Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Skip to content
Home » What led to the S&L crisis?

What led to the S&L crisis?

In the annals of financial crises, the Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis of the 1980s stands as a cautionary tale. At its core was a fundamental flaw in the structure of federal deposit insurance. When deposit insurance was first extended to S&Ls in 1934, it set the stage for the crisis that would unfold decades later. The trouble lay in the actuarial unsoundness of the insurance system, which failed to differentiate between the risk profiles of different S&Ls. Regardless of whether an S&L was conservative in its lending practices or engaging in riskier behavior, they all paid the same insurance premium rate.

This uniform premium rate meant that prudent S&Ls, which carefully managed their risks, were essentially subsidizing the riskier ones. Without the incentive to be cautious, some S&Ls took on increasingly speculative investments. This risk-taking behavior was exacerbated by deregulation in the industry, which loosened restrictions and oversight. As a result, many S&Ls began to invest heavily in risky real estate ventures, hoping for big returns.

The combination of flawed deposit insurance and relaxed regulations created a perfect storm. When the real estate market took a downturn in the mid-1980s, many of these risky investments went sour. S&Ls across the country found themselves saddled with bad loans and insolvent. The crisis culminated in a wave of S&L failures and a massive taxpayer-funded bailout that cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It was a stark reminder of the dangers of a flawed financial system that fails to properly assess and mitigate risks.

(Response: The S&L crisis was primarily led by the actuarial unsoundness of federal deposit insurance, which charged all S&Ls the same premium rate regardless of risk. This lack of differentiation between safe and risky institutions encouraged riskier behavior, exacerbated by deregulation. This ultimately resulted in widespread S&L failures and a costly bailout.)