The Moral Hazards Of A Moral Hazard

On October 3, 2008 President George W. Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, otherwise known as the “bailout.” The Purpose of this act was defined as to, “Provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of trouble assets for the purpose of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes” (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act). In my paper I will explain and show the relationship between the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and subprime lending, the collapse of the housing market, bundled mortgage securities, liquidity, and the Government 's efforts to bailout the nation 's banks.

However, it is clear that these unethical practices served as catalyzers of the financial crisis. Even though many financial institutions that could be held responsible for the 2008 crisis no longer exist and that legislation, as the Dodd-Frank, has been passed in order to further regulate financial institutions, many of the institutions responsible for the crisis are still in the core of the economy, controlling a very big part of it. It might be impossible for the general public to fight against a possible future recession, as the power of an individual is close to insignificant in comparison to the power of an established financial

The banks were bailed out in 2008 because the government wanted to buy $700 billion to buy distressed mortgage, and to take off debts on the banks books. The bailout created a bill called the Troubled Assets Relief Program. This means troubled banks have the right to submit a bid price to sell their assets to TARP as part of a reverse auction. This act helps the government know they did not spend a certain amount of money. The bank was bailed out by George Bush in October 3, 2008. The Volcker Rule affect the risky investment by having a hold on what type of trading that the banks do. This Act does not allow investment banks into trading with low quality assets, as in options, derivatives and

The Federal Reserve made emergency loans to the big companies in order to prevent large banks from failing when their investors frightened. With the stock market crashing, on October 3, 2008, President George Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program into law. TARP used 250 billion dollars of federal money to “bail out” the banks, and later automakers including General Electric. Government-working accountants reviewed large Wall Street banks’ balance sheets and disclosed to the public which were sound in order to instill more confidence within investors.

“The Fed did not bailout Bear at taxpayer expense, but enabled – as it is mandated – the financial markets to continue to function. History will call the Fed’s action the right move at the right time”, says Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D. The Bear Stearns Company began a financial meltdown in July 2007. By March 2008, it was ready to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Some people believe that the Federal Reserve should not have stepped in to bailout Bear Stearns because it was rewarding reckless business behavior and Bear should have been left to file bankruptcy. The deal of Bear Stearns was not a government bailout; it was rather a loan to preserve jobs, homes, savings, the economy, the shareholders of Bear, and the financial

During the spring of 2008, rumors were circulating that the investment bank Bear Stearns would fail due to their massive investments in subprime mortgages, or “toxic assets.” These rumors were able to decline the companyʻs stock from $171 to $57 dollars a share, and bankruptcy was imminent. Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, realized that Bear Stearns could not be allowed to go bankrupt because they were deeply connected to many other firms, which would result in major economic failure. In response to the crisis, Bernanke lent money to JP Morgan, which then lent the money to Bear Stearns, as the Federal Reserve could not directly lend money to Bear Stearns as it is an unregulated investment bank. After this process, Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, relied on the principle of moral hazard and notified the other banks that

The banking crisis of the late 2000s, often called the Great Recession, is labelled by many economists as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Its effect on the markets around the world can still be felt. Many countries suffered a drop in GDP, small or even negative growth, bankrupting businesses and rise in unemployment. The welfare cost that society had to paid lead to an obvious question: ‘Who’s to blame?’ The fingers are pointed to the United States of America, as it is obvious that this is where the crisis began, but who exactly is responsible? Many people believe that the banks are the only ones that are guilty, but this is just not true. The crisis was really a systematic failure, in which many problems in the

The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and subsequent financial market crash ushered in a time where many financial service companies were bailed out because they were deemed “too big to fail”. This term describes the large, intertwined relationship that many of the top banking and finance institutions have on our economy, and the devastating consequences that would transpire if these institutions were allowed to fail and cease to exist. While controversial, bailing out banks and other financial institutions was absolutely necessary to maintain the economic integrity of our nation. Raising objections to the ethical nature of a business being “too big to fail” does not address the deep underlying issues that led to this sort of thing being a possible whatsoever. With this being said, the aspects

Banks have been at the forefront of the financial system for as long as they have existed and have captured the attention of stakeholders on both controversial grounds as well as being undisputed with regards to the many helpful services they provide. JP Morgan & Chase is one such bank, surrounded by hostile news articles and excessive scrutiny but rightfully so as it has of recent been the topic of much controversy as turning a blind eye to the moral codes established by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and assisting Ponzi Scheme masterminds in swindling unsuspecting investors.

