Savings and Loan Bailout (United States)
In August 1989 Congress enacted the Financial Institution
Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act. This legislation furnished funds to
redeem insured deposits at failed Savings and Loan institutions (S&Ls) and
created the Resolution Trust Corporation, an agency responsibly for liquidating
the assets of failed savings and loans. The bailout was expected to cost the
federal government $160 billion over a 10-year period and maybe as much as $500
billion over 40 years.
Between 1988 and 1991 over 1,000 S&L institutions failed, putting out of
business approximately one-third of all the S&Ls in the United States. The
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), the agency responsible
for insuring deposits at S&Ls, ran out of money to redeem insured deposits
at these institutions. In effect, the S&L collapse bankrupted the FSLIC.
During the 1970s, a period of rising inflation in the United States, S&Ls
faced strict legal limits on the interest rates that depositors could earn on
S&L deposits. S&Ls paid low interest rates on deposits and made
relatively low interest loans on home mortgages.
During the 1980s the United States economy made the transition from an
inflation economy to a disinflation economy, and the S&L industry also
changed from a highly regulated industry to a deregulated industry. The
deregulation of the S&Ls lifted the interest rate ceilings of S&L
deposits, and allowed S&Ls to enter the business of consumer and commercial
loans. Interest rates escalated rapidly in the early 1980s under the pressure of
a tight, anti-inflation, monetary policy, squeezing S&Ls that held low
interest mortgages while paying high interest rates on current deposits.
Savings and loans tried to save themselves by turning to riskier consumer and
commercial loans that paid higher interest rates. When depression struck in the
oil and real estate industry in the last half of the 1980s, S&Ls began to
fail rapidly.
The S&L collapse in the United States uncovered an unsuspected weakness in deposit insurance: fully insured
depositors had no incentive to favor S&Ls with conservative investment
policies over S&Ls with risky investment portfolios. That is, depositors had
no incentive to keep track of investment practices of individual S&Ls,
allowing them a free rein to finance risky business ventures.
Another provision of the Financial Institution Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act placed responsibility for insuring S&L deposits with the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the agency that has always insured
commercial bank deposits. The FDIC is devising a plan to vary the insurance
premiums that financial institutions pay according to the riskiness of loan
portfolios. Under such a plan financial institutions that carry high-risk loan
portfolios pay higher deposit insurance premiums.
No comments:
Post a Comment