iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Money For Nothing: Wall Street Borrowed From Fed At 0.0078 Percent

First Posted: 12/01/10 05:19 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:15 PM ET

Fed

NEW YORK -- For the lucky few on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve sure was sweet.

Nine firms -- five of them foreign -- were able to borrow between $5.2 billion and $6.2 billion in U.S. government securities, which effectively act like cash on Wall Street, for four-week intervals while paying one-time fees that amounted to the minuscule rate of 0.0078 percent.

That is not a typo.

On 33 separate transactions, the lucky nine were able to borrow billions as part of a crisis-era Fed program that lent the securities, known as Treasuries, for 28-day chunks to the now-18 firms known as primary dealers that are empowered to trade with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The program, called the Term Securities Lending Facility, ensured that the firms had cash on hand to lend, invest and trade.

The market was freezing up. Effectively free money, courtesy of Uncle Sam, helped it thaw.

The European firms -- Credit Suisse (Switzerland), Deutsche Bank (Germany), Royal Bank of Scotland (U.K.), Barclays (U.K.), and BNP Paribas (France) -- borrowed $5.2-6.2 billion in Treasuries 20 different times. The one-time fees they paid on each transaction ranged from $403,277.78 to $481,110. Deutsche led the way with seven such deals.

On each transaction, the fee paid for the 28-day loan is equal to a rate of just 0.0078 percent.

The first of these sweetheart deals began April 17, 2008. They ended nearly a year later on March 5. On that day, Goldman Sachs borrowed about $5.8 billion and paid just $450,000 for the privilege.

Goldman was one of four American firms that also paid that rock-bottom rate. Citigroup, defunct investment bank Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch, which was gobbled up by Bank of America in a government-pushed transaction, benefited from the save-Wall-Street-at-all-costs approach. Goldman and Citi got the 0.0078 percent rate on five separate occasions, tops among U.S. banks.

The transactions highlight the extraordinary steps taken by the Fed -- and encouraged by both the Bush and Obama administrations -- to save Wall Street from its own mistakes. Households and small businesses have not been as lucky.

The Fed's crisis-era programs "provided liquidity to particular institutions whose disorderly failure could have severely stressed an already fragile financial system," the Fed said in a statement Wednesday posted on its website. A spokesman did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

This year, Wall Street is poised to break yet another record for employee compensation and bonuses. Thanks to near-zero percent interest rates -- also set by the Fed -- firms are able to continue making easy money with minimal risk.

*This story was updated at 8:30 p.m. ET. An earlier version of this article misstated the rate paid by the firms, the number of transactions, the amount of the fee, which varied by transaction, and incorrectly defined the rate itself. The rate, which was a fixed fee and not a traditional interest rate, was 0.0078 percent, not 0.0077 percent. There were at least 33 such transactions, not 31. And the actual fee paid ranged from $403,000 to $481,000, rather than a fee of about $384,000 for all of the transactions.


*************************

Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
NEW YORK -- For the lucky few on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve sure was sweet. Nine firms -- five of them foreign -- were able to borrow between $5.2 billion and $6.2 billion in U.S. government se...
NEW YORK -- For the lucky few on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve sure was sweet. Nine firms -- five of them foreign -- were able to borrow between $5.2 billion and $6.2 billion in U.S. government se...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 560
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (18 total)
11:21 AM on 12/05/2010
Isn't your math wrong? A$5 billion loan at 1% interest means $50 million in interest per year. These guys were effectively paying 5 million a year ($400k x 12 months). So they were paying 0.1%. Still a steal, but where did you get .0079%?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mikeinSeattle
04:38 PM on 12/03/2010
Heavy sigh....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaticaDeGato
Hissing and scratching with gusto.
02:44 PM on 12/03/2010
The Fed is a private organization and if it wants to offer so-called sweetheart deals to some of its clients, that's its decision. Preventing them from doing so would be tantamount to COMMUNISM!!!!!

(*wink*)
11:23 PM on 12/02/2010
What is up with that??? They need to be charged the SAME interest as the American people, no wonder we can not get back on our feet.
America, we need to find a way the boycott ALL businesses that get interest rates this low, because they sure do not need our money at those rates.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
11:06 PM on 12/02/2010
Great job HuffPo.

Drudge has been hammering the Fed all week with 3-5 articles each day on this topic and your staff bury's this revelation which should be front page news that makes the taxpayer angry!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MSanford
My micro-bio is empty
09:27 PM on 12/02/2010
This article is very deceptive, and apparently ignorant of how banking works. The rates paid were low because what was being lent were securities, NOT MONEY. It's a swap. The Fed accepts a Fannie Mae security or some other high quality security, and in exchange lends a treasury. You might as well complain that the Fed borrowed the Fannie Mae security from that bank "for nothing". The Fed profited from this (very slightly), not the banks.
photo
leftLibertarian
Don't vote for Obama or Romney
09:13 PM on 12/02/2010
Dear Ben,

Thank you for the loan of $999,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 at .0078% interest.

