Author Topic: Kentucky Senate race 2014: Matt Bevin, Mitch McConnell and TARP (Bevin backed TARP)  (Read 817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/matt-bevin-tarp-kentucky-senate-race-2014-103351.html?hp=r8

Kentucky Senate race 2014: Matt Bevin, Mitch McConnell and TARP


By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 2/11/14 12:09 AM EST

Matt Bevin, who is challenging Sen. Mitch McConnell in a Republican primary, calls the 2008 federal bailout of banks and Wall Street giants “irresponsible” and says he would have opposed it as a senator.

Yet back in 2008, as an investment fund president, Bevin backed the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, as well as the government takeover of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. McConnell supported TARP, and the Bevin campaign repeatedly reminds voters that the Senate minority leader calls that vote “one of the finest moments in the history of the Senate.”

Bevin also supported the Federal Reserve’s decision to begin buying commercial paper issued by banks.

The widespread government intervention in U.S. financial markets during the economic crisis — and the debt shouldered by the federal government as a result — is a sore point for conservative groups, some of which are supporting Bevin’s challenge to McConnell in this year’s Kentucky Senate primary.

A Bevin spokeswoman said the GOP candidate has not changed his position on these issues, although Bevin’s statements from that time are different from what he is saying now. Bevin campaign spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said, “Matt has always opposed the TARP bailout and similar misuses of taxpayer dollars” in a statement to POLITICO.
Bevin has made McConnell’s support for TARP the centerpiece of his challenge to the powerful incumbent senator. It was part of Bevin’s first campaign ad, and he raises McConnell’s views repeatedly in stump speeches and media interviews.


“It was the government picking winners and losers. It was an abdication of free market principles. I had a problem with how it went down,” Bevin said in an interview with Breitbart in late November.

A former U.S. Army officer, Bevin opened an investment fund when he moved to Louisville, Ky., in 1999. The businessman has since sold several of his investment companies, reaping millions of dollars in profits. He is currently CEO of a Kentucky-based hedge fund, according to media reports.

An Oct. 28, 2008, report for investors of Veracity Funds obtained by POLITICO — signed personally by Bevin as president of the fund — praised the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in the U.S. financial markets at that time.

“Most of the positive developments have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don’t call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve’s intention to invest in commercial paper,” wrote Bevin and Daniel Bandi, chief investment officer and vice president of the fund. “These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system.”

Bevin and Bandi added: “The government actions to date have been reasonably swift and substantial. The Federal Reserve seems to understand the magnitude of the problem and the underlying issues involved.”

A Bandi-signed report from April 10, 2009, praised the Democratic-backed $787 billion stimulus bill — which McConnell opposed.

“Some of the positive developments include the numerous programs from stimulus to the various Treasury acronyms (TARP, TALF, PPIP) to the Fed’s aggressive balance sheet growth. To what degree is open to some debate, but our government has taken the challenge head on and has responded like no other country,” Bandi wrote.

Bevin later filed a Securities and Exchange Commission certification — as required by law — saying he had reviewed both reports and that they were accurate.

Semmel said Bandi, as the chief investment officer, was responsible for what was said in both documents, although Bevin was president and founder of the investment fund.

“The investment commentary in the Veracity prospectuses were always written by the Chief Investment Officer of the sub-advisor to the Veracity funds,” Semmel said in a statement. “In his role as President of Veracity, Matt signed every prospectus. Matt’s signatures were a formality that were not intended to be an endorsement of the opinions of others.”

Semmel added: “Accusations like these are ironic given that Sen. McConnell has been one the biggest champions of bailouts and misuse of taxpayer dollars in the U.S. Senate.”

A Michigan firm purchased Veracity Funds — controlled by a Bevin-founded holding company — in 2010, according to media reports. Bevin had assets in Munder Capital Management, worth between $1 million and $5 million, according to a financial disclosure report he filed last year. As part of the sale agreement, Bevin was made a partial and passive owner of Munder, meaning he has no say in how the company does business.

A McConnell campaign spokeswoman blasted Bevin for his apparent TARP reversal, arguing it was part of a general pattern of Bevin misrepresenting his record in order to try to score political points.

