iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Federal Reserve Lending Revelations Intensify Criticism Of Central Bank's Secrecy

Fed Transparency

First Posted: 05/26/11 06:57 PM ET Updated: 07/26/11 06:12 AM ET

In the midst of the global financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve lent Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Royal Bank of Scotland at least $30 billion each at interest rates as low as 0.01 percent with no public disclosure of the details, Bloomberg News reported on Thursday.

The latest revelations about the covert infusions of credit provided by the Fed to some of the world's largest banks has amplified accusations that the central bank is a power unto itself, operating according to its own devices and in the interest of major financial institutions -- and beyond accountability to taxpayers.

"It just points out that this was about secrecy to protect banks basically from embarrassment from transparency, which is not supposed to be what the Fed's about," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, in Washington.

"That is the fundamental problem with the Fed," Baker added. "They're supposed to be an agency of the government, not an agency of the banks. But reflexively, there they are protecting the banks, again and again and again."

Some experts say that the Fed acted properly to withhold details of the transactions, asserting the broader financial system might well have been spooked had it been known to what degree the central bank was propping up major lenders.

"Releasing data closer to the time of the crisis could have had an adverse impact on some firms," said Ernest Patrikis, a partner at the law firm White & Case and a former chief operating officer of the New York Fed. "There's a difference between a crisis and a period of time after a crisis, in terms of impact."

That was the Fed's logic, as it handed out nearly free cash to major banks and other institutions while withholding from public view the names of the recipients, the dollar figures and the terms of the loans.

But in recent months, the Fed has been forced by Congress and by a Supreme Court decision -- in a case originally filed by Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News -- to release the details of its so-called emergency lending programs. The Fed undertook those programs throughout 2008, accelerating its lending that fall in the aftermath of the collapse of the investment banking giant Lehman Brothers.

In December, under orders from Congress, the Fed released a trove of documents that name the recipients of $3.3 trillion in aid intended to curb damage from the developing financial crisis. The documents describe a variety of Fed special lending facilities, including one program in which nine firms, five of them foreign, were able to borrow $5 billion for 28 days at the extremely low interest rate of 0.0078 percent, The Huffington Post reported.

In late March, the Fed released information about its primary lending facility -- the so-called discount window -- which had provided ultra-cheap cash during the height of the crisis to a range of firms. During the week in October 2008 when borrowing under the program peaked, foreign banks received more than 70 percent of the $110.7 billion that the Fed lent out, Bloomberg News reported. Arab Banking Corp., a $28 billion lender now majority-owned by Libya's central bank, got at least $3.2 billion that autumn, The Huffington Post reported.

In 2008, Bloomberg News asked for Fed records under the Freedom of Information Act, but the Fed resisted. Revealing the names of borrowers could cause "substantial competitive harm" to those institutions because they could be perceived as weak, the Fed argued in a court filing.

"[B]ecause Reserve Banks are the 'lenders of last resort,' the fact that an institution is borrowing at the [discount window], if publicly disclosed, can fuel market speculation and rumors that the entity's liquidity strains stem from a financial problem at the institution that is not publicly known," reads a May 2009 statement the Fed filed in a New York district court.

The case went to the Supreme Court, which rejected an attempt by a banking industry group to block the Fed's disclosure. So, for the first time since the Fed's discount window began lending in 1914, the central bank in late March released the identities of its primary facility's borrowers.

The latest details came via an investigation published Thursday by Bloomberg News, which reported that Goldman and other financial institutions borrowed additional tens of billions from the Fed's primary source of credit.

A spokesman for the New York Fed, which administered the emergency lending program, said the Bloomberg article merely added the names of the banks that received the loans to previous public disclosures about the existence of the transactions.

"The establishment and execution" of the program "were clearly communicated to the public," the spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement. "On March 7, 2008, the New York Fed announced through a public statement its intent to conduct these open market operations. Further, the aggregate results of each auction were immediately posted on the New York Fed's web site."

But the statement the spokesman referenced, written in highly technical language, does not name any recipients and indeed reads like a blanket assertion of lending authority.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has often said the Fed should be a more transparent institution. Last month, the chairman spoke to reporters at the first press conference after a committee meeting in the central bank's history.

"I personally have always been a big believer in providing as much information as you can to help the public understand what you're doing, to help the markets understand what you're doing, and to be accountable to the public for what you're doing," Bernanke said during the conference.

But Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, pointed to the latest disclosures about the extent of the Fed's covert operations as a sign that the institution has yet to live up to the standard its chairman has publicly laid out.

"People want the information, whether it's loan-level data or data on a security or on an issuer. Whatever it is, they want it," Whalen said. "But you still have the Fed, because they're such a reactionary organization, resisting this."

Chris Kirkham contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
In the midst of the global financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve lent Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Royal Bank of Scotland at least $30 billion each at interest rates as low as 0.01 percent...
In the midst of the global financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve lent Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Royal Bank of Scotland at least $30 billion each at interest rates as low as 0.01 percent...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,370
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (99 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:32 PM on 05/30/2011
we are all hamsters on neocon "financially engineered" "financially innovated" wheels...

more reasons for fed secrecy...

5/13/2010

"The Fed chairman may sometimes have sounded as though he knew the future state of employment, and he might have, although there is no direct evidence of it. Professor Alan B. Krueger wrote about confidential governmental data that are passed to the president, the Federal Reserve Board chairman, and the Treasury secretary before they are made public.

Greenspan, Krueger states, "has an agreement with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to receive monthly employment data for manufacturing, mining and public utilities two or three days early, ostensibly so the Fed can produce its industrial production statistics. . . . Surely, the chairman's reason for wanting data early is a ruse; he wants an advanced hint at where the economy is headed.

Providing prerelease data makes the chairman seem omniscient and helps the Fed and Treasury outfox the markets."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-auerbach/the-gao-must-perform-a-di_b_575347.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:08 PM on 05/30/2011
First, if this were actually true, then why hasn't Obama ended this "neocon" arrangement?
Face it, Obama's controlled by the big banks just the same as Bush was.

Second, many of these allegations took place under Clinton (as the article mentioned "...1993 hearing at which Fed officials misled Congress..."

And I also find it amusing that you link to an article mentioning Bernie Sanders as a key figure in this debate. Because sadly, he was.

There was an Audit the Fed bill that would have done just what this article called for. A bill proposed by the bi-partisan team of Ron Paul (a champion of this cause for years) and Alan Grayson, but it was gutted in the Senate by Sanders so that this thorough examination of the Fed books that article called for was impossible.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:55 PM on 05/30/2011
we are all hamsters on neocon "financially engineered" "financially innovated" wheels...

a whole lot of assumptions about me in your post YM.

a little, tiny, miniscule, amount of money gives infinite returns when investing in congresspeople, the administration, or the supreme court.

the neocons who overwhelmingly own and control wall street and our financial institutions, including the fed, and therefore ownership of our corporations and the media, could care less who is currently in power.

as the neocon prophet and the greatest crook told everyone almost 200 years ago:

"Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws."

