[oa335]

TARP made only about $15 billion on about $400 billion “investment “ from around 2008-2013. An investment in almost any other financial asset would have made much much more money over that timeframe. To drive home the point, compare Warren Buffets bailout of Goldman to the TARPs bailout of banks (called the Capital Preservation Plan). Both involved purchases of convertible securities and warrants (both dilutive) from banks, but Buffet exacted much more onerous terms (lending Goldman, the most credit worthy bank, several billion at a 10% interest rate). He made about 3 billion on his 5 billion dollar investment.

Meanwhile the US government lent much less creditworthy banks MORE money at LOWER rates, which is why the returns of the bailout are so abysmal.

As for who benefited disproportionately , I would argue all of the primary stakeholders of the big banks and financial institutions. The primary stakeholders are not the shareholders as commonly believed, but instead the bonus eligible employees of those firms. 2010-2013 were amazing years for bonuses at trading desks at all the big banks.

Anyone of the stakeholders who bet on the stability of the financial system should have been punished (financially) for making the wrong bet. Instead most ended up doing quite well.

[jdsully]

There's a bit of a chicken and egg problem here. Those excellent returns were extremely unlikely to happen had there been no TARP. Much like leveraged buyouts often end up in bankruptcy due to extensive debt, excessively onerous terms on TARP would have blunted its effectiveness at restarting the economy.