4 ms·

Is that actually true? TARP cost $426 billion in 2008 and when the assets were finally sold off in 2014, they summed $442 billion. So that's a 3.7% return durin

Is that actually true? TARP cost $426 billion in 2008 and when the assets were finally sold off in 2014, they summed $442 billion. So that's a 3.7% return during a time when the s&p 500 more than doubled in value. Do you have some examples where the government made these returns?

reilly3000 7y ago
Right but they maintained a whole tax producing economic center including (probably) corporate taxes and income tax on hundreds of thousands of wages from the companies themselves and their suppliers. Breaking even on a bailout is pretty phenomenal given the broader implications.
- Retric 7y ago
  That assumes they had no leverage and no other options. Raising the rates by say 4% and companies would still have taken the money and the economy would have reacted in the same way.
- hobs 7y ago
  You're missing the opportunity cost of doing twice as well?
Anon1096 7y ago
You're assuming that the s&p would have done well had the government not enacted TARP. It's pretty agreed upon by economists that the bailouts of the GFC saved us from financial collapse.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deminature 7y ago
The TARP is still projected to net a $121bn profit for the taxpayer. Only a portion of loans have been returned to the government currently. https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/