“This is nothing short of a con man being caught red-handed in the middle of a sale,” said Allison Moore, McConnell’s spokeswoman. “If it wasn’t clear that Matt Bevin isn’t who he says he is after his MIT debacle, it sure is now.”

Bevin’s now-revised LinkedIn biography once implied that he attended MIT, but the candidate took part in only a three-week seminar there.

McConnell has hit back hard, asserting that Bevin tells different stories about his past and positions on issues depending on the audience and the day.

McConnell tried to paint his rival as “Bailout Bevin” for obtaining $200,000 in Connecticut state grants to help his companies rebuild after a 2012 fire. McConnell has also slammed Bevin for eight local tax liens his company was assessed with for failing to pay $116,000 in taxes in recent years.

Yet neither of these attacks, or the news that Bevin backed TARPwhen he was running an investment fund, has shaken the support of some conservative groups.

“Mitch McConnell is trying to smear Matt Bevin because he’s terrified of losing the Republican primary,” said Matt Hoskins, executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund, which is backing Bevin.

“Mitch McConnell helped pass the Wall Street bailout and has requested stimulus funds from President Obama at least a dozen times. He can’t defend his record so he’s trying to confuse voters about where his opponent stands. Mitch McConnell is a fraud and Kentucky voters know it.”



« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 10:56:05 AM by sinkspur »
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,053
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Heard Bevin just now on Glenn Beck.  He said that he did not write that document - that Bandi wrote it and that he did not agree with those sentiments then and voiced his disagreement with TARP - but that he signed the document as required by him being president of the firm. Later in this article it even says that Bandi was the one that held these views.

'A Bandi-signed report from April 10, 2009, praised the Democratic-backed $787 billion stimulus bill — which McConnell opposed.'

This is ironic considering that McConnell actually voted for TARP. 
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,446
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Quote
Matt Bevin, Mitch McConnell and TARP (Bevin backed TARP)

No he didn't Karl!

Stop lying!
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” —Voltaire

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
Heard Bevin just now on Glenn Beck.  He said that he did not write that document - that Bandi wrote it and that he did not agree with those sentiments then and voiced his disagreement with TARP - but that he signed the document as required by him being president of the firm. Later in this article it even says that Bandi was the one that held these views.

'A Bandi-signed report from April 10, 2009, praised the Democratic-backed $787 billion stimulus bill — which McConnell opposed.'

This is ironic considering that McConnell actually voted for TARP.

Sure. 

The President of the company signs a document he completely disagrees with.  That's fiscal irresponsibility.

Not the first candidate to get bitten in the ass by past statements.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,053
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/11/matt-bevin-responds-to-reports-he-supported-tarp-govt-takeover-of-fannie-and-freddie/

U.S. Senate candidate Matt Bevin responded Tuesday to a report alleging he once signed off on a memo supporting the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“I didn’t actually write that letter. My position has always been the same,” Bevin said during an interview with Glenn Beck.

Bevin, who worked as an investment fund president in 2008, explained that he did indeed sign off on a memo written by Daniel Bandi, chief investment officer and vice president of the fund, that offered praise for TARP.

“I was as president and chairman of the board required by law to verify the veracity of the financial figures, the assets under management, the number of outstanding shares, etc.,” he said

But the Senate candidate explained that it would have been unlawful for him to adjust the wording of the memo, explaining that he had nothing to do with its drafting, adding that he “was not approving of anyone else’s opinions.”

“That letter? I did not write. I did not write any of the letters that were ever published as investment commentary,” he said. “I was the president and chairman of the board and by SEC law, was required to sign prospectuses when they were sent out.”

Politico reported Tuesday morning a memo to investors bearing the signature of both Bevin and Bandi: “Most of the positive developments have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don’t call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve’s intention to invest in commercial paper. These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system.”

Bevin stressed that the memo was written by Bandi.

“I was not the investment guy,” he said, “I never bought and sold the securities. So it would have been inappropriate and probably illegal, frankly, for me to have changed the investing commentary written by the subadvisor the fund who was responsible for that.”

