TARP program - Research Paper Example

Section/# TARP – An Analytical Perspective One of the greatest difficulties in seeking to understand the net positive or negative effects of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) is the fact that the true nature of what it did to save/rescue the economy and banking institutions from the brink of collapse may never be known. The reason for the inability of many economists to adequately judge what might have been had TARP not been instituted is due to the fundamental building block of logic that states it is oftentimes impossible to prove the negative.

Therefore, to review TARP and say that had it not been done the economy of the United States and the banking system the world over would have rectified itself naturally is a nearly impossible premise to prove. As such, this brief essay will not attempt to provide relevant statistics and figures to the TARP funds as a way to help the reader understand the extent of the monies that were distributed, the overall percentage of these monies which have thus far been paid back, as well as the means by which payment was accepted.

Firstly, TARP is defined as the 475 billion USD relief programs that made massive amounts of fluid capital available to banking and financial institutions to ensure a liquidity crunch did not affect a near repeat of the run on the banks that signaled the beginning the Great Depression (Cadman et al 2012). As such, TARP was a response to the subprime mortgage crisis that weakened the strength, resiliency, capital reserves, and fluidity of major financial institutions both within the United States and around the world.

As a means to avert the possible collapse of the financial system due to an overall lack of liquidity due to a high level of lost assets, the US government rapidly stepped in to sign TARP into law and inject much needed hard currency into the markets (Bayazitova et al 2012). It should be noted that there has been a high degree of misunderstanding with regards to the total funds that were made available to TARP as a function of the fact the original figure associated with TARP was in excess of 700 billion USD.

However, subsequent reassessments of the bill reduced the number to around 430 billion USD with approximate loan coasts in excess of 30 billion USD to arrive at the 475 billion USD figures that have been listed above. To this date, a great deal of misunderstanding with relation to TARP still continues to exist within society and within politics. For instance, many citizens believe that the TARP monies were a giveaway to the banks. This is of course a gross oversimplification as these monies were given as bona fide loans with stipulated rates and dates of return.

As such, currently over 550 companies continue to have TARP monies on their books; representing around 80% of all TARP recipients (Gaby et al 2011). However, the good news is that the overall outstanding amounts owed by these companies are less than 25 billion USD. What this means is that nearly 80% of all original TARP monies have thus far been paid back to the US government. As always with economics, there are downsides. For purposes of the research that this student engaged in with regards to TARP and its distribution, the manner in which TARP is/has been paid back is a primary issue of concern.

Moreover, where one might expect money to be repaid with money, this is unfortunately not the case. Instead, what has been affected to so rapidly pay down the amount of money that was originally borrowed have been a series of financial actions that include: discounted sales and exchanges, CDCI refinancing, recapitalizations and bankruptcies, and SBLF refinancing. Rather than going into a discussion of each one of these unique financial methods, suffice it to say that the concern expressed by many within the populace that the banks and financial institutions would never repay the debt that was instigated with the passage of TARP could be well founded.

As TARP has defined the financial systems continued survival, this analysis has helped to define the methods by which TARP operated, the overall size and scope of the investment, and the level to which TARP funds are still outstanding and awaiting payment from the principle borrowers. Due to the worrisome fact that many financial institutions have not repaid hard currency with hard currency, the extent and level to which TARP has actually benefited the economy as a whole is within question. References Bayazitova, D.

, & Shivdasani, A. (2012). Assessing TARP. Review Of Financial Studies, 25(2), 377-407. Cadman, B., Carter, M., & Lynch, L. J. (2012). Executive Compensation Restrictions: Do They Restrict Firms' Willingness to Participate in TARP?. Journal Of Business Finance & Accounting, 39(7/8), 997-1027. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5957.2012.02307.x Gaby, M., & Walker, D. A. (2011). Impacts of TARP on Financial Institutions. Journal Of Applied Finance, 21(2), 73-87.