Trillion Dollar Bailouts Equal Crony Capitalism

The Federal Reserve was supposed to be a lender of last resort, not an ATM for Wall Street.


Earlier this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sent a letter to Congress where he tried to counter the idea that the Fed secretly lent trillions of dollars to banks during the financial crisis. But Bernanke's complaint missed the whole point of why the nation should be up in arms over the Fed's special bailout of Wall Street. Arguing over whether $7.7 trillion or $16 trillion was the total amount of the bailout ignores the deeper issue of the Fed's abuse of its mandate to be "lender of last resort."

The lender of last resort (LLR) idea was first developed in the 19th century by two British economic writers, Walter Bagehot, who coined the phrase in his book Lombard Street, and Henry Thornton, considered to be the father of the modern central bank.

Essentially, a lender of last resort should be an institution that protects the monetary system from contractions in the face of bank runs and financial panics—i.e., it makes sure there is money to borrow if liquidity freezes without good cause. The supporting thesis is that if a company is healthy, with good collateral to put on the line for a loan, but can't find a lender because of an abnormal lock-up of money, they shouldn't be forced to fail. In this instance, a LLR can step in and prevent an unnecessary bankruptcy and "lend freely, but at a penalty rate," as Bagehot wrote.

On this logic, many have defended the Federal Reserve's recent lending not as a bailout, but as fulfilling its duties as lender of last resort. The problem with this logic is that the Fed's emergency lending programs have deviated far from the classical model of the LLR. The Fed did not lend to creditworthy borrowers, it did not ensure good collateral for the loan, and it did not charge an interest rate above the going market rate (a "penalty rate" to avoid banks becoming dependent on the source of funds).  

Let's consider each of these accusations and the evidence.

First, the most important principle for LLRs is that they only lend to solvent companies that would otherwise be able to get a loan from the private sector. If a firm is unsound and failing it will naturally have trouble getting access to credit and go bankrupt. The LLR exists for the times when healthy companies can't get credit for extraordinary reasons but are otherwise healthy institutions. To highlight how far away from this principle the Fed has ventured, consider the financial institutions that the Federal Reserve has recently lent to:

  • American International Group—so full of toxic credit default swap contracts that it couldn't get a loan at any price and was hours from running out of cash before the Fed stepped in with an initial $85 billion loan. It's equity has since been diminished to near zero value.
  • Bank of America—weighed down by losses from bad mortgage investments on its books so large that it required $94.1 billion in loans and has remained teetering on the edge of technical insolvency ever since.
  • Citigroup—facing a $18.72 billion total loss for 2008, it borrowed $99 billion over a six day period in January 2009.
  • Morgan Stanley—took $107 billion in Fed loans in September of 2008 and still posted a massive $2.3 billion loss in just the fourth quarter of 2008 alone (10 times the consensus estimate of bank analysts at the time).

The list could go on for pages because the Fed lent to nearly any financial institution it could find. And since no one could convincingly value all those toxic mortgage-backed securities during the height of the crisis (one of the reasons Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson decided to use TARP for equity injections instead of buying the toxic debt from the banks directly), it is hard to see how the Fed could justify determining that all the financial firms it lent to were creditworthy. The Fed knowingly violated the foremost tenet for a lender of last resort.

Bernanke's letter to Congress says it is misleading for articles to "depict financial institutions receiving liquidity assistance as insolvent." But since regulators like the Fed get to officially determine technical solvency or insolvency, Bernanke has the power to ignore the numbers and pass a letter of the law test in bailing out the entirety of the financial industry.

Second, while the Fed could have mitigated some of its risk in lending to unsound financial institutions by demanding good collateral, it didn't. The Fed went ahead and also violated this tenet for lenders of last resort.

Former Richmond Federal Reserve Senior Economist Thomas Humphrey wrote in the summer of 2010 that the collateral the Fed had accepted through its special lending programs was "complex, risky, opaque, hard-to-value, and subject to default." 

He pointed out that banks could even offer the rights to be paid back for loans they'd issued to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as quality collateral. That meant that if the bank failed to return the Fed's loan, the Fed could get those interest and principal payments from the GSEs—but in early 2008 the GSEs were considered by the government as near insolvent. In fact the Treasury Department decided in August 2008 that Fannie and Freddie were so unsound they had to be taken over by the government to avoid bankruptcy (and they've now cost taxpayers $182 billion in bailouts, and counting). How could the Fed consider GSE debt to be good collateral? 