baron ma rothschild - 1818 - 1874

almost 200 years later they are stronger than ever
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
11:37 PM on 05/31/2011
Why are you defending neocons? -- YM: 'You may have meant to say the banks control both parties, but, you failed. Your comment, prefaced with "we are all hamsters on NEOCON "financial­­ly engineered­­" "financial­­ly innovated" wheels..." is NOT an apolitical statement.' -- It is a factually correct one. Deal with it.
maxfax
Taa - dah!
02:48 PM on 05/30/2011
Empowered corporations; Americans? Not really.
photo
guveqzero
Inventor and Innovator
12:39 PM on 05/30/2011
At least we have our banks around. We couldn't go without both banks and food.
10:22 AM on 05/30/2011
Yes Yes Yes, we know now that the Fed Lent "some" money for terrific rates, I can't get my bank to give me 0.01% on my mortgage. I don't know what disturbs me more,the fact that this deal was done on the sly or that it was such a deal. I think the funds from hard working Americans that are demanded every year in the form of taxes should be used more carefully and for the benefit of all the people not just the the banks and corporations that are behind our puppet politicians. We need the change that was promised during the last major election. If it didn't take a billion dollars to become elected we may have people in the government that are closer to reality.
10:32 AM on 05/30/2011
Federal Reserve loans don't come from your tax dollars and you get charged a higher rate because you are at a higher risk for default. In the event of bankruptcy Fed loans have first priority, it would have been nearly impossible for them to not get repaid.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:41 AM on 05/30/2011
speaking of higher risk of default. who exactly got TRILLIONS in cumulative bailouts?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
11:40 PM on 05/31/2011
Wrong. They lend funds minted by our Treasury, and their value derives 100% from the faith and credit of the recipients in the value of OUR work, aka the GNP.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AndyWright68
Freedom is inevitable!
09:05 AM on 05/30/2011
So these tyrants loan out YOUR hard earned money without your consent while they live like royalty and we struggle. Anyone who supports this system supports theft and violence against peaceful people who just want to provide for their families.
09:47 AM on 05/30/2011
Hey Andy can you say aristocracy?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joydbrower
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
06:22 AM on 05/31/2011
Right you are, Andy - it's a pretty sweet deal - for those on the inside, eh?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:38 PM on 05/29/2011
oh sweet irony. the feds have become enemy of democracy!
feds, regulators, wall street and their lobbies have bankrupt america!
this is not the black friday of 1929. all the relevent data we have back in '07 '08 will be
laid bare, all of your corrupt ways exposed.
when that happens somebody will pyss on your grave, your children and their children's children will be ashamed to your the family name for the next hundred fifty years. keep protecting the banks gg.
08:03 PM on 05/29/2011
It must have been really hard to write this article without even once mentioning Ron Paul. Instead, "Congress" has been noticing the Federal Reserve. Yeah, Congressman Ron Paul has been talking about the Fed problem to everybody for years and finally the left is noticing too. Of course, the current administration thinks the best way to solve the problem is to give the Fed even more power with less accountability.
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/ron-paul-and-the-federal-reserve
05:57 PM on 05/29/2011
"That is the fundamental problem with the Fed," Baker added. "They're supposed to be an agency of the government, not an agency of the banks. But reflexively, there they are protecting the banks, again and again and again."

He answers his own question - yes the Fed is supposed to be an agency of the government and when the government is merely an extension of the banks you get the Fed looking out for the banks who are running the government. This is what a plutocracy looks like.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
04:53 PM on 05/29/2011
The so-called "foreign banks" are not. They are US chartered subsidiaries of foreign bank, just as Bank of America and other big banks charter subsidiaries in foreign countries. All the so-called foreign banks are on the published "Primary Dealer" list by the Fed.___________________ http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:24 PM on 05/29/2011
we are all hamsters on neocon "financially engineered" "financially innovated" wheels...

BofA, goldman sachs, or chase are NOT "American" banks. they are pan-national conglomerates who extract American resources and use America's military as their weapon

they own our administration, regardless of the party in power, our congress, and our supreme court so they are considered "citizens"

central banks are all linked as a cartel as proven in my previous posts below.

the fact that banks OWNED or controlled by another government, e.g. CHINA and LIBYA, attend our confidential Federal Reserve meetings receiving advanced knowledge of American monetary policy should be tried as a treason

that you are such an ardent fed apologist makes one wonder your motivations.

OVER 2 years ago Gretchen Morgenson detailed timmy geithner's ny fed incestuous cabal where ny fed board members steered Trillions in bailout dollars and other fed "special" "monetary easing" programs to their corporations. the "players" include blankfein, fuld, rubin, summers, bernanke, greenspam, dimon, speyer, stephen friedman, prince, weill, immelt, chais, merkin, adelson, picower

their unmitigated GREED DESTROYED middle class mortgages, 401Ks, health care, schools, and the middle class.

The greatest REDISTRIBUTION of wealth in history; UPWARD to the wealthiest few.

4/26/09

NY Times article "Geithner, Member and Overseer of Finance Club" By JO BECKER and GRETCHEN MORGENSON and the accompanying graphic "Mr. Geithner’s World" documents how they control the fed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27geithner.html?_r=1

two years old and it's gotten worse!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
08:05 PM on 05/29/2011
More of Gretchen Morgenson's "he said/she said." Real high class journalism. Deeds are what count, not words, especially alleged words, especially in a brain-storming session when it is encouraged to postulate anything and then reason out whether or not it could work. This is an out-of-date hatchet job by a hack who has no clue what she writes about, but knows how to sensationalize for others who also don't know.
01:03 PM on 05/30/2011
There were actually two groups of "foreign banks" in the news. The foreign banks that were able to borrow from the discount window were US branches of foreign banks, see http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed26.html

