Kash Patel Becomes the Focus of Media Analysis They Consistently Get Wrong
The Deplorable Treatment of Afghan Women Is a Glimpse Into Our Future
In Record Time, Voters Are Regretting Electing Socialist Mamdani
Steven Spielberg Flees California Before Its Billionaire Wealth Tax Fleeces Him
Oklahoma Bill Would Mandate Gun Safety Training in Public Schools
Here Is the Silver Lining to the Supreme Court's Tariff Ruling
CA Bends The Knee, Newsom Will Now Mandate English Proficiency Tests for Truck...
Guatemalan Citizen Admits Using Stolen Identity to Obtain Custody of Teen Migrant
Oregon-Based Utility PacifiCorp Settles for $575M Over Six Devastating Wildfires
Armed Man Rammed Substation Near Las Vegas in Apparent Terror Plot Before Committing...
DOJ Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship from Former North Miami Mayor Over Immigration...
DOJ Probes Three Michigan School Districts That Allegedly Teach Gender Ideology
5th Circuit Vacates Ruling That Blocked Louisiana's Mandate to Display 10 Commandments in...
Kansas Engineer Gets 29 Months for $1.2M Kickback Scheme on Nuclear Weapons Projects
DOJ Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Ohio Healthcare Company
OPINION

Some Consequences of Government Ownership of Banks

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Some Consequences of Government Ownership of Banks

Despite the substantial and continuing repayment of TARP bank assistance, the U.S. government maintains an equity interest in 371 banks.  A small number of those banks actually have the government as a majority owner.  For instance the former GM financing arm, now known as Ally Bank, has a government interest of 74 percent.  Sadly the United States is not alone in this regard.  The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is still majority owned by the UK government.  And of course the U.S. government owns Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even if the Office of Management and Budget denies that reality.

Advertisement

Should we be concerned about all this government ownership of financial institutions?  The small body of empirical literature on the topic suggests a strong “yes.”  Probably the most comprehensive research was published in the Journal of Finance by La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, and Shleifer.  The authors find “that higher government ownership of banks is associated with slower subsequent development of the financial system, lower economic growth, and, in particular, lower growth of productivity.”  Let’s keep in mind that the last one, productivity, is ultimately what drives wage growth.  So for several very important reasons we should be doing our best to get the government out of ownership in the financial sector.  Recent research in the Journal of Financial Intermediation confirms these findings, and also finds that political inference is what primarily drives these bad results.

As much as it pains me to say it, the recent suggestion by Paul Myners and Manus Costello in the Financial Times that, in the context of RBS, we are better off as taxpayers taking our losses and getting out of these companies rather than holding out for better returns, is probably correct.  The damage to the greater economy from political interference in the financial system (witness the demands for Fannie and Freddie to take losses to support the housing market) is likely to outweigh the losses to the taxpayer from an early ownership withdraw.

Advertisement


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement