On April 13, 2012, the US Department of the Treasury released new cost estimates for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Looking principally at actual and projected contractual cash flows, the document concludes that: "Overall, the government is now expected to at least break even on its financial stability programs and may realize a positive return." 

Longstanding policies that were intended to promote confidence in the independence of regulatory decision-making have now been wiped away by the Dodd-Frank act, which has in effect placed all the financial regulators under the direction of the Treasury secretary.

For decades, investors have spent countless hours speculating about the Federal Reserve's agenda on interest rates. Market watchers study every adjective in often-cryptic Fed statements for clues about the outlook for monetary policy.

In a new book entitled “Financing Failure: A Century of Bailouts,” Vern McKinley provides the most detailed account yet of the government’s decision-making process during these momentous events.

Secretary Geithner argued that we have forgotten the reasons that the Dodd-Frank Act was necessary, and that's why the act has become so controversial. What the secretary seems to have missed is that we have learned a lot in the intervening years. The administration's rush to judgment on the financial crisis is a case study in why it would have been worthwhile to wait for the facts.

The Federal Reserve could give banks a big incentive to expand by setting negative interest rates on their excess reserves. 

Many people, observing the severe problems caused by Greece and other financially weak members of the European Union, wonder why the United States is not similarly afflicted. After all, the structures seem quite similar; the EU is united through a treaty into a single political grouping, while the U.S. is a union of states in a constitutional system. 

Under the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law, large nonbank firms may be declared systemically important because their failure will cause a systemic breakdown. In effect, this amounts to a government statement that these firms are too big to fail.