Ben Bernanke: Why We Didn't Bail Lehman Out

October 15, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (3)

In an economic address Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke shed some light on the government's decision not to bail out the now bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers.

From his prepared remarks:

A public-sector solution for Lehman proved infeasible, as the firm could not post sufficient collateral to provide reasonable assurance that a loan from the Federal Reserve would be repaid, and the Treasury did not have the authority to absorb billions of dollars of expected losses to facilitate Lehman's acquisition by another firm. Consequently, little could be done except to attempt to ameliorate the effects of Lehman's failure on the financial system. Importantly, the financial rescue legislation, which I will discuss later, will give us better choices. In the future, the Treasury will have greater resources available to prevent the failure of a financial institution when such a failure would pose unacceptable risks to the financial system as a whole. The Federal Reserve will work closely and actively with the Treasury and other authorities to minimize systemic risk.

In the speech, Bernanke also addressed why the government bailed out AIG:

In the case of AIG, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury judged that a disorderly failure would have severely threatened global financial stability and the performance of the U.S. economy. We also judged that emergency Federal Reserve credit to AIG would be adequately secured by AIG's assets. To protect U.S. taxpayers and to mitigate the possibility that lending to AIG would encourage inappropriate risk-taking by financial firms in the future, the Federal Reserve ensured that the terms of the credit extended to AIG imposed significant costs and constraints on the firm's owners, managers, and creditors.

Tags:
Lehman Brothers,
AIG, Inc.,
Wall Street,
government intervention,
Ben Bernanke,
Federal Reserve

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

For all the minds of Treasury and the accounting standards committee. Why are the laws so lax regarding asset buying of derivatives. Nick Leeson of Barings BAnk should have been a wake up call for all. The Germans were saying repeatedly there is no transparency? What that probably meant was "how do you account for an asset that is paid for up to 10% value (to buy into a futures contract), & where and how do you account for the 90% in a futures contract, that hasn't expired or realised.

Lennam's Borthers, and their manager's what warrants their salary packages including bonuses and family homes sold to their spouses. They should who be jailed for committing fraud & attempting to "off load" company assets, including director's assets away from potential creditors or liquidators to their wives for a reported $152 for a $10m Florida house?

Ask the account standards committee now what is their position on futures and short selling contracts, they probably couldn't give you a straight answer.

I say, the regulators are Piss weak!

I hope Obama shakes these guys down, regulators loose their positions due to inefficiency's and liquidator's, administrators are put through boot camp to toughen up, obliviously the old guard did little even after Baring Bank.

nick tsirigotis 3:32AM January 26, 2009

Amazing. Bernanke, Greenspan, Rubin, Summers et al- would the real pro-regulatory chairman/secretary please stand up? Oh, they would.....now.

Bill Turecki of WA 10:48PM October 16, 2008

Lame, that simple. The whole situation,just lame.

Decapoe of NC 9:43PM October 15, 2008

The Home Front

Associate Editor Luke Mullins tracks the treacherous housing market and explains how to unload a five-bedroom McMansion or even find that dream home.

advertisement

advertisement