Why Bank Bail-Ins Are the New Bailouts (2024)

The world experienced economic turmoil during the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Low-interest rates boosted borrowing, a boon to existing and prospective homeowners, but created a bubble that would impact consumers and the world's banks.

The Great Recession that followed ushered in the term too big to fail, the rationale for rescuing some of the largest financial institutions with taxpayer-funded bailouts. In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Act, which eliminated the option of bank bailouts but opened the door for bank bail-ins.

Key Takeaways

  • Big banks were deemed too big to fail following the financial crisis of 2007-2008, resulting in government bailouts at the expense of taxpayers.
  • Financial reforms under the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated bailouts and opened the door for bail-ins.
  • Bail-ins allow banks to convert debt into equity to increase their capital requirements.

Bank Bail-In vs. Bank Bailout

Bail-ins and bailouts are designed to prevent the complete collapse of a failing bank. The difference between the two lies primarily in who bears the financial burden of rescuing the bank.

In a bailout, the government injects capital into banks, enabling them to continue their operations. During the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the government injected $700 billion into companies like Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), and American International Group (AIG) using taxpayer dollars.

Bail-ins provide immediate relief when banks use money from their unsecured creditors, including depositors and bondholders, to restructure their capital. Banks can convert their debt into equity to increase their capital requirements. Banks can only use deposits over the $250,000 protection provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

Bank Term Funding Program

Following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in March 2023, the Federal Reserve Board authorized all twelve Reserve Banks to establish the BTFP to make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks can meet the needs of all their depositors. The program will be a source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution’s need to sell those securities in times of stress.

Bail-Ins and Dodd-Frank

Giving banks the power to use debt as equity takes the pressure and onus off taxpayers. As such, banks are responsible to their shareholders, debtholders, and depositors. The provision for bank bail-ins in the Dodd-Frank Act was largely mirrored after the cross-border framework and requirements outlined in Basel III International Reforms 2 for the banking system of the European Union.

Dodd-Frank creates statutory bail-ins, giving the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the authority to place bank holding companies and large non-bank holding companies in receivership under federal control. Since the principal objective of the provision is to protect American taxpayers, banks that are too big to fail will no longer be bailed out by taxpayer dollars. Instead, they will be bailed in.

According to the Treasury Department, the federal government recovered $275.2 billion through "repayments and other income" from banks that benefited from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), $30.1 billion more than the original investment.

European Bail-In Policy

The use of bail-ins was evident in Cyprus, a country saddled with high debt and the potential for bank failures. The country's banking industry grew after Cyprus joined the European Union (EU) and the Eurozone. This growth, coupled with risky investments in the Greek market and risky loans from two large domestic lenders, led to government intervention in 2013.

A bailout wasn't possible, as the federal government didn't have access to global financial markets or loans. Instead, it instituted the bail-in policy, forcing depositors with more than 100,000 euros to write off a portion of their holdings, a levy of 47.5%.

In 2013, the EU introduced resolutions to make the bail-in a common principle by 2016 in response to the effects of the European Sovereign Debt Crisis. It transferred the responsibility of a failing banking system from taxpayers to unsecured creditors and bondholders, the same way Dodd-Frank did in the United States.

Investor Assets

In a bail-in, banks use the money from depositors and unsecured creditors to help them avoid failure. This also includes depositors whose account balances are more than the FDIC-insured limit. Banks have the authority to take control of any capital that fits the criteria per the law. Investors with accounts that exceed the $250,000 insured limit may be affected and should:

  • Monitor the performance of the financial markets and financial sector
  • Ensure that chosen financial institutions are financially secure and stable
  • Spread the risk by diversifying money and assets
  • Keep balances at or below the $250,000 limit
  • Avoid banking with any institution that has large derivative and mortgage books, which can be risky in times of crisis

What Are the Risks of a Bank Bail-In on Consumers?

Bail-ins allow banks to avoid bankruptcy by shifting some risks to their creditors rather than to taxpayers. This risk can be transferred to bank customers, too.

How Are FDIC Deposits Affected In a Bail-In?

Banks can only use money from accounts over the $250,000 limit protected by the FDIC. Depositors should monitor changes to federal government guidelines relating to banks and financial matters.

Are Bank Bail-Ins Legal In the United States?

Bank bail-ins are legal under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Act. Banks have the authority to use debt capital as equity to avoid failure. This includes capital from unsecured creditors, common and preferred shareholders, bondholders, and depositors whose account balances exceed the FDIC-insured limit of $250,000.

