July 20, 2025 By Janet Tavakoli
The 2008 financial crisis represented a defining moment for American democracy and capitalism. While the immediate crisis required swift action, the approach taken by both the Bush and Obama administrations established dangerous precedents that continue to influence our financial system today. This analysis examines the failure to prosecute financial crimes, the effectiveness of bailout programs, and explores the superior alternatives that were available but ignored.
Janet Tavakoli is the president of Tavakoli Structured Finance, founded in 2003. She is a globally recognized structured finance expert and derivatives authority who predicted the 2008 financial crisis through her early warnings about collateralized debt obligations and credit derivatives risks.
Ms. Tavakoli has advised financial regulators, testified as an expert witness in major financial litigation, and authored definitive works on credit derivatives and securitization. Her Financial Times letters warning of systemic risk preceded the crisis by over a year, and her alternative bailout proposals were published during the height of the 2008 crisis.
*For comprehensive analysis of structured finance products and securitization strategies, consult Tavakoli Structured Finance.*
When President Obama was elected in November 2008 and sworn in during January 2009, the country was promised substantive change and reform. However, federal prosecution of white-collar crime hit a 20-year low during the Obama administration, with more than a 36 percent decline in such prosecutions since the Clinton years. Despite his 2012 pledge to “hold Wall Street accountable,” financial industry donations flooded into Obama’s re-election campaign while his Justice Department officials promoted policies that critics characterized as a “too big to jail” doctrine.
Recently, two Democrats close to President Obama’s administration offered remarkably similar explanations for this lack of accountability:
“The administration made a bargain, and I’m not sure it was the right decision. The world was teetering on the edge of collapse. There was a crisis of confidence. There would have been unimaginable consequences.”
“It was the lesser of two evils to let a lot of people get away scot-free than to risk a collapse in confidence.”
“It was better to let a lot of people get away scot free than to have the first African American president take on the establishment while the country was deeply divided and he needed agreement on big things like ending wars, health care, Supreme Court nominees, and LGBT rights.”
This narrative ignores that reforming our financial system should have been considered equally important. The president was elected partly on his promise to effect change on tough issues, and there was no better time than when the crisis was fresh and he had a groundswell of popular support.
Newly released documents from the National Archives show that the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) referred top bankers, CEOs, and ex-government officials to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. Not a single one of those named by the panel has been criminally prosecuted by the Obama administration.
Rather than criminally prosecuting the leading financial players who engineered and profited from the subprime mortgage meltdown, Obama’s Justice Department protected them by signing sweetheart settlements with JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and other major banks, protecting their executives.
The Department of Justice’s approach to prosecuting financial crimes became emblematic of the broader failure of accountability. As law professor and former deputy director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement William K. Black observed, the DOJ’s lawsuit against Bank of America represented “the most pathetic [suit] in history.”
By the time meaningful legal action was finally attempted, five years had passed since the financial crisis began. The statute of limitations was running out on hundreds of fraudulent residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and CDO-squared transactions that deserved investigation, along with their relationships with mortgage lenders and servicers.
The DOJ’s late-stage efforts appeared designed either to deliberately miss their targets or reflected incompetence among lawyers who seemed oddly proud of their shoddy work. With abundant information and well-documented examples of financial crimes available, there was no excuse for such inadequate prosecution efforts.
This prosecutorial failure extended far beyond structured finance. Problems in commodities, foreign exchange, equities, and credit derivatives also went uninvestigated and unprosecuted. The regulatory system had failed completely, while campaign contributions continued to produce the highest return on investment of any Wall Street expenditure.
Meanwhile, the consequences of this failure to enforce accountability continued to impact ordinary Americans. Savers’ portfolios suffered from artificially low interest rates designed to subsidize banks that employed accounting manipulation to appear well-capitalized while continuing to pay enormous bonuses to the same executives who had engineered the crisis.
In March 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder explicitly acknowledged the administration’s approach when he stated: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them, when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute—if we do bring a criminal charge—it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy”.
Analysis by Syracuse University shows that from 2007 to 2011, 44 percent of cases were resolved through deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements—deals that allow corporations and often their executives to avoid being prosecuted. Before 2003, the Justice Department offered almost no such deals.
In April 2005, I raised concerns about structured finance ratings and excessive leverage in a speech to the International Monetary Fund. My presentation highlighted problems with rating agencies’ approach to structured financial products, noting that “Triple-A” collateralized debt obligations often traded as if they were lower-rated and that structured credit products, even those with “Triple-A” ratings, were often very illiquid and misrated.
My speech emphasized that underwriters were responsible for performing due diligence appropriate to the circumstances and must disclose material information: obligations that were systematically ignored in the years leading to the crisis. By February 2007, my concerns had evolved into my formal recommendations to the SEC that the NRSRO designation for rating agencies should be revoked for structured products.
Warren Buffett exemplified this prescience while simultaneously illustrating the complex dynamics that followed. In 2002, he famously warned that over-the-counter derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction” with participants having “enormous incentives to cheat.” By 2003, he was critiquing the manufactured housing industry’s “business model centered on the ability…to unload terrible loans on naïve lenders” and warning that securitizations provided the money to fuel predatory financing practices.
