned about what the Government policy is, concerned about
the potential to confiscate their investment. I have small
businesses, at least throughout the 5th District of Texas, that
tell me they can't get lines of credit. So I know there was a
huge stabilization by the time your administration took office.
I am not sure I have seen a lot of improvement since then.
And I simply question what precedent have you set, and what
is the impact for financial stability in treating the UAW so
differently than senior creditors of those who are equal?
Secretary Geithner. Panel members had a lot of time to look
at this carefully. Your report provides a pretty thoughtful
discussion of the choices we faced in that context and the
outcomes. I know you have had testimony on this before. And I
understand the concerns you are raising. As you said, many
people have raised those concerns for some time.
But this was a process overseen by a bankruptcy judge. That
bankruptcy judge looked at the terms of the agreement and
reached a judgment about whether that was acceptable. That is a
great strength of our system, and that really is the ultimate
test----
Mr. Hensarling. Well, it was a plan, though. It was a plan
financed with taxpayer money under TARP.
Secretary Geithner. Yes, it was, and I think you know--you
don't agree with it. You opposed this action, which I
understand, for thoughtful, principled reasons. But we took
this action because we thought it was important and effective
to do in the face of this crisis and recession. And I think
this will be judged as an exceptionally well-designed, dramatic
restructuring.
The scale of the restructuring designed and approved
through this process went well beyond what is contemplated by
many people in this Congress, including on your side of the
aisle----
Mr. Hensarling. Well, and in the time I have remaining, Mr.
Secretary--I am sorry. We have limited time here.
But another aspect of this that I simply don't understand
is how Fiat is brought into the deal--20 percent, I believe, of
Chrysler. Up to 35 percent if they produce cars that receive 40
miles per the gallon. I know the President and the
administration is passionate about their global warming agenda.
We can have that debate. But under EESA, I am having trouble
finding out why Fiat, who wasn't owed a dime, who I don't
believe put a dime into the deal, what having them use TARP
money--U.S. taxpayer money to produce these cars sometime in
the future has anything to do with taxpayer protection or
financial stability. I just don't get it.
Secretary Geithner. Congressman, again, I don't think I am
going to talk you out of your concern, and I respect why you
have opposed what we did and what my predecessor did in the
automobile industry. But we made a set of judgments that we
thought was in the interest of the country, and I think we are
much better off today because those companies were not forced
to go into liquidation. And I think that was a prudent,
sensible use of the authority that Congress gave us.
Chair Warren. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Silvers.
Mr. Silvers. Mr. Secretary, my colleague seems to be under
the misapprehension that you are a bankruptcy judge. Are you a
bankruptcy judge?
Secretary Geithner. Last time you asked me if I was an
investment banker, and I said no then. But I have also never
been a bankruptcy judge. You are right.
Mr. Silvers. Although I did recall after our previous
exchange about your resume that the term ``banker'' does seem
to apply to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York when last I--
--
Secretary Geithner. That would be stretching the
definition.
Mr. Silvers. It is not a bank?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Silvers. Anyway, but you are not a bankruptcy judge,
are you?
Secretary Geithner. No.
Mr. Silvers. And the role of the TARP in respect to any
bankrupt entity is as a provider of debtor-in-possession
financing, is it not?
Secretary Geithner. In that context, yes.
Mr. Silvers. And then a provider of such financing makes
strategic decisions about how they want their money to be used,
right? Mr. Buffett would, if he was a debtor-in-possession
financer. I assume the Treasury would as well.
Secretary Geithner. We did. And we did so on what we
thought were the best financial terms for the taxpayer and for
the country. But again, those judgments were overseen by a
bankruptcy judge.
Mr. Silvers. All right. Let me move on. You have made some
references in your testimony to regulatory reform. One
criticism of a program, which I personally believe is a pretty
serious and positive program that the administration has put
out, is the criticism that it doesn't really deal with what
structurally went wrong in our banking system and financial
markets in that it doesn't deal with the combination and risks
associated with investment banking, in particular proprietary
trading combined with commercial banking and insured deposits.
