PDA

View Full Version : Economics Fed Must Release Reports on Emergency Bank Loans, Judge Says


KC native
08-25-2009, 10:54 AM
This is good news IMO. These banks should have been named and shamed long ago. Now, if we could get our leaders to quit pussyfooting around and nationalize insolvent institutions we may give ourselves some footing for a meaningful recovery.



Fed Must Release Reports on Emergency Bank Loans, Judge Says
By Mark Pittman and Karen Gullo

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve must make records about emergency lending to financial institutions public within five days because it failed to convince a judge the documents should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska rejected the central bank’s argument that the records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions. The collateral lists “are central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” according to the lawsuit that led to yesterday’s ruling.

The Fed has refused to name the borrowers, the amounts of loans or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.

“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”

‘Involuntary Investor’

Bloomberg said in the suit U.S. taxpayers need to know the risks behind the central bank’s $2 trillion in lending because the public is an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks.

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet about doubled beginning in September to more than $2 trillion because of a historic attempt to rescue financial institutions. For the week ended Aug. 19, Fed assets rose 2.3 percent to $2.06 trillion as the central bank bought more mortgage-backed securities. Non- government securities were allowed to be purchased by the Fed for the first time.

The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg suit, filed in New York, doesn’t seek money damages.

David Skidmore, a Fed spokesman, said the board’s staff was reviewing the ruling and declined to comment on it at this time.

The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net; Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: August 25, 2009 00:01 EDT

petegz28
08-25-2009, 11:00 AM
They'll appeal.....they will never turn over those records. I wish it would happen, but it won't

BigRedChief
08-25-2009, 11:03 AM
They'll appeal.....they will never turn over those records. I wish it would happen, but it won't
It should, if there is justice. We have a right to know.

petegz28
08-25-2009, 11:06 AM
It should, if there is justice. We have a right to know.

I contend the Federal Reserve is the cause for the economic downturn we are in. To a large degree anyway. I want the entire entity abolished. Something isn't right when a organization has that much power and no accountability. And it is that way by the design of a few greedy rich people.

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:09 AM
I contend the Federal Reserve is the cause for the economic downturn we are in. To a large degree anyway. I want the entire entity abolished. Something isn't right when a organization has that much power and no accountability. And it is that way by the design of a few greedy rich people.

The Fed played a part but it shouldn't be abolished because of the poor management of Greenspan and Bernanke.

pikesome
08-25-2009, 11:11 AM
It should, if there is justice. We have a right to know.

Sotomayor will be the deciding vote against releasing it.

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:18 AM
Sotomayor will be the deciding vote against releasing it.

and you're basing this upon what?

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 11:29 AM
It should, if there is justice. We have a right to know.Keep holding your breath...

petegz28
08-25-2009, 11:29 AM
The Fed played a part but it shouldn't be abolished because of the poor management of Greenspan and Bernanke.

IT should be abolished because of what it is and who it serves. Greensapan and Bernanke are the least of the problems.

pikesome
08-25-2009, 11:35 AM
and you're basing this upon what?

Just a guess. It'll go to the SC and they'll extend coverage. And it'll be a split decision.

But after I think about it... This is the same bunch that allowed govs to use eminent domain to give property to private businesses even before the "Wise Latina Woman". Probably won't even be close.

Garcia Bronco
08-25-2009, 11:47 AM
Excellent.

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:48 AM
Just a guess. It'll go to the SC and they'll extend coverage. And it'll be a split decision.

But after I think about it... This is the same bunch that allowed govs to use eminent domain to give property to private businesses even before the "Wise Latina Woman". Probably won't even be close.

Ah, so you were just trying to slam her for no reason. Got it. :thumb:

pikesome
08-25-2009, 11:50 AM
Ah, so you were just trying to slam her for no reason. Got it. :thumb:

Yes, I was. I'm not a fan.

She might change my mind though.

KC native
08-25-2009, 11:53 AM
IT should be abolished because of what it is and who it serves. Greensapan and Bernanke are the least of the problems.

Are you going of the deep end a la Killer Clown Pete?

Who does the Fed serve? The Bilderbegs? ROFL

BTW Greenspan and Bernanke are far from the least of their problems. Greenspan and Bernanke have both blown asset bubbles to get out of situations which is wrong. It's textbook Chicago school economics. Recession? Expand the monetary base. Market crash? Expand the monetary base. Pete's all butt hurt over being clowned in DC everyday? Expand the monetary base.