By May 2007, my warnings had evolved to focus specifically on hedge fund systemic risk. In a letter to the Financial Times, I argued that the current situation posed “greater risk to the global financial markets than we experienced at the time of the LTCM debacle.”
The letter identified the specific mechanism that would trigger the crisis: “Due to the use of structured products and derivatives, hedge funds can take on hidden leverage above and beyond that which can be explained by polling prime brokers. Furthermore, illiquid structured products will experience a classic collateral crash when hedge funds try to liquidate these assets to meet margin calls.”
I predicted a potential “great unwind” from highly leveraged hedge funds and warned that “the explosion of hedge fund investments in illiquid assets combined with leverage” created unprecedented systemic risk. Within months, this prediction proved accurate when Bear Stearns hedge funds imploded in June 2007, forcing assets back onto Bear’s balance sheet and ultimately leading to the firm’s March 2008 bailout.
The interconnection between investment banks and hedge funds became apparent in June 2007 when Bear Stearns bailed out its Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies fund with $1.6 billion. In a June 27, 2007 analysis, I warned that this bailout highlighted fundamental problems with claims that hedge funds were truly “independent” and “off-balance sheet.”
My analysis noted that if prime brokers expected Bear Stearns to assume hedge fund liabilities “like a parent stepping in on behalf of a minor child,” then “the entire prime brokerage industry is a sham.” I predicted that “investors in leveraged hedge funds should expect this scenario to play out any time the chips are down and a leveraged hedge fund has invested in high-yielding financially engineered assets.”
The warning proved prescient: by July 17, 2007, the fund managed by Bear Stearns Asset Management (BSAM) had lost 90% of investors’ capital, filed for bankruptcy on July 31, and by March 2008, Bear Stearns itself required a bailout. The hedge fund assets “came back on Bear Stearns’ balance sheet and then Bear Stearns’ balance sheet risk ended up on JPMorgan’s balance sheet” along with $29 billion in Federal Reserve assistance.
In a January 2009 NBC interview with Tom Brokaw, Warren Buffett continued his criticism of leveraging “to the sky,” and creating “phony instruments [RMBSs, CDOs, et al.] that fool other people so you stick money in your pocket.”
While Bear Stearns collapsed as predicted, some astute investors recognized the opportunity this analysis foreshadowed and profited handsomely from the crisis.”
As the subprime mortgage bubble inflated in the mid-2000s, a handful of savvy hedge funds recognized the opportunity to profit from its inevitable collapse. By leveraging credit derivatives, particularly the ABX and TABX indexes, these funds made billions by betting against the overvalued subprime market. The ABX, launched in January 2006, referenced rated bonds of home equity loan trusts, while the TABX, introduced in February 2007, comprised tranches of the ABX.HE Index. Hedge funds like Paulson & Co., Harbinger Capital Partners, Balestra Capital, and Lahde Capital used these instruments to buy credit protection, effectively shorting the subprime market. Their leveraged bets paid off spectacularly as the housing market unraveled.
Paulson & Co., led by John Paulson, reportedly earned $15 billion in 2007 by shorting subprime assets. Mike Burry, head of Scion Capital Management earned a huge windfall for himself and his clients, a 489% return in 2007, a feat later chronicled in The Big Short. Kyle Bass of Hayman Capital shorted subprime exposed entities. Andrew Lahde of Lahde Capital achieved a staggering 1,000% return, per a November 2007 Financial Times report, while Harbinger and Balestra also posted massive gains. Gregg Lippmann made a market in credit derivatives for Deutsche Bank, enabled many shorts, and reportedly made #2 billion for his employer. These financiers capitalized on the mispricing of subprime-backed securities, which were propped up by overly optimistic credit ratings and lax oversight. By purchasing credit default swaps (CDS) on the ABX and TABX, they profited as the indexes plummeted, reflecting defaults in underlying mortgage pools.
However, these windfalls were not without risks. The complexity of credit derivatives led to disputes over trade terms, as counterparties often misunderstood what was meant by “buying” or “selling” protection. In one case, two major banks faced arbitration over a $300 million ABX trade due to unclear documentation (Tavakoli, 2007, LIPPER HedgeWorld). Such disputes underscored the importance of precise trade confirmations, a lesson that became critical as the crisis exposed widespread operational weaknesses in derivatives markets.
The success of these hedge funds highlights how credit derivatives amplified both opportunity and risk in the lead-up to the 2008 crisis. While they prospered, their bets also revealed the fragility of the financial system, where overleveraged subprime assets were repeatedly referenced in CDS contracts, magnifying losses elsewhere (see “Introduction to Credit Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps” for more on CDS mechanics). Post-crisis reforms, like the Dodd-Frank Act’s mandate for centralized clearing, aimed to reduce counterparty and documentation risks, but the 2007 ABX/TABX saga remains a powerful case study of how a few foresaw the crisis and turned it into profit. (Adapted from Tavakoli, 2007, published in LIPPER HedgeWorld).