I am particularly concerned about this problem because of,
to go back to my prior questioning, essentially the zombie bank
problem. If you have very weak financial institutions,
particularly ones that think they have an explicit or implicit
guarantee, they have not been resolved. They are really very
weak. The temptation to gamble is almost irresistible.
Can you comment on your views as to how this problem should
be addressed and will be addressed under the administration's
program?
Secretary Geithner. Again, most important is to make sure
the institutions hold more capital and a higher quality form of
capital against the risks they might face in the future. You
know, capital is sort of like a rainy day fund. It is the
resources they can draw on if things don't turn out so well.
It is probably the most important protection we have
against the risk of future crisis. While constraining future
leverage and risk taking, it will make the system better able
to withstand the stress that might come if one institution
faces the risk of failure, and that is the centerpiece of
reform. We laid out, last week, a comprehensive set of
proposals for reforming capital standards.
The banks would be required to hold more capital against
the risk they take in whatever form. It is probably the most
important thing we can do against the risk you are framing. Now
if we had adopted a strategy, Mr. Silvers, of just simply
guaranteeing the liabilities of the financial system, not
forcing recapitalization, not conditioning our assistance on
the kind of pretty dramatic restructuring, then I would be more
worried about the risks that you refer to. But that is not the
strategy that we adopted.
Mr. Silvers. Is it your view, that allowing an aggressive
proprietary trading desk as part of a holding company that has
significant insured deposits is a wise form of public policy?
Secretary Geithner. I think it is very important to make
sure that institutions will hold a lot of capital against all
the risks they take. Now if you look at this crisis--and of
course, we will be looking at this for a long time--most of the
losses that were material, for both the weak and strong
institutions, did not come from those activities. They came
overwhelmingly from what I think you can fairly describe as
classic extensions of credit, particularly where they are
backed by real estate.
And those basic choices, which are classic banking types of
decisions--is the sort of the tragedy of this crisis----
Mr. Silvers. Well, Mr. Secretary, I am not so sure about
that. I think if you look at where the big holes came in the
major commercial banks, they were substantially--I give one
example. I had this very interesting conversation with one
large bank where they said, you know, ``We didn't make any
subprime loans.'' And so, I said, ``Well, how did you get into
so much trouble?'' And they said, ``We had something called a
capital markets desk.''
And they were in the business of repackaging other people's
subprime loans and putting them in off balance sheet vehicles.
Do you disagree with that as a characterization of how we got
here?
Secretary Geithner. Maybe we are agreeing rather than
disagreeing.
Mr. Silvers. Right.
Secretary Geithner. And what you may call trading, I would
call the extension of credit. And these were extensions of
credit. But in any case, the basic point I agree with is that--
--
Mr. Silvers. Underwriting----
Secretary Geithner [continuing]. You want to make sure that
if firms aren't forced to hold capital against the risky things
they do, we will be vulnerable again to a repetition of this
crisis, and we are not going to let that happen.
Chair Warren. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Silvers. Thank you.
Chair Warren. Commissioner Atkins.
Mr. Atkins. Mr. Secretary, I am glad that you have a lot of
confidence in capital, but I think even the capital levels that
you are talking about would not have prevented what went on
last year. And so, some of it is a bit of flying by the seat of
the pants, I think, ultimately.
Secretary Geithner. Well, no, I think you are right. It is
necessary, but not sufficient.
Mr. Atkins. Exactly.
Secretary Geithner. But it is central.
Mr. Atkins. And one of the central things is really
predictability because as you were talking with the chair about
AIG, I think if you go back last year--and this is a debate for
another time. But when you track Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and
then what happened there, and then allowing Lehman to go, but
then turning around with AIG, I think that freezes up the
marketplace more because people were uncertain than anything
else.
