Will $700 Billion Bailout Be Enough? The government's bailout of Wall Street and the mortgage market is changing almost daily. Is the $700 billion financial bailout working? David Wessel, economics editor at The Wall Street Journal, tells Ari Shapiro that some parts are working, but more funds may be needed to solve the problem.
NPR logo

Will $700 Billion Bailout Be Enough?

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/96890404/96890376" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript
Will $700 Billion Bailout Be Enough?

Will $700 Billion Bailout Be Enough?

Will $700 Billion Bailout Be Enough?

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/96890404/96890376" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

The government's bailout of Wall Street and the mortgage market is changing almost daily. Is the $700 billion financial bailout working? David Wessel, economics editor at The Wall Street Journal, tells Ari Shapiro that some parts are working, but more funds may be needed to solve the problem.


As more Americans lose financial help from their employers, the number of companies looking for aid from the federal government continues to grow. Companies from American Express to General Motors want federal money to get them through the financial crisis. To talk more about this, we turn to David Wessel. He's the economics editor of The Wall Street Journal. Good morning, David.

Mr. DAVID WESSEL (Economics Editor, The Wall Street Journal): Good morning.

SHAPIRO: Well, originally this bailout was described as being for the banks, but now we're hearing other industries and companies asking for government money. Who is asking for this?

Mr. WESSEL: Right. It almost looks like the way to get a bailout is to change your name to bank, and then you can be eligible for some of this money, which is pretty much what American Express is doing. But the problem here is that there's one pool of money, this $700 billion. There are a lot of companies in trouble, and so they're all trying to squeeze through this hole in order to get their share of it, the most recent, of course, being General Motors. It's a sign of just how serious the problem is for corporate America and how much people are looking to the government to help them out.

SHAPIRO: Well, it looks like the $700 pie is quickly disappearing. Is there going to be enough there?

Mr. WESSEL: Well, they've only spent about a couple hundred billion of the 700 billion that Congress authorized. I think most experts are saying, given the size of the problem and the number of companies that are at risk of bankruptcy that the government seems unwilling to let go into bankruptcy, the new administration probably is going to have to come back for more money in one form or another.

SHAPIRO: Whatever happened to the original plan that the government would use the $700 billion to buy toxic investments off the books of troubled banks?

Mr. WESSEL: That's really interesting. As you know, Secretary Paulson, who's speaking later this morning, went to Congress and suggested he was going to use this money to run auctions to buy the assets off the banks. But this is kind of like a big military campaign where you have strategy and tactics. And as the circumstances change, you change tactics.

And they've basically all but abandoned that auction mechanism and the idea of taking assets from the banks, and instead have gone to this idea of injecting capital, buying shares right in the companies in order to shore up the foundations. And it may change again when the Obama administration comes in, but that seems very much like yesterday's plan for yesterday's problem. and now we're on to something else.

SHAPIRO: What about the takeover of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? How well is that going?

Mr. WESSEL: Well, as you know, the government essentially took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it took over insurance company AIG, and those do not seem to be going terribly well. The problems were bigger than anticipated, and there are so many different things going on that neither of them are able to - neither Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac seem to be able to do the magic that people had hoped they'd be able to do once they were in government control.

They are borrowing, but the markets don't really believe they're as safe as the government thinks they are. So that's raised their costs. And I think there is a bit of indirection from the Treasury and the rest of the administration because they have so many other fish to fry. But that said, yesterday we saw them come forward with a plan to try and ease the burden on homeowners who are facing foreclosures. So there are some signs of activity there.

SHAPIRO: Well, when you look at the national economic picture, do you see any signs that the bailout is having a positive effect?

Mr. WESSEL: Well, I think it would have been worse if they hadn't done this. I mean, imagine if we were losing a big financial institution every week or even every day. So we've avoided some things. There are some signs in the credit markets where financial institutions lend money to each other that there is some easing of the strains. They're charging a little less to lend to each other. But it's clear that it is not adequate.

And that's why you hear all this talk from Congress, from the International Monetary Fund, from the World Bank - we'll hear it at this summit coming up this weekend - that we needed something more, something bigger, something like the Chinese are doing where there's another huge dose of government spending to try and shore up demand to keep the economy going while they try and repair the financial system.

SHAPIRO: It sounds like you're suggesting that as hard as it was for some people to swallow the $700 billion bailout package, there may be another one coming.

Mr. WESSEL: Absolutely. I mean, it's pretty clear that the Obama administration, the Democrats in Congress, are not going to let General Motors go into bankruptcy. The TARP, this Treasury - Troubled Assets Recovery Program, was not designed to be the bailout for all of American industry. So they're either going to have to stretch that or they're going to have to come up with a new way to put money into these companies because they think it's necessary to protect the economy from a repeat of the Great Depression.

SHAPIRO: David Wessel, economics editor of The Wall Street Journal, thanks a lot.

Mr. WESSEL: You're welcome.

SHAPIRO: To learn more about who might be next in line for a government bailout, go to our Web site, npr.org.