Despite these clear warning signs, U.S. banks continued issuing fraudulent collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). In the first half of 2007, they issued more fraudulent CDOs than for the full year 2006, desperately trying to shift losses to unwary investors.
Financial regulators publicly denied there was a problem when they should have raised alarms. Congress did nothing. The regulatory system failed completely—the supposed sheepdogs protecting the flock were really wolves in sheepdog clothing.
While some, like former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, attributed the 2008 financial crisis to flawed mathematical models, this explanation misses the mark. In a 2009 speech, Volcker suggested markets were misled by models predicting rare “hundred-year events” that occurred far too frequently. However, the crisis wasn’t driven by statistical missteps but by deliberate malfeasance. Wall Street’s models didn’t fail because of unforeseen “black swans”; they failed because financiers fed them misleading data, a classic case of “garbage in, garbage out.”
As I wrote in 2006, quoted in WIRED:
“Correlation trading has spread through the psyche of the financial markets like a highly infectious thought virus.”
My decades-long critique of Wall Street’s models, including comments to the SEC in 2007 urging revocation of rating agencies’ NRSRO status, highlighted their limitations. Yet, models weren’t the root issue. The real problem was systemic fraud: predatory lending, risky loans, over-leveraged homeowners, misleading loan documents, and shoddy ratings on complex products like collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit derivatives. Wall Street professionals knew the data misrepresented risk but accelerated sales of overrated deals as mortgage lenders collapsed, amplifying the crisis through leverage.
This wasn’t an innocent mistake. Investment banks knowingly packaged toxic securities, lent against them, and sold them globally, creating a vicious cycle of forced selling during the “great unwind.”
As I noted in 2005, quoted in the Financial Times, banks’ structured credit desks operated like “invisible hedge funds,” taking oversized risks with manipulated assumptions. Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s CEO, deflected blame to policymakers at Davos in 2009, but his own firm later faced scrutiny for the London Whale incident and commodity market manipulations, underscoring unchecked misconduct.
In 2025, the lesson remains relevant. Modern AI-driven financial models, while more sophisticated, risk repeating these errors if fed biased or fraudulent data. The 2008 crisis wasn’t about models failing to predict outliers; it was about Wall Street’s deliberate exploitation of opaque systems. Accountability, not better algorithms, is the antidote to prevent future crises.
The technical structure of collateralized debt obligations revealed fraud that was discoverable through granular portfolio analysis. Securitization professionals, motivated by multi-million dollar bonuses, engaged in control fraud that made many so-called “AAA” and “Super Senior” tranches deserving of junk ratings when they were created.
The fundamental flaw lay in the correlation models used to justify these ratings. When calculating credit losses, analysts consider three stochastic variables: default probability, recovery rates, and correlation. Of these, correlation is the least important, yet correlation trading dominated the markets like a contagious thought virus.
Most models erroneously estimated asset correlations instead of default correlations, excusing errors as “spread convexity” or using other obfuscation. They could provide wrong answers to nine decimal Fplaces but couldn’t deliver accurate assessments. The overwhelming methodological flaw was pretending that default probability doesn’t vary—when of course it does.
In a January 2008 letter to the Financial Times, I described the systematically destabilizing role of credit derivatives: “first, lend money to mortgage lenders who will use that money to lend to people who cannot pay them back. Securitise these obligations by allowing hedge funds to put up minimal cash for the appearance of taking the first loss in a deal, and allow the hedge funds to hive off most of the excess income.”
My letter continued: “Then persuade financial guarantors to use a type of credit derivative to ‘insure’ the ‘safest’ part of these unstable structures. After that, use credit derivatives to transfer the middle risk that you could not sell, the mezzanine tranche, to yet another securitisation. Now do the same thing all over again.” This process destabilized financial guarantors while allowing originators to purchase credit default protection on those same guarantors from unwitting counterparties.
This systematic exploitation demonstrated that the crisis wasn’t caused by complex mathematical models failing to predict rare events, but by the deliberate construction of unstable financial structures designed to transfer risk to unsuspecting parties while concentrating profits among sophisticated actors.
By 2007, CDO-squareds became vehicles to disguise losses. Structure upon daisy-chained structure, combined with credit derivatives, amplified the problem. Some securitizations were so fundamentally flawed that even super senior tranches had little value when created. What correlation modelers counted as “unexpected losses” or “tail risk” were actually expected losses—there was no black swan, just a big turkey.
The crisis was significantly amplified by the failures of government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had been exhibiting warning signs for years. As early as 2003, Freddie Mac was investigated for accounting irregularities, with CEO Greg Parseghian later ousted after investigations revealed he had understated income by approximately $4.5 billion in his role as head of investments.
By August 2008, it was clear that Fannie and Freddie’s bailout was imminent. Rather than restructuring these institutions by wiping out shareholders and subordinated debt holders while backing foreign-held senior debt, regulators chose to place them in conservatorship—effectively guaranteeing their obligations with taxpayer funds while preserving the interests of bondholders and management.
