注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

基思·亨尼西(Hennessey)的博客

美国前国家经济委员会主任、乔治·布什的首席经济顾问Keith Hennessey

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

美国前国家经济委员会主任

文章分类
网易考拉推荐

纳税人将拿回多少救助资金?  

2009-06-30 08:23:04|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

[点击查看Keith Hennessey的英文博客]  [Keith Hennessey的中文博客] 

国会预算局(CBO)已发布了他们对行政管理和预算局的半年度不良资产救助计划(TARP)报告的评估结果。该评估结果估算出不良资产救助计划各部分已支出的现金,以及国会预算局预计将最终返还给国库的金额。我已将国会预算局的表格(第2页表1)转换成一组图表。从底部的“资本购买计划”(CPP)条可以看出,已经支出了1990亿美元,国会预算局预计其中将有1740亿美元可以得到偿还。国会预算局计算出每个计划的经济援助率。资本购买计划的经济援助率为25 ÷ (174 + 25) = 13%。对于以纳税人名义投资到资本购买计划中的资金,纳税人可以预期收回87%,损失剩下的13%。

   TARP subsidies

从图表中,您可以看出,大部分资金用于资本购买:资本购买计划 + 特定公司交易(美国国际集团、美国银行和花旗集团)。国会预算局认为我们纳税人将从美国银行和花旗集团收回我们的大部分资金。我们将从美国国际集团收回大约一半资金,从汽车公司和汽车金融公司收回四分之一多一点的资金。政府的取消抵押回赎权缓和计划是支出性计划而不是投资,因此我们预计将一分钱都收不回来。国会预算局表格的脚注(d)包含了一个令人惊讶的事实:“国库仍未支出2009年6月17日分拨给取消抵押回赎权缓和计划的150亿美元。”我们没少听到总统在缓和取消抵押回赎权方面的种种努力,然而却没有现金流出。

对于“纳税人将拿回多少救助资金?”这个问题的回答,国会预算局估计:

· 原7000亿美元中已支出了4390亿美元;

· 其中2800亿美元将得以偿还;

· 将有1590亿美元无法偿还,成为纳税人的成本。

通过将资本购买计划细分成两个部分——已经偿还国库的32家银行的资本购买计划和所有其他银行的资本购买计划——国会预算局提供了关于资本购买计划的更多细节。这里是同一个图表,但其中资本购买计划分成上述两个部分。您可以看到,已经偿还国库的32家银行给纳税人带来的净成本(仅)为10亿美元。国会预算局推测剩余的未偿还资本购买计划投资的损失将要高得多。

   TARP subsidies 2

我们不对美联储的所有行动做类似估计,而是对联邦储蓄保险公司的行动以及房利美和房地美的救助做出类似的估计。当我们加入这些非不良资产救助计划的金融救助资金之后,图表发生了显著改变。承蒙参议员乍得·葛瑞格出色的参议院预算委员会共和党员工的帮助,我将加入花旗集团救助金中联邦储蓄保险公司部分的估计纳税人成本(橙色部分),以及国会预算局估计的救助房利美和房地美的纳税人成本。

   TARP subsidies 3

国会预算局估计GSE、房利美和房地美破产给纳税人带来的成本将为3840亿美元。这是所有其他不良资产救助计划和非不良资产救助计划成本(此处显示的成本不含美联储部分)总和的2.4倍。这里是预算委员会共和党员工的预算公报:

国会预算局曾估计联邦政府需为GSE在2008年9月的商业状况立即承担2480亿美元的损失。为了维持积极的抵押信贷市场,联邦政府正在继续运营GSE。根据国会预算局的看法,GSE在2008年9月之后缔结的新约定在2009年至2019年期间估计将损失1360亿美元。

这样,将不同的不良资产救助计划及非不良资产救助计划给纳税人带来的预期成本进行排列,我们得到:

1. 房利美和房地美(3840亿美元)

2. 取消抵押回赎权缓和计划(500亿美元)

3. 汽车和汽车金融(400亿美元)

4. 美国国际集团(350亿美元)

5. 通过资本购买计划对银行进行权益投资的未偿还部分(240亿美元)

6. 花旗集团(150亿美元)

7. 美国银行(20亿美元)

8. 美联储流动性融通的直接国库成本(20亿美元)

9. 通过资本购买计划对银行进行权益投资的已偿还部分(10亿美元)

3840亿美元实在是巨大的数额。

更新并加入“不良资产救助计划 + 联邦储蓄保险公司 + GSE(不含美联储融通)”后,国会预算局估计所有上述非美联储融通的计划给纳税人带来的净成本大约为5530亿美元。

感谢参议员葛瑞格的预算委员会员工吉姆·赫恩惊人的表格和协助。

资料来源:

