Loss Aversion
Putting TARP to the test
How much money did U.S. taxpayers lose when funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion bailout passed in the wake of the 2008 Wall Street meltdown, were used to rescue the insurance giant AIG? The Treasury Department's reports on TARP say the loss was a measly $5 billion. But the inspector in charge of keeping the department honest says the only way to arrive at that figure is to fiddle with the books.
In an October report, Neil Barofsky—the inspector general assigned to monitor TARP—accused the Treasury Department of quietly changing its accounting methods to make TARP losses seem far smaller than they actually were. In previous reporting, the department had estimated that the recapitalization of AIG would result in a $45.2 billion loss. The downward revision to just $5 billion did not reflect a real change in the program's financial expectations; it stemmed from a change in the previously published accounting methodology, "on the assumption that the recapitalization will go exactly as planned."
According to Barofsky's report, the Treasury Department "abandoned" the published methodology and failed to disclose the change. As a result, the inspector general says, the department's self-reporting "fails to meet basic transparency standards."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
is good
perfect
perfect
perfect
How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.
outlet
outlet
outlet
impairment” that corresponds to a probability nike shox tl3 of an accident. Standard psychomotor tests of impairment do not test driving habits. For instance almost *all* people over the age of 60 are “impaired” in terms of those tests, oakely sunglasses but these people do not have a higher accident rate. Older people develop compensatory driving habits
In an October report, Neil Barofsky?the inspector general assigned to monitor TARP?accused the Treasury Department of quietly changing its accounting methods to make TARP losses seem far smaller than they actually were. In previous reporting, the department had estimated that the recapitalization of AIG would result in a $45.2 billion loss. The downward revision to just $5 billion did not reflect a real change in the program’s financial expectations; ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? it stemmed from a change in the previously published accounting methodology, “on the assumption that the recapitalization will go exactly as planned.”