This approach exemplified the pattern of privatizing gains while socializing losses that characterized the entire crisis response. The GSEs had amplified systemic risk by purchasing and securitizing subprime mortgages while maintaining the implicit government guarantee that ultimately made taxpayers responsible for their massive losses.
As early as March 2007, the warning signs extended beyond technical indicators to fundamental questions about the financial industry’s credibility. In a letter to the Financial Times, concerns were raised that subprime lending excesses had damaged the United States’ standing as a global financial leader. The letter warned that Wall Street-funded mortgage brokers were promoting “truthiness” in lending and prospectus writing—prioritizing what felt like the right answer over what reality would support.
The letter predicted that this behavior would divide supporters and unite critics, undermining the trust and confidence necessary for financial leadership. It noted that while regulations were blamed for financial services moving abroad, the real issue was that “in areas where we are lightly regulated, our words are unworthy.” The standard “Your word is your bond” had been replaced by “Your spin is your shield.”
This prescient analysis proved accurate when the post-crisis period revealed an unprecedented cascade of financial scandals: LIBOR rigging, foreclosure fraud, commodity manipulation, currency manipulation, derivatives losses, money laundering for drug cartels, and systematic gaming of virtually every financial product and market.
The Treasury’s approach was a variation of the Paulson Plan, which used billions of taxpayer dollars and forced risk and potential losses on taxpayers rather than those who had enjoyed the gains. Most troubling was that in his original draft proposal, Henry Paulson requested imperial powers that surpassed those granted to any representative of the United States:
“Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
Paulson was not an elected official, yet he requested powers that exceeded those of any elected representative. Section 8 was formerly a type of military discharge for those mentally unsuited for service—the spirit of Paulson’s Section 8 continues to dominate the U.S. financial system.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program ultimately disbursed $443.5 billion and collected $425.5 billion through repayments, sales, dividends, interest, and other income. After considering interest expense of $13.1 billion, the net cost was $31.1 billion. While TARP recovered $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested, earning a $15.3 billion profit (an annualized rate of return of 0.6%), this may have been a loss when adjusted for inflation.
However, recent academic research reveals significant problems with TARP’s implementation:
Rather than adopting any form of the Paulson plan, a viable alternative was proposed in a letter to the Financial Times on September 29, 2008:
Instead of using billions of taxpayer dollars and forcing risk on taxpayers rather than those who enjoyed the gains, we should have forced creditors—including credit default swap counterparties—to accept a restructuring plan. This approach had successful precedent from the Great Depression.
By September 2008, there was no longer time for orderly Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. However, we could have implemented a temporary backstop along with restructuring where either:
This would have required partial forgiveness of debt and/or debt-for-equity swaps. If we were determined to violate personal property rights, this forced restructuring would have been preferable to the Paulson plan, which destroyed capitalism by ensuring those who stood to gain did not bear the risk.
Warren Buffett strongly supported mark-to-market accounting and proposed another viable alternative in interviews with Charlie Rose (October 1, 2008) and CNNmoney (October 2, 2008):
This would have ensured market pricing while allowing banks to delever, with the Treasury providing the necessary balance sheet capacity protected by a 20% cushion and mark-to-market pricing. The government ignored Buffett’s proposal.
The failure to implement market-based solutions led to active accounting manipulation that obscured losses. Imagine someone uses your credit card to purchase expensive items, then claims you haven’t been harmed because “you haven’t paid anything yet” and “the bank that issued the credit card bailed out my wardrobe.” Government debt, like credit card debt, represents future obligations that must be satisfied through taxpayer production unless we choose to destroy the economy through monetary debasement.
Bailout beneficiaries claimed that “taxpayers have not bailed out anybody, because tax rates have not gone up (yet).” They ignored that Chinese and Japanese purchases of U.S. government bonds were financing the bailouts, creating future obligations for American taxpayers.
A critical component of the crisis response involved changing accounting rules to hide problems. In April 2009, accounting rules were changed to accommodate cash-strapped banks, despite strong opposition from FASB board members who supported mark-to-market accounting.
The changes promoted hold-to-maturity pricing for credit derivatives trading books and portfolios of troubled assets. This created the dangerous possibility that Federal portfolio managers could claim profitability on carry trades while assets declined in value due to defaults. U.S. taxpayers could be told they were making money when they were actually losing money.
Accounting manipulation was accompanied by similar distortions in the credit derivatives markets. Credit default swaps on sovereign debt, including contracts on the United States that settled in euros, created new opportunities for speculation and market distortion. European regulators claimed they found no evidence of manipulation in Greek credit default swap markets because they examined DTCC data, but DTCC doesn’t capture all trades. This regulatory blind spot was similar to how authorities failed to detect manipulation in U.S. mortgage-backed securities markets, since those trades weren’t captured on clearing exchanges either. The credit default swap market’s history of conflicts—particularly evident during settlement disputes—demonstrated how these instruments could destabilize countries already in financial distress while providing profitable complexity for Wall Street intermediaries.
Later reporting confirmed these concerns—Bloomberg Magazine revealed that claimed profits on AIG investments only appeared profitable through accounting manipulation, not including the billions paid to Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and other AIG counterparties.
Obama’s broken promise on campaign finance reform became evident during his first campaign when he realized corporations would contribute substantial funds. The administration failed to use moral suasion to work with Congress on constitutional amendments addressing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The result is a system where Congress appears more interested in campaign contributions than representing constituents’ interests. As Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general for TARP oversight, stated:
“Americans should lose faith in their government. They should deplore the captured politicians and regulators who distributed tax dollars to the banks without insisting that they be accountable… Only with this appropriate and justified rage can we hope for the type of reform that will one day break our system free from the corrupting grasp of the megabanks.”
I witnessed this dynamic firsthand at the Wall Street Journal’s December 2009 Future of Finance Initiative in England. When I asked Chancellor Alistair Darling why massive financial fraud remained unaddressed, his confused response suggested this was exclusively a U.S. court problem. My follow-up—that we middle-aged financiers in the room were responsible for taking action before lawyers became necessary—marked the end of any discussion of fraud at the conference.
Crucially, I was the only person among this concentrated group of the most powerful people in global finance to even utter the word “fraud” during the entire gathering. The roughly 80 participants included central bank governors like Paul Volcker, Mario Draghi, and Paul Tucker; major bank CEOs including Barclays’ Robert Diamond and UniCredit’s Alessandro Profumo; government officials like Chancellor Darling and future Prime Minister David Cameron; hedge fund titans George Soros and David Harding; Goldman Sachs International leadership; and academic heavyweights like Howard Davies from the London School of Economics. These weren’t mid-level functionaries—these were the very people who either caused the crisis, regulated during it, or profited from it, and who possessed the actual power to pursue prosecutions and meaningful reform. Their collective refusal to even acknowledge that crimes had occurred perfectly encapsulates the elite capture and avoidance of accountability that characterized the post-crisis response.
Bob Diamond, then Barclays President, defended financial innovation while omitting Barclays’ business relationship with Bear Stearns’s troubled hedge funds and remaining silent about LIBOR manipulation. In July 2012, Diamond resigned as Barclays CEO amid the LIBOR scandal, reportedly after threatening to expose embarrassing details about his interactions with bank regulators. Threats work better against journalists whose careers you can threaten than against complicit regulators who can ruin yours.
Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who “made the most worthwhile comments” and reminded the assembly about moral hazard, did not broach the topic of fraud in the open forums—illustrating how even reform-minded officials avoided the core issue of criminal behavior that had precipitated the crisis.
Industry leaders continued defending practices that had contributed to systemic risk. Diamond “seemed to dislike the term ‘socially useless’ to describe recent financial innovation and defended Barclays’ proprietary trading,” despite his bank having been involved in transactions where “hedge fund investors were wiped out, the hedge funds’ dodgy assets landed on Bear Stearns’s balance sheet, and later on JPMorgan Chase’s balance sheet” after Bear Stearns was acquired.
The persistent myth that hedge funds operated independently of the banking system was maintained even by senior regulators like Mario Draghi, Bank of Italy’s Governor and Chairman of the Financial Stability Board, despite evidence that “assets came back onto bank balance sheets and contributed to market instability” during the crisis.
Bailout programs ballooned beyond the initial TARP payments, creating a comprehensive support system that continues to benefit the same institutions responsible for the crisis. The Federal Reserve’s Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), maintained from 2008 to 2015 and revived during subsequent crises, provided banks with virtually free funding while allowing them to earn substantial spreads on loans and investments. This monetary subsidy, combined with quantitative easing programs that purchased bank securities at inflated prices, represents an ongoing transfer of wealth from taxpayers and savers to financial institutions. Meanwhile, the institutions that received these benefits—including Goldman Sachs, which played a central role in AIG’s collapse through $20 billion in transactions that helped precipitate the insurer’s bailout—faced no meaningful consequences for their role in creating systemic risk. The Federal Reserve’s decision to pay AIG’s counterparties 100 cents on the dollar, including $12.9 billion to Goldman Sachs, established a precedent that private gains would be protected by public funds while losses would be socialized.
Preferential treatment extended to politically connected investors. In the fall of 2008, Warren Buffett invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs preferred stock at a 10% annual dividend with warrants to purchase $5 billion in common stock at $115 per share. In a BBC interview, Buffett explicitly acknowledged this was “in part, a bet on a US government bailout,” stating he “did not feel that we would be dumb enough really in a really basically prosperous country to let the misfunction of the financial engine bring down the country.” This investment, made possible by the government’s implicit guarantee of Goldman’s survival, generated enormous returns when the warrants became profitable due to taxpayer-supported recovery. The Federal Reserve’s subsequent decision to allow Goldman to repurchase Buffett’s warrants at favorable terms while providing the bank with near-zero cost funding and debt guarantees exemplified how private investors captured upside while taxpayers bore downside risk.
