Private equity firms have increasingly joined together to acquire target companies (called “club deals”). In 2007, there were 28 club deals, totaling about $217 billion in value.
Club deals could reduce or increase the number of firms bidding on a target company and, thus, affect competition. In analyzing 325 public-to-private LBOs done from 1998 through 2007, GAO generally found no statistical indication that club deals, in aggregate, were associated with lower or higher prices paid for the target companies, after controlling for differences in the targets.
However, our results do not rule out the possibility of parties engaging in illegal behavior in any particular LBO. Indeed, according to securities filings and media reports, some large club deals have led to lawsuits and an inquiry into the practice by the Department of Justice.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08885.pdf
Private Equity: Recent Growth in Leveraged Buyouts Exposed Risks That Warrant Continued Attention
GAO-08-885 September 9, 2008
Highlights Page (PDF) Full Report (PDF, 133 pages) Accessible Text Recommendations (HTML)
Summary
The increase in leveraged buyouts (LBO) of U.S. companies by private equity funds prior to the slowdown in mid-2007 has raised questions about the potential impact of these deals. Some praise LBOs for creating new governance structures for companies and providing longer term investment opportunities for investors. Others criticize LBOs for causing job losses and burdening companies with too much debt. This report addresses the (1) effect of recent private equity LBOs on acquired companies and employment, (2) impact of LBOs jointly undertaken by two or more private equity funds on competition, (3) Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) oversight of private equity funds and their advisers, and (4) regulatory oversight of commercial and investment banks that have financed recent LBOs. GAO reviewed academic research, analyzed recent LBO data, conducted case studies, reviewed regulators’ policy documents and examinations, and interviewed regulatory and industry officials, and academics.
Academic research that GAO reviewed generally suggests that recent private equity LBOs have had a positive impact on the financial performance of the acquired companies, but determining whether the impact resulted from the actions taken by the private equity firms versus other factors is difficult. The research also indicates that private equity LBOs are associated with lower employment growth than comparable companies. However, uncertainty remains about the employment effect–in part because, as one study found, target companies had lower employment growth before being acquired. Further research may shed light on the causal relationship between private equity and employment growth, if any. Private equity firms have increasingly joined together to acquire target companies (called “club deals”). In 2007, there were 28 club deals, totaling about $217 billion in value. Club deals could reduce or increase the number of firms bidding on a target company and, thus, affect competition. In analyzing 325 public-to-private LBOs done from 1998 through 2007, GAO generally found no statistical indication that club deals, in aggregate, were associated with lower or higher prices paid for the target companies, after controlling for differences in the targets. However, our results do not rule out the possibility of parties engaging in illegal behavior in any particular LBO. Indeed, according to securities filings and media reports, some large club deals have led to lawsuits and an inquiry into the practice by the Department of Justice. Because private equity funds and their advisers typically claim an exemption from registration as an investment company or investment adviser, respectively, SEC exercises limited oversight of these entities. However, in examining some registered advisers to private equity funds, SEC has found some control weaknesses but generally has not found such funds to pose significant concerns for fund investors. The growth in LBOs has led to greater regulatory scrutiny. SEC, along with other regulators, has identified conflicts of interest arising in LBOs as a potential concern and is analyzing the issue. Before 2007, federal financial regulators generally found that the major institutions that financed LBOs were managing the associated risks. However, after problems with subprime mortgages spilled over to other markets in mid-2007, the institutions were being exposed to greater-than-expected risk. As a result, the regulators reassessed the institutions’ risk-management practices and identified some weaknesses. The regulators are monitoring efforts being taken to address weaknesses and considering the need to issue related guidance. While the institutions have taken steps to decrease their risk exposures, the spillover effects from the subprime mortgage problems to leveraged loans illustrate the importance of understanding and monitoring conditions in the broader markets, including connections between them. Failure to do so could limit the effectiveness and ability of regulators to address issues when they occur.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from “In process” to “Implemented” or “Not implemented” based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
Orice M. Williams
Government Accountability Office: Financial Markets and Community Investment
(202) 512-5837
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: Given that the financial markets are increasingly interconnected and in light of the risks that have been highlighted by the financial market turmoil of the last year, the heads of the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and SEC should give increased attention to ensuring that their oversight of leveraged lending at their regulated institutions takes into consideration systemic risk implications raised by changes in the broader financial markets, as a whole.
Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency Affected: Federal Reserve System
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency Affected: Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-885
Office of Risk Assessment
The Office of Risk Assessment (ORA) is responsible for coordinating the SEC’s risk management program. ORA was formed in 2004 to help the SEC anticipate, identify, and manage risks, focusing on early identification of new or resurgent forms of fraud and illegal or questionable activities. ORA focuses on risk issues across the corporate and financial sector, including issues relevant to corporate disclosure, market operation, sales practices, new product innovation, and many other activities of financial market participants.
ORA’s responsibilities can be grouped into three general categories:
1. Information Analysis. A key component of ORA’s activities is to analyze data on new industry trends and risks from a variety of sources, such as external experts, domestic and foreign agencies, industry and financial services, empirical data and other market data.
