The government is still providing liquidity and coercive muscle -- so it's still a bailout, plain and simple. Despite the attempts we are seeing to paint it otherwise.
How do you define a bailout? The shareholders and bondholders of the bank lose everything. The customers (depositees) get their money back. You consider that a bailout?
Per what sources like Investopedia, Wikipedia, and all the major English dictionaries say. None of which limit the term to protections for investors.
I'm less concerned over semantic arguments of what technically constitutes a bailout. Personally a stable banking system is important to me, as is accountability for risky investment strategies. I have a hard time seeing the situation is black and white enough to jump to a conclusion on exactly what the delta is between what happened and what should have happened.
As for consequences beyond that? Unsure.
Hopefully the CEO (now on his second failed bank) doesn't "fail upwards". I mean it's one thing to have a poorly performing bank on your resume... it's another to have two banks forcibly closed by the FDIC.
The shareholders are currently suing the board and the executives for running the bank into the ground.
Ten years from now, once all the long-term investments settle, if there's any money left over, the shareholders might be entitled to two turnips and cup of coffee from Uncle Sam.
As far as 'The guilty getting their just deserts', this is a rare example of the world mostly working in a just way.
There are jurisdictions where executives responsible for this sort of failure would be shot and have their assets confiscated.
Neither is likely in this instance.
There'd be a trial before their assets are seized and they're executed.
If being civilized has led to clown world, perhaps alternate modes of civilization should be instituted.
I guess you can say that customers were bailed out, but the bank was not.
I don't want the US government to be driven by a profit motive any more than it already is...
Since most of the money is in treasury bonds, the government can either wait until then, or maybe nullify the bonds that are now in their hands, since it is now the government owing the government money (there is probably some complexity there, but I don't know my way though it). In the mean time the depositors' money needs to come out of the FDIC, and that is probably going to increase costs for banks (and thus their consumers), until things can be worked out.
TARP had three players:
TARP Fund: via The US Government (fiscal),
POMO/QEx: via The Fed (monetary), and
The Banks (those bailed out)
TARP "made a profit" by the Fed printing money and buying assets at way above market value from the banks. It didnt cost anything because we just printed the money, but there was a cost...inflation. We just spread the cost secretly to everyone.
Real impacts of printing money: Houses jumping in value by 40 or 50%, meanwhile:
https://www.costar.com/article/266860380/most-us-households-... Most US Households Can't Afford a Median-Priced Home
https://www.nahb.org/blog/2022/03/36-million-households-cant... "36 Million Households Can’t Afford a $150,000 Home"
That's like selling your used car for a "profit" during the recent supply chain issues caused by the pandemic. Sure, you might have gotten more dollars from the sale than you did when you purchased it. But those dollars are worth a lot less now, and you would not be able to repurchase an equivalent car with those dollars.
The TARP profit line is how they deflect some of the outrage from yet another bank bailout. "See, it didn't cost you, the taxpayer, anything!".