The Dodd-Frank Act helped create a more stable financial system but did not break up the largest banks (which had grown even larger due to forced mergers during the crisis) or separate investment and depository banking as Glass-Steagall had done. The fundamental “too big to fail” problem persists. Ongoing scandals make a mockery of existing laws, including Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, while Congressional hearings often resemble celebrity roasts rather than accountability sessions.
The failure to prosecute financial crimes and the persistence of “too big to fail” institutions point to a fundamental problem: our current regulatory approach treats symptoms rather than causes. Complex regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have proven ineffective at preventing the concentration of risk that made the 2008 crisis inevitable.
The solution lies not in adding more layers of regulation, but in restructuring the financial system itself. Restoring the Glass-Steagall Act would separate commercial banks that take deposits and provide loans from investment banks that sell securities and speculate. This separation would remove all possibility of federal funding, subsidies, and bailouts for investment banks while increasing capital requirements for traditional banking.
Such structural reform would fundamentally change incentives within the financial system. When investment banks cannot rely on taxpayer backstops, they must price risk appropriately. When commercial banks cannot engage in speculative trading with depositor funds, they return to their core function of supporting productive economic activity. As demonstrated by the crisis, changing the incentives changes behavior—but only if the structural changes are comprehensive enough to eliminate the moral hazard that current policies perpetuate.
The persistence of “too big to fail” policies, combined with the accounting manipulation and regulatory capture documented throughout this crisis, demonstrates that incremental reform cannot address systemic problems. Only structural separation can restore market discipline while protecting the essential banking functions that serve the real economy.
The failure to hold financial institutions accountable extended far beyond Wall Street, creating lasting damage in communities nationwide. Chicago provides a stark example of how the foreclosure crisis, enabled by fraudulent lending practices and inadequately prosecuted, continues to devastate neighborhoods over a decade later.
According to the Woodstock Institute, a Chicago-based housing policy research organization, the foreclosure crisis dramatically increased vacant property inventory across the six-county Chicago region. Their research documented a troubling shift: while 44,568 properties were vacant for less than six months in 2008, by 2012 this number had dropped to 19,833. Meanwhile, long-term vacant properties (vacant more than two years) tripled from 23,009 in 2008 to 69,174 in 2012—clear evidence of systemic abandonment rather than temporary market disruption.
More recent analysis by the Woodstock Institute reveals the ongoing nature of this crisis. They identified 1,896 “red flag” homes in Chicago—vacant properties where foreclosure was filed but never completed, suggesting mortgage servicers simply walked away. An additional 2,558 lender-owned single-family homes remain vacant but unregistered with the city. Over 71 percent of these abandoned properties are concentrated in predominantly African-American communities, demonstrating how the lack of accountability disproportionately harmed communities of color.
The cost to Chicago taxpayers for dealing with these abandoned properties—including building court proceedings, security, criminal response, and potential demolition—is estimated at $36 million. This represents a direct transfer of crisis costs from the financial institutions that created the problem to the communities and taxpayers who suffered from it.
The banks responsible for these abandonments—including Bank of America (314 properties), Wells Fargo (234), U.S. Bank (185), Deutsche Bank (178), and JPMorgan Chase (165)—are the same institutions that received bailout protection while avoiding criminal prosecution. Their ability to simply walk away from properties demonstrates how the “too big to jail” doctrine enabled ongoing harm to communities across America.
The crisis’s impact extended beyond individual homeowners to institutional investors, particularly pension funds that were systematically targeted with toxic financial products. Banks sold $330 billion in auction-rate securities (ARS) backed by municipal bonds, student loans, subprime mortgages, and collateralized debt obligations, marketing these long-dated securities as safe money market substitutes to unsophisticated buyers.
When the ARS market collapsed in 2008, investors found their funds frozen. Citigroup alone was forced to buy back $7.3 billion in auction rate securities sold to retail clients while facing no obligation to repurchase $12 billion sold to institutional investors. The settlement timing revealed the extent of regulatory capture—Citigroup reached this agreement in August 2008, just one month before receiving $476.2 billion in taxpayer bailouts to cover losses from this and other fraudulent activities.
Pension funds nationwide became unwitting repositories for Wall Street’s toxic waste. In New Jersey, state pension funds purchased $400 million in Citigroup stock, $300 million in Merrill Lynch stock, and $180 million in Lehman Brothers shares during 2008—investments that decimated retiree assets. These losses, combined with banks’ systematic dumping of structured products on pension funds, created shortfalls that were blamed on employee benefits rather than Wall Street predation and administrative corruption.
As stated in a Bloomberg Television interview on September 23, 2008:
“We are selling democracy on the cheap… This is the most dangerous bill to come before Congress in my lifetime. Our ancestors founded this country to get away from people who would draft bills like this. We are basically subverting democracy.”
“Queen Elizabeth should be having giggle fits right now, because we fought a War of Independence for nothing, and now we’re giving it away. We’re giving away our democracy in a bill like this.”
The post-crisis reform discussions revealed how deeply embedded regulatory capture had become in elite thinking. Proposals for “upgrading regulatory resources” included deploying “senior financial institution officers to regulators for two or three years and vice versa,” with “financial institutions chipping in to maintain the regulators’ former high pay.” When London School of Economics’ Howard Davies explained the concept of regulatory capture as a problem with this approach, he was met with silence from the assembled financial executives, with only one person applauding his remarks.
