The encyclopedia · Legal & Compliance · Strategic decision · 1984–1991
Lincoln Savings bilked the elderly — and five US senators fought to protect it
Charles Keating used deregulated S&L rules to gamble with depositor money. When regulators tried to stop him, five senators intervened. Cost: $3 billion.
Lincoln Savings and Loan Association · American Continental Corporation
What happened
In 1984, Charles Keating bought Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, a conservative California thrift, for $51 million. Keating then used the newly deregulated S&L environment to turn Lincoln into a high-risk investment vehicle. He fired the existing management and directed Lincoln's deposits into speculative real estate, junk bonds, and direct equity investments — all prohibited under the old rules that had kept S&Ls safe for 50 years.
Keating's strategy grew Lincoln's assets from $1.1 billion to $5.4 billion in five years. But the growth was built on risk. American Continental, the parent company, sold uninsured securities to customers through Lincoln's branches — many elderly depositors thought they were buying FDIC-insured accounts. When the risky investments failed, 21,000 investors lost $285 million. At seizure, Lincoln had only $20 million in capital against a $325 million requirement.
As regulators moved to shut Lincoln down, Keating contacted five U.S. senators — Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, John McCain, and Donald Riegle — who met with banking regulators on his behalf. The senators collectively received $1.3 million in campaign contributions from Keating. Their intervention delayed the seizure by two years. All five were investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee for improper conduct.
Federal regulators seized Lincoln in April 1989, one day after American Continental filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Resolution Trust Corporation spent two years liquidating Lincoln's assets, often at pennies on the dollar. The total cost to the federal government was nearly $3 billion. Charles Keating was convicted of fraud and served four and a half years. The Keating Five scandal became a defining example of regulatory capture and the dangers of campaign finance.
Why it happened
- Keating exploited S&L deregulation to make speculative investments with federally insured deposits, converting a conservative thrift into a high-risk vehicle for personal enrichment.
- The parent company sold uninsured securities through Lincoln's branches without making the distinction clear — 21,000 elderly investors lost $285 million they thought was insured.
- Five U.S. senators intervened to delay regulators, accepting $1.3 million in campaign contributions from Keating and adding two years of losses to the eventual federal bailout.
- The political and regulatory capture was so complete that a thrift that had $20M capital against a $325M requirement remained open — because five senators told the regulators to stand down.
The lesson
When deregulation meets regulatory capture, the taxpayer pays. Lincoln Savings cost $3 billion because Keating bought influence with campaign contributions and five senators used it.
Aftermath
Lincoln was seized in April 1989, the largest S&L failure of the crisis. The Keating Five were investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee: Cranston was reprimanded, the other four were cleared of impropriety but criticized. Charles Keating was convicted of fraud and served 4.5 years. The scandal contributed to the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation and broader S&L industry reforms. The case remains a textbook example of regulatory capture in political science and business ethics courses.
Sources
- Wikipedia — Lincoln Savings and Loan Association
- Wikipedia — Keating Five
- NYT — U.S. Seizes Lincoln Savings; Fraud Is Charged, April 1989
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Raytheon recorded bribes as commissions and paid the SEC $124M
DWS said ESG was in its DNA — the SEC found its own policy wasn't followed
Binance skipped anti-money-laundering controls for six years — DOJ fined it $4.3B
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →

Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.