tab header

Bank Tracker: Five-Year Review

Oct. 29, 2013 |

Five years ago this week, the U.S. Treasury bought $115 billion worth of stock in eight of the nation’s largest banks, launching the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Over the next 14 months, Treasury would put another $89 billion into 700 additional banks.

By most accounts TARP achieved its primary purpose: To help bring about stability in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. It is hard to remember just how rapidly the nation’s financial structure was deteriorating in September and October of 2008.

• The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 27 percent of its value between Aug. 29 and Oct. 24. Three of its five worst trading days in history happened in September and October.

• Then, as now, Congress played a role, first defeating the Bush Administration’s proposal to create TARP before agreeing to step in after stock markets plunged.

• Huge financial institutions were collapsing on what seemed like a daily basis. On Sept. 6, the federal government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest mortgage lenders. Lehman Brothers, an investment house that had been in business since 1850, filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15 after government officials and major banks refused its pleas for help. The same day, Bank of America agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch, another of the largest brokerages. The next day, the government stepped in with an $85 billion loan to AIG, the biggest insurance company. The largest bank failure in American history happened Sept. 26, when bank regulators took over Washington Mutual and sold its remains to JPMorgan Chase. On Oct. 3, Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia; even though the deal didn’t require government assistance, it was reached under prodding from bank regulators. Finally, on Oct. 5, Congress agreed to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and TARP.

TARP by the numbers

as of Oct. 1, 2013:

*As part of TARP, Treasury operated other programs. These numbers are only related to the “capital purchase program” under which Treasury directly invested in bank stocks and debt instruments. Some of the other programs also resulted in investments in banks.

**Approximately $2.67 billion of the money Treasury counts as “repaid” under TARP was actually swapped by the banks for money from the Small Business Lending Fund, a separate Treasury program that was not part of TARP.

***Does not include $2.33 billion still owed by banks that repaid TARP with money from SBLF.

***Treasury has sold some of its investments at less than face value and it has incurred losses when some banks failed. Nearly half the losses were a result ofthe 2009 failure of CIT Financial Corp., which cost the government $2.3 billion.

Source: Treasury Department reports; Research by Wendell Cochran; Graphic by Cristina Keane,

Investigative Reporting Workshop

Behind nearly all the turmoil was the collapse of the nation’s housing and mortgage markets, which had seen massive expansion in the previous five years. Much of the growth, it turns out, had been fueled by overly aggressive lenders who had made loans that borrowers couldn’t repay. Many of those loans were packaged into bonds and sold as investments to banks and credit unions. When the underlying loans went sour, so did the investment vehicles, eroding the capital of the financial institutions that had purchased them.

Bank assistance was only one part of TARP, which also contained billions in assistance to the auto industry, to AIG and to help homeowners through mortgage modifications. Altogether, Congress authorized the Treasury to spend as much as $700 billion on all the TARP programs; ultimately, about $420 billion was given out, most of that to banks and AIG.

From the outset TARP was controversial. By many accounts, the large banks didn’t especially want the money because they feared it would label them as weak. To the general public it was a “bailout” of reckless banks.

“The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is at once one of the most hated, misunderstood, and effective policies in modern economic history,” Government Accounting Office economist Michael Hoffman wrote in 2012. “In concert with other policies executed by the federal government, TARP was responsible for restoring financial stability at a time when systemic failure in the banking system threatened to bring about a downturn of a magnitude not seen in the United States since the Great Depression. Not only was financial stability restored in short order, the ultimate budgetary cost is likely to be quite modest.”

Despite Hoffman’s conclusion and similar arguments, TARP remains a hard sell for the public. Five years later, three in five Americans think TARP was a bad idea, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, and eight out of 10 think that more people in the financial industry should have been prosecuted for their actions that might have caused the crisis.

Indeed, while many banks have paid billions in fines for violations relating to their mortgage activity (JPMorgan reportedly is about to agree to a record $13 billion payout), no senior executives — and only a handful of lower-ranking officials — have gone to jail.

Ironically, perhaps, the special inspector general (SIG) for the TARP programs has not been hesitant about investigating and prosecuting executives for attempts to defraud the government.