When Fed presidents were independent (last one was Volker) then they did a much better job. Volker broke the back of the persistent inflation from the 70's and set up the environment for the economy to take off in the early 80's.

petegz28
08-25-2009, 11:57 AM
Are you going of the deep end a la Killer Clown Pete?

Who does the Fed serve? The Bilderbegs? ROFL

BTW Greenspan and Bernanke are far from the least of their problems. Greenspan and Bernanke have both blown asset bubbles to get out of situations which is wrong. It's textbook Chicago school economics. Recession? Expand the monetary base. Market crash? Expand the monetary base. Pete's all butt hurt over being clowned in DC everyday? Expand the monetary base.

When Fed presidents were independent (last one was Volker) then they did a much better job. Volker broke the back of the persistent inflation from the 70's and set up the environment for the economy to take off in the early 80's.

Dude, I hate to break this to you, but bubbles and such have been happening well before Greenspan ever hit the scene.

That being said, once again you show you can't have a conversation without throwing around insults and such. The only clown is you, guy. You have some severe issues. I'll just go ahead an stick you on ignore until you grow up some.

KC native
08-25-2009, 12:04 PM
Dude, I hate to break this to you, but bubbles and such have been happening well before Greenspan ever hit the scene.

That being said, once again you show you can't have a conversation without throwing around insults and such. The only clown is you, guy. You have some severe issues. I'll just go ahead an stick you on ignore until you grow up some.

Pete,

You should really see someone about your problems. You weren't trying to have a conversation. You were making unsubstantiated claims and then got pissed when I called you out. It's the same thing that you always do.

petegz28
08-25-2009, 12:07 PM
Pete,

You should really see someone about your problems. You weren't trying to have a conversation. You were making unsubstantiated claims and then got pissed when I called you out. It's the same thing that you always do.

Wrong again. You went on about some bullshit about being clowned and butt hurt and whatever. To ignore with you. I am done reading your tripe.

KC native
08-25-2009, 12:10 PM
Wrong again. You went on about some bullshit about being clowned and butt hurt and whatever. To ignore with you. I am done reading your tripe.

Run away Pete. Run away! You really are a pussy pete. You want to come out here and throw around names and labels and then when it comes back to you, you act like a little bitch. Here's some theme music for your run

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/41B_ixHLhgA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/41B_ixHLhgA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Chocolate Hog
08-25-2009, 01:18 PM
Now the judge should make the Fed release a true audit. The fed never has turley been audited because it's never said how much money it's given to foreign bankers and which bankers.

KC native
08-25-2009, 01:37 PM
Now the judge should make the Fed release a true audit. The fed never has turley been audited because it's never said how much money it's given to foreign bankers and which bankers.

:spock:

Chocolate Hog
08-25-2009, 01:44 PM
:spock:

What retard?

KC native
08-25-2009, 01:46 PM
What retard?

Um....
Now the judge should make the Fed release a true audit. The fed never has turley been audited because it's never said how much money it's given to foreign bankers and which bankers.


It's never been audited because it hasn't said how much money it has given to foreign bankers and which bankers? Do you understand the structure of the Federal Reserve System?

Chocolate Hog
08-25-2009, 01:52 PM
Um....



It's never been audited because it hasn't said how much money it has given to foreign bankers and which bankers? Do you understand the structure of the Federal Reserve System?

You obviously don't.

KC native
08-25-2009, 02:08 PM
You obviously don't.

ROFL You ever think they might not have been audited because there's never been an institution to oversee them? Are you aware that the Federal Reserve is owned by the member banks and is NOT part of our federal government? Did you also know that the Fed (until recent times) is independent?

According to your crack analysis though it's only because they "gave" money to foreign banks and won't say who. BTW how did they "give" money away?

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 02:10 PM
ROFL Did you also know that the Fed (until recent times) is independent?So was the Auto Industry, Banks, Insurance companies, ect... your point?

KC native
08-25-2009, 02:11 PM
So was the Auto Industry, Banks, Insurance companies, ect... your point?

JFC, do you ever see nuance? I was referring specifically to the Fed Chairs.

Chocolate Hog
08-25-2009, 02:13 PM
ROFL You ever think they might not have been audited because there's never been an institution to oversee them? Are you aware that the Federal Reserve is owned by the member banks and is NOT part of our federal government? Did you also know that the Fed (until recent times) is independent?

According to your crack analysis though it's only because they "gave" money to foreign banks and won't say who. BTW how did they "give" money away?

