The Return to, and on, TARP

The Treasury Department announced yesterday that it was selling off its last stake in Citigroup and that it would make (note, make , not lose ) about $12.5 billion on the $45 billion investment it made in Citigroup at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. That’s about an 11% annual return on the taxpayers’ money.

I mention this because, among my many faults, I like to say, “I told you so.”

Back on September 26, 2008, when Congress was considering what is now known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), I argued in this space that the principled, economically conservative position was to support , not oppose, the plan. I argued, in short, that the conservative position is not that government should never intervene in markets but that it should not intervene when it is economically inefficient to do so. This, of course, is most of the time, but there are exceptions, including when government overcomes a collective action problem to quell a market panic, and since TARP would do just that, government intervention was warranted, even on conservative principles. I stand by that argument. As Warren Buffett recently wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times , “Just as there is a fog of war, there is a fog of panic—and overall, [the government’s] actions were remarkable effective.”

I also argued that TARP would likely make money, not lose money, by buying the various kinds of mortgage-backed securities for which the market had then frozen. Technically, that point is moot, since TARP became a program of equity investments in banks, not an asset-purchase program, but the Federal Reserve, via its MBS Purchase Program has bought about $1.25 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities, and, so far, it has made money, not lost it, on those transactions. Furthermore, as the government’s return on its Citigroup investment shows, even the converted version of TARP has turned out pretty well. The investments in the large banks that TARP was primarily designed to save have earned money for the taxpayers, and even taking account of investments that the government made in other financial firms (many of which, I admit, were not warranted), the final cost of TARP to the taxpayers will likely be about $25 billion, only a tiny fraction of the $700 billion invested.

Dear Reader,

Can I be direct with you?

War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.

First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.

But we can’t do it without readers like you.

Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.


Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.

Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.

GIVE NOW

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…

The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…