2. Managing the agency’s risk assessment process. ORA develops and maintains the overall process for risk assessment throughout the SEC, such as defining relevant risk frameworks and common risk language.
3. Serving as the agency’s risk management resource. ORA serves as a resource for each division and office in their risk assessment efforts, working closely with them as they work to identify, prioritize and mitigate risks.
Contact Information:
The Office of Risk Assessment welcomes dialogue with market participants. If you have particular concerns about emerging or resurging risks you would like to share with our office, you can reach us directly by telephone at (202) 551-4363, by email at ORA@SEC.GOV, or by mail at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Attn: Office of Risk Assessment, 100 F St. NE, Washington, D.C. 20549.
http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ora.htm
***
SEC Seal Home | Jobs | Fast Answers | Site Map | Search
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
About the SEC
Filings & Forms
Regulatory Actions
Staff Interps
Investor Info
News & Statements
Litigation
Information for…
Divisions
Corporation Finance
Enforcement
Investment Mgmt.
Trading and Markets
Division of Investment Management
The Division of Investment Management regulates investment companies (such as mutual funds, closed-end funds, UITs, ETFs, and interval funds), including variable insurance products, and federally registered investment advisers.
Laws and Rules
* Investment Company Act of 1940
* Investment Company Act Rules
* Investment Advisers Act of 1940
* Investment Advisers Act Rules
Staff Guidance and Studies
* September 26, 2008 Responses to Frequently Asked Questions about The Reserve Fund and Money Market Funds
* Registered Investment Company Use of Senior Securities — Select Bibliography
* August 21, 2007 Letter to Investment Company Institute re: Funds Use of Rule 22c-2 Information for Marketing Purposes
* June 28, 2007 Letter to Fidelity Investments, Massachusetts Financial Services Company and OppenheimerFunds, Inc. re: Implementation of FASB Interpretation No. 48
* Staff Responses to Questions Regarding Disclosure of Fund of Funds Expenses
* December 22, 2006 Letter to ICI re: Implementation of FASB Interpretation No. 48
* December 14, 2006 Letter to Babson Capital Management LLC re: Interpretive Guidance on Exchange Act Rule 16b-3
* Staff Letters Regarding Auditing Standards for Financial Statements of Insurance Company Depositors of Variable Insurance Products
* Staff Responses to Questions About Amended Custody Rule
* October 17, 2003 Letter to the ICI re: Disclosure by Funds Investing in Government Sponsored Enterprises
* Implications of the Growth of Hedge Funds
* Protecting Investors: A Half Century of Investment Company Regulation (May 1992)
* Questions and Answers Regarding the Mutual Fund Customer Identification Program Rule
* 2001 Mutual Fund Fee Report
* Staff Legal Bulletins
more…
Miscellaneous Investor Information
* Variable Annuities: What You Should Know
* Invest Wisely: An Introduction to Mutual Funds
* Investment Advisers: What You Need to Know Before Choosing One
* Information on Investment Clubs
* Mutual Fund Investing: Look at More than a Mutual Funds Past Performance
* Mutual Fund Cost Calculator
Anti-Money Laundering Rulemaking
Report Issued on Improving Financial Privacy Notices for Consumers 0 Contact Us Effectiveness Notices
Investment Company Regulation
Investment Company Registration and Regulation Package
Mutual Fund Registration Form (Form N-1a) and Instructions
Investment Adviser Regulation
Information for Newly-Registered Investment Advisers
IARD: Electronic Filing for Advisers
Compliance Information
IAPD: Investment Adviser Public Disclosure Website (Background Information)
Investment Adviser Forms
Investment Company Act Notices and Orders Investment Company Act Deregistration Notices and Orders Investment Advisers Act Notices and Orders Investment Management Staff
No-Action and Interpretive Letters Treasury’s Temporary Guarantee Program for Money Market Funds
Form 13F
* Frequently Asked Questions About Form 13F
* Official List of Section 13(f) Securities
GETS Cards
Roundtables
* Rule 12b-1
* Interactive Data
* Hedge Funds
* Role of Independent Investment Company Directors
* Investment Adviser Regulatory Issues (May 2000)
Annual Industry Comment Letters
* February 2001 Letter to Investment Company CFOs
* December 1999 Letter to Investment Company CFOs
* December 1998 Letter to Investment Company CFOs
Applications of Enron Corp. for Exemptions Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935
Contact | Employment | Links | FOIA | Forms | Privacy Policy
Modified: 09/30/2008
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment.shtml
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08885.pdf
Private equity firms have increasingly joined together to acquire target companies (called “club deals”). In 2007, there were 28 club deals, totaling about $217 billion in value. Club deals could reduce or increase the number of firms bidding on a target company and, thus, affect competition. In analyzing 325 public-to-private LBOs done from 1998 through 2007, GAO generally found no statistical indication that club deals, in aggregate, were associated with lower or higher prices paid for the target companies, after controlling for differences in the targets. However, our results do not rule out the possibility of parties engaging in illegal behavior in any particular LBO. Indeed, according to securities filings and media reports, some large club deals have led to lawsuits and an inquiry into the practice by the Department of Justice.