The other group of foreign banks were on the primarily dealer list. Primary dealers are the world's largest banks which participate in Open Market Operations. They are used by the Fed to create a market for US Treasuries and other government securities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
03:17 PM on 05/30/2011
You are correct, and fanned for it. There is also another distinction; a truly foreign bank is one that is chartered in a foreign country. But when a foreign bank does business in the US, it must form a separate US subsidiary. Virtually all big banks have combinations of American and foreign ownership. But who owns the stock is not a criterion for which banks can do business in America, and which can be primary dealers for the Fed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
04:41 PM on 05/29/2011
Here's the link to the excerpt (sorry):______________________________________________ http://macroblog.typepad.com/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
04:39 PM on 05/29/2011
Excerpted from FRB Atlanta:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Secret loans" that were not so secret I confess to be more than a little surprised when yesterday's morning reading turned up the following headline, from Bloomberg's Bob Ivry:________________________________________ "Fed Gave Banks Crisis Gains on Secretive Loans Low as 0.01%"_______________________ ...I think a couple of clarifying points are in order. First, these transactions were hardly, in my view, "secretive." On March 7, 2008, the following was posted on the New York Fed's website (with similar information provided by the Board of Governors):___________________________ "The Federal Reserve has announced that the Open Market Trading Desk will conduct a series of term repurchase (RP) transactions that are expected to cumulate to $100 billion outstanding. This initiative is intended to address heightened pressures in term funding markets. These transactions will be conducted as 28-day term RP agreements in which primary dealers may elect to deliver as collateral any of the types of securities—Treasury, agency debt, or agency mortgage-backed securities—that are eligible as collateral in its conventional RP operations."__________________________________________________________ The magic words in the Bloomberg piece are apparently "details weren't revealed." While it is true that specific transactions with specific institutions were not published in real time, the overall results of the auctions (both total purchases and the lowest interest rate paid) were posted each day (as noted in the Bloomberg article), and the list of potential counterparties (the primary dealers) was (and is) available for all to see. I suppose we could have a reasonable debate about how much information is required to support the claim that "details" were made available. But I have a hard time with the notion that publicly announcing the program, offering details on size and prices in each day's transactions, and providing general information about the entities in the game constitutes "secretive."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AcademicFreedom
Often banned; always factual
03:42 PM on 05/29/2011
Tribal guys helping out members of the tribe.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:48 PM on 05/29/2011
we are all hamsters on neocon "financially engineered" "financially innovated" wheels...

5/13/2010

"At a hearing on October 19, 1993, Greenspan attempted to reassure Congress on this issue: "I trust the problem of leaks is behind us."

In 1996 the Fed reportedly called on the FBI to investigate "an embarrassing leak of inside information that churned financial markets

"At the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, over the 3-year period, a total of 28 foreign central bankers have attended 16 different Board of Directors meetings, including the discussion and vote on discount rates." Those attending included

"central bankers from Bulgaria, China, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Russia."

One year later, the House Banking Committee received information about non-Fed employees attending Fed meetings at which inside information was discussed.

Greenspan was forced to admit that some non-Fed people had attended Fed meetings at which the Fed's future interest-rate policy was discussed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-auerbach/the-gao-must-perform-a-di_b_575347.html

5/26/11 - one year later in this article

"In the midst of the global financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve lent

Credit Suisse and

Royal Bank of Scotland

AT LEAST $30 billion each at interest rates as low as 0.01 percent with no public disclosure of the details"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:00 PM on 05/29/2011
we are all hamsters on neocon "financially engineered" "financially innovated" wheels...

5/26/11 - one year later in this article

the Fed released a trove of documents that name the recipients of $3.3 trillion in aid

including one program in which

nine firms, FIVE OF THEM FOREIGN,

were able to borrow $5 billion for 28 days at the extremely low interest rate of 0.0078 percent

In late March, the Fed released information about its primary lending facility -- the so-called discount window -- which had provided ultra-cheap cash during the height of the crisis to a range of firms.

During the week in October 2008 when borrowing under the program peaked,

FOREIGN BANKS RECEIVED MORE THAN 70 percent, SEVENTY PERCENT, of the $110.7 billion that the Fed lent out, Bloomberg News reported.

Arab Banking Corp., a $28 billion lender now majority-owned by Libya's central bank, got at least $3.2 