“I had a fiduciary responsibility as the chairman of this fund company to make sure that I  was not perceived in any way, shape or form as having commentary on buy and sell decisions,” he said. “That was the responsibility of the advisor to the fund. And for me to have meddled in that would have been highly, highly inappropriate and all of these various Sarbanes–Oxley rules — among others — would have been very much in my grill had I attempted to re-write or meddle or make the thinking of the actual fund manager that of my own.”

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,053
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
I repeat what I said in an above post:

"This is ironic considering that McConnell actually voted for TARP."
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
“I was not the investment guy,” he said, “I never bought and sold the securities. So it would have been inappropriate and probably illegal, frankly, for me to have changed the investing commentary written by the subadvisor the fund who was responsible for that.”

So let me get this straight.  Bevin, as chairman of the fund, fundamentally disagreed with his fund manager who was trying to protect all the investors in the fund!!!

Translation:  I got caught so now I'm trying to muddy the waters with bullshit.

This is the same guy whose website said he went to MIT when he actually only attended a three week seminar there.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,446
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/11/matt-bevin-responds-to-reports-he-supported-tarp-govt-takeover-of-fannie-and-freddie/

U.S. Senate candidate Matt Bevin responded Tuesday to a report alleging he once signed off on a memo supporting the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“I didn’t actually write that letter. My position has always been the same,” Bevin said during an interview with Glenn Beck.

Bevin, who worked as an investment fund president in 2008, explained that he did indeed sign off on a memo written by Daniel Bandi, chief investment officer and vice president of the fund, that offered praise for TARP.

“I was as president and chairman of the board required by law to verify the veracity of the financial figures, the assets under management, the number of outstanding shares, etc.,” he said

But the Senate candidate explained that it would have been unlawful for him to adjust the wording of the memo, explaining that he had nothing to do with its drafting, adding that he “was not approving of anyone else’s opinions.”

“That letter? I did not write. I did not write any of the letters that were ever published as investment commentary,” he said. “I was the president and chairman of the board and by SEC law, was required to sign prospectuses when they were sent out.”

Politico reported Tuesday morning a memo to investors bearing the signature of both Bevin and Bandi: “Most of the positive developments have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don’t call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve’s intention to invest in commercial paper. These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system.”

Bevin stressed that the memo was written by Bandi.

“I was not the investment guy,” he said, “I never bought and sold the securities. So it would have been inappropriate and probably illegal, frankly, for me to have changed the investing commentary written by the subadvisor the fund who was responsible for that.”

“I had a fiduciary responsibility as the chairman of this fund company to make sure that I  was not perceived in any way, shape or form as having commentary on buy and sell decisions,” he said. “That was the responsibility of the advisor to the fund. And for me to have meddled in that would have been highly, highly inappropriate and all of these various Sarbanes–Oxley rules — among others — would have been very much in my grill had I attempted to re-write or meddle or make the thinking of the actual fund manager that of my own.”


Excellent Alice! Thanks!
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” —Voltaire

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,066
    • Auktion Online
If I was a superstar professional athlete, I might think superstars are overpaid, but I'd be an idiot not to take whatever money was due me based on my profession.  The same applies here. 

Bevin the businessman did what was in Bevin's own self-interest.  That was what he is SUPPOSED to do.  People who are in business are there to compete and make money.  They don't make, and they may or may not like, the rules.  If they are law-abiding, they play according to the rules and regulations as they find them.  It is not just in their interest, but it is imperative, that they capitalize on whatever opportunities exist in the marketplace as they find it.  If Bevin did not take advantage of government largess, then his competitors would have, and he'd have been at a disadvantage.  It was not Bevin's fault that he was operating in a corrupt system.  It was his duty to exploit it to whatever degree possible.

Would it be hypocritical for Bevin to want to reform the tax code after having taken advantage of loopholes?  In my mind, certainly not.  In fact, I said at the time that the attacks on Romney for his Cayman accounts were ridiculous, for much the same reason.  I also seem to recall that Sinkspur agreed with this position when the culprit was a candidate he supported.

I would expect that Bevin the senator would operate in a professional fashion, understanding that his obligation as a lawmaker would be to reduce or eliminate the corruption in the system so that the playing field is level for everyone.  Having successfully exploited the system as a businessperson, I consider him eminently qualified to know something about how to clean it up.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 11:57:12 AM by massadvj »
"She only coughs when she lies."