The reason why the Fed was able to accept risky and worthless collateral is because it set the terms for defining good collateral under its own lending programs. For instance, the framework governing the Term Auction Facility—just one of the many murky, awkwardly named programs the Fed launched as lender of last resort—notes that the local Federal Reserve branch for the institution getting the loan determines the value of any posted collateral. This allowed the Fed to price collateral however it wanted to ensure it could technically provide bailout loans to any firm.

Third, the Fed has charged a near zero penalty rate when conducting its extensive emergency lending operations. The final tenet of lending as last resort is designed to discourage banks from taking advantage of the LLR and to avoid political favoritism in determining the recipients of the loans. 

Bernanke's letter to Congress claimed that, "most of the Federal Reserve's lending facilities were priced at a penalty over normal market rates so that borrowers had economic incentive to exit the facilities as market conditions normalized." But consider the Term Auction Facility (TAF).

TAF was designed so that commercial banks could borrow from the Fed anonymously and avoid the negative stigma that came with publicly borrowing from the "discount window" (the Fed's traditional source of credit for banks). This amounts to a tacit devaluing of truth in the marketplace, favoring asymmetric information that misdirects the use of capital (I'll leave that discussion for a separate article). Over a 27-month period ending in March of 2010, the Fed lent out $3.8 trillion through TAF. This money was spread out over 4,000 different loans, with terms ranging from 13 days to 85 days, and with most institutions borrowing more than once from the program.

For 85 percent of program, the Fed lent at rates below the "discount window primary rate"—the market measure for what banks would normally borrow. If the Fed were charging a penalty, it would be charging at least the primary rate plus an additional amount.

Contrary to Bernanke's statement that most were charged a penalty rate, most were actually underpriced loans. The ultimate result was the Federal Reserve lending to unsound institutions, against poor collateral, and with no penalty—i.e., giving money away for free to the Fed's closest friends.

The Fed effectively put aside any concerns for moral hazard with its actions, and instead focused on short-term aims over long-term negative consequences. The result has been an outrageous carry trade, with some financial institutions taking in virtually free money, buying Treasuries that yield about 3 percent (lending it back to the government that just gave it to them), and banking the difference. Bloomberg estimates that banks have made about $13 billion from this, which those banks have then used to pay large compensation packages.

Lending to everyone, accepting whatever is available as collateral, subsidizing the entire operation, and ensuring that financial players suffer no consequences for their own foolish actions is not the free market at work. When the Occupy Wall Street crowd complains about illicit gains, this is the source of their anger. We have a crony capitalist system and the government is doing everything in its power to avoid changing it.

Anthony Randazzo is director of economic research at the Reason Foundation.

NEXT: Criminals Disguised as Cops Raid Illegal Gaming Establishment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The Fed went ahead and also violated this tenant…”

    Violating tenants is just another perk of being a landlord.

    1. Droit du seigneur FTW.

  2. Bernanke would do anything to not be remembered as the guy that caused or worsened the second Great Depression, especially as he made his name as a student of the first.

    1. If I were him, I’d be more worried about not being remembered as the asshole that got clubbed to death by a mob on the steps of the Fed!

  3. Which party fiddled while the world economy burned? Oh yeah the GOP.

    NEVER FORGET– This was GEORGE BUSH’s bailout. Fannie, Freddie & the US auto makers were taken over by GEORGE BUSH’s administration.

    And we followed GEORGE BUSH with BARACK OBAMA who is the #1 recipient of Wall Street contributions ever and who stacked his adminstration with bigtime Wall St players.

    Anyone with half a brain should come to the same conclusion — ANY vote for ANY Republican or ANY Democrat is a vote FOR the status quo.


    1. What you said.

  4. Ya don’t say.

  5. He said the Bernanke does ATM for Wall Street. Cool.

  6. “The Federal Reserve is supposed to be a lender”

    I disagree.

  7. What a dishonest article.

    The Fed relaxed its collateral from US Treasuries to investment grade corporate bonds – BFD.

    And $13 billion in “penalty rate” lost opportunity? So what? Such are not actual losses, they are merely unrealized gains. The Fed poured $125 billion of its emergency profits into the Treasury during this time at no expense to the taxpayer.

    Most of these loans were a duration of days – not weeks or months. and the story ignores the Commercial Paper facility which made McDonald’ payroll – among others. The $2 trillion CP market vanished in Nov 2008.

    The $7,7 trillion reported by Bloomberg is a joke. A billion dollar loan rolled over for a month is accrued as a $30 billion loan. The numbers are bogus.

    LLR is a modern monetary policy – too bad the goldbugs of 1870 can’t see that.