***
***
Risk-Based Capital: New Basel II Rules Reduced Certain Competitive Concerns, but Bank Regulators Should Address Remaining Uncertainties
GAO-08-953 September 12, 2008
Highlights Page (PDF) Full Report (PDF, 74 pages) Accessible Text Recommendations (HTML)
Summary
Basel II, the new risk-based capital framework based on an international accord, is being adopted by individual countries. It includes standardized and advanced approaches to estimating capital requirements. In the United States, bank regulators have finalized an advanced approaches rule that will be required for some of the largest, most internationally active banks (core banks) and proposed an optional standardized approach rule for non-core banks that will also have the option to remain on existing capital rules. In light of possible competitive effects of the capital rules, GAO was asked to examine (1) the markets in which banks compete, (2) how new capital rules address U.S. banks’ competitive concerns, and (3) actions regulators are taking to address competitive and other potential negative effects during implementation. Among other things, GAO analyzed data on bank products and services and the final and proposed capital rules; interviewed U.S. and foreign bank regulators, officials from U.S. and foreign banks; and computed capital requirements under varying capital rules.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-953
Large and internationally active U.S.-based banks (core banks) that will adopt the Basel II advanced approaches compete among themselves and in some markets with U.S.-based non-core banks, investment firms, and foreign-based banks. Non-core banks compete with core banks in retail markets, but in wholesale markets core banks often compete with investment firms and foreign-based banks. Because holding capital is costly for banks, differences in regulatory capital requirements could influence costs, prices, and profitability for banks competing under different capital requirements. The new U.S. capital rules addressed some earlier competitive concerns of banks; however, other concerns remain. By better aligning the advanced approaches rule with the international accord and proposing an optional standardized approach rule, U.S. regulators reduced some competitive concerns for both core and non-core banks. For example, the U.S. wholesale definition of default for the advanced approaches is now similar to the accord’s. Core banks continue to be concerned about the leverage requirement (a simple capital to assets calculation), which they believe places them at a competitive disadvantage relative to firms not subject to a similar requirement. Foreign regulators have been working with U.S. regulators to coordinate Basel II implementation for U.S. banks with foreign operations. The proposed standardized approach addresses some concerns non-core banks raised by providing a more risk sensitive approach to calculating regulatory requirements. But other factors likely will reduce differences in capital for banks competing in the United States; for example, the leverage requirement establishes a floor that may exceed the capital required under the advanced and standardized approaches. Many factors have affected the pace of Basel II implementation in the United States and, while the gradual implementation is allowing regulators to consider changes in the rules and reassess banks’ risk-management systems, regulators have not yet taken action to address areas of uncertainty that could have competitive implications. For example, the final rule provides regulators with considerable flexibility and leaves open questions such as which banks may be exempted from the advanced approaches. Although the rule provides that core banks can apply for exemptions and regulators should consider these in light of some broad categories, such as asset size or portfolio mix, the rule does not further define the criteria for exemptions. Some industry participants we spoke with said that uncertainties about the implementation of the advanced approaches have been a problem for them. Moreover, regulators have not fully developed plans for a required study of the impacts of Basel II before full implementation. Lack of specificity in criteria, scope, methodology, and timing will affect the quality and extent of information that regulators will have to help assess competitive and other impacts, determine whether there are any material deficiencies requiring future changes in the rules, and determine whether to permit core banks to fully implement Basel II.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from “In process” to “Implemented” or “Not implemented” based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
Orice M. Williams
Government Accountability Office: Financial Markets and Community Investment
(202) 512-5837
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To further limit any potential negative effects, where possible, the heads of the FDIC, Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) should move to minimize the uncertainty surrounding certain aspects of Basel II. Specifically, regulators should clarify how they will use certain regulatory flexibility under the advanced approaches rule, particularly with regard to how they will exercise exemptions for core banks from the advanced approaches requirement and the extent to which core banks will be allowed to adopt the standardized approach.
Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Office of Thrift Supervision
Status: In process
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-953
***
Since its creation, the CDFI Fund has awarded $864 million to community development organizations and financial institutions; it has awarded allocations of New Markets Tax Credits which will attract private-sector investments totaling $16 billion, including $1 billion of special allocation authority to be used for the recovery and redevelopment of the Gulf Opportunity Zone.
Search CDFI Fund Award Database
Last updated/reviewed: 5/2/2007
http://www.cdfifund.gov/who_we_are/about_us.asp
***
OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, including not to exceed $500 for official reception and representation expenses, $27,000,000, to remain available until expended, to be derived from the Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight Fund: Provided, That not to exceed such amount shall be available from the general fund of the Treasury to the extent necessary to incur obligations and make expenditures pending the receipt of collections to the Fund: Provided further, That the general fund amount shall be reduced as collections are received during the fiscal year so as to result in a final appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more than $0: Provided further, That this Office shall submit a staffing plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than January 30, 2002.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr272&dbname=107&
***
For necessary administrative and non-administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, not otherwise provided for, including not to exceed $25,000 for official reception and representation expenses, $1,097,292,000
[ and from the same document - ]
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
During fiscal year 2002, commitments to guarantee loans to carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of $160,000,000,000.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr272&dbname=107&
***
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
The Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs is responsible for proactively anticipating the legislative policy goals of the Commission and working to facilitate those goals with Members of Congress and staff. The staff carefully monitors ongoing legislative activities and initiatives on Capitol Hill that affect the Commission and its mission.
