“We have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to,” Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) told The Associated Press, which surveyed 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in federal bailout money, and asked how that capital was being used. JP Morgan received a $25 billion infusion as part of the U.S. Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).

As an ongoing Money Morning investigation has demonstrated, billions in U.S. bank rescue funds are financing buyouts worldwide – instead of lending at home. Some of those buyouts deals are being done in markets as far away as China. Meanwhile, credit remains tight here in the U.S. market, a situation that could be alleviated if only the banks made the bailout money available to consumers in the form of loans.

Money Morning was one of the first news organizations to really examine how TARP money was being misdirected, and wasn’t being deployed as originally intended. More recently, The AP has joined the journalistic posse and published several investigative pieces, including one that looked at executive pay at financial institutions that received bailout money.

Some experts – such as investing icon Jim Rogers – say that bailouts in general are bad deals. They’re even worse if they’re funded by taxpayers who don’t know how their money is being spent [A related story on Rogers' views about the U.S. banking-bailout initiative appeared last week in Money Morning. To access that story, please click here].

The bottom line: Banks won’t say how they’re using the bailout money. That refusal – coupled with the almost non-existent disclosure and oversight of the TARP program – means the country may well never find out how hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were spent.

Anatomy of a Survey

In its latest investigative offering, The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings? And what’s the plan for the rest?

According to The AP, none of the banks provided specific answers.

For instance, when Kevin Heine, a spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) – which received about $3 billion in TARP money – was asked how his institution was using the emergency infusion, he replied by stating that “we have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to.”

The words varied, but the basic message was the same from one bank to another. For instance, Barry Koling, a spokesman for SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI), the Atlanta, Ga.-based lender that received $3.5-billion in taxpayer cash, told the wire service that “we’re not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking.”

Some banks actually admitted that they simply didn’t know where the money was going.

For instance, a spokesman for the Birmingham-based Regions Financial Corp. (RF) said the company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion in TARP money that it received.
“We manage our capital in its aggregate,” said Regions spokesman Tim Deighton.

These answers – or lack thereof – highlight both the secrecy surrounding the TARP program, as well as the lack of oversight by Congress. Given that the entire TARP program is worth at least $700 billion – roughly the equivalent of the economy of The Netherlands – those aren’t small issues.

About half of the $700 billion was earmarked for bailouts. But because the U.S. financial crisis was escalating so quickly – and because the Bush administration pushed Congress to approve the TARP plan quickly – Congress attached virtually no strings to the bailout funds. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stakes in key U.S. banks, allegedly hoping that the infusion of cash would enable them to heal themselves and start lending again.

As the deepening U.S. credit crisis has shown, that hasn’t happened.

No Oversight, No Accountability

There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill late last year and implored them to lend the money – instead of hoarding it, spending it on executive bonuses, or for buyouts to get bigger. But there’s no process in place to guide this. And there are no consequences for banks that fail to comply with what U.S. lawmakers are asking.

Even worse: There’s no vehicle that enables taxpayers to find out what banks are doing – at least, not yet.

“It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry,” Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout, told The AP. Stating that it takes “a lot of nerve not to give answers.”

Warren said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they’ve spent the money. But she also noted that she was quite surprised to learn that she even has to ask for that information.

“If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn’t be in a position where you’re trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents,” Warren said.

In fact, the due diligence on the legislation that created TARP was so lax that lawmakers didn’t realize until much later that the bill they passed actually managed to create a potentially illegal tax loophole that grants banks a tax-break windfall of as much as $140 billion. Lawmakers were furious – but possibly powerless, afraid that a full-scale assault on the tax change could cause already-done deals to unravel, in turn causing investor confidence to do the same.

“Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One,” said U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a financial services committee member who opposed the bailout as it was being pushed through Congress. “Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?”

Buyouts Not Bailouts

Nearly every bank questioned – including Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) – recipients of some of the largest TARP infusions – responded to AP inquiries with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and to continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.