The Bottom Line

Big banks are not immune to the effects of financial instability. After the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the passage of Dodd-Frank, the federal government shifted the risks to creditors by allowing financial institutions to use debt capital to stay afloat. This means that debtholders, unsecured creditors, shareholders, and depositors may shoulder problems within the financial sector when banks use bail-in measures.

Why Bank Bail-Ins Are the New Bailouts (2024)

FAQs

Why bail-ins will be the new bailouts? ›

Financial reforms under the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated bailouts and opened the door for bail-ins. Bail-ins allow banks to convert debt into equity to increase their capital requirements.

Why are bank bailouts good? ›

When this happens, the failure can have less of an economic impact because existing bank accounts, and sometimes employees, are assumed by the new bank. A bank bailout, by contrast, occurs before a bank failure. Bailouts are intended to prevent banks from failing.

Can banks seize your money if economy fails? ›

In conclusion, banks cannot seize your money without your permission or a court order. However, there are scenarios where banks can freeze your account and hold your funds temporarily.

What are the advantages of bailout? ›

Pros of Bank Bailouts

Maintaining Financial Stability: The stability of the financial system is crucial for economic growth and prosperity. A bank bailout can help to maintain this stability by preventing a financial crisis from spiraling out of control and causing widespread economic damage.

Why are government bailouts a problem? ›

When governments spend large sums bailing out their banks, they can create large deficits that increase the risks of their sovereign debt. Many banks invest heavily in such debt, so that bank risks may be significantly increased by these sovereign risk problems.

Are government bailouts a good idea? ›

In short, bailouts essentially create an endless cycle of debt and more bailouts. The problem here is that bailouts offer no benefits to the other half of Americans who don't invest, even though the bailouts are funded by their taxes.

Can the government take money from your bank account during a recession? ›

Banking regulation has changed over the last 100 years to provide more protection to consumers. You can keep money in a bank account during a recession and it will be safe through FDIC and NCUA deposit insurance. Up to $250,000 is secure in individual bank accounts and $500,000 is safe in joint bank accounts.

Can the government take money from your bank account in a crisis? ›

They are able to levy up to the total amount you owe in back taxes, and the bank must comply. For many individuals, this might mean seizing everything in their entire bank account. The only way you are able to release a levy due to hardship is if you make a satisfactory resolution.

Should I take my cash out of the bank? ›

In short, if you have less than $250,000 in your account at an FDIC-insured US bank, then you almost certainly have nothing to worry about. Each deposit account owner will be insured up to $250,000 — so, for example, if you have a joint account with your spouse, your money will be insured up to $500,000.

What happens to my money in the bank if the economy collapses? ›

Originally Answered: What happens to my money in the bank if the economy crashes? The FDIC reimburses account holders with cash from the deposit insurance fund when a bank fails. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects accounts up to $250,000 per account holder and per institution.

What happens to my money if bank collapses? ›

If a bank closes, what happens to your money depends on whether the account is sold to another institution or the FDIC takes responsibility for paying out depositors. In most cases, accounts are sold to another bank, and you will automatically have access to your funds at the new institution.

Are bank bailouts good or bad? ›

The overall purpose of a government deciding to bail out a bank or other business can be to help protect the national economy, which may otherwise suffer dire consequences due to factors like job losses or lack of investor confidence.

What is the difference between a bailout and a bail in? ›

A bail-in is the opposite of a bailout, which involves the rescue of a financial institution by external parties, typically governments, using taxpayers' money for funding. Bailouts help to prevent creditors from taking on losses, while bail-ins mandate creditors to take losses.

What is the no bailout rule? ›

Article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is colloquially called the 'no bailout clause' and is referred to as such on the ECB website1. However, Article 125 solely states that Member States cannot take on the debts of another Member State.

What is the difference between bail-in and bail out? ›

A bail-in helps a financial institution on the brink of failure by requiring the cancellation of debts owed to creditors and depositors. Bail-ins and bailouts are both resolution schemes used in distressed situations. Bailouts help to keep creditors from losses while bail-ins mandate that creditors take losses.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Annamae Dooley

Last Updated:

Views: 6044

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (65 voted)

Reviews: 80% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Annamae Dooley

Birthday: 2001-07-26

Address: 9687 Tambra Meadow, Bradleyhaven, TN 53219

Phone: +9316045904039

Job: Future Coordinator

Hobby: Archery, Couponing, Poi, Kite flying, Knitting, Rappelling, Baseball

Introduction: My name is Annamae Dooley, I am a witty, quaint, lovely, clever, rich, sparkling, powerful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.