本文评估了美国政府通过问题资产救助计划（TARP）对金融机构的投资回报。据统计，政府对16家大型银行的投资已获得约5.6%的回报率。此外，政府还通过联邦存款保险公司获得了75.8亿美元的服务费。
随着美国一些银行准备偿还政府救助资金，如今是个评估鲍尔森(Henry Paulson)和盖特纳(Timothy Geithner)这两任美国财长投资业绩的好机会。作为美国政府提振金融体系庞大投资计划的实施人，鲍尔森和盖特纳这两任财长将数千亿美元的纳税人资金置于风险之中。那么他们的投资回报如何呢？如果只限于考察从美国政府问题资产救助计划(TARP)资金中拿了大头的16家银行，那么投资回报还不错。按照这一救助计划，这16家最大银行面向美国政府发行了略超过2,000亿美元的优先股。在政府这笔投资中，约有1,600亿美元优先股的股息为5%，而政府所购花旗集团(Citigroup)和美国银行(Bank of America) 400亿美元优先股的股息为8%。美国政府将从两个季度的股息支付中得到大约56亿美元。 政府按照问题资产救助计划还能得到普通股的认股权证。瑞信(Credit Suisse)的分析师本周估计，这些权证大约价值57亿美元。把这个加上股息收入，那么粗略估计，问题资产救助计划创建以来政府所投入2,000亿美元资金的回报率是5.6%。至少还有钱赚，这一回报率也高于政府为借入这笔资金所支付的低息。但对美国政府的财政赤字来说，这点回报基本于事无补。预计今年美国政府的财政赤字将超过1.8万亿美元。再看另外一个收入来源：联邦存款保险公司(FDIC)是政府实施银行债券担保计划的工具。截至4月份，各家银行为政府的这项担保服务共支付了75.8亿美元费用。虽然这笔钱不归入财政部，而是用来支持一个应对银行未来意外损失的基金；但这些资金有助于降低纳税人被迫投入更多资金的可能性。然而，这些流入政府口袋的资金或许会被政府采取上述救助行动有可能损失的资金所抵消。举例来说，问题资产救助计划对小银行的一些投资可能无法获得偿还。政府向美国银行和花旗集团提供特别损失担保也有可能蒙受资金损失。接下来还有潜在的黑洞。美国国际集团(AIG)从政府得到了400亿美元的股权投资，后来又获得了300亿美元注资。房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)正在向政府要求总计850亿美元的贷款。财政部在汽车行业还有550亿美元风险敞口。这些投入的资金会带来收入，但考虑到资助对象的状况，所投入资金的损失最终可能会超过收益。即便在填补了黑洞亏空之后，政府的救助行动还能获得净收益，但如果要做一个适当的分析，那也得问问政府是否为其提供的救助收取了足够的费用。没有哪个私人投资者会乐意在经济危机最严重的时候去购买美国一家银行股息率仅有5%的优先股。或许成立鲍尔森-盖特纳资本管理公司根本就不是个好主意。Peter Eavis 相关阅读美国财政部长盖特纳：向财政部偿还的TARP资金已超过25亿美元 2009-05-22摩根士丹利希望归还政府救助资金 2009-05-19压力测试众生相 忙于筹资或还债 2009-05-08美国将针对银行偿还救助资金设定条件 2009-05-06 本文涉及股票或公司document.write (truthmeter('2009年06月03日11:54', 'FNM'));Fannie Mae总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：FNMdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年06月03日11:54', 'AIG'));美国国际集团英文名称：American International Group Inc.总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：AIGdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年06月03日11:54', 'BAC'));美国银行英文名称：Bank of America Co.总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：BACdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年06月03日11:54', 'FRE'));Freddie Mac总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：FREdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年06月03日11:54', 'EMC'));EMC Co.总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：EMCdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年06月03日11:54', 'JPM'));摩根大通公司英文名称：JPMorgan Chase & Co.总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：JPMdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年06月03日11:54', 'MS'));摩根士丹利英文名称：Morgan Stanley总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：MSdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年06月03日11:54', 'NTAP'));NetApp Inc.总部地点：美国上市地点：纳斯达克股票代码：NTAPdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年06月03日11:54', 'DDUP'));Data Domain Inc.总部地点：美国上市地点：纳斯达克股票代码：DDUP
As certain banks get ready to pay back government money, it's a good time to assess the investment returns of Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner. As the Treasury secretaries behind colossal government programs designed to shore up the financial system, Messrs. Paulson and Geithner have hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk. So what are their returns like? Not bad, if this exercise is kept strictly to the 16 banks that received the biggest investments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. This top 16 issued just over $200 billion in preference shares under the TARP. About $160 billion of that had a dividend of 5%, while an extra $40 billion invested in Citigroup and Bank of America pays 8%. Two full quarters of dividend payments would give the government about $5.6 billion. Then there are the warrants for common stock that the government got as part of the TARP. Credit Suisse analysts this week estimated they have a value of about $5.7 billion. Adding that to the dividend income gives a back-of-the-envelope 5.6% return on $200 billion since the TARP was created. A positive number, at least, and above the government's low cost of borrowing. But it makes barely a dent in the fiscal deficit, expected to exceed $1.8 trillion this year. Another source of income: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was the vehicle for vital debt guarantees. Fees