After receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, banks often did not come to the aid of credit-starved American businesses. Instead, it seems many banks went back to making the same high-risk bets that left them in need of government support in the first place.
Despite claims by government officials at the height of the financial crisis that bailouts would lead to more lending, banks that received bailout funding didn't increase total lending, according to a new study out of the University of Michigan.
But the banks did shift their investments toward risky loans and investments, including mortgage-backed securities. Under few guidelines, banks largely treated the bailouts as a windfall and, more importantly, a reassurance that the government would come to the rescue in the future, said the paper's co-authors, University of Michigan assistant finance professors Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura.
The paper, released earlier this week, argued that the key factor predicting more risk-taking was not the bailout money itself, but the message that the government had the banks' back.
Despite claims by government officials at the height of the financial crisis that bailouts would lead to more lending, banks that received bailout funding didn't increase total lending, according to a new study out of the University of Michigan.
But the banks did shift their investments toward risky loans and investments, including mortgage-backed securities. Under few guidelines, banks largely treated the bailouts as a windfall and, more importantly, a reassurance that the government would come to the rescue in the future, said the paper's co-authors, University of Michigan assistant finance professors Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura.
The paper, released earlier this week, argued that the key factor predicting more risk-taking was not the bailout money itself, but the message that the government had the banks' back.