Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

What caused the S&L crisis in the US in the 1980s and 1990s?

Disclaimer: Not an American, nor am I too well versed in economics (I would like to think I have a reasonably well developed layperson's understanding, although feel free to correct me on any mistakes I make in this regard nonetheless).

How did the S&L (savings and loan) crisis play out the way it did in the US?

My understanding is that S&Ls lend out money in the form of home loans (which can be used either for purchasing homes, making home improvements or building on land they own), that the interest they pay is accrued by the members and the bank itself, and that one aspect of FDR's banking reforms in the early to mid 1930s was the formation of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), part of whose scope was to guarantee the savings of those holding accounts with an S&L, in the event of a collapse.

Now, the S&Ls offered lower than average mortgage rates due to the low returns they offered on savings, and due to the caps placed on the rates that S&Ls could levy on both deposits and loans as a result of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Act of 1932, this rendered S&Ls unable to compete with traditional lenders.

Following the period of stagflation that had dominated the 1970s, Paul Volcker, who had been named chairman of the Federal Reserve by Carter in 1979 (a year before the election that would see Reagan first take presidential office), raised interest rates to attempt to combat inflation, leading to a double digit recession in the 1980s.

Now I'm not too knowledgeable on the proportional relationship between a rise in interest rates and a rise in the likelihood of a recession, but I am guessing that with higher borrowing costs, this will lead to a reduction in commercial / business investments financed by borrowing or by dipping into savings, and reduced consumer spending due to higher interest payments on credit cards and that it's more advantageous to save rather than to spend, etc.

The S&Ls were therefore losing out to traditional lenders that could offer more flexible rates, given that the S&Ls were required by law to offer the low returns they did.

Was it that S&Ls were already in unsustainable positions from the start due to the rigid regulations governing them, or was there too much deregulation in the Reagan era?

A friend has told me that the core cause was that “the Federal Reserve drastically raised short-term rates. The S&Ls already had books of long-term loans out at lower fixed rates. A move up in short-term interest rates sent their net interest margin negative. A move up in short-term interest rates also sent the economy into recession making loan payback a greater credit risk, so it was a double whammy.”

I am guessing that the S&Ls had issued a lot of these long term loans at lower fixed rates, and that raises in short term interest rates (given that the S&Ls funded the long term, fixed rate house mortgages using short term deposits) meant that they were paying more to their depositors than they made from the loans they issued.

Any replies are welcome.