But I wanted to get to PPIP, the Public-Private Investment
Program, to find out where that stands. There are two basic
programs under it--the legacy securities program, of course,
and then the loan program. The legacy securities program is the
only one that is really up and going, and I was wondering where
that stands, how many purchases have been made? Do you view
these as viable in this grand, great scheme of instruments that
are out there?
Secretary Geithner. I think at the end of this month, you
are going to see the asset managers we selected to raise
capital to help launch these programs close on their capital
raising. All indications are that they are raising a lot of
capital.
Soon after that happens, they will be in the market buying
securities. But when the details of the program were announced,
there was a pretty significant effect on prices in those
securities since the prospect of financing capital coming in
did help restore and improve liquidity in those markets. So you
are seeing some positive effect.
As I have said many times before in public, we expect there
to be less demand for these facilities than was initially
expected in part because liquidity has improved and partly
because more capital came into the financial system. But I
still think that they are valuable enough, worth going ahead
with. And if we think there is a high return to the taxpayer
and to the overall economy from expanding them, we will be open
to expanding them further.
Mr. Atkins. Okay. Well, I think we can probably save that
for another day. I know your time is short. I wanted to give
Mr. Neiman an opportunity as well.
Chair Warren. Thank you, Commissioner Atkins.
Secretary Geithner. Madam Chair, could I just very briefly?
Chair Warren. Of course.
Secretary Geithner. You are very right to say that if you
look back over the arc of this crisis, one thing that was very
damaging to confidence was the lack of clarity about whether
the Government was going to step in and decisively stabilize
the system.
But just to be fair to my predecessors and the other people
who have been living with this crisis, that was----
Mr. Atkins. We were there, too.
Secretary Geithner. Largely, that was the consequence of
the fact that until Congress acted to pass the EESA, the
Government of the United States did not have the authority to
step in and provide capital, and it was only with that
authority and the subsequent actions by the Congress and the
President to make sure the additional resources were available
that we really had the broad set of tools that were necessary
to help stabilize this financial crisis.
But I think you are right to say that clarity about
strategy, matched by resources in authority, is central to
confidence. And this crisis was more damaging, more prolonged
in part because of the absence of authority and the constraints
that were put on the capacity of the Government to escalate,
and that is something we have to fix.
We can't put the country in the position where we enter the
next crisis with a limited set of tools. That is why resolution
authority is so important.
Mr. Atkins. Well, then I will take back my time a little
bit just to respond. I am not sure that your proposals will do
that, actually, and I think they also raise other very
dangerous issues, especially with this systemic type of
regulator and what not.
So we can debate the authority issue from last year another
time. But anyway, I will yield my time.
Secretary Geithner. Again, we welcome a chance to talk
about this in more detail, and we don't claim to have a
monopoly of wisdom on these things. We expect our proposals to
be refined and improved as they work their way through the
Congress. But it is important to recognize that we can't let
the system or the country go back to where things were with
that much risk and so few tools to help contain the damage.
Chair Warren. Mr. Secretary, we are down to our last
questions.
Superintendent Neiman.
Mr. Neiman. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I applaud the administration for taking the
long overdue steps to make consumer protection a national
priority with respect to financial services. I share this
commitment to consumer protection and have seen firsthand the
impact of predatory lending. And I strongly agree with your
proposal to empower States and consumer protection,
particularly by guaranteeing that any Federal standards would
serve as a floor and not a ceiling.
Yet I have some serious reservations about another aspect
of the proposal. First, I have a fundamental concern about any
agency restructuring that separates consumer protection from
safety and soundness. These are not conflicting missions. Isn't
one of the primary lessons learned from the current crisis that
a loan that is unfair to consumers when made is not a safe and
sound loan? Doesn't that lesson argue for greater integration
of the two disciplines into a holistic approach to supervision
rather than further segregation?
So I would also question whether it is absolutely necessary
to create a new and separate agency with all the start-up and
unintended consequences it would bring or whether expanding the
mission of an existing agency like the Federal Trade
Commission, which has a strong consumer protection track
record, may have a better ability to achieve the goals of
regulatory reform without creating new bureaucracies,
inefficiencies, and cost?