In a report to Congress in July, the IG said, “In our 4½ years, SIGTARP investigations with its law enforcement partners have resulted in 144 defendants being criminally charged, including 92 senior executives. Already 107 of these defendants have been convicted, while others await trial. In addition to the 51 defendants already sentenced to prison, 9 defendants were sentenced to probation, and 47 additional convicted defendants await sentencing. Our investigations have resulted in court orders for $4.3 billion in assets to be returned to victims or the government. This includes forfeiture to the Government of 38 vehicles, 25 properties, 20 bank accounts, bags of silver, U.S. currency, antique and collector coins, artwork, and antique furniture.”

The report also says, “The average prison sentence for TARP-related crime investigated by SIGTARP is 68 months, nearly double the national average length of prison sentences involving white-collar crime. Ten defendants investigated by SIGTARP were sentenced to 10 years or more in Federal prison. Many of the criminal schemes uncovered by SIGTARP had been ongoing for years, involve millions of dollars, and complicated conspiracies with multiple co-conspirators.”

Some banks began buying their way out of Treasury’s grasp as quickly as they could. Centra Financial Holdings of Morgantown, W.Va., kept its $15 million only two months, from January through March of 2009. By June 2009, several of the biggest banks — chafing under executive pay restrictions imposed under TARP – got permission from regulators to buy back Treasury’s investments.

The cost of TARP still is a bit hard to pin down. By Treasury’s accounting, its TARP bank investments have made a profit so far. By Treasury’s accounting, it still holds the stock in 108 institutions, with a face value of $2.3 billion. The largest outstanding investment is $935 million owed by Popular Bank Inc. of San Juan, Puerto Rico.

But that doesn’t count another $2.3 billion owed by banks that swapped their TARP investments for money from the separate Small Business Lending Fund. And it seems unlikely that Treasury can recoup its entire investment in the 108 banks that remain in its portfolio. Since the beginning of 2012, Treasury has lost nearly $1.4 billion on the sale of stock in 250 banks as it has moved aggressively to end its ownership in banks.

Most of the remaining bank investments are small, but they are in institutions that still are under stress from the financial crisis. Seventy-five of the banks in which Treasury owns stock are not current on their dividend and interest payments, with a total of more than $140 million due to the government. Several of those banks have not ever made a dividend or interest payments.


MSNBC logo




BankTracker updates

We've continued to report on banks and you'll find most of that coverage now under the Investigative Reporting Workshop's main site at You can read more about our 2016 analysis of eight years' worth of banking and credit union here: More

Bank profits hit new high in 2013

The nation’s banks have recovered strongly from the financial crisis, and the results for 2013 provide even more evidence: Profits for the year hit $154.7 billion, according to reports filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. That's the highest level ever. And only 24 banks failed last year, the fewest since 2007. More

Credit unions still recovering but worries linger

Solid loan growth and continued low interest rates have helped the nation’s 6,600 credit unions rebuild from the 2008-09 financial crisis, according to new data from the National Credit Union Administration. But there might be storm clouds on the horizon. NCUA Chair Debbie Matz warned recently that the prospect of higher interest rates could cut into credit union profits.  More

Bank Tracker: Five-Year Review

By most accounts TARP achieved its primary purpose: To help bring about stability in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. But the program has been called "one of the most hated, misunderstood and effective policies in modern economic history.”  More

Smaller banks rebound more slowly

The latest data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. shows that the nation’s banks continue to recover from the financial crisis, reporting stronger earnings and increasing loan volume. But an analysis by the Investigative Reporting Workshop shows that for the vast majority of banks — those with less than $1 billion in assets — profits are harder to come by as they continue to try to work their way through a disproportionate amount of troubled loans and foreclosed property. More

Reshaped banking industry emerges from crisis

The banking industry has emerged shaken but in some senses thriving. Last year was the second most profitable ever for the nation’s banks, according to reports filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., but it is unmistakably true that the industry is fundamentally different today than it was five years ago.   More

More money, fewer banks

Banks are closer to pre-recession profit and lending levels, but there are fewer of them. More