· 国会预算局的不良资产救助计划:截至2009年6月17日的交易报告

· 参议院预算委员会共和党员工的预算公报(2009年6月25日)

如果您确实对预算政策深感兴趣,那么应该关注预算公报。您可以向他们的网络管理员发送电子邮件订阅预算公报。您可以在这里找到网络管理员。

(翻译纠错。读者发现任何翻译错误请发邮件给我们,谢谢:caijingblog#126.com 将#改为@)


英文原文(地址:http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/ ):

How much bailout money will taxpayers get back?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released their assessment of the Office of Management and Budget’s semiannual TARP report.  That assessment estimates how much cash has gone out the door for each part of TARP, and how much CBO expects will ultimately be returned to the Treasury.  I have converted CBO’s table (Table 1 on page 2) to a set of graphs.  Looking at the Capital Purchase Program (CPP) in the bottom bar, $199 B has gone out the door in outlays, and CBO expects $174 B of that will be paid back.  CBO calculates a subsidy rate for each program, which for CPP is 25 ÷ (174 + 25) = 13%.  Taxpayers should expect to recoup 87% of the funds that were invested on their behalf in the Capital Purchase Program and lose the other 13%.

TARP subsidies

You can see from the graph that most of the funds went to capital purchase: CPP + specific firm deals (AIG, Bank of America, and Citigroup).  CBO thinks we taxpayers will get most of our money back from Bank of America and Citigroup.  We’ll get about half back from AIG, and a little more than a quarter back from the autos and auto finance companies.  The Administration’s foreclosure mitigation program is a spending program, not an investment, and thus we expect to get none of those funds back.  Footnote (d) on CBO’s table contains a surprise:  “The Treasury has not yet disbursed any of the $15 billion allocated as of June 17, 2009, for foreclosure mitigation.”  We heard a lot about the President’s efforts on foreclosure mitigation, and yet no cash has flowed.

To answer the question, “How much bailout money will taxpayers get back?” CBO estimates that:

  • $439 B of the original $700 B has been spent;
  • $280 B of that will be repaid; and
  • $159 B will not be repaid and will be a cost to the taxpayer.

CBO provides further detail on the Capital Purchase program by subdividing it into two parts:  CPP for the 32 banks that have already paid back the Treasury, and CPP for all the other banks.  Here’s the same graph, but with CPP split into those two parts.  You can see that the net cost to the taxpayers from the 32 banks that have already paid back Treasury was (only) $1 B.  CBO is guessing a much higher loss on the remaining outstanding CPP investments.

TARP subsidies 2

We do not have similar estimates for all of the Fed actions, but we do for the FDIC’s actions, and for the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The picture changes dramatically when we add these non-TARP financial rescue funds.  Courtesy of Sen. Judd Gregg’s excellent Senate Budget Committee Republican staff, I’m going to add in orange the estimated taxpayer costs of FDIC’s component of the Citigroup rescue, and CBO’s estimate of the taxpayer cost of bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

TARP subsidies 3

CBO estimates that the cost to the taxpayers of the failure of the GSE’s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will be $384 B.  That is 2.4 times larger than all the other TARP and non-TARP costs (shown here, and excluding the Fed) combined.  Here’s the Budget Committee Republican staff’s Budget Bulletin:

CBO estimated that the federal government immediately absorbed a loss of $248 billion for the book of business the GSEs had in September 2008.  To maintain an active mortgage market, the federal government is continuing to operate the GSEs, whose new commitments entered into after September 2008 would lose an estimated $136 billion over the 2009-2019 period according to CBO.

Thus when we rank the expected cost to the taxpayers of the different TARP and non-TARP programs, we get:

  1. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac ($384 B)
  2. Foreclosure mitigation ($50 B)
  3. Autos & auto finance ($40 B)
  4. AIG ($35 B)
  5. Outstanding equity investments in banks through the Capital Purchase Program ($24 B)
  6. Citigroup ($15 B)
  7. Bank of America ($2 B)
  8. The direct Treasury cost of the Fed’s liquidity facility ($2 B)
  9. Repaid equity investments in banks through the Capital Purchase Program ($1 B)

That $384 B number is huge.

And updating to include TARP + FDIC + GSEs (but not the Fed facilities), it appears CBO estimates the net cost to the taxpayer of all these non-Fed facilities will be about $553 B.

Thanks to Jim Hearn of Sen. Gregg’s Budget Committee staff for his incredible table and assistance.

Sources:

If you’re really into budget policy, you should keep your eye on the Budget Bulletin.  You can subscribe by emailing their webmaster, whom you can find here.

[点击查看Keith Hennessey的英文博客]  [Keith Hennessey的中文博客] 

 

  评论这张
 
阅读(6595)| 评论(12)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017