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,446
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
If I was a superstar professional athlete, I might think superstars are overpaid, but I'd be an idiot not to take whatever money was due me based on my profession.  The same applies here. 

Bevin the businessman did what was in Bevin's own self-interest.  That was what he is SUPPOSED to do.  People who are in business are there to compete and make money.  They don't make, and they may or may not like, the rules.  If they are law-abiding, they play according to the rules and regulations as they find them.  It is not just in their interest, but it is imperative, that they capitalize on whatever opportunities exist in the marketplace as they find it.  If Bevin did not take advantage of government largess, then his competitors would have, and he'd have been at a disadvantage.  It was not Bevin's fault that he was operating in a corrupt system.  It was his duty to exploit it to whatever degree possible.

I would expect that Bevin the senator would operate in a similar professional fashion, understanding that his obligation as a lawmaker would be to reduce or eliminate the corruption in the system so that the playing field is level for everyone.  Having successfully exploited the system as a businessperson, I consider him eminently qualified to know something about how to clean it up.

 :beer:
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” —Voltaire

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
If Bevin did not take advantage of government largess, then his competitors would have, and he'd have been at a disadvantage.  It was not Bevin's fault that he was operating in a corrupt system.  It was his duty to exploit it to whatever degree possible.

You make my case for me.  Bevins is trying to weasel out of his support for TARP when he should simply acknowledge that it was the best thing for his clients.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,066
    • Auktion Online
If Bevin did not take advantage of government largess, then his competitors would have, and he'd have been at a disadvantage.  It was not Bevin's fault that he was operating in a corrupt system.  It was his duty to exploit it to whatever degree possible.

You make my case for me.  Bevins is trying to weasel out of his support for TARP when he should simply acknowledge that it was the best thing for his clients.

Politics is what it is.  I judge politicians based on what they do, not what they say.  I do not take issue with what Bevins did.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,599
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Why Would Matt Bevin Tell His Investors Something He Didn’t Believe?

By  Patrick Brennan
February 11, 2014 12:06 PM



As Ramesh points out below, Matt Bevin’s campaign is claiming that he has consistently opposed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, despite the fact that, as president of an investment firm in 2008, he signed a letter along with the firm’s chief investment officer that says the following:

    Most of the positive developments have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don’t call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve’s intention to invest in commercial paper. These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system. The government actions to date have been reasonably swift and substantial. The Federal Reserve seems to understand the magnitude of the problem and the underlying issues involved.

Bevin told The Blaze that he “didn’t actually write the letter.”

“I did not write any of the letters that were ever published as investment commentary,” he said. I was the president and chairman of the board and by SEC law, was required to sign prospectuses when they were sent out. . . . It would have been inappropriate and probably illegal, frankly, for me to have changed the investing commentary written by the subadviser [for] the fund who was responsible for that.”

Bevin may or may not be right about the underlying legalities — it’s not clear how compliance would require him to lend his endorsement to investment advice he didn’t believe. He’s maintaining that he adamantly opposed measures that he was telling investors, to whom he has a fiduciary responsibility and to whom he was selling advice, were a great idea.

Of course, Bevin could have privately objected on principle but believed that they were the right measure — especially for equities investors — especially in the short term. But I suspect he won’t be saying that, and Mitch McConnell can rightly argue that even Matt Bevin knew financial markets had to be rescued and that passing TARP was the right move.
From  "A Shining City on a Hill"

To "A global laughingstock"

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,416
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
President of investment company didn't read the letters he signed?

Sounds like Pelosi could do business with this guy. "We got to pass it, to see what is in it."

Got opposition research? Too bad the Tea Parties don't do a better job of vetting their candidates, before they get to the big show.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
President of investment company didn't read the letters he signed?

Sounds like Pelosi could do business with this guy. "We got to pass it, to see what is in it."

Got opposition research? Too bad the Tea Parties don't do a better job of vetting their candidates, before they get to the big show.

He didn't sign off on the wording in the letter  He could not change the letter - it would have been illegal for him to do so since he was not the person managing the fund, the person preparing the letter was one of the managers of the fund. What he had to sign off on - under Sarbanes Oxley was the veracity of the financial figures quoted in the letter.  This was his fiscal responsibility.

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf