If you are looking for something to watch this weekend, the documentary Hank: Five Years from the Brink is now available on Netflix and Amazon. The film tells the story of the 2008 financial crisis from the perspective of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. During the most dangerous days of the crisis, he played a crucial role in persuading Congress to authorize a $700 billion bank bailout, the biggest in American history. The October 2008 bailout averted a 1930s-style run on the banks and likely prevented another Great Depression.
Ironically, however, Paulson inadvertently helped trigger the crisis in the first place.
In early September 2008, as years of reckless mortgage lending gave rise to a rapidly spreading financial meltdown, Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke refused to save the foundering investment banking firm Lehman Brothers. The decision was a grave mistake. Days later it became clear that Lehman’s bankruptcy threatened the solvency of the insurance behemoth AIG. As the historian Jean Edward Smith explained in his 2016 biography of George W. Bush, “If AIG went down, the entire financial system would be imperiled, given the extent to which the insurance conglomerate was intertwined with the world’s major financial institutions.”
The appalling scale of the AIG crisis prompted Paulson and Bernanke to reverse course and embrace the idea of a massive government bailout of the banking system. At the urgent behest of the Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman, Congress enacted into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which injected hundreds of billions of dollars into the banks. The bank bailout was wildly unpopular with the general public, but it was clearly the right thing to do. It averted an economic disaster and the banks ultimately paid the government back in full, plus interest.
Nevertheless, critics argued that the AIG meltdown could have been avoided if Paulson and Bernanke had bailed out Lehman Brothers before the contagion spread. So why didn’t they? Both later insisted that they lacked the legal authority to rescue Lehman. In testimony before Congress, Bernanke declared, “I will maintain to my deathbed that we made every effort to save Lehman, but we were just unable to do so because of a lack of legal authority.”
Yet, as Smith points out, Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act grants the Federal Reserve Board virtually unlimited power to make bank loans “in unusual and exigent circumstances.” The specter of a global financial collapse would certainly seem to qualify as an unusual and exigent circumstance.
Personal considerations may have played a role in Paulson’s approach to the Lehman bankruptcy. As the film points out, Paulson’s brother Richard worked for the Chicago office of Lehman Brothers and the Paulson brothers had a heart-to-heart conversation during the peak of the financial crisis. Although this is obviously speculation and conjecture on my part, it seems reasonable to surmise that Hank Paulson blanched at the prospect of using taxpayer dollars to rescue his brother’s employer. Privately he confided to Bernanke and New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner that he despised being known as “Mr. Bailout.” The name “Mr. Nepotism” probably sounded even worse to him. But by not taking action to stem the bleeding at Lehman Brothers, he eventually found himself forced to take even more dramatic steps to save AIG as well as major financial institutions such as Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs (which, ironically, Hank Paulson once led as CEO).
In any case, the film is a good reminder of how close we came to a second Great Depression in the fall of 2008. If you are interested, you can find the trailer on YouTube here.
The criticism that Lehman should have been saved is an after the fact one that ignores the political realities that faced the executive branch. The collapse of Bear Stearns just a few months earlier led to strong criticism that the New York Fed had played a major role in cajoling JP Morgan Chase to jump in. There was zero political support for bailing out Lehman in Congress. The $700 billion bill initially went down to defeat in the House only to be reversed when the market collapsed on that vote.
What should concern us today is that the federal government imposed tens of billions of dollars of fines on the banks (B of A, Chase, Wells) that bought out failing institutions like Merrill, Countrywide, Wachovia, Wash. Mutual etc. for misconduct at those institutions prior to their acquisition. There should be no expectation that private sector buyouts during the next crisis will be available from any management that remembers how the political system responded this past time.
Posted by: PaulB | August 18, 2018 at 08:06 AM
That is a great point, Paul.
In his autobiography, former President George W. Bush writes that he knew the first TARP "vote would be a disaster" because of political opposition to bailing out Wall Street. In fact, he had personally lobbied members of the House Republican caucus without success before the failed vote on TARP on Monday, September 29. But when the Dow fell 777 points the next day, the political dynamics changed entirely. As Bush writes, "My warnings about the system going down had a lot more credibility this time." On Friday, Oct. 3 the bill passed 263-171, but that means that 171 members still voted against it!
Accordingly, I absolutely agree that there was zero chance of Congressional approval for a Lehman bailout in early September 2008. Indeed, with the broader systemic risks only dimly understood by Congress and the public at that point, the political blowback against a Lehman bailout would have been immense and deeply unpredictable.
Thanks so much for your comment, Paul!
Posted by: Anthony Gaughan | August 18, 2018 at 09:16 AM
What if this happened on Our Dear Leader's watch? He would blame Crooked Hillary, Obama, Democrats, Liberals, Mueller, Europe, Pelosi, low IQ Waters, Blacks, Hispanics, McCain fake Media, CNN...Then let the country go to Hell. At least Bush put aside political rancor and opposition to the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina to reach out to all who could alleviate this crisis... He didn't hold a grudge and punish folks with dissenting view.
Posted by: Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Environmental Justice | August 18, 2018 at 10:19 AM
One more comment. I am not sure if a second Great Depression was averted. I have driven thousands of miles of back roads traveling to rural courthouses; these small towns are not booming and the countryside is filled with shanties and rusted automobiles. When the only business in town is an antique "mall," with a dusty window and "Open" flag, it tells me, that this is a sign of economic strain. Many towns are like that...
Posted by: Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Environmental Justice | August 18, 2018 at 10:33 AM
That is an important point, Scott Pruitt Endowed Chair in Environmental Justice. The economic decline of rural and small-town America has not gotten enough coverage nationally. But it is starting to get more attention. In fact, there is an article on the problem of stagnant wages in a booming economy in this morning's Washington Post that uses Ames, Iowa as a case study. Here is a link to it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-the-nations-hottest-job-market-wages-rise-but-costs-are-higher/2018/08/17/54f301ca-9fee-11e8-b562-1db4209bd992_story.html?utm_term=.aaf669b187dc.
Thank you for your comment, Scott.
Posted by: Anthony Gaughan | August 18, 2018 at 11:42 AM
He plundered the treasury to pay off Goldman's gambling debts and to bail out the rich at the expense of the poor. He came up through the most disgusting corridors of power, and his most frequent visitor at Treasury was . . . Blankfield the CEO of Goldman. A truly disgusting human being.
Posted by: ChicagoD | August 18, 2018 at 11:37 PM
ChicagoD
I think you got the CEO' name and facts wrong. Evidence? Facts???
Posted by: Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Environmental Justice | August 20, 2018 at 06:33 PM
I give a thumbs down to this documentary. It was all about how Hank the All American saved the world. It was not really a serious or even helpful introductory analysis to the crisis. I have heard that the new Adam Tooze book is quite good, though obviously a lot more work. In any case, for short and pithy I still think the Big Short is the way to go.
Posted by: Steve Diamond | August 24, 2018 at 03:01 PM
Steve, I've heard that the Adam Tooze book is good too. And I also loved the Big Short! Have a good weekend.
Posted by: Anthony Gaughan | August 24, 2018 at 10:43 PM