The staff is responsible for developing legislative strategy, coordinating testimony of SEC officials, and responding to Congressional requests for documents, technical assistance, and other information.
In addition OLIA staff monitor any hearings that pertain to the securities markets and the protection of investors even when an SEC witness is not present. OLIA also acts as liaison for the Commission with other federal agencies and state governments.
http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/olia.htm
***
The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) under the Department of Defense (DOD) Comptroller plays a critical role in contractor oversight by providing auditing, accounting, and financial advisory services in connection with DOD and other federal agency contracts and subcontracts.
For example, contractor officials and the DOD contracting community improperly influenced the audit scope, conclusions, and opinions of three audits–a serious independence issue.
At two DCAA locations, GAO found evidence that (1) working papers did not support reported opinions, (2) DCAA supervisors dropped findings and changed audit opinions without adequate evidence for their changes, and (3) sufficient audit work was not performed to support audit opinions and conclusions.
GAO also substantiated allegations of inadequate supervision of certain audits at a third DCAA location. Throughout GAO’s investigation, auditors at each of the three DCAA locations told us that the limited number of hours approved for their audits directly affected the sufficiency of audit testing.
Moreover, during GAO’s investigation, DCAA managers took actions against staff at two locations, attempting to intimidate auditors, prevent them from speaking with investigators, and creating a generally abusive work environment.
DCAA Audits: Allegations That Certain Audits at Three Locations Did Not Meet Professional Standards Were Substantiated
GAO-08-857 July 22, 2008
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-857
***
State and Local Governments: Growing Fiscal Challenges Will Emerge during the Next 10 Years
GAO-08-317 January 22, 2008
Our model shows that in less than a decade the state and local government sector will begin to face growing fiscal challenges. Both fiscal balance measures (1) net lending or borrowing and (2) the operating balance–are likely to remain within their historical ranges in the next few years, but both begin to decline thereafter and fall below their historical ranges within a decade. That is, absent policy changes, state and local governments will face an increasing gap between receipts and expenditures in the coming years.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-317
***
Financial Regulation: A Framework for Crafting and Assessing Proposals to Modernize the Outdated U.S. Financial Regulatory System
GAO-09-216 January 8, 2009
Several key changes in financial markets and products in recent decades have highlighted significant limitations and gaps in the existing regulatory system. First, regulators have struggled, and often failed, to mitigate the systemic risks posed by large and interconnected financial conglomerates and to ensure they adequately manage their risks. The portion of firms operating as conglomerates that cross financial sectors of banking, securities, and insurance increased significantly in recent years, but none of the regulators is tasked with assessing the risks posed across the entire financial system. Second, regulators have had to address problems in financial markets resulting from the activities of large and sometimes less-regulated market participants–such as nonbank mortgage lenders, hedge funds, and credit rating agencies–some of which play significant roles in today’s financial markets. Third, the increasing prevalence of new and more complex investment products has challenged regulators and investors, and consumers have faced difficulty understanding new and increasingly complex retail mortgage and credit products. Regulators failed to adequately oversee the sale of mortgage products that posed risks to consumers and the stability of the financial system. Fourth, standard setters for accounting and financial regulators have faced growing challenges in ensuring that accounting and audit standards appropriately respond to financial market developments, and in addressing challenges arising from the global convergence of accounting and auditing standards. ? Finally, despite the increasingly global aspects of financial markets, the current fragmented U.S. regulatory structure has complicated some efforts to coordinate internationally with other regulators.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-216
***
http://www.sec.gov/divisions.shtml
SEC Divisions Homepages
Corporation Finance Enforcement
Investment Management Trading and Markets
SEC Offices Homepages
Office of Administrative Law Judges
Office of Administrative Services
Office of the Chief Accountant
Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations
Office of Economic Analysis
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
Office of the Executive Director
Office of Financial Management
Office of the General Counsel
Office of Human Resources
Office of Information Technology
Office of Inspector General
Office of Interactive Disclosure
Office of International Affairs
Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Risk Assessment
Office of the Secretary
SEC Task Force Homepages
21st Century Disclosure Initiative
SEC Organization Chart (text version also available)
For detailed descriptions of SEC offices and divisions, please read The Investor’s Advocate.
Contact | Employment | Links | FOIA | Forms | Privacy Policy
Modified: 12/17/2008
http://www.sec.gov/divisions.shtml
***
Federal grant-making agencies awarded approximately $496 billion in grants during fiscal year 2007.
*Grants.gov has selected the CCR (Central Contractor Registry) as the system in which all new recipients must register. Grants.gov is the centralized federal site where applicants can find and apply for new grant opportunities. If you would like more information, visit the CCR link on the www.grants.gov/GetStarted site.
http://www.dpm.psc.gov/news_events/duns_entry_on_payment_request_screen.aspx?
