Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

Hey, remember last year when there was a lot of populist hostility to the whole bailout idea because it was going to cost the taxpayers a truckload? 

It's funny how things turn out

The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it has lent to ailing companies since the financial crisis began last year, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit, according to a new Treasury report.

The new assessment of the $700 billion bailout program, provided by two Treasury officials on Sunday ahead of a report to Congress on Monday, is vastly improved from the Obama administration’s estimates last summer of $341 billion in potential losses from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That figure anticipated more financial troubles requiring intervention....

[T]he new estimates would lower the administration’s deficit forecast for this fiscal year, which began in October, to about $1.3 trillion, from $1.5 trillion.

If you dig through the numbers, the bulk of the losses come from two sources -- the bailouts of GM and Chrysler, and the bailout of AIG. 

This leads to another very interesting irony.  The biggest beneficiary of these bailouts is the American public, since the financial system did not melt down and the futures market for duct tape and shotguns never materialized.   

Another big beneficiary, however, are sovereign wealth funds:

In less than two years, many of the biggest overseas government investment funds, known as sovereign wealth funds, have reaped huge gains from bailing out financial institutions, and in turn, the global financial system.

In the latest announcement, Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund said on Sunday that it had booked a $1.1 billion profit on the stake it took in Citigroup in January 2008. That equals a 37 percent annualized return on its initial $3 billion investment. Other sovereign wealth funds — including those backed by the governments of Singapore, Qatar and Abu Dhabi — have also recently cashed out stakes in foreign banks for comparably large gains.

The hefty returns highlight how some savvy government funds have been able to profit from the financial crisis, even as most ordinary investors have been pummeled by billions of dollars of losses. It also calls into question whether such funds will act as long-term investors, as many initially suggested, or merely short-term profiteers.

I'm not sure how "savvy" these funds actually were -- I don't think that they were banking on a crisis followed by a rapid recovery in the financial sector.  Still, these funds didn't panic during the meltdown, so I guess that's a small point for "patient capital."

That said, I'm wrestling with the lessons to draw from all of this.  It does suggest that with great risk comes great opportunity.  By late 2007 it was governments rather than private capital markets that were willing to take the risk. 

I'll leave it to the commenters to draw additional lessons. 

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

FP WONK STEVE

3:17 AM ET

December 8, 2009

The Bailout money

Wasn't a good chunk of that money borrowed to begin with? Sounds like the profit may not be as much as we think it is. Better than nothing I suppose...

There was a reason why some of the banks that received TARP money wanted to pay it back ASAP. Why give Uncle Sam unnecessary profits? Pay it back as soon as the cash is on hand so their profits can be regained.

I think the lesson is that government should never be afraid to rescue or invest in it's financial sectors, because if the govt. can avert a crash of the system, they may be a profit.

Alot of people howled at the bailouts because they got nothing themselves...

 

BRETT

8:08 AM ET

December 8, 2009

This makes me wish I had a

This makes me wish I had a big chunk of money on hand to invest - that's one hell of a return on Citigroup.

 

FSD123

8:59 PM ET

December 8, 2009

How can you say this helped

How can you say this helped the Average American in anyway? Where I live the U3 unemployment stats sit at 16.5%. If you use the U6 stats you can more than double that same number. A quick look through our local paper and, you will see about four pages of news. With around six to ten full pages of forclosures. This has been a stable trend since before the banks were bailed out. Bailouts that could have kept homeowners in there homes. But instead allowed firms like JP Morgan to use tax payer money to buy failing banks at a reduced rate. Then pay off the taxpayer loan by restructuring there new assets before they actually had to anything for anyone who doesnt live on Wallstreet. Loans that would actually stimulate the economy. To the best of my knowledge JP Morgan Chase is not making personal loans. Which I was under the impression was why we were bailing out the banks in the first place. If we want real reform lets do away with our socialized banking system. Isnt a centralised banking system one of the key parts to the Communist Manifesto. How bad would it be for America to let Wallstreet fail. I just see the loss of a lot of debit. Debit that only makes a couple of really rich people a whole lot richer. But really why would our society collapse at the loss of this burden to the common man. It seems to me this is the exact senario Thomas Jefferson warned us about. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More