Copyright © 2008 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Q&A: Bailout Becomes Magnet For Other Industries

After reporting a huge loss of $29 billion for the quarter, Fannie Mae says its might need more financial assistance beyond the $100 billion the government said it would provide. Meanwhile, insurance giant American International Group is poised to get a revamped bailout package worth more than $150 billion.

What's new this time around for AIG is that the relief package includes funds drawn from the $700 billion bailout package administered by the Treasury Department. Previously, the government had said the $700 billion was reserved for financial companies. And now there's talk of extending that bailout to the Big Three automakers.

That has taxpayers asking whether the government's bailout efforts can really work, and where they end. Here, a look at some of the issues involved.

What kind of help has Fannie Mae already gotten, and why might it need more?

When the government took over Fannie Mae in September, the Treasury Department committed to providing the mortgage finance giant with up to $100 billion of cash in exchange for preferred stock. So far, Fannie hasn't tapped these funds yet, according to the Treasury, but it warns that it will need access to this money — and much, much more — if it becomes insolvent.

The company's financial position has deteriorated along with the economy, creating a bleaker outlook than when the government first took over Fannie two months ago. "There were holes in their balance sheet that we did not know the dimensions of," says Vincent Reinhart, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

On Monday we learned that the Treasury Department agreed to restructure AIG's assistance package. What's different?

The new assistance program for AIG involves dipping into the $700 billion bailout plan that Congress approved. Previously, only banks and financial services companies were eligible for a share of the pie. The Federal Reserve will also make loans to AIG as part of the new plan at a lower interest rate than the previous loans, and the company will have five years to back the money, instead of two.

The restructured assistance for AIG also addresses the actual purchase of troubled assets, which was not part of the original rescue plan for the company. The Treasury Department has yet to buy any assets for its Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was established to help thaw credit markets by buying financial companies' toxic assets. Instead, the Treasury has used the funds to inject cash into firms.

Catherine Mann, a professor of international economics and finance at Brandeis University's International Business School, says that "any resolution of this financial mess" for AIG and other financial institutions requires three components: the flow of money through the system, equity injections and the determination of price — what assets are actually worth. But so far, she says, we've seen no action on the pricing front.

Without a means to price assets, it's next to impossible for companies to value what they have on their books — and for the markets to return to good health.

Critics note that under the terms of the new AIG rescue package, the government — and taxpayers — will get a lower return because part of the restructuring involved cutting the interest rate terms. What's more, Reinhart says, the government is increasing its exposure to risk.

The original goal was "to have us in and out of AIG as quickly as possible," says Jonathan GS Koppell, an associate professor of politics and management at the Yale School of Management.

In mid-September, the Federal Reserve made an $85 billion loan to AIG to prevent its failure. The loan was made in exchange for a 79.9 percent equity stake in the company. The Fed said the two-year loan, with an interest rate based on the three-month LIBOR plus 850 basis points, was designed in part to give AIG some breathing room to be able to sell some of its businesses "in an orderly manner." The expectation was that proceeds from the sale of some of AIG's assets would enable the company to repay the loan. Under the new plan, the government would instead be paid back based on the appreciation of its stake in the overall company.

In early October, the government gave AIG a second loan for $37.8 billion.

But AIG is not a bank, so how come it qualifies for the cash injection?

The decision to keep AIG afloat was based largely on the fact that it was the largest global insurer, with more than $1 trillion in assets. The company insured financial instruments related to the U.S. housing market, and it was "hit squarely between the eyes by the housing finance meltdown," Morningstar senior equity analyst Bill Bergman says in a research note. Bergman says the biggest source of loss and concern was the credit default swaps the company wrote. But even now, AIG still has one of the largest balance sheets in the business.

With markets deteriorating around the company and mounting losses, counterparties — that is, the other companies participating in financial transactions with AIG — have demanded more collateral.

Well, if AIG qualifies for a bailout, why not Detroit?

The Treasury's bailout program was originally designed to assist financial services companies, which held toxic mortgage-backed securities that were at the heart of the financial crisis. The government expanded the reach of the program by offering assistance to banks of all sizes.

"The Treasury is just drifting," says Reinhart. "It didn't have a set of principles by which to guide its decision. What that means is they've had a very hard time drawing lines, and therefore, it has sort of invited firms to encroach."

Now, Detroit's Big Three automakers — General Motors, Ford and Chrysler — are lobbying for $25 billion in loans to help them survive. That's in addition to the $25 billion that Congress approved in September as funding to help the U.S. auto industry develop fuel-efficient technology.

So far, the Treasury Department has given this request a thumbs down, pitching it back into the lap of Congress. Congressional Democrats and President-elect Obama have urged the White House to allocate bailout funds for the companies.

Part of the rationale for extending the assistance is the specter of massive job losses: According to recent estimates from the Center for Automotive Research, the failure of the Big Three could result in nearly 3 million lost jobs in the first year, not just for the automakers but for parts manufacturers, dealers, related industries and in the general economy.