[defaultprimate]

From the abstract:

"Drawing selectively on existing cost estimates and augmenting them with new calculations, I conclude that the total direct cost of crisis-related bailouts in the U.S. was on order of $500 billion, or 3.5 percent of GDP in 2009. [...] Those conclusions stand in sharp contrast to popular accounts that claim there was no cost because the money was repaid, and with claims of costs in the multiple trillions of dollars."

From 3.1.3. See Wall's analysis of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for more detailed discussion of their bailout costs:

"Treasury collected $147 billion from Fannie and $98 billion from Freddie. As explained earlier, interpreting this tally as a cost measure is conceptually flawed for several reasons. Wall (2014) also discusses the shortcomings of this approach, which has been used to argue that the government has been more than fully repaid and that value should be returned to the shareholders."

From the conclusion:

"Nevertheless, the total is large enough to conclude that the bailouts were not a free lunch for policymakers as some have claimed."

What the paper is saying seems pretty clear to me: bailout costs have been inaccurately measured and reported popularly at both ends. It was neither unfathomably expensive, nor profitable to the tax payer.

If you lend me $100 and I pay you back $107 you can declare you profited from the loan if you literally only look at the principal and repayment amount, but finance is not so simple, especially at a national level. Opportunity cost, inflation, depreciation, and numerous other factors exist. The total cost of you lending me $100 could have been significantly more than $107.

[NovemberWhiskey]

I invite you actually to read the whole paper. Please pay attention specifically to section 2.1 where the author contrasts "fair value", "ex ante" and "ex post" approaches to direct cost estimation.

The paper says that you cannot look at a successful bailout and conclude that it must have been good policy, because success was not guaranteed; you instead need to look at the range of outcomes that are reasonably possible to estimate the likely costs.

The author doesn't at all say that the "ex post" account of actual cashflows is an inaccurate measurement of what happened; only that it doesn't represent a useful policy tool for estimating whether other bailouts represent good value.

[defaultprimate]

Section 2 is literally the basis of my original point that declaring repayment as profitable to the tax payer is inaccurate accounting of costs. I've read the entire paper. I'm not sure why you're so bent on ignoring plainly stated facts that align with my contention that the bailouts were not profitable to the tax payer. They weren't. It's explicitly stated.

"At 3.5% of 2009 GDP it is a cost that is big enough to raise serious questions about whether taxpayers could have been better protected."

It even directly states that citing the propublica bailout tracker, which the root comment does, as evidence of "profit to the taxpayer" is deeply flawed and one of the reasons the paper is addressing the issue. This is the entire reason I cited it

"The press typically reports bailout costs on an ex post cash basis despite the problems with that approach. For example, ProPublica, a highly regarded non-partisan news organization, created a 'Bailout Tracker' that has been keeping a running tally of government asset purchases and cash receipts under TARP and from the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In their most recent update dated September 27, 2018, they report a total net government 'profit' of $97 billion. Policymakers also tend to cite ex post cash results. For example, in 2012 former president Barack Obama claimed that, 'We got back every dime used to rescue the banks.' Other media outlets report skepticism about such claims,7 but news organizations generally lack the financial acumen or resources to produce credible cost estimates of their own."

You're not going to force your flawed interpretation onto me and convince me the author is not stating exactly what she's stating plain as day, and has reinforced with subsequent work and commentary. That's called gaslighting

[NovemberWhiskey]

There’s no gaslighting going on here; at worst, one of us misunderstands the paper and obviously I think that’s you.

Read the author describing her work in her own words:

https://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/how-much-the-financial-...

“My analysis imposes the discipline of a fair-value approach, which incorporates the uncertainty about the size of eventual losses at the time assistance was extended and the cost of that risk. By contrast, popular accounts simply add up realized cash flows or tally total risk exposures.”

As we look back, there is no uncertainty. We know what happened. The bailout was successful (within its parameters) and was more than repaid. You don't need to do any counter-factual analysis to show that, you can just go look at the reports to Congress from the Department of the Treasury.

To understand that paper, take an analogy from gambling.

Say I plan to play roulette; I'm the U.S. government, the bet is the bailout. Let's just assume I'm going to bet $1 on red.