As always, your friend
Lord Blankfein
CEO, Government Sachs
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:48 PM on 12/02/2010
Can I please have a mortgage at that interst rate? Please? Afterall, I'm helping pay for all this.
photo
leftLibertarian
Don't vote for Obama or Romney
09:14 PM on 12/02/2010
Sorry, it's not for the little people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jessivehadit
Philosopher, Scientist, Writer, Researcher
07:09 PM on 12/02/2010
In 1967, the dollar had the same buying power as $6.56 now.
And by 1978, the dollar had the same buying power as $3.48 now.

According the US census Bureau the average income in 1967 was $33,500 and in 2010 it was $45,000. The average work week during the great depression was 34 hours, but it went up to 44 during WW2. After WW2 it leveled out to 40. It stayed at 40 through the end of the 70s and then began to steadily climb. Today the average work week is 60 hours and top executives claim that a 70 hour week is the only way to "get ahead".

So, lets do that math with these new numbers
We'll use 1967 and compare it to today.

The average 1967 Man makes $33,500 working 40 hours a week - in 2010 dollars that is $219,760 or $114 an hour in todays dollars. (this is the average man.)
The average 2010 man makes $45,000 working 60 hours a week - in 1967 dollars that is $6,859 or $2.38 an hour in 1967 dollars, ($15.62 an hour in today's dollars)

So now we see how we are being slowly drained of our income and being forced to work harder for less...it has happened little by little, so people don't notice it.

I don't know what the solution is to this problem, but I know that it's not "more of the same" or "business as usual".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jessivehadit
Philosopher, Scientist, Writer, Researcher
07:17 PM on 12/02/2010
If we aren't getting the money for the work that we are doing, then where is it going? To the top...that's where.

Income Inequality in the US, 2010:
Take a look at these two articles:

http://www.rdwolff.com/content/rising-income-inequality-us-divisive-depressing-and-dangerous
http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/22/income-inequality-a-deeper-look/

It is time for some Americans to be in charge of America again. An American hasn't been in charge since FDR, but he was outgunned by much more powerful players. I think he died knowing this, and died trying to do what he could for us. I have liked everything I've ever read or seen about FDR, but I know that he was like JFK, a tiny stone on a beach, standing against the endless waves of destruction, destined to be worn down and swept away.

The stand that should be made next election is NO votes for Republicans or Democrats. Vote any other party, but not Republican or Democrat. Put the word out that this is the year to run as an independent... You don't even need to campaign as much, people will vote for you by not voting for the other guys.
07:23 PM on 12/02/2010
I thought your number of $33,500 was wrong until I looked it up.

Those numbers are pretty amazing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jessivehadit
Philosopher, Scientist, Writer, Researcher
07:37 PM on 12/02/2010
Yeah, frightening. I looked all of these up and then did the math. I don't want to mislead people or exaggerate for effect. The truth is scary enough and think about the implications. The Real Estate market has been very dishonest, leading people to believe that housing prices were rising, when in fact, the rise in prices for houses almost mirrors the drop in value of the dollar because of inflation. The houses were in fact staying the same, or in some cases dropping in price. On paper the numbers went up, but it was a case where it was "more of less"...more dollars, but less valuable dollars.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ronkw
Molon labe
05:55 PM on 12/02/2010
Yeabut, these Dems are for the little working guy....
lmao...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bluepond
person
04:56 PM on 12/02/2010
Have the banks and big businesses set out to utterly alienate the American public on purpose?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:48 PM on 12/02/2010
Wheee! Free money! Which means NO INTEREST FOR YOU citizen saver.

heckofajob
04:44 PM on 12/02/2010
In any other country there would be riots in the streets.
You do realize that Fluoride is an anger suppressant!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:49 PM on 12/02/2010
Thank you, John Birch.

; o }
03:55 PM on 12/02/2010
It sucks...but it sure beats the alternative of not lending it...
http://yieldpig.blogspot.com/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverstreet
All you need is love
04:23 PM on 12/02/2010
Why should the banks receive free money? The banks then buy Treasury bonds and receive interest -- from tax payer dollars. Goldman Sachs has posted the highest earnings on record -- thanks to the taxpayer.
07:25 PM on 12/02/2010
Virtually all politicians appear to approve of this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MSanford
My micro-bio is empty
09:16 PM on 12/02/2010
Silverstreet, that's not correct. They were lent treasuries, not money. That's why the rates are so low. There is no way for banks to profit from this. What it did allow banks to do was post the borrowed treasuries as collateral for loans of MONEY from OTHER BANKS.

The other lending programs that did lend money did so at rates that did not allow them to turn around and make a profit by buying treasuries.
photo
leftLibertarian
Don't vote for Obama or Romney
09:15 PM on 12/02/2010
Of course we MUST lend then money for next to nothing for they are the bestest and brightestest!!
photo
njstarrr
More matters than just you
03:11 PM on 12/02/2010
And yet, still no pitchforks! The American people are busy with DWTS, SP's FB rantings and Wikileaks gossip logs.
photo
leftLibertarian
Don't vote for Obama or Romney
09:16 PM on 12/02/2010
My pitchfork is sharp and my ammo dry.