Introduction To DPM
DPM’s mission is to provide world class grant-type payments, cash management, and grant accounting support services to HHS and other Federal departments and agencies utilizing the Payment Management System (PMS). In fiscal year 2006, DPM paid $315 billion of all Federal civilian grants. DPM is the acknowledged expert in the disbursement, accounting for, and management of Federal grant-type funds. DPM has over 30 years of experience providing convenient, cost effective, and efficient grant-type payment, cash management and grant accounting services.
http://www.dpm.psc.gov/about_us/about_us.aspx?explorer.event=true
About Us
Federal Agencies DPM Provides Services For:
DPM has 30 years experience providing convenient, cost effective, and efficient grant payment, cash management and grant accounting services.
During fiscal year 2004, DPM’s customers include a wide variety of organizations, over 26,700 in total:
* Colleges; Other Educational Entities; Hospitals;
* Other Health Organizations; & Non-Profits
* State Government Agencies
* Cross-Serviced Non-HHS Accounts
* Many Others … our customer base is continuing to grow!
The CFO Council recently selected the Division of Payment Management / Payment Management System (PMS) as one of only 2 Payment Systems for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. As a result, more Federal agencies have chosen PMS as their payment system.
Listed below are some of the agencies currently serviced by DPM. This list will soon be growing significantly.
The HHS agencies are:
* Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
* Administration on Aging (AoA
* ) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
* Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), legacy HCFA
* Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
* Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
* Indian Health Service (IHS)
* National Institutes of Health (NIH)
* Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
The Federal Non-HHS agencies and departments include:
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
* Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
* Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)
* Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
* Forest Service (FS)
Department of Energy (DOE)
* Schenectady Naval Reactors Office
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
* Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), legacy Customs
* Emergency Preparedness and Response (ER&P), legacy FEMA
* Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
* National Park Service (NPS)
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Department of Labor (DOL)
* Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
* Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
* Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
* Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
* Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS)
Department of State (DOS)
* Bureau of Administration, Office of Overseas Schools (A)
* Bureau of African Affairs (AF)
* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL)
* Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS)
* Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP)
* Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB)
* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Fulbright Commission, Europe (ECA)
* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Fulbright Commission, Western Hemisphere (ECA)
* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Fulbright Commission, East Asia (ECA)
* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Fulbright Commission, Near East/South Asia (ECA)
* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), legacy USIA
* Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR)
* Bureau of Human Resources (M/HR)
* Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)
* Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL)
* Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA)
* Bureau of Nonproliferation (NP)
* Bureau of Nonproliferation, Office of Export Control Cooperation (NP)
* Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental Scientific Affairs (OES)
* Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Humanitarian Demining Programs (PM)
* Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM)
* Bureau of South Asian Affairs (SA)
Department of the Treasury (Treas)
* Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) Fund
* Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
* Office of Financial Institutions (OFI)
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
* Healthcare for the Homeless (HCHV)
* National Cemetery Administration (NCA)
* Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
Executive Office of the President (EOP)
* Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
* Ames Research Center
* Dryden Flight Research Center
* Goddard Space Flight Center
* Johnson Space Center
* Kennedy Space Center
* Langley Research Center
* Marshall Space Flight Center
* Stennis Space Center
Independent Federal Agency
* Corporation of National and Community Service (CNS)
* The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Division of Payment Management
Program Support Center
Financial Management Service
http://www.dpm.psc.gov/about_us/agencies.aspx?explorer.event=true
FARS/FAGA
REPORT ON OUR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The Financial Assistance by Geographic Area report is prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Financial Assistance Reporting System (FARS) and is produced on a fiscal year basis. Data for the system is provided by each of the Department’s operating divisions (OPDIV). HHS does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the data reflected in this report.
The Financial Assistance by Geographic Area report conforms to the Government-wide requirements of the Office of Management and Budget. The report identifies the OPDIV that obligated the funds, the amount that has been obligated, the specific recipient, each recipient’s location (state, county, city, and congressional district), and the Catalog for Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number from which the funds were obligated. This feature is possible because the FARS has the capacity to interface with the HHS Central Registry System. The Central Registry System stores names, locations and other basic information about the grant recipients.
For years, HHS published a printed version of the report. Recent legislation, however, authorized HHS to determine in what form to prepare and publish the report. Consistent with the Administration’s Electronic-Government initiatives, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, and a move to a paper free environment, HHS now disseminates the report electronically through the Division of Payment Management website, www.dpm.psc.gov.
The report format is PDF. The report can be queried by fiscal year, then by state or territory name and by recipient name and CFDA number. The total funding for each region and CFDA are provided at the end of each state and territory report. The Regional identifications and geographical coverage of each Region are shown below.
The report has been prepared for the benefit of HHS Management to provide information for timely response to inquiries from the Congress, State, and local governments. The report is also of interest to many individuals and organizations outside HHS.
If you have questions concerning the data, please contact Hal Baldwin at 301-443-9215 or at his email address, jbaldwin@psc.gov.
Links to Reference Materials
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
FAGA Terms
FAGA Capitals
FAGA Regions
FAGA OpDivs and Agencies
FAGA Contractions and Abbreviations
http://www.dpm.psc.gov/faga/faga.aspx?explorer.event=true
FARS/FAGA
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FAGA Reference Materials
CFDA by Fiscal Year
FY06
***
Grant Recipient Info
272 Due Dates
For disbursement activity during the months of: The 272 Report is due on:
July 01 through September 30, 2008 – 4th Qtr. November 14, 2008
October 01 through December 31, 2008 – 1st Qtr. February 14, 2009
January 01 through March 31, 2009 – 2nd Qtr. May 15, 2009
April 01 through June 30, 2009 – 3rd Qtr. August 14, 2009
July 01 through September 30, 2009 – 4th Qtr. November 14, 2009
Department of Interior:
Fish & Wildlife Service & NASA Grantee Due Dates: The 272 Report is due on:
July 01 through September 30, 2008 – 4th Qtr. October 20, 2008
October 01 through December 31, 2008 – 1st Qtr. January 23, 2009
January 01 through March 31, 2009 – 2nd Qtr. April 21, 2009
April 01 through June 30, 2009 – 3rd Qtr. July 21, 2009
July 01 through September 30, 2009 – 4th Qtr. October 20, 2009
NOTE: There is no PSC 272 reporting requirement for DPM accounts ending in “B” or “B1″(this does not apply to NASA accounts) .
http://www.dpm.psc.gov/grant_recipient/reports/due_dates.aspx?
***
***
To do this, GAO analyzed grant balance data from the largest federal grant payment system; reviewed grant management problems and corrective actions from more than 150 audit reports; and reviewed guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Code of Federal Regulations.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-432
During calendar year 2006, about $1 billion in undisbursed funding remained in expired grant accounts in the largest civilian payment system for grants–the Payment Management System (PMS). PMS is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and makes payments for about 70 percent of grants and for 12 federal entities.
Undisbursed funding is funding the federal government has obligated through a grant agreement, but which the grantee has not entirely spent. Among all of the expired grant accounts in PMS that remained open, these undisbursed funds typically represented about 1 percent of the total funds originally made available for these grants–meaning grantees had spent most of their available funds.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-432
However, when expired grant accounts with no funds remaining were excluded and the focus was narrowed to just expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances, GAO found the amount of undisbursed funding represented, on average, about 26 percent of the original funding made available. The expired but still open grant accounts were associated with thousands of grantees and over 325 different federal programs.
***
FY 2006 Awards
Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program
Organization Name Location Award Amount
Albina Community Bank Portland, OR $500,000.00
Bangor Savings Bank Bangor, ME $145,524.00
Bank of America, N.A. Sarasota, FL $500,000.00
Bank of Dade Trenton, GA $18,000.00
Bank of Kentucky, The Crestview Hills, KY $6,000.00
Bank of Tokyo-
Mitsubishi Trust Company New York, NY $500,000.00
Bank West, Inc. Pierre, SD $22,500.00
Bedford Loan & Deposit Bank Bedford , KY $6,000.00
Branch Banking and Trust Co. Lumberton, NC $270,000.00
Bridgewater Savings Bank Raynham, MA $120,000.00
Carolina First Bank Lexington, SC $195,741.00
Carver State Bank, The Savannah, GA $385,304.00
Central Bank of Kansas City Kansas City, MO $500,000.00
Citizens Bank and Trust Chicago, IL $500,000.00
Citizens Trust Bank Atlanta, GA $6,059.00
Citizens Union Bank Shelbyville, KY $9,000.00
City National Bank of New Jersey Newark, NJ $226,805.00
Community Bank of Lawndale Chicago, IL $500,000.00
Community Bank of the Bay Oakland, CA $500,000.00
Community Capital Bank Brooklyn, NY $500,000.00
Cor Trust Bank Mitchell, SD $15,000.00
Dacotah Banks, Inc. Aberdeen, , SD $30,000.00
F & M Bank
(Great Western Bank) Watertown, SD $75,000.00
Farmers Bank & Trust Company Georgetown, KY $5,940.00
First American International Bank Brooklyn, NY $500,000.00
First Bank Huntington Beach, CA $156,000.00
First Capital Bank of Kentucky Louisville, KY $27,000.00
First National Bank of Kansas Overland Park, KS $12,600
First National Bank of Phillips County West Helena, AR $500,000.00
First Republic Bank San Francisco, CA $120,225.00
First Western Bank Wall Wall, SD $17,250.00
FirstBank Lexington, TN $75,000.00
Franklin National Bank Minneapolis, MN $500,000.00
International Bank of Chicago Stone Park, IL $500,000.00
Louisville Community Development Bank Louisville, KY $405,577.00
Mizuho Corporate Bank (USA) New York, NY $500,000.00
NAB Bank Chicago, IL $500,000.00
National City Bank of Kentucky Louisville, KY $89,646.00
OneUnited Bank Boston, MA $500,000.00
Pacific Global Bank Chicago, IL $500,000.00
Pullman Bank and Trust
(Park National Bank) Chicago, IL $60,000.00
Republic Bank and Trust Company Louisville, KY $67,829.00
South Carolina Community Bank Columbia, SC $500,000.00
THE BANK — Oldham County, Inc. LaGrange, KY $6,000.00
The Commercial Bank of Grayson Grayson, KY $6,000.00
University National Bank St Paul, MN $500,000.00
Wainwright Bank & Trust Company Boston, MA $300,000.00
http://www.cdfifund.gov/docs/2006/bea/2006.BEA.Award%20List%20(Press%20Kit).pdf
****
Fourth Round – 2006
New Markets Tax Credit Allocations
* Indicates allocations awarded for use in the Gulf Opportunity Zone
Name of Allocatee Location Service Area Market Financing Activity Award Amount
Advantage Capital Community
Development Fund, LLC
New Orleans,
LA
Multi-state AL, LA, MS, TX Business Financing $70,000,000
* American Community Renewable
Energy Fund, LLC
New Orleans,
LA
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Business Financing $42,000,000
Banc of America CDE, LLC Washington,
D.C.
National CA, CO, DC, FL,
MA, NY, TX
Real estate financing;
Retail
$143,000,000
Boston Community Capital, Inc. Boston,
MA
National CA, CO, ME,
MA, NJ, NY, WA
Business Financing $60,000,000
* Capital Link, Inc. Boston,
MA
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Real estate financing;
Community facilities
$15,000,000
Carver Community Development
Corporation
New York,
NY
Local NY Real estate financing;
For-sale housing
$59,000,000
* CCG Community Partners, LLC Princeton,
NJ
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Real estate financing;
Mixed-use housing &
retail
$43,000,000
* Chase New Markets Corporation New York,
NY
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Real estate financing;
Retail
$50,000,000
* Chevron NMTC Fund, LLC San Francisco,
CA
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Real estate financing;
Mixed-use housing
and commercial
$50,000,000
Chicago Development Fund Chicago,
IL
Local IL Real estate financing;
Industrial
$100,000,000
Citibank NMTC Corporation Long Island City,
NY
National CA, DC, FL, IL,
MD, NJ, NY
Real estate financing;
Mixed-use housing
and commercial
$100,000,000
City First New Markets Fund II, LLC Washington,
D.C.
Multi-state DE, DC, MD, PA,
VA
Real estate financing;
Community facilities
$90,000,000
The Clearinghouse CDFI Lake Forest,
CA
Statewide CA Real estate financing
and retail
$37,000,000
Coastal Enterprises, Inc. Wiscasset,
ME
National CT, MA, ME, NH,
NY, RI, VT
Business Financing $120,000,000
Commonwealth Cornerstone Group Harrisburg,
PA
Statewide PA Real estate financing;
For sale housing
$60,000,000
Consortium America, LLC Washington,
DC
National DC, KY, MI, MO,
NY, NC, VA
Real estate financing;
Mixed-use housing and
commercial
$115,000,000
CT/KDF Community Development
Partners, LLC
Newport Beach,
CA
Local CA Real estate financing;
Mixed-use housing and
commercial
$90,000,000
Dakotas America, LLC Sioux Falls,
SD
Multi-state ND, SD Business Financing $50,000,000
Elizabeth Development Company Elizabeth,
NJ
Local NJ Real estate financing;
Retail
$10,000,000
Empowerment Reinvestment Fund,
LLC
New York,
NY
National AL, CA, LA, MS,
NY, OH, TN
Business Financing $40,000,000
Enhanced Delta Community
Development, LLC
New Orleans,
LA
Local LA Business Financing $25,000,000
* Enterprise Corporation of the Delta Jackson,
MS
Multi-state LA Business Financing $15,000,000
ESIC New Markets Partners, LP Columbia,
MD
National CA, DC, LA, MD,
MS, NY, PA
Real estate financing;
Mixed-use
$105,000,000
Genesis LA CDE, LLC Los Angeles,
CA
Local CA Real estate financing;
Mixed- use housing
and commercial
$50,000,000
Greenville New Markets Opportunity
LLC
Greenville,
SC
Local SC Real estate financing;
Community facilities
$89,000,000
* Greystone CDE LLC Warrenton,
VA
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Real estate financing;
Mixed-use
$35,000,000
HEDC New Markets, Inc New York,
NY
National CA, IL, IN, MS,
NY, PA, WA
Business Financing $121,000,000
* Hibernia Community Renewal Fund,
LLC
New Orleans,
LA
Statewide LA Business Financing $100,000,000
Hospitality Fund II, LLC Denver,
CO
Multi-state CO, IL, RI Real estate financing;
Retail
$40,000,000
Iowa Community Development, LC Johnston,
IA
Statewide IA Real estate financing;
Retail
$45,000,000
Johnson Community Development
Company
Racine,
WI
Multi-state AZ, WI Real estate financing;
Community facilities
$40,000,000
* Liberty Bank and Trust Company Baton Rouge,
LA
Local LA Business Financing $60,000,000
Local Initiatives Support Corporation New York,
NY
National CA, FL, IL, LA,
MA, NY, OH
Real estate financing;
Retail
$140,000,000
M&I New Markets Fund, LLC Wauwatosa,
WI
Multi-state AZ, IL, MN, MO,
WI
Real estate financing;
Industrial
$75,000,000
Massachusetts Housing Investment
Corporation
Boston,
MA
Statewide MA Real estate financing;
community facilities
$90,000,000
MBS Urban Initiatives CDE, LLC St. Louis,
MO
National AZ, CA, DC, LA,
MO, PA, TN
Real estate financing;
Mixed-use
$60,000,000
Merrill Lynch Community Development