Constitution, Read it.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-25-2009, 02:14 PM
I contend the Federal Reserve is the cause for the economic downturn we are in. To a large degree anyway. I want the entire entity abolished. Something isn't right when a organization has that much power and no accountability. And it is that way by the design of a few greedy rich people.

This! Sing it Pete, these bastards have no problem bailing out their friends on our dime and they print up as much money as they can therefore making our dollar more worthless by the day. The oligarchs have their day coming.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-25-2009, 02:17 PM
Are you going of the deep end a la Killer Clown Pete?

Who does the Fed serve? The Bilderbegs? ROFL

BTW Greenspan and Bernanke are far from the least of their problems. Greenspan and Bernanke have both blown asset bubbles to get out of situations which is wrong. It's textbook Chicago school economics. Recession? Expand the monetary base. Market crash? Expand the monetary base. Pete's all butt hurt over being clowned in DC everyday? Expand the monetary base.

When Fed presidents were independent (last one was Volker) then they did a much better job. Volker broke the back of the persistent inflation from the 70's and set up the environment for the economy to take off in the early 80's.

Ya i'm really far out there to see what is going on here, we stand to become a 3rd world country as these bastards take everything we have.

Stewie
08-25-2009, 02:35 PM
ROFL You ever think they might not have been audited because there's never been an institution to oversee them? Are you aware that the Federal Reserve is owned by the member banks and is NOT part of our federal government? Did you also know that the Fed (until recent times) is independent?

According to your crack analysis though it's only because they "gave" money to foreign banks and won't say who. BTW how did they "give" money away?

The Federal Reserve isn't owned by member banks, the banks ARE the Federal Reserve. Any wonder why Goldman Sachs is making money hand over fist while other banks go under? The deck is completely stacked in their favor and it was set up that way... BY THEM!

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 02:38 PM
JFC, do you ever see nuance? I was referring specifically to the Fed Chairs.Do you mean like the Union Chief that was just appointed as one? JFC - yeah, independent...

Stewie
08-25-2009, 02:44 PM
As for the OP this will drag on and on. In the end it will be revealed that the Fed bought a bunch of worthless shit (we already know that) and gave in return billion$/trillion$. It's how this whole system works. It's bank-centric. We were warned about this sort of thing two hundred years ago... and here we are.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-25-2009, 02:45 PM
As for the OP this will drag on and on. In the end it will be revealed that the Fed bought a bunch of worthless shit (we already know that) and gave in return billion$/trillion$. It's how this whole system works. It's bank-centric. We were warned about this sort of thing two hundred years ago... and here we are.

Yes but this time i'm going to pound my head into a brick wall and i promise i won't bleed or have as much as a scratch, scouts honor.

wild1
08-25-2009, 03:01 PM
Gee, I wonder if a bunch of powerful and influential buddies of the ruling party got a big chunk of all this free money?

KC native
08-25-2009, 03:12 PM
Constitution, Read it.

Maybe you should. If the Federal Reserve isn't part of the government, how is the government supposed to audit it without specific legislation saying to?

KC native
08-25-2009, 03:15 PM
The Federal Reserve isn't owned by member banks, the banks ARE the Federal Reserve. Any wonder why Goldman Sachs is making money hand over fist while other banks go under? The deck is completely stacked in their favor and it was set up that way... BY THEM!

Come on Stewie, GS wasn't even a bank until December of 2008. It was not part of the Federal Reserve System until then.

petegz28
08-25-2009, 03:16 PM
Do you mean like the Union Chief that was just appointed as one? JFC - yeah, independent...

You douchebag, you don't know jackshit. Take your dumbassery elsewhere cause you aren't as smart as I think I am /kc native


You are exactly right, KC Dan, the Federal Reserve is not without its political influence

KC native
08-25-2009, 03:17 PM
As for the OP this will drag on and on. In the end it will be revealed that the Fed bought a bunch of worthless shit (we already know that) and gave in return billion$/trillion$. It's how this whole system works. It's bank-centric. We were warned about this sort of thing two hundred years ago... and here we are.

Yes, and they are going to return that shit to the banks once these programs are over. These programs are effectively subsidies. They are taking the bad assets as collateral at their stated value which means the banks don't have to take the write downs and they receive essentially no interest funds to try and earn their way into a capital cushion.

petegz28
08-25-2009, 03:18 PM
Gee, I wonder if a bunch of powerful and influential buddies of the ruling party got a big chunk of all this free money?

