No-one Dast Blame the TARP
Did the Troubled Asset Relief Program work? Stephen Grocer at the Wall Street Journal's Deal Journal blog notes that Bank of America and American International Group continue to sponge up bucks like your worst couch-surfing brother-in-law:
And yet, since the stress test results were announced early last month, the 19 firms that were put under the microscope have raised more than $55 billion in the stock markets, according to Dealogic. Even more impressive, BofA, which had the greatest equity hole to fill, had raised $33 billion through asset sales, equity issuance and other means. Now the nation's biggest banks are tripping over themselves to pay back those loans from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program.
This week alone, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase and American Express have hit the capital markets to sell stock. The moves are meant to meet the government's new requirement for TARP repayment, namely that they must prove they can raise capital through the public markets.
Grocer (and with a name like that he's gotta know markets) in turn refers to TheDeal.com's George White, who has this to say:
While the TARP ended up looking nothing like the emergency plan that then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson pitched to Congress only months ago -- when panic reigned on Wall Street and LIBOR rates topped 4% -- the much maligned bailout served its purpose of averting a wholesale meltdown of the U.S. banking system while confidence slowly returned.
We can't ever know what the banking sector would have looked like had House Republican's succeeded in killing the TARP, but chances are it would've included far more pain for financials and a case study for business schools in what happens when a bank "too-big-to-fail" actually fails.
The London Independent goes so far as to say that the great credit unwind is over:
It is, of course, hardly a consensus yet, but it is the best conclusion to draw from this number: $36bn (£22bn). That is the amount that investors have poured into the weakest of the American banks in the past month, helping to fill the holes which opened up in their balance sheets and crippled their lending activities. Stronger banks such as Goldman Sachs have raised billions more, giving them greater resources to lend into the US economy and abroad.
None of this is to say that recessions on either side of the Atlantic are about to end, that job insecurity and business caution are about to be replaced by a new bullishness, or that banks will suddenly be turning on the credit taps for sub-prime mortgage applicants or consumers who are already up to their card limits. But the first phase of crisis has given way to something more normal.
It's a stretch to call any of The Naughty 19 the "weakest of the American banks." Some 36 banks have managed to fail this year with only minimal government assistance. And I can't be the only crash-scene rubbernecker who would in fact like to see what happens "when a bank 'too-big-to-fail' actually fails." I also stand by my earlier statement that trying to use credit to solve a problem created by too-easy lending is like trying to drink yourself sober. Still, being a libertarian means never fearing the question or the answer, so I'll leave the question out there: Has the TARP succeeded in its purpose?
Here are some interesting comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's congressional testimony yesterday:
Among the markets where functioning has improved recently are those for short-term funding, including the interbank lending markets and the commercial paper market. Risk spreads in those markets appear to have moderated, and more lending is taking place at longer maturities. The better performance of short-term funding markets in part reflects the support afforded by Federal Reserve lending programs.
Note that Bernanke yesterday also supported the idea that it might be time to take the bottle away from the dipsomaniac, saying increasing prices for long-term Treasury bond yields "appear to reflect concerns about large federal deficits but also other causes, including greater optimism about the economic outlook, a reversal of flight-to-quality flows, and technical factors related to the hedging of mortgage holdings." (You can read Bernanke's written statement here; and watch video of the full session -- including the questions where most of the deficit commentary occurs -- here.)
Pimco CIO Mohamed El-Erian says Bernanke's two aims were to manage expectations for a recovery and warn the executive and legislative branches to stop throwing money away. BusinessInsider.com's "Inside Man" says No, no, Bernanke, you should make people think you're going to inflate the greenback by 5 percent or more. The Economist says German chancellor Angela Merkel was right: central banks need to get serious with their exit strategies. And morally upright Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asks Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for more clarity around the TARP repayment rules.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
""""'Now the nation's biggest banks are tripping over themselves to pay back those loans from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program.""""
Do they also plan on paying back the money that was laundered through places like AIG, or the money they got at below market rates from the FED?
"""had House Republican's succeeded in killing the TARP, but chances are it would've included far more pain for financials """"
Since it was the financials who overleveraged themselves and bought tons of bad debt they should have felt more pain.
Failure just like success is a integral part of the free market, you can't have a free market unless those who failed are allowed to fail. Now because of the bailout we will probably get stuck with many large banks who are badly run and who fail to manage their finances properly
This article is right on, Cavanaugh.
TARP circumvented the massive multi-bank debt hole created by the Lehman collapse that would have cratered Citi and BAC too.
I know - the puritans wanted all the banks to fail so they could dig up their gold doubloons and reign supreme over a gold-enthralled dystopia that only exists in their Glenn-Beckish fantasy world.
They can keep dreaming.
Wait... They have to prove they can make money before they are allowed to make a loan payment? WTF?
Imagine this kind of loan applied to the rest of us: "Dear borrower, we are sending your mortgage payment back to you, because you have not been able to demonstrate to our satisfaction that you are gainfully employed. Sincerely, B.of.A."
Right on, shrike. So they're now raising money in the stock markets. Great. Ask yourself this: If the government hadn't basically said they would stand no matter what, would you have bought their stock two months ago? Yesterday?
Without TARP, would you have believed FDIC could cover a run on BAC?
No. No you wouldn't.
shrike,
TARP circumvented the massive multi-bank debt hole created by the Lehman collapse that would have cratered Citi and BAC too.
Prove it.
I didnt want a dystopia, I wanted to clear out the chafe to find the wheat banks. Or something.
It looks to me that, like in all past down periods, time cures all ills. What got us out of the Great Depression? Time. Ditto all recessions.
There is no such thing as a bank (or any other business, or country for that matter) too big to fail. Failure is a sign of success.
Without TARP, would you have believed FDIC could cover a run on BAC?
Yes.
FDIC is backed by printing presses, of course they could cover a bank run.
Right on, shrike. So they're now raising money in the stock markets. Great. Ask yourself this: If the government hadn't basically said they would stand no matter what, would you have bought their stock two months ago? Yesterday?
Without TARP, would you have believed FDIC could cover a run on BAC?
#1 - No. The system was doomed without TARP - which provided the liquidity to last a while - LIBOR was knocking on 5% for three months.
#2 - again No. The FDIC was insolvent.
Citi has $500 billion in overseas deposits uncovered by the FDIC - which had only $60 billion in backup power for the USA.
The system was on its deathbed in October 2008.
As a Bush hater I have to give Hank Paulson credit for rescue - although Bush himself was oblivious to it all.
FDIC is backed by printing presses, of course they could cover a bank run.
Right, but not without giving up the pretense that it's an insurance fund. They still seem to want to pretend, for some reason. Just for example: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=alsJZqIFuN3k
I guess the bigs paid those fees with TARP money, so it's fungible, but still. They seem for some reason to want to avoid the idea that FDIC runs the printing presses. I guess they're traditionalists that way.
John Paulson deserves infinitely more credit than Hank Paulson for the "rescue".
I didnt want a dystopia, I wanted to clear out the chafe to find the wheat banks. Or something.
You watched Lehman, thought to yourself it would be fun to watch who can survive. Here's some banks and other institutions that wouldn't have qualified as "wheat": BofA, Citi, AIG. To start.
Or something. Libertarians. Hilarious.
Time would heal all wounds in this scenario. Like the rest of our lifetimes.
You didn't want dystopia, you're just the experimental type. There's no person too big to starve, either.
Did TARP do its job? I think the best we can say is that it didn't screw things up too much. That's a lot, actually, compared to what the administration has done to the auto industry and our bankruptcy laws. My wish is that the administration and its proxies get out of the banking, mortgage and automobile businesses as quickly as possible and return to their function of governance - which I think needs a lot of improvement.
Time would heal all wounds in this scenario. Like the rest of our lifetimes.
Im patient. I would prefer a better world for my probably unlikely to ever exist grandchildren, even if I have to live thru hell to make it happen. Letting banks fail is no charging onto Omaha Beach, but Im willing to do my part anyway.
You didn't want dystopia, you're just the experimental type.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
Its not really so much than Im the experimental type (although that is true) as that Im a big believer in creative destruction. And this provided maybe the biggest opportunity for creative destruction since the fall of the Roman Empire (which gave us the Renaissance and the Age of Reason...for those who were patient).
Okay, maybe it wasnt that big, but the way Yup and shrike act, it would have been.
Imagine this kind of loan applied to the rest of us
That's just the point, man. You are not them. The free market is free only until the bottom falls out. You are not important to it. It does not serve you.
You need it, but it operates fine without you. Nobody cares if you want the TARP or not. It was gonna happen no matter who was in power, and in fact it did happen under both administrations.
It was just a question of who was gonna get to play the other side in the kabuki over whether it was a good idea or not. Turns out Republicans got to pretend Friedman wasn't wrong again, so your applecart is still upright if you're a Libertarian who believes the Republicans are more Libertarian.
Not that a Libertarian administration wouldn't have done the same damn thing either, but that's academic.
Yup,
Andy Jackson would have let the banks fail. And he would have killed off the Fed.
Ok, RobC, I take it you're playing a longer game, up there with the gods, than those of us who like to know where our next meal is coming from.
Maybe we should burn New York and Washington to the ground, and London, and then see if we get another philosophical boom.
I could eat philosophers if necessary, so I'm cool with your idea.
I could eat philosophers if necessary, so I'm cool with your idea.
Thats why I always pack.
I take it you're playing a longer game
Not really, I actually think a crash and burn would turn around FASTER than what we are doing. 2 very ugly years followed by a boom decade. Instead we are going to get Japan of the 90s.
those of us who like to know where our next meal is coming from.
Buffalo Wild Wings, in case you were wondering. Well, least for me.
Andy Jackson would have let the banks fail. And he would have killed off the Fed.
And the SCOTUS tried to stop that fucking tyrant.
May he burn in Hell -- which doesn't exist.
May he burn in Hell
Im sure he is. Racist genocidal fuck.
But he was dead right on the national debt and the Bank of America.
Buffalo Wild Wings, in case you were wondering. Well, least for me.
Can you draw me a picture with like a compass all behind that thing or whatever that shit was, like Leonardo?
Wing pointing to the North Star or some other BS?
coming in late to the party again...
Im quite impressed with the number of banks that ostensibly wish to return the TARP funds. I think at the end of the day, they will be allowed to with little fanfare. The populist anti-wall street screaming has quieted down too. That all points to the administration quietly letting the banks start to return the money. Any bets on what they spend the money on once they get it back? They wont be retiring 10 year notes - that I can assure you of.
1) I am one of them. All of us are. We are the consumers and we drive the economy. It's our whims that tell the farmer what to grow, our preferences that tell the stores what to stock on the shelves, our fancy that tells the factory to build cars rather than trucks, our money that gets put into banks. This is where supply-siders and keynesians get it wrong: the economy is demand driven.
2) It is not a free market if the government gets to decide who is allowed to fail. By definition. Privatized profits but socialized losses IS NOT A FREE MARKET! Yes the failure of Citi and BofA would have hurt. But pain is not an evil, sometimes it's part of healing. You can't cure the D.T.s with alchohol.
"""""Butch writes
Did TARP do its job? I think the best we can say is that it didn't screw things up too much.""""
Yes TARP did its job, it protected the incompetent bozos who run the FED, Treasury, and major banks who ran the economy over a cliff. All it has done is transfer one group of politically connected peoples debts to another weaker group of people
Don't worry though, they will learn nothing from what has happened and instead keep on printing money and overleveraging themselves while playing financial games with other people money stolen by the bankers government goons. This will just increase the size of their failures as their debts and liabilities keep on expanding. TARP has fixed nothing, it has just set up the next bubble which will collapse with even worse results
I am one of them.
Try getting their terms and get back to me when you can show me the contract. In the sense that your survival depends on their survival, I agree with you in this case. Go TARP!
You can't cure the D.T.s with alchohol.
Or starvation, though that's probably a debatable point.
Cavanaugh says:
You're probably not the only one, but since no one else has volunteered, can you do an article where you stage a control study? Like a reverse-Barbara Ehrenreich, you know.
Just empty your bank account and burn its contents, then take no loans whatsoever from any institution larger than a loanshark or your brother, who should each pretend like they're broke too if you want to be consistent.
Let us know if you hire anybody or if you already have, whether you lay them off.
No government handouts allowed, though!
Brandybuck wrote: "the economy is demand driven".
I think he is close to the mark, but perhaps a bit off base here. And conflating supply siders with Keynesians is way off base.
Consumers are the ULTIMATE deciders in a free market. But entrepreneurs are those who have to discover what they want. and arrange production to satisfy those wants at a mutually satisfying price.
Says Law says "Supply creates demand". The investor and entrepreneur puts the product before the consumer based on his best judgement of what the consumer wants, and then the process of discovery begins...
Supply siders are followers of Says Law. They believe that the state should tax less to create more income, and spend less as well. the early supply siders also wanted to restore gold, at least for international transactions. (See Jack Kemp).
Keynesians are a different animal. They discount savings, blame recessions on "animal spirits", and believe that by putting tax dollars into the hands of working consumers they will spend it and restore employment.
No, the workers will likely spend it but only reducing current inventories. That will NOT provide the necessary capital for a sustained recovery. The real process of discovery of what is worth keeping and what should be liquidated will be short circuited.
The business cycle will start again. The next bust could be worse.
The real process of discovery of what is worth keeping and what should be liquidated will be short circuited.
And when your financial system craters and the Friedmanites come out swarming against bailouts because consumers are stupid, keep in mind that in the event they are wrong they are also right.
You see, if you crash the financial system, the entrepreneur can more easily discover the needs of the potential (as in only available) customer, since their needs are pretty much limited to groceries.
Glad we're (mostly) not testing this in this business cycle so far.
Just empty your bank account and burn its contents, then take no loans whatsoever from any institution larger than a loanshark or your brother, who should each pretend like they're broke too if you want to be consistent.
Oh Herbert, you're making me cry.
If Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citi all went down as of October last year, the U.S. government would have been on the hook for a trillion and change in insured deposits. That's assuming they were allowed to fail outright, and no private lender came in to pick up the pieces (and if Goddess is just, no lender would).
The money in the rescue packages of June 08, Nov 09 and February 09 could have been devoted instead to building up the puny FDIC trust fund and you'd have the same result. Except that some very corrupt and inefficient banks would have been cleared away, while hundreds of banks and millions of depositors would have learned valuable lessons. Meanwhile the actual paying assets of those banks would have been bought out of court by stronger actors.
And the government's money would have gone to the depositors rather than the banks -- in honor of a pre-existing social contract that maybe shouldn't exist but has been part of the ground rules since the 1930s.
But since you mentioned me losing my bank account, I've got a deal for Wells Fargo: I forget about my savings account, you forget about my mortgage, and we part as friends!
Or we could mail every borrower enough money to pay off their non-mortgage debts! Then we get to keep the banks that know what the exchange rate of Yuan is in Kansas. And better yet, the whole world doesn't watch its largest banks sink into the river overnight.
Problem solved.
Or we could mail every borrower enough money to pay off their non-mortgage debts! Then we get to keep the banks that know what the exchange rate of Yuan is in Kansas. And better yet, the whole world doesn't watch its largest banks sink into the river overnight.
[No, Tim, don't! Don't get into a troll-roll!! Augh!]
FDIC insurance already exists as a contract, so honoring it just means playing by existing rules. Bailing out unwise borrowers is not something the government promised to do, so it's as novel (and objectionable) as bailing out stupid lenders, even if the "whole world" has to "watch its largest banks sink into the river overnight." (Seriously, man, do you have any gear other than finger-fluttering hysterics?)
So what you're saying, Tim, is
Obama 1
Reason 0
Thanks for keeping score!
I think you're padding Reason's score.
"Obama 1
Reason 0"
Why not let the banks pay back TARP funds? Oh, yeah, it lets him keep a leash on the banks so they forgive the debts of Government Motors.
Yeah, I'm back.
"And the government's money would have gone to the depositors rather than the banks -- "
But think about it, Tim! The depositors might have spent it on stupid, non-stimulative crap like paying off debts! All Hail Keynes!