for that service paid by the banks totaled $7.58 billion through April. While these don't go to the Treasury, instead bolstering a fund for future bank casualties, they help reduce the chance that the taxpayer will have to stump up more money. But those inflows could be offset by losses the government could take. For instance, some of the TARP investments in smaller banks might not get paid back. And special loss guarantees given to BofA and Citi could yet lead to red ink. Then there are the potential black holes. American International Group has received a $40 billion equity investment from the government and has access to another $30 billion. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are tapping the government for a combined $85 billion. And the Treasury has some $55 billion of exposure to the auto sector. There is income on this, but, given the entities involved, losses could ultimately overwhelm gains. Even if the government were to end up with a net gain, after the black holes, a proper analysis would have to ask whether the government had charged enough for its aid. No private investor would have been happy with 5% on preferreds sold to a U.S. bank at the height of the crisis. Maybe Paulson-Geithner Capital Management LLC isn't such a good idea after all. Peter Eavis
As certain banks get ready to pay back government money, it's a good time to assess the investment returns of Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner. As the Treasury secretaries behind colossal government programs designed to shore up the financial system, Messrs. Paulson and Geithner have hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk. So what are their returns like? Not bad, if this exercise is kept strictly to the 16 banks that received the biggest investments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. This top 16 issued just over $200 billion in preference shares under the TARP. About $160 billion of that had a dividend of 5%, while an extra $40 billion invested in Citigroup and Bank of America pays 8%. Two full quarters of dividend payments would give the government about $5.6 billion. Then there are the warrants for common stock that the government got as part of the TARP. Credit Suisse analysts this week estimated they have a value of about $5.7 billion. Adding that to the dividend income gives a back-of-the-envelope 5.6% return on $200 billion since the TARP was created. A positive number, at least, and above the government's low cost of borrowing. But it makes barely a dent in the fiscal deficit, expected to exceed $1.8 trillion this year. Another source of income: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was the vehicle for vital debt guarantees. Fees for that service paid by the banks totaled $7.58 billion through April. While these don't go to the Treasury, instead bolstering a fund for future bank casualties, they help reduce the chance that the taxpayer will have to stump up more money. But those inflows could be offset by losses the government could take. For instance, some of the TARP investments in smaller banks might not get paid back. And special loss guarantees given to BofA and Citi could yet lead to red ink. Then there are the potential black holes. American International Group has received a $40 billion equity investment from the government and has access to another $30 billion. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are tapping the government for a combined $85 billion. And the Treasury has some $55 billion of exposure to the auto sector. There is income on this, but, given the entities involved, losses could ultimately overwhelm gains. Even if the government were to end up with a net gain, after the black holes, a proper analysis would have to ask whether the government had charged enough for its aid. No private investor would have been happy with 5% on preferreds sold to a U.S. bank at the height of the crisis. Maybe Paulson-Geithner Capital Management LLC isn't such a good idea after all. Peter Eavis
扫一扫
278
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
