The Biggest Bank Bailouts in History (#2 Is Happening Right Now)

More
Did you hear that? No? Well, it's not exactly the other shoe dropping, but the Cyprus bank bailout is still quite a milestone. It's the second-costliest, in terms of GDP, on record. At $10 billion in a $18 billion economy, bailing out its banks will cost Cyprus a stunning 56 percent of GDP -- trailing only Indonesia in 1997, as the chart below from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) shows. It turns out Greek bonds weren't such a good investment.

BiggestBankBailouts2.png

There are three big waves of banking crises here: Latin America in the 1980s, the East Asian financial crisis in 1997, and the global financial crisis in 2008 -- together with a few other conflagrations in the 1990s.

The countries changed, but the story stayed the same. Money flowed into an it-economy and that pushed asset prices up. But then the animal spirits went into hibernation. Investors worried that the boom had gone too far, and race to pull out their money -- and paper profits -- before everyone else could. In other words, a bank run on the country. The economy, and asset prices, collapsed, the latter leaving banks underwater. International lenders like the IMF in the 1990s and the EU more recently have bailed out the banks to prevent further financial carnage, but they have done so at significant cost for the countries involved. The chart below looks at how each of the above countries fared three years after their bailout, with GDP indexed to 100 in the year their banks went bust. (Note: Data on GDP is courtesy of the IMF).

BailoutsVsGrowth2.png

It's not a perfect relationship, but, in general, the bigger the bailout, the bigger the bust. This is shouldn't surprise us. It's not that bailouts kneecap growth -- just ask economists if they think TARP did -- but rather that a bigger shock requires a bigger bailout, and bigger shocks mean bigger hits to GDP. Of course, it doesn't help when lenders insist on tight money and tight budgets as the conditions for a bailout, as the IMF did in the 1990s and the EU has today.

Globalization has made a brave new world, at least since 1914, where money moves across borders in search of the best return, but this hasn't given countries the best return. There hasn't been much to insulate them from the booms and busts of hot money inflows and outflows. It's been bad enough that even the IMF, which made "neoliberal" a curse word in the 1990s, admits that temporary capital controls might be necessary sometimes. And that's an even braver, newer world, where experience is trumping ideology.

Maybe that's the real other shoe.
Jump to comments
Presented by

Matthew O'Brien

Matthew O'Brien is a former senior associate editor at The Atlantic.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Why Are Americans So Bad at Saving Money?

The US is particularly miserable at putting aside money for the future. Should we blame our paychecks or our psychology?


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

The Death of Film

You'll never hear the whirring sound of a projector again.

Video

How to Hunt With Poison Darts

A Borneo hunter explains one of his tribe's oldest customs: the art of the blowpipe

Video

A Delightful, Pixar-Inspired Cartoon

An action figure and his reluctant sidekick trek across a kitchen in search of treasure.

Video

I Am an Undocumented Immigrant

"I look like a typical young American."

Video

Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion

Writers

Up
Down

More in Business

Just In