“Too Big to fail” was first known in a 1984 Congressional hearing where Congressman Stewart McKinney discussed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s intervention with Continental IIIinois. The idea interprates that certain financial institutions are so large, if any of them fails, it will bring an unexpected disastrous effect to the economy. As we all known, the 2008 financial crisis had arose the “too big to fail” problem to the peak controversial point. Banks, insurance companies, auto companies are part of the big company industry. They make profit by creating and selling complicated derivatives and trading loans, commodities and stocks. When the big economic environment is prosperous, those big companies make a competitive

There has been a debate for years on what caused the Financial Crisis in 2008 and if there was one main cause, or a series of unfortunate events that led to the crisis. The crisis began when the market was no longer funding many financial entities. The Federal Reserve then lowered the federal funds rate from 5.25% to almost zero percent in December 2008. The Federal Government realized that this was not enough and decided to bail out Bear Stearns, which inhibited JP Morgan Chase to buy Bear Stearns. Unfortunately Bear Stearns was not the only financial entity that needed saving, Lehman Brothers needed help as well. Lehman Brothers was twice the size of Bear Stearns and the government could not bail them out. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy on September 15, 2008. Lehman Brothers bankruptcy caused the market tensions to become disastrous. The Fed then had to bail out American International Group the day after Lehman Brothers failed (Poole, 2010). Some blame poor policy making and others blame the government. The main causes of the financial crisis are the deregulation of banks and bank corruption.

For instance, the increased importance of networks and the rise of highly systemic banks created a system in which the banks became, on one side, too big to fail, and, on the other, too big to save. Indeed, the lesson from Lehman Brothers Chapter 11 is that letting go bankrupt a systemic player (even not one of the largest) might bring about unknown undesirable effects. The policy makers are, therefore, definitely captured because banking sector is architecture in such a way that constrains the policy makers to go through a bail-out in case of a relevant financial distress. So which are the consequences of this behaviour? The outcomes are double: the ex-ante banks’ possibility to engage moral hazard behaviour and the ex-post debt burden on the tax payers. This creates an incentive for the banks to take more risks due to the implicit protection of the government, that rely on the tax payers to pay for the bailouts, creating a substantial problem of fairness and social equity, in which low income class has to pay for the top income class’ errors. Another example of this theory is the state dependence on taxes generated by the financial sector. For instance, in the UK “the financial sector’s gross value added (GVA) rose over the last decade, but has declined since 2009. Its contribution to UK jobs is around 3.6%. Trade in financial services makes up a substantial proportion of the UK’s trade surplus in services. Estimates of the sector’s contribution to Government tax

Yet another concern centres on “moral hazard”—that is, the possibility that fiscally irresponsible policies by recipient countries will be effectively rewarded and thereby encouraged by bailout loans. While theoretically a serious concern, the existence of such moral hazard has not been proved.

In this essay, we are trying to look at the factors responsible for the global financial crisis in 2008-09 which started in US and later spread across the world. By now, a lot of studies have been done on the global financial crisis of 2008. We explain briefly the role of the financial engineering which leads to combination of various financial securities, the actual risk of which is not clearly assessed and hence leading to the financial crisis. There were also some serious lapses in regulation and failure of the rating agencies in assessing the risks assumed by the financial products which accentuated the crisis.

This work will examine the case 'Banking Industry Meltdown: The Ethical Financial Risk Derivatives" and determine which moral philosophy is most applicable to an understanding of the banking industry meltdown and explain the rationale. The case study will be analyzed and white-collar crimes considered as to whether they are different in any substantive manner from other more blue-collar crimes. This study will determine and discuss the role that corporate culture played in banking industry scenario and the response will be supported with specific examples. This work will postulate how leaders within the banking industry could have used their influence to avert the industry meltdown.