I want to understand the cost of the bet at the time I place it; this is the fair value of the wager (bailout). The odds against winning a bet on red with an American roulette wheel are 1 1/9:1 and the payout is 1 to 1 - so the expected (fair) value of the bet is -$0.053. The author attempts to do the same for the bailout, bearing in mind the uncertainties, and comes up with -$500bn.

Now, at the roulette wheel, the expectation that I'm going to lose out $0.053 needs to be balanced against the excitement and pleasure of the wager. In the bailout case, the fair value of the bailout needs to be balanced against the anticipated broader economic results of the intervention like containment of the credit crisis and the shoring up of the mortgage system.

We spin the wheel and it's 32, red. We're lucky and so we win back our stake plus another $1. In the case of the bailout, the intervention was successful, the economy recovered, and the bailout money was more than repaid.

The popular account that the author alludes to corresponds to looking at this bet and saying "betting on red was obviously the right thing to do because I made 200% of my money back and I had fun gambling". The author isn't disputing that the bailout was more than repaid (she stipulates that in the abstract of the paper!), or that the economy rebounded. She is absolutely right that this is the wrong way to look at the expected cost of a bailout in the future.

Fundamentally, from a finance/economics perspective, there is no incompatibility between saying "the fair-value cost of the bailout was $500bn" and "the government made billions of dollars on the bailout". That's because the definition of a cost requires an analysis of the expected return. You do agree with this, right?

[defaultprimate]

The original comment stated that the bailouts have been profitable for the taxpayer and cited the ProPublica bailout tracker as evidence of this.

I said that they have not been profitable to the taxpayer. I pointed out that the conclusion that they've been profitable to the tax payer is based on flawed cost accounting methods and cited the paper.

In the paper, the author very explicitly stated it was not profitable to the tax payer, directly calls out the misleading nature of the ProPublica tracker, explains why it's misleading, verbosely explains and justifies a more accurate cost accounting methodology, describes the results of using this methodology, and commentates on how these results and the methodologies that produce them may be used in the future to make more accurate and less misleading cost assessments of bailouts in the future.

I've directly quoted the paper numerous times in which the author clearly states that the bailouts were not profitable to the taxpayer, flaws in methodologies that indicate they were profitable to the taxpayer, and why different methodologies are needed that more accurately reflect whether the true cost of a bailout results in a situation that is profitable to the taxpayer.

In conclusion, and to reiterate my original point. The bailouts were not profitable to the taxpayer except when using deeply flawed cost accounting methodologies such as ex post cash flow analysis, which the author, in great detail, explains is a woefully inadequate for measuring the cost to the taxpayer of a bailout.

[NovemberWhiskey]

One last time.

Quoting the author:

In fact because it is most likely that a recession will be followed by a recovery, it is probable that the government will show a “profit.” However, bailouts are costly because of the possibility of relatively unlikely but very costly states of the world where recessions persist and recoveries are low.

As I think we can agree, it was not the case the 2008 recession was persistent with low recovery; yet it is the possibility this could have been the case that increases the cost.

Cost analysis is absolutely orthogonal to an actual accounting of profit and loss, which is why the author consistently uses quotes around the word "profit". The cost of doing a thing has nothing at all do with whether it turns out to be profitable! Profitability is exactly a matter of ex post cash accounting; there is just no other way to measure it.

I guarantee you have never quoted a section of the paper that says the bailouts were unprofitable to the taxpayer because the author never makes that claim: because it would be false. You will also never find a reference to "cost accounting" in the paper, again because those concepts are orthogonal within the author's framework. By all means double-check the paper on both those points.

If you're trying to answer the question "did the tax payers get back more money than they put in to the bailout", then the only way to do that is by ex post analysis of cash flows: the answer is "yes they did". If this were a business, that would be the definition of a profitable investment.

Until you understand that costs are nothing to do with profitability, you're doomed to misunderstand this paper.

[defaultprimate]

"The government earns a 'profit' from the bailout of -$200 + $210 = $10 million. Figure 3 illustrates the situation and makes clear its conceptual shortcoming."

"At 3.5% of 2009 GDP it is a cost that is big enough to raise serious questions about whether taxpayers could have been better protected."

You're just plain wrong mate. Taxpayers don't need to be protected from profitable ventures. I dunno what the hell definition for profit you're making up, but it's literally defined on the basis of cost in accounting and finance.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accountingprofit.asp