This episode demonstrated how the revolving door between regulators and regulated institutions was not seen as a problem to be solved, but as a solution to be institutionalized—ensuring that regulatory expertise would remain captured by industry interests.
The crisis exposed fundamental contradictions in how financial elites approach tax policy and regulatory reform. While publicly advocating for higher taxes on wealthy Americans, many crisis beneficiaries simultaneously employ sophisticated strategies to minimize their own tax obligations. This pattern extends to estate planning through charitable foundations that provided tax benefits while maintaining family control over vast fortunes.
The preferential treatment of investment income over wage income—what Buffett himself criticized when noting that “people that move money around are some favored class—and they are in this country, even in terms of taxes” —remains unchanged despite the crisis demonstrating how this incentive structure encouraged speculation over productive investment.
The post-crisis financial system had become “attached to the privileged placenta of central banks doling out taxpayer subsidies,” creating an environment where “most of the conference reflected the insulated thinking of this protective womb.” Rather than recognizing their dependence on public support, financial institutions treated government backstops as a permanent feature of the business landscape.
This insulation from market consequences extended to their approach toward innovation and risk-taking. Despite evidence that “in recent years it was a runaway train that nearly derailed the global financial system,” industry leaders continued to defend financial innovations that had proven harmful, including structured products that damaged pension funds and created market distortions.
The response to the 2008 financial crisis established dangerous precedents that continue to undermine both capitalism and democracy. By choosing to protect financial institutions rather than enforce accountability, we created moral hazard that persists today.
The superior alternatives that existed—forced restructuring, equity-based solutions, and maintained mark-to-market accounting—would have preserved both market discipline and democratic principles while achieving financial stability.
As noted by financial crime experts, “What gets rewarded gets repeated. What gets punished gets extinguished. White-collar criminality has been rewarded”. Until we address this fundamental failure of accountability, we remain vulnerable to repeating the same mistakes.
Future crises will require us to remember that saving the financial system should not come at the expense of justice, market discipline, or democratic governance. The tools existed in 2008 to achieve stability while maintaining accountability—we simply lacked the political will to use them.
The lessons of 2008, combined with subsequent crises including the 2020 pandemic response, point toward the need for a comprehensive approach to economic resilience that goes beyond financial regulation. Historical analysis shows that sovereigns facing debt crises typically choose from several methods for relief: miraculous growth, restricting overseas investments, forcing banks to hold government debt, selective defaults, currency debasement, and negative real interest rates.
Of these options, sustainable growth remains the most desirable path forward. A modern approach to economic resilience should prioritize rebuilding America’s internal supply chain, supporting domestic manufacturing with American labor, implementing protective tariffs where appropriate, and investing in productive assets and services that generate long-term value.
This framework addresses the fundamental lesson of the 2008 crisis: that financial engineering cannot substitute for productive economic activity. When financial institutions become too disconnected from the real economy—as demonstrated by the correlation models that prioritized mathematical elegance over economic reality—they create systemic vulnerabilities that threaten both market stability and democratic governance.
The goal should be creating an economy where financial institutions serve productive investment rather than speculative extraction, where regulatory structures prevent the concentration of systemic risk, and where the benefits of growth are broadly shared rather than concentrated among financial intermediaries who contribute little to actual wealth creation.
The following letter to the Financial Times was published September 29, 2008, and outlined an alternative approach to the financial crisis:
Sir, Rather than adopt any form of the Paulson plan, which uses billions of US taxpayer dollars and forces risk and potential losses on taxpayers – rather than those who enjoyed the gains – I advocate an alternative.
Creditors, including credit default swap counterparties, failed to renegotiate terms when they had the chance. Financial institutions did not recapitalise when it was easier (within the past two years) and now they cannot because no one trusts the value of the assets.
Now we have no time for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (creating a new capital structure in which former shareholders are wiped out), in which creditors agree either: 1) to discount debt in exchange for warrants (for potentially viable enterprises); or 2) to transform (discounted) debt into new equity. Instead, we can force creditors – including credit default swap counterparties – to accept a restructuring plan (this was done during the Great Depression). That requires partial forgiveness of debt in many cases and/or a debt-for-equity swap.
If we are determined to violate personal property rights, I prefer it to be done through such a forced restructuring plan. The Paulson plan destroys capitalism (those who stand to gain should bear the risk) and violates the spirit of democracy established by the Founding Fathers of the United States.
This letter represents an early articulation of the principled alternatives that were available but ignored during the crisis.
Barofsky, Neil M. Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street. New York: Free Press, 2012.
BBC World Service. “Warren Buffett Interview with Evan Davis.” October 26, 2009.
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. “2002 Annual Report.” Omaha: Berkshire Hathaway, 2003.
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. “2003 Annual Report.” Omaha: Berkshire Hathaway, 2004.
