FORTUNE -- Move over "too big." There's a new knock on the mega banks: "Too connected to fail."
Two studies published in the past few weeks tackle the issue of whether big banks get special privileges because of their connections to top regulators and Washington officials.
Both studies focus on the early days of the financial crisis. The first, titled "The Value of Connections in Turbulent Times," came last month from a group of five economists including MIT's Simon Johnson, who has been a vocal proponent of breaking up the big banks. The Johnson study finds that shares of banks with stronger connections to Timothy Geithner rose 11.2% more than those that didn't after news was leaked back in 2008 that Geithner was to become Treasury Secretary. Remember, this was at the height of the financial crisis, when the possibility that the government would have to nationalize a number of banks, or all of them, was thought of as a real thing. The rise in stock prices could mean that investors thought that banks with better ties to a key Washington insider had a better chance of surviving the financial crisis intact, or at least getting better treatment.
The second study arrived earlier last week and focuses on the Federal Reserve and the loans it made to banks in 2007 and 2008. The study, by George Mason University economics professor Benjamin Blau, finds that banks receiving emergency loans spent significantly more --72 times as much -- on lobbying in the decade prior to the financial crisis than those that didn't get assistance. What's more, even after Blau adjusted for size, he found that banks with political connections got bigger loans than those that didn't.
This, of course, feels unfair. But it may not be all that surprising. Banks that deal in complex markets are often more likely to have stronger ties to regulators, who are making the rules. And since the financial crisis, in part, erupted because of the complexity of those markets, it makes sense that the banks that needed the most assistance were the ones that spent the most time with regulators.
The cynical way to interpret this data is that banks hire lobbyists and connected individuals in order to skirt the rules so that they can make risky bets that boost profits and bonuses in good times. In bad times, their connections lead to government bailouts on favorable terms, also boosting bonuses.
But that may not be exactly what's going on here. First, the Johnson study is only measuring perception, and the market could be getting this wrong. One of the biggest beneficiaries of the financial crisis was Wells Fargo (WFC). It was able to buy Wachovia and get huge tax breaks for doing so. And it also used the financial crisis to extend its dominance of the mortgage market. The Johnson study does show that Wells' stock did react positively to Geithner's appointment, but not nearly as much as Citigroup (C), which is still struggling post-financial crisis. Although, I guess, you could argue that without Geithner it would have been even worse.
The Johnson study didn't find any ties between Geithner and AIG (AIG). Yet Geithner was key in providing assistance to the large insurer. Johnson and Co. chalks that up to the fact that AIG was essentially a backdoor bailout for the big banks, but that doesn't really explain why Geithner defended paying bonuses to key AIG employees even after the firm -- and, by extension, the banks -- were bailed out.
To their credit, both studies point out that there could be something less nefarious going on here. The most benign comes from the Blau study that says banks that lobby were probably more likely to seek out Fed loans. But, in general, the studies claim that it is likely that Geithner and the Fed handed out assistance to the firms that they knew best. And if you are handing out taxpayer money and you hope to get it back, going with firms you know probably isn't a bad choice. But it's not as if all the spending on behalf of the banks has been free of misguided, or even corrupt, motivations and processes.
An open letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on how to avoid the fiscal cliff: Stop acting like a policy wonk and start acting like a Wall Street dealmaker.
FORTUNE -- Dear Mr. Secretary:
I know that even though President Obama has been reelected, you are planning to leave the Treasury. So I'd like to offer you a goodbye gift. It's not money or a prestigious seven-digit-a-year gig. It's a way to MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Nov 14, 2012 5:00 AM ET
With the economy limping along just months before the big election, the president is probably wondering if he should have sent his Fed chairman to the unemployment line.
By John Cassidy, contributor
FORTUNE -- In the summer and fall of 2009, President Obama faced a tricky decision: Should he reappoint Ben Bernanke, whose four-year term as chairman of the Fed was coming to an end? On the one hand, Bernanke had MOREAug 20, 2012 7:00 AM ET
While Secretary Geithner's strategy of using the 14th Amendment in defending an extension of the debt ceiling appears to have legal precedent, the potential for a Supreme Court showdown between Democrats and Republicans may make the strategy not worth the gamble.
By Daryl G. Jones, Hedgeye
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has heightened the debate over the debt ceiling extension in recent weeks by implying that the President could simply push through an MOREJul 6, 2011 11:18 AM ET
There is no drop-dead date for raising the debt ceiling, but that doesn't mean it's something we can afford to continue debating.
by James Hamilton, Econbrowser
Making a political game out of the debt ceiling is playing with fire.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been warning of serious repercussions if the debt ceiling is not raised, for example, in this letter written May 13 to Senator Michael Bennett (D-CO):
Failure to raise the debt limit would MOREJun 16, 2011 8:00 AM ET
The 112th Congress is among the greatest risks to global financial stability. The political posturing over the debt ceiling will bring more volatility to the U.S. dollar and the financial markets.
By Darius Dale, Hedgeye
With yesterday's House vote on raising the debt ceiling (unsurprisingly, a resounding 'no'), we thought we'd use this opportunity to equip you with an in-depth guide for navigating the next few months of what is likely to MOREJun 1, 2011 12:09 PM ET
The Treasury and the Fed have furiously pursued a closed monetary loop that purposely excludes all useful deployment of capital. The budget talks are just more evidence of that.
By Moshe Silver, Hedgeye
FORTUNE -- Here is a business owner's budget: How much revenue did we take in this quarter? And how much did it cost us to keep the doors open this quarter? How much is left over? Now we know MOREApr 12, 2011 10:48 AM ET
Hedge fund manager Derek Pilecki thinks Freddie Mac will turn profitable this year and pay back the government. Is he crazy or just contrarian?
At a time when the odds are stacking up against the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it seems as though almost no one will publicly defend the embattled mortgage financing giants. In 2008, during the peak of the financial crisis, the companies were nationalized to MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Feb 11, 2011 3:40 PM ET
The falling dollar could boost exports and help American multi-nationals compete abroad. But any impact it has on earnings won't be enough to boost the overall economy.
The value of the U.S. dollar has fallen to record lows recently on signs that the Federal Reserve will likely unleash another round of newly-printed money to boost the economic recovery.
Since a weaker dollar generally makes selling goods and services abroad cheaper, many expect MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Oct 19, 2010 11:32 AM ET
|Economy is improving but why doesn't it feel that way?|
|Where should you put your money now?|
|Boost for trade as global deal struck|
|Someone bought a $100,000 Tesla with Bitcoins|
|No news is good news for stocks?|