CNNMoney.com
Companies Economy International Corrections Pre-market Trading After-hours Trading Winners/Losers/Actives Bonds Currencies Commodities World Markets Money Magazine Real Estate Taxes Jobs Ask the Expert Money 101 Autos Mutual Funds The Help Desk Loan Center Best Places to Live Ask the Expert Ultimate Guide to Retirement Retirement Calculators Rules of Retirement Best Funds Best Places to Retire Fortune Brainstorm Tech Apple 2.0 Blog Big Tech Blog Sectors and Stocks Tech Talk Resource Guide Small Business Makeovers Questions & Answers Small Business Video 100 Best Places to Launch FSB 100 Fortune Small Business Fortune 500 Brainstorm Tech Investing Management C-Suite Rankings Main Create Portfolio Edit Portfolio Create Alerts Edit Alerts
Money and Main Street
9 of 12
BACKNEXT
Why wasn't TARP enough?
Question: "Shouldn't TARP have been enough for the banks to at least recoup a majority of their losses and stabilize their balance sheets?" -- Matt Sedlak, Littlestown, Penn.

Expert: Michele Boldrin, professor of economics, University of Washington in St. Louis

Answer: "There are two answers, the quick, nasty one and the longer more detailed one.

The quick, nasty one is that the losses were bigger than the money we put in. The longer answer is that not all of the money was used to cover the losses; some of it was used to pay for bonuses and things like that.

But the truth is that if we put in $500 billion, we'd still be about a trillion short. The TARP approach is to basically avoid any kind of major bank failure. But some losses are real and we just have to accept that we had invested money into things for years that we assumed were worth X. But it turns out they were worth quite a bit less - and that 'quite a bit' is gone.

For example, when bad investments are made, you have to make future readjustments. Like with mortgage lending. There was a substantial amount lent out to build homes and remodel them: $11.7 trillion, to be exact. The banks put that on the balance sheet as profit for when it is paid back. But now people are not able to pay it back, so what looked like profit isn't. So in order to balance out that loss, you would have to put money in to cover it, but there isn't enough money being put in to cover the losses.

The current idea is that we take money from those that didn't assume and give it to those who did so that they hurt a little less and we all stay afloat."

NEXT: What happens if the stimulus fails?

Last updated April 14 2009: 11:56 AM ET
More Galleries
Biggest losers: Where Americans aren't moving Through most of the decade Florida was one of the fastest growing states. But the sunny clime -- and 6 others -- lost more residents than they gained in the year ended July 1. More
8 hot cars: Class of 2000 In just 10 years, the market's changed a lot when it comes to cars. Where are these models now? The Prius became a hit; the Aztek got killed. More
Obama's Main Street favorites President Obama meets often with small business owners, peppering his speeches with their stories. We checked in with 6 entrepreneurs touted by the President to find out how they handle health care. More

Special Offer
© 2009 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy. Advertising Practices.
Copyright © 2009 BigCharts.com Inc. All rights reserved. Please see our Terms of Use.
MarketWatch, the MarketWatch logo, and BigCharts are registered trademarks of MarketWatch, Inc.
Intraday data provided by Interactive Data Real-Time Services and subject to the Terms of Use.
Intraday data is at least 20-minutes delayed. All times are ET.
Historical, current end-of-day data, and splits data provided by Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data.
Fundamental data provided by Morningstar, Inc..
SEC Filings data provided by Edgar Online Inc..
Earnings data provided by FactSet CallStreet, LLC.