Yes, maybe TARP just magically made all the banks solvent such that many of them are now clamoring to pay back the money or maybe (I know, I'm batshit crazy), the crisis-that-was-gonna-cause-us-all-to-have-to-resort-to-cannibalism wasn't.
I'll call TARP a success when it all gets paid back. That would, of course, be easier if the banks that got TARP funds were allowed to pay it back. We could even use the money to help offset the monster deficit we will incur this year (and the next year, and the next year, ad infinatum, world without end and that's all folks).
economist, are you saying that the banks all conspired to stop lending to each other last fall and consciously drove up LIBOR and froze the credit markets as extortion?
How did the regulators not catch this ;-)? Do you have any links?
"""""Econnomist writes
Why not let the banks pay back TARP funds? Oh, yeah, it lets him keep a leash on the banks so they forgive the debts of Government Motors."""""
But they are not paying it back with their own money. Goldman Sachs is offering to pay it back with the TARP money that was laundered through AIG. Or they are going to use the money from the "Public Private Investment Program" which will launder those tax dollars. Or they will use their below market rate money they get from the FED.
Its not their money so its not free market and they are not paying it back, the taxpayer is paying it back
Has the TARP succeeded in its purpose?
Yes. It's purpose was to kick the can down the road another 12 months. It prevented nothing, only delayed the inevitable, though it likely did give the Fed more time to expand the money supply.
I'd still like to know who's providing all this new capital into the 19 banks. Public employee pension funds?
Its not their money so its not free market and they are not paying it back, the taxpayer is paying it back
Banks are replaceing TARP funding with fundng obtained in the capital markets. This is a healthy thing. Sure they still have below market debt outstanding, but the TARP money was worse to have on the books. So this is at least a step in the right direction.
As far as who is providing it? the people who have been rolling their cash over in 0% T-Bills for the last 6 months. that's who. plenty of capital on the sidelines coming off...
"""domoarrigato writes
Banks are replaceing TARP funding with fundng obtained in the capital markets."""
So how about that TARP money that was laundered through AIG and sent to the banks, will they pay it back as well?
How about the money that will be laundered through the "Public Private Investment Program" which puts all the risk on the taxpayer while the banks get the profits, will they pay that back as well?
Or how about all those below market rate interest loans they have gotten from the FED, will they pay back all the subsidies they have gotten from the taxpayer?
And those are just three of the many ways that the big banks have been on taxpayer supported welfare
They will pay back whatever sliver is politically necessary on whatever terms aren't too onerous.
Testily.
They will then update their models to include the fault tolerance on the deregulation meme.
They will self-regulate the size of the rake they use on the Treasury next time their unregulated lending hits a wall, and they will duly note that when their banks threaten to be throttled, their allies are suddenly the interventionists.
Oh wait, they figured all that out last time. It's been the new business cycle for years.
Cavanaugh, my apologies...
FDIC insurance already exists as a contract, so honoring it just means playing by existing rules.
In fall 08 didn't that protection stop at $100K? Maybe my timing's off, but it's still $250K til they quietly lower the threshold.
I can see why you felt covered, but that really wasn't going to stop the meltdown, even if they rolled the check-printing presses fast enough to make the little deposits whole in time for them to put them in the First Farm Bank of Lawrence Kansas (previous total deposits low enough not to have already been bought by the banks that just went under, but now with lines out the door presumably).
Bailing out unwise borrowers is not something the government promised to do, so it's as novel (and objectionable) as bailing out stupid lenders, even if the "whole world" has to "watch its largest banks sink into the river overnight."
The opposition to moral hazard is strong in this one. I was kidding about that consumer-debt payback plan in line with your calling quits with your bank. I kid.
But really, the banks were going down. They probably had it in their business plans to go down slowly and surface with quiet help from the government or whoever, but it was happening fast. LIBOR at 5% is bad for everybody. Bad enough that the administration blew an election over it, as you know.
Just check the stock prices of the banks, specifically the ones that matter. They nearly flatlined just based on what the "whole world" saw happen as is.
(Seriously, man, do you have any gear other than finger-fluttering hysterics?)
Oh, I'm freaking OUT.
Just kidding, didn't really mean to troll you.