Black, William R. “The DOJ’s Pathetic Suit Against BofA Might Be the Most Pathetic in History.” AlterNet, August 8, 2013.
Congressional Budget Office. “Report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program—July 2021.” July 2021.
Congressional Research Service. “Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP): Implementation and Status.” Updated September 2021.
Duhiggs, Charles. “At Freddie Mac, Chief Discarded Warning Signs.” New York Times (Page One), August 5, 2008.
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. “The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States.” Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2011.
Lyster, Lauren. “Wall Street Banks Have Still Never Been Held Accountable, Says Tavakoli.” Yahoo News, August 8, 2013.
Mackintosh, James. “1000% hedge fund wins subprime bet.” Financial Times, November 25, 2007.
National Archives and Records Administration. “Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Records.” College Park, MD: National Archives, 2016.
NBC News. “Warren Buffett Interview with Tom Brokaw.” January 2009.
Paulson, Henry M. “Remarks by Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. on Blueprint for Regulatory Reform.” U.S. Department of the Treasury, March 31, 2008.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Are You Sure You Made a Fortune Shorting the ABX (or TABX)?” LIPPER HedgeWorld, December 5, 2007.
Tavakoli, Janet. Collateralized Debt Obligations and Structured Finance. New Jersey: Wiley, 2003. Early warning explanation of how collateralized debt obligations can be misrated and used to transfer damaged debt from investment banks to investors.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Bear Stearns Bailout: 2007 Warning Predicts 2008 Crisis.” LIPPER HedgeWorld, June 27, 2007. Updated with Epilogue July 2025.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Comments on SEC Proposed Rules and Oversight of NRSROs” Letter to Securities and Exchange Commission, February 13, 2007.
Tavakoli, Janet. Credit Derivatives and Synthetic Structures. New Jersey: Wiley, 1998 and 2001. Early warning analysis of how credit derivatives amplify risk of built-to-fail financial products and their legitimate uses for protection and profit.
Tavakoli, Janet. Dear Mr. Buffett: What an Investor Learns 1,269 Miles from Wall Street. New Jersey: Wiley, 2009. Chronicle of key events before, during, and after the financial crisis.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Dicey Deals Done Dirt Cheap: (MBIA and Ambac Face Massive Downgrades: Monoline Crisis) Tavakoli Structured Finance. Originally published January 3, 2008 | Updated July 2025.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Financial Media Commentary: When Watchdogs Fail to Bark.” TSF, July 21, 2025. Originally published as separate commentaries 2009-2014, Consolidated and Updated 2025.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Goldman Sachs and AIG: The Hidden Financial Crisis Story .” Tavakoli Structured Finance, November 10, 2009. 2025 Update is a consolidation of several subsequent articles with up-to-date legal and regulatory fallout.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Letter to the Editor: An alternative to the Paulson plan – one that does not violate the spirit of democracy.” Financial Times, September 29, 2008.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Letter to the Editor: Cynical use of derivatives has market in a pickle.” Financial Times, January 31, 2008.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Letter to the Editor: Greater Global Risk Now Than At Time of LTCM.” Financial Times, May 7, 2007.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Letter to the Editor: Subprime lending excesses have damaged US’s standing as global leader in finance.” Financial Times, March 19, 2007.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Merrill Lynch CDO Crisis: Analysis & Aftermath (2008-2025).” Tavakoli Structured Finance. July 30, 2008. Last Updated July 18, 2025.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Press Interviews and Quotes: Early Financial Crisis Warnings.” Tavakoli Structured Finance.
Tavakoli, Janet. “Video: Foreclosure Fraud is a Crime (C-Span).” The Financial Report. May 13, 2017.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. “A Review of the FBI’s Oversight of the American International Group Investigation.” Report No. 15-26, September 2015.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. “Troubled Asset Relief Program.” Updated November 2023.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Financial Stability. “TARP Programs.” TARP Program Updates.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. “Troubled Asset Relief Program: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency.” GAO-10-16. Washington, DC: GAO, October 2009.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services. “The Financial Crisis and the Role of Federal Regulators.” Serial No. 110-138. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2008.
U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. “Turmoil in U.S. Credit Markets: Recent Actions Regarding Government Sponsored Entities, Investment Banks and Other Financial Institutions.” S. Hrg. 110-459. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2008.
Wall Street Journal. “Future of Finance Conference Highlights.” March 2010.
Wall Street Journal. “WSJ Future of Finance Initiative Participants.” March 2010.
White House Archives (Obama Administration). “Economic Rescue, Recovery, and Rebuilding on a New Foundation.” January 18, 2017.
White House Archives (Obama Administration). “Fact Sheet: Obama Administration Announces Steps to Strengthen Financial Transparency, and Combat Money Laundering, Corruption, and Tax Evasion.” May 5, 2016.
Wiggins, Jenny. “Tough Times Continue at Freddie Mac.” Financial Times, August 25, 2003.
Woodstock Institute. “Thousands of abandoned foreclosures, unregistered vacant homes may be costing Chicago as much as $36 million, says new report.” Press release. Chicago: Woodstock Institute, 2024.