    1. What you say is accurate Shrike. Consider the metaphor, “When the tide goes out, you see who was swimming naked.”
      The Fed basicly loaned these insutions pants, until they could find more.
      The problem is that the banks should have been punished by the market for swimming naked, and they weren’t. With the Fed’s help they are back to boom-times.
      At the least, it is moral hazard.

    2. Don’t talk sense to them, they might realize how little their precious Mises and Hayek have to do with modern finance theory. Seriously guys, whatever moral hazard you wish happened to the banks would have come at an even greater expense than what has already passed. At least the economy has a (small) chance now.

      1. There is no evidence to support that claptrap. NONE.

        1. Nuh-uh!

          Mein Fuhrer Obama says it to be true so it must be so!

      2. Foretelling the past, Beavis?

    3. You mean to tell me that good business practices should never occur because we can always lend. Somehow this whole mess had to be planned by the oligarchs and their cohorts. No one with any business sense can say they did not see it coming!

  8. A Trillion here, a Trillion there, pretty soon you are talking about real money.

    1. Kinda of like how Stalin felt about people…

  9. You know, if we allow competing currencies to be used and are not forced to accept fed notes as “legal tender” it’d be interesting just to see how few people would use it. Then again, that’s what you get when your currency is backed by magic and witchcraft.

    1. I thought it was voodoo and virgin sacrifice?

  10. Tall, with silky chocolate skin and very smart, this girl has it all. And now she shows it to us…

    This was Valerie’s first time posing nude, and we can thank her boyfriend for encouraging her. In school they call her the gazelle, and with those long legs it’s not hard to see why. Beautiful features and big, wild hair make her look like an untamed animal!

    Originally from Mauritius, she now lives in Germany, where her dark beauty has to inspire second glances on the street. She speaks English, French and German fluently. Strict about her diet and work-out regime, she runs like the wind? helpful for a spirited gazelle like her!

    Strikingly attractive in so many ways, this woman of colour now shares herself with you, only here on Hegre-Art.

    1. Can we all at LEAST come together and agree that we all hate thread bots?

    2. Hey, it’s PornBot 69000! Welcome back, PornBot.

      You’ve told us about Valerie’s long legs and beautiful features, but what we really need to know is whether she’ll give us the Ben Bernanke treatment…

      1. The Ben Bernanke Special?

        Even an old sea dog like me finds that level of “Ouchie Sex” to be disquieting…

    1. Goody! Saturday morning funnies!

  11. Here is a similar article from the European perspective:


  12. Konata has come to us from what could be almost another world. We know of the Japanese tradition. The girl-woman seems so quiet and almost timid. Very eager to please and very submissive.

    Get ready for a big surprise. Konata is all this but much more. This giggling girl with a fondness for fizzy sodas has her big secret and it’s just come out.

    Konata thinks about nothing but sex. Whatever way, whenever is her style. Most of all being in front of the camera – to show off her perfect breasts and milky skin – is what turns her on.

    Right now she has a glorious black bush. Catch it now before she tries something new with that as well.

  13. Bernanke was doing what Milton Friedman argued the Federal Reserve should have done during the Great Depression. I don’t like the idea of such bailouts because it doesn’t solve the underlying problem and it doesn’t punish those involved, however, even libertarian economists will agree that the Fed’s action saved us from a great depression. Even the nobel winning libertarian experimental economist, Vernon Smith, agreed that the Fed’s action saved us from another depression during his interview with Nick Gillespie.

  14. Nicole has enchanted us here at Hegre-Art with her sultry beauty. We are sure she will do the same for you.

    Her striking good looks and breast-length brunette hair are only the start. Nicole has a degree in psychology. She has a wisdom and an understanding of the human heart not often found in a woman of only 22 years. Perhaps that is why she has that haunting smile. A touch of mystery mingling with sensuality.

    But in front of the camera there are no secrets. Everything is laid bare.

    Those famous Ukrainian looks and figure come to perfection in Nicole. From her amazing long legs to her raven hair – and everywhere in between – she excels.

  15. ==== http://www.sipostyle.com ====
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel sunglasses is $9.88
    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $30
    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
    Kid t-shirt $9
    Jeans price is $29.68
    ==== http://www.sipostyle.com ====

  16. I’m not sure that the first, rather delicate, way that this was pointed out made its message clear enough, so here goes.

    The word you are looking for is “tenet” as in “tenets of belief.” A “tenant” is one who rents or leases real property, typically housing or agricultural land. I hope this error didn’t make it into print.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.