It was a "bailout". We "HAD" to have it or a giant asteroid was going to smash the earth to smitereens!!!

KC native
08-25-2009, 03:19 PM
Do you mean like the Union Chief that was just appointed as one? JFC - yeah, independent...

The heads of the different reserve banks are supposed to represent a variety of backgrounds. When I said independent what I meant was their policy actions are supposed to be independent of political pressure (until recently that was true).

Stewie
08-25-2009, 03:26 PM
Yes, and they are going to return that shit to the banks once these programs are over. These programs are effectively subsidies. They are taking the bad assets as collateral at their stated value which means the banks don't have to take the write downs and they receive essentially no interest funds to try and earn their way into a capital cushion.

Explain "stated value?" That's the biggest crock of shit ever rammed down the throat of dumbass economists.

"Give me a million dollars"
"What do you have as collateral?"
"A 1983 Todd Blackledge card."
"Whew! That's not worth much. But, OK. When the program's over you'll take it back, OK?"
"Sure, and then I'll sell it and pay you back your million."

Sounds like a plan to me.

KC native
08-25-2009, 03:27 PM
Explain "stated value?" That's the biggest crock of shit ever rammed down the throat of dumbass economists.

"Give me a million dollars"
"What do you have as collateral?"
"A 1983 Todd Blackledge card."
"Whew! That's not worth much. But, OK. When the program's over you'll take it back, OK?"
"Sure, and then I'll sell it and pay you back your million."

Sounds like a plan to me.

The stated value is what the banks are carrying the assets on their balance sheets at. If they sell them in the open market they are going to have to write it down to market price and take the loss. With the relaxation of mark to market accounting there are several financial firms that are holding assets that are worth $.45 on the dollar but are marked at $.70-.90 on the dollar. If these firms take these write downs they are insolvent.

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 03:28 PM
When I said independent what I meant was their policy actions are supposed to be independent of political pressure (until recently that was true).Yes, and, I submit to the court, Goldman Sachs and their ties/influences with our Federal gov't and the Fed..
:cuss:

petegz28
08-25-2009, 03:30 PM
Explain "stated value?" That's the biggest crock of shit ever rammed down the throat of dumbass economists.

"Give me a million dollars"
"What do you have as collateral?"
"A 1983 Todd Blackledge card."
"Whew! That's not worth much. But, OK. When the program's over you'll take it back, OK?"
"Sure, and then I'll sell it and pay you back your million."

Sounds like a plan to me.


You're right on point. The whole "bad assest" ordeal flew over everyone's head, for the most part, as it was intended to do. There is a reason these assets were bad. No one else would touch them. The fact is, the Fed paid good money for nothing. Literally. They paid good money for worthless pieces of fucking paper.

petegz28
08-25-2009, 03:31 PM
Yes, and, I submit to the court, Goldman Sachs and their ties/influences with our Federal gov't and the Fed..
:cuss:

Goldman is definitely in kahootz.

KC native
08-25-2009, 03:34 PM
You're right on point. The whole "bad assest" ordeal flew over everyone's head, for the most part, as it was intended to do. There is a reason these assets were bad. No one else would touch them. The fact is, the Fed paid good money for nothing. Literally. They paid good money for worthless pieces of ****ing paper.

People will touch them but only for the right price. There are market prices for these assets. The problem is the firms that hold them don't want to take the write downs because it would push them into insolvency.

Stewie
08-25-2009, 03:37 PM
The stated value is what the banks are carrying the assets on their balance sheets at. If they sell them in the open market they are going to have to write it down to market price and take the loss. With the relaxation of mark to market accounting there are several financial firms that are holding assets that are worth $.45 on the dollar but are marked at $.70-.90 on the dollar. If these firms take these write downs they are insolvent.

THIS is the problem! It's a fucking sham and a lie. It's why we're in the mess we're in.

KC native
08-25-2009, 03:40 PM
THIS is the problem! It's a ****ing sham and a lie. It's why we're in the mess we're in.

and I've consistently said so. I've been an advocate of nationalizing these institutions since the beginning of the crisis.

Stewie
08-25-2009, 03:54 PM
and I've consistently said so. I've been an advocate of nationalizing these institutions since the beginning of the crisis.

But that removes the barrier between politics and good economic policy.

KC native
08-25-2009, 04:02 PM
But that removes the barrier between politics and good economic policy.