As a Money Morning story detailed Friday, BofA just finalized its buyout of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. (MER), creating the largest U.S. bank – as well as the biggest challenge yet for longtime BofA Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis. And Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) completed its $12.7 billion purchase of Wachovia Corp. (WB) – outbidding Citigroup Inc. (C) and making a massive bet that it accurately quantified the still existing risks in Wachovia’s huge portfolio of mortgage and real estate loans.

Those were just the latest in a long series of buyout deals being funded at least partly by TARP money, the ongoing Money Morning investigation has shown.

In response to The AP survey questions, a few banks detailed company-specific programs, such as a JP Morgan plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit organizations and healthcare companies over the next year. Marshall & Ilsley Corp. (MI), said the $1.75 billion bailout infusion it received allowed the Wisconsin-based bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes, said Senior Vice President Richard Becker.

This “foreclosure moratorium” will run through the end of March, the bank announced in December.

No Real Answers

But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money. Some even said that the money couldn’t be tracked.

The bailout money “doesn’t have its own bucket,” said Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp. (BBT).

Denham said taxpayer money wasn’t used in BB&T’s recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. When asked how he could make such a statement – after stating that TARP money couldn’t be tracked – said BB&T would have made that deal even without the infusion.

Interestingly, a spokesman for BB&T told the Charleston (W.V.) Daily Mail newspaper just before Christmas that the bank doesn’t like the federal government’s $700 billion financial rescue plan – and actually didn’t want to participate – but took the $3.1 billion because competitors are participating and because the Treasury Department urged it to.

According to the newspaper, BB&T – the largest bank in West Virginia – has been asked how it justifies participating in the federal government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, in light of BB&T Chairman John A. Allison IV’s promotion of the late author Ayn Rand’s philosophy of free market capitalism.

The reticence banks displayed when it came to discussing their use of TARP money bordered on the absurd. Most banks wouldn’t even say why they were keeping the details secret.
“We’re not sharing any other details. We’re just not at this time,” Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc. (CMA), which received $2.25-billion from the government, told The AP.

One didn’t even want to say they wouldn’t say, the wire service reported.

Heine, the New York Mellon spokesman who said he wouldn’t share spending specifics, added: “I just would prefer if you wouldn’t say that we’re not going to discuss those details.”
Morgan Stanley (MS) offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When The AP refused, Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez sent the wire service an e-mail saying: “We are going to decline to comment on your story.”

Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the second half of the TARP money, the yet-to-be-released block worth $350 billion. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson Jr. said the federal department is trying to build up its monitoring of bank spending.

“What we’ve been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we’re doing this,” Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. “So we’re building this organization as we’re going.”

But that may all be too late, says Garrett, the New Jersey Republican congressman. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that U.S. taxpayers will never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.

Source: U.S. Banks Refuse to Detail How They’re Spending Federal Bailout Money

Editors Note: This is the fifth installment of an investigative series in which Money Morning examines how U.S. banks are using federal bailout funds.

More from The Smart Profits Report:

When it comes to investing, the ability to play solid defense can ease you through turbulent times much better than most ordinary investors. And the concept here is simple: Defensive investing means having some strong, dividend-paying companies in your portfolio.

A 72-Year History Of Top Performance

The two main concepts that dominate the stock market climate are fear and greed. While they’re always prevalent, smarter investors know better than to base their decisions on fluctuating sentiments like these.

Instead, it’s better to look for long-term drivers – like earnings growth, cash, and the ability of companies to pay dividends to their shareholders.

History shows that the latter is a particularly smart way to go. From 1935 to 2007, more than 40% of the S&P 500’s total return came from reinvested dividends.

The beauty of dividend-yielding stocks is that they work well in both rising and falling markets. SensibleStocks.com reports that during the bull market of 1982 to 2000, dividend stocks actually outperformed non-dividend payers by a considerable margin, despite the underlying share price appreciation.

And in volatile, sinking markets like we’re experiencing now, it’s comforting to know that you’ve still got a source of income throughout the madness. You’re essentially being paid for your patience, rather than selling off like everyone else.

Let’s look at some more benefits…

Dish Me Some Dividends… Three Reasons To Invest In Dividend-Yielders

Lowers Cost: When you’re picking up a regular dividend payment per share every quarter, over time, it reduces the price you originally paid for the shares. It’s essentially like buying a house, then renting it out to offset the payment and pick up income, while the underlying asset appreciates at the same time. And of course, since the Jobs Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, investors have paid lower taxes on dividends.