So my question to you is what thought, if any, was given to
alternatives such as expanding the mission of the Federal
Reserve Board or increasing the jurisdiction of an agency like
the FTC that may better protect consumers and not create a new
bureaucracy?
Secretary Geithner. We looked at a lot of models and
thought carefully through the concerns, many of which you
expressed. But let me just say it starkly. We have been living
as a country with a system where we gave bank supervisors
primary responsibility for writing rules and enforcing those
rules for consumer protection. And how did that turn out for
the country?
It did not serve us well enough. It is not a system that
worked. It failed in its most basic mission. The reasons for
that failure were complicated, but I think we had a test of the
viability of the model that combined the authority for
prudential supervision and consumer protection. And the
judgment we reached was based on that record of experience over
many decades, several recessions, past crises. That is, you
need to put rule-writing authority and primary enforcement
authority in a single place with the resources and expertise
necessary to do that job well.
Now, by clarifying where enforcement authority is, we are
not going to be adding to the overall burden of the system. FTC
does a great job. They have a lot to do, and the specific
challenges of getting consumer protection right, particularly
in credit, is, as we have seen, very, very hard.
So, again, this represents in our view, looking at a range
of alternatives, what we thought was the best path forward. But
I understand why many supervisors look at the prospect of a
different model, and many banks are uncomfortable with the
implications of that change.
But I think separating rule writing from enforcement would
not be a sensible strategy. I think the rules would be at risk
of being poorly written. And if you----
Mr. Neiman. Would you not, though, acknowledge that the
Federal Reserve, though late to the game, did take strong
action with respect to mortgages and credit card issues?
Secretary Geithner. I completely agree with you, and they
provided a set of reforms and regulation that became the body
of important credit card and mortgage legislation passed by
Congress. But you asked when did those rules come?
Mr. Neiman. But if Federal Reserve was directed to,
statutorily, report to Congress, to have a governor on the
board with consumer responsibilities and experience, would that
not be an alternative?
Secretary Geithner. There are many alternatives, but we
have to make a judgment together with the Congress about what
is going to be most effective. And again, we have had a painful
experience about the limits of effectiveness of the system we
had, which gave those entities responsibility for the rules and
the enforcement. And the system failed.
Now, some of the most damaging things have happened outside
banks. The standards were worse outside banks, and part of the
failure of the system was not to provide greater protections in
place for nonbanks, and that is a centerpiece of what we are
proposing. That should be helpful for banks, not just bank
supervisors.
Mr. Neiman. Let me move on to another area that has
arguably not gotten as much attention as the creation of a new
agency to protect consumers, and that is product suitability
and effective disclosures. Consumers and investors need
effective disclosures, not just more pages of print. For
example, it may be a suggestion of a nationally recognized
rating system could clearly communicate product safety and
complexity, perhaps along with a one-page or two-page summary
of key terms.
I often compare this rating system to the rating system
used on ski slopes. I am a poor skier. When I get up to the top
of a mountain, I could not imagine skiing without a green, red,
or double diamond. Don't consumers deserve the same level of
protection? Is this something that you would consider?
Secretary Geithner. I agree with you. Better disclosure,
that kind of differentiation is central to the basic strategy
recommendations we made, and of course we are open to
suggestions about how to get it better.
Mr. Neiman. And then my last question----
Chair Warren. Excuse me. We are out of time.
Mr. Neiman [continuing]. I did not get an agreement with
our September 24th hearing.
Secretary Geithner. We will try to respond appropriately.
Mr. Neiman. So your cooperation with respect to
participation of Treasury and Fannie and Freddie would be very,
very welcome.
Secretary Geithner. We will do as much as we can to make
sure you have good representation there.
Mr. Neiman. Thank you.
Chair Warren. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We
appreciate your being here. We appreciate your very detailed
answers to our questions, and we look forward to seeing you
again soon.
Secretary Geithner. Happy to do so again. Thank you.
Chair Warren. This hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]