Absolutely not. If you nationalize the banks, wipe the shareholders and force the bondholders to take a hair cut when the company is spun back out to the market stripped of its bad assets then you're not crossing any line between politics and good economic policy. This has already been done and used to be the preferable way to deal with these types of events. If you don't believe me look at WAMU as an example.

Stewie
08-25-2009, 04:14 PM
Absolutely not. If you nationalize the banks, wipe the shareholders and force the bondholders to take a hair cut when the company is spun back out to the market stripped of its bad assets then you're not crossing any line between politics and good economic policy. This has already been done and used to be the preferable way to deal with these types of events. If you don't believe me look at WAMU as an example.

Hugo Chavez approves.

There is no WAMU, they died and their good assets were "bought" by Chase, losses dumped on taxpayers. Yeah, let's do more WAMU's!

KC native
08-25-2009, 04:22 PM
Hugo Chavez approves.

There is no WAMU, they died and their good assets were "bought" by Chase, losses dumped on taxpayers. Yeah, let's do more WAMU's!

The losses were dumped mostly on the FDIC and the bond holders. If they wouldn't have received TARP funds then there would have been no taxpayer losses at all.

Taco John
08-25-2009, 04:25 PM
It's always a delight to see someone trying to defend the Fed.

Stewie
08-25-2009, 04:32 PM
The losses were dumped mostly on the FDIC and the bond holders. If they wouldn't have received TARP funds then there would have been no taxpayer losses at all.

Where do you draw the line? FDIC, TARP? It's taxpayer money! You realize the FDIC is going to need to be bailed out by taxpayers, too, right? They're basically broke after the last four banks were bailed out on Friday... and we have at least 200 banks to go.

It's apparent to me that you think money is just paper... and well, it is. Invest accordingly.

KC native
08-25-2009, 04:41 PM
Where do you draw the line? FDIC, TARP? It's taxpayer money! You realize the FDIC is going to need to be bailed out by taxpayers, too, right? They're basically broke after the last four banks were bailed out on Friday... and we have at least 200 banks to go.

It's apparent to me that you think money is just paper... and well, it is. Invest accordingly.

FDIC isn't taxpayer funded. It is funded by fees paid by banks and there are dramatic increases happening very soon. So whether or not they will have to be bailed out by taxpayers remains to be seen.

As far as investing accordingly, I will.

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 04:44 PM
FDIC isn't taxpayer funded. It is funded by fees paid by banks and there are dramatic increases happening very soon. Taken by increasing taxpayer fees for using their services (Loans, Atm's ect...). But, don't let the truth bother you any...

Stewie
08-25-2009, 04:47 PM
FDIC isn't taxpayer funded. It is funded by fees paid by banks and there are dramatic increases happening very soon. So whether or not they will have to be bailed out by taxpayers remains to be seen.

As far as investing accordingly, I will.

FDIC is bankrupt and it was the plan. The FDIC ponies up the first $50 billion (fees), the taxpayer picks up the other $200 billion. Perfect plan in the eyes of the bankers.

KC native
08-25-2009, 04:50 PM
Taken by increasing taxpayer fees for using their services (Loans, Atm's ect...). But, don't let the truth bother you any...

It's obvious the truth doesn't bother you because if it did you would realize that banks and the FDIC are separate entities. Don't let that get in your way though.

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 05:00 PM
Originally Posted by KC native http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6000551#post6000551)
FDIC isn't taxpayer funded. It is funded by fees paid by banks and there are dramatic increases happening very soon.

Good god...Banks are funding the FDIC as you state above. The banks have to get that money somewhere - no? Guess where - right -> us. The banks raise their customer fees and interest rates to bring in more cash to raise funds to do what you state above....This is basic I know but then again....

KC native
08-25-2009, 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by KC native http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6000551#post6000551)
FDIC isn't taxpayer funded. It is funded by fees paid by banks and there are dramatic increases happening very soon.

Good god...Banks are funding the FDIC as you state above. The banks have to get that money somewhere - no? Guess where - right -> us. The banks raise their customer fees and interest rates to bring in more cash to raise funds to do what you state above....This is basic I know but then again....


So, it's not tax payer funded like you had said but customer funded. Good job dan. :doh!:

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 05:10 PM
So, it's not tax payer funded like you had said but customer funded. Good job dan. :doh!:Because tax payers are not bank customers. Good job ??? :doh!:

Time to post it again, I guess:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...."

KC native
08-25-2009, 05:22 PM
Because tax payers are not bank customers. Good job ??? :doh!:

Time to post it again, I guess:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...."

You can pay taxes and not have a bank account.