Company
New York,
NY
National CA, LA, MS, NJ,
NY, PA, UT
Financing of other
CDEs
$93,000,000
Midwest Minnesota Community
Development Corporation
Detroit Lakes,
MI
Statewide MN Business Financing $80,000,000
MK La Charitable Healthcare Facilities
Fund, LLC
New Orleans,
LA
Statewide LA Loan purchase from
other CDEs
$80,000,000
* National Cities Fund, LLC New Orleans,
LA
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Real estate financing;
For-sale housing
$75,000,000
National City New Market Fund, Inc. Cleveland,
OH
National IL, IN, KY, MI,
MO, OH, PA
Real estate financing;
Mixed-use
$125,000,000
* National New Markets Fund, LLC Los Angeles,
CA
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Real estate financing;
Mixed-use
$25,000,000
* National Tribal Development
Association
Box Elder,
MT
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Business Financing $30,000,000
National Trust Community Investment
Corporation
Washington,
DC
National AL, CA, LA, MS,
MO, NC, TX
Real estate financing;
Community facilities
$53,000,000
NCB Development Corporation Washington,
DC
National CA, DC, FL, LA,
MI, MS, TX
Real estate financing;
Community facilities
$54,000,000
Nonprofit Finance Fund New York,
NY
National CA, DC, MA, MI,
NJ, NY, PA
Business Financing $20,000,000
Northside Community Development
Fund
Pittsburgh,
PA
Local PA Real estate financing;
For-sale housing
$2,000,000
The Ohio Community Development
Finance Fund
Columbus,
OH
Statewide OH Business Financing $25,000,000
PNC Community Partners, Inc. Pittsburgh,
PA
Multi-state DE, DC, IN, KY,
MD, NJ, OH, PA,
VA
Real estate financing;
Mixed-use
$75,000,000
The Reinvestment Fund, Inc. Philadelphia,
PA
Multi-state DE, MD, NJ, PA Business Financing $75,000,000
Revolution Community Ventures, LLC San Diego,
CA
Statewide CA Business Financing $35,000,000
Rockland Trust Community
Development Corporation II
Rockland,
MA
Multi-state MA, RI Business Financing $45,000,000
Rural Development Partners, LLC Hanlontown,
IA
National IA, LA, MN, MS,
MT, ND, SD
Business Financing $60,000,000
Seattle Community Investments Seattle,
WA
Local WA Real estate financing;
Mixed-use
$20,000,000
Shorebank Enterprise Pacific Ilwaco,
WA
Multi-state OR, WA Business Financing $35,000,000
Sovereign Community Development
Company
Reading,
PA
Multi-state CT, MD, MA, NH,
NJ, PA, RI
Real estate financing;
Retail
$94,000,000
Stonehenge Community Development,
LLC
Baton Rouge,
LA
National AL, GA, LA, MS,
MO, OH, TX
Business Financing $75,000,000
Structured Products Group CDE, LLC Denver,
CO
National CA, CO, DC, FL,
LA, NJ, TX
Real estate financing;
Retail
$62,000,000
* Urban Development Fund, LLC Chicago,
IL
Multi-state AL, LA, MS Real estate financing;
Retail
$60,000,000
Urban Research Park CDE, LLC Towson,
MD
National HI, IL, KY, MD,
NY, PA, VA
Real estate financing;
Office space
$50,000,000
USBCDE, LLC St. Louis,
MO
National CA, CO, MN, NY,
OH, PA, WA
Real estate financing;
Mixed-use
$135,000,000
Wachovia Community Development
Enterprises, LLC
Charlotte,
NC
National AL, FL, GA, MS,
NJ, PA, TX
Real estate financing;
Mixed-use
$143,000,000
WNC National Community
Development Advisors, LLC
Irvine,
CA
National CA, LA, MT, NJ,
NY, TX, WA
Real estate financing;
Retail
$40,000,000
http://www.cdfifund.gov/docs/nmtc/2006/List.of.Allocatess.FINAL.pdf
***
Well, if I had only known that all I had to do was to get three friends together and call ourselves loan officers or mortgage lenders or a real-estate financing company.
Then, these awards above and others through the federal, state, county and local governments, through the department of commerce, and the small business administration, among others, would’ve been given to me as free money to spend on a nice computer system and a fancier car and a pretty big new house, etc., etc., etc. (and a private plane, and vacation homes and very fancy vacations to get away from it all in luxury and eaten out at funky and fine restaurants every day, and other fun stuff.)
- cricketdiane, 02-19-09