Provides Stability During Downturns: When the broader stock market is under pressure and share prices are falling, stocks that pay dividends are often considered one of the “safer haven” investments, since investors are still receiving income. In turn, it’s good PR for a company, with the stock attracting more investors and the share price potentially rising as a result. Pay attention to the level of insider ownership of a stock here. This is not a hard and fast rule, but if insiders hold a big chunk of the company themselves, they’re less likely to be reckless with its money through overly ambitious projects or ill-advised buyouts, and may well pay greater attention to shareholder interests and dividends.

Keeps Management In Line: When an executive team is dishing money back to its shareholders, not only does it show sound business acumen to be able to do that in the first place, it also keeps them honest. Knowing that dividend payments must be met reduces the chances that they’ll fritter your money away on wasteful projects.

Of course, there are pitfalls, too. So before I get to a couple of investment options for you, let’s look at those…

Dividend Drawbacks

Dividend Reduction Or Suspension: At a time when obtaining credit is tighter than ever before, it’s much more likely that companies will reduce or suspend their dividend payments. This is usually a last resort, as it signals to the world that the company is having trouble raising cash, which can, in turn, severely impact its share price.

Twice The Tax… And Higher In 2010? Naturally, the IRS needs to grab its piece of the pie – and when it comes to dividends, it’s a double-whammy. First, it claims the regular corporation taxes from the company. Then, when the company passes what’s left down to its shareholders, those investors are then taxed on what they receive. In addition, the Jobs Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act that I mentioned a moment ago expires in 2010, so we may see dividend taxes rise when it does.

Lack Of Investment Options: Some argue that while companies should be praised for rewarding shareholder loyalty through dividends, it may also mean that it can’t find other investment options, or projects that would accelerate the company’s growth.

And beware companies that offer sky-high dividend yields. It could merely be a crafty way to mask bigger problems. Automakers like General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Ford (NYSE: F) are good examples, as are some of the beaten-up financial stocks like Citigroup (NYSE: C).

And as share prices drop, dividend yields rise, which can be a false dawn. Bottom line: If a company isn’t growing its earnings or its cash-flow has shrunk, it may well be a bad sign. Make sure you do your regular due diligence.

Where To Look For The Best Dividends

Right now, two of the best dividend-yielding sectors are Consumer Staples and Telecom.

In the upcoming November Xcelerated Profits Report issue, my colleague Jim Stanton is recommending one of the best companies within the Consumer Staples sector, which pays a dividend. One of the advantages that this sector has during a downturn or recession is that it continues to generate revenue through essential repeat business. After all, consumers always need everyday household items.

(As an aside, you can get your hands on Jim’s specific Consumer Staples recommendation by signing up for the Xcelerated Profits Report. Just click this link for more details).

In the telecom sector, firms like Verizon (NYSE: VZ) and AT & T (NYSE: T) boast some rock-solid financials, allowing them to pay a 6.8% dividend ($1.84 per share annually) and 6.3% ($1.60 per share annually).

In the current climate, though, if you don’t want to take the chance on individual companies, you can always diversify and lower your risk by buying ETFs that hold dividend-yielding companies. Take a look at…

SPDR S&P Dividend ETF (AMEX:SDY): Holding stocks like Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), Pfizer (NYSE: PFE), Fifth Third Bancorp (Nasdaq: FITB) and Consolidated Edison Inc (NYSE: ED), the fund tracks the price and yield performance of stocks in the S&P High Dividend Aristocrats index.

PowerShares High Yield Dividend Achievers (AMEX: PEY): This fund’s results try to correspond to the Dividend Achievers 50 Index. Around 80% of its holdings are in companies that have consistently raised their dividends. Its holdings include Bank of America, Keycorp (NYSE: KEY), American Capital Strategies (Nasdaq: ACAS), BB&T Corp (NYSE: BBT) and Comerica (NYSE: CMA).

Source: These Dividend Stocks Keep On Giving… Even As The Market Keeps Falling