The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and its limitations: an analysis

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is first, to engage in a critical examination of the broad legislative framework of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 2008, in the United States; second, to provide an in‐depth understanding the legal basis, scope and nature of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) under the Act; third, to provide a legal analysis of the oversight provisions in the new Act; fourth, to examine the powers, responsibilities, functions and roles of the various new oversight offices set up under the new Act; fifth, to assess the economic and financial impact of implementation of the programme till early 2009; and to engage in a critical discussion of the limitations and shortcomings of TARP. The central focus of the paper is largely on TARP and the issues arising from using TARP as a legislative framework to facilitate the removal of toxic assets held by the various banks and financial institutions.Design/methodology/approachThe larger approach used in this paper is a financial law approach. It is to facilitate an in‐depth analysis of the broader framework of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 2008, i.e. the legislative mechanism that establishes the TARP. The central issue of the paper is to examine the provisions in TARP in the broader context of its ability to take toxic assets off the balance sheets of banks and financial institutions. The approach, therefore, aims to aid a critical examination of the related legal, financial and economic issues arising out of the implementation of TARP. It relies extensively on official publications, testimonials and reports by various oversight bodies in the public domain, academic writings and newspaper reports to assess the impact of the programme and explore the related legal, regulatory and financial implications.FindingsThe findings in the paper relate to the impact and extent of the TARP till the present. It explores the basis, nature and scope of the implementation of the programme and outlines the various shortcomings and limitations. The paper concludes that there are various issues that need to be redressed for TARP or a similar programme to be more effective and transparent.Research limitations/implicationsVarious oversight reports and recommendations by official bodies are still expected as regards various spending, accountability and transparency issues related to TARP in the coming months. A new stimulus package of $787 billion was just approved by the US Congress and signed into law (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 2009) at the time this article was submitted for publication consideration. The article incorporates some issues relating to the new stimulus package as well as the Geithner plan, Public Private Investment Programme (PPIP), in the concluding section. However, substantial details are yet to emerge as to how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 2009, establishing the stimulus package under the Obama government and the PPIP are both going to impact the future implementation of TARP and induce economic recovery at a broader level.Originality/valueThis paper is of immense significance to academics, jurists, consultants, legislators, policy‐makers, bankers, lawyers, auditors, consultants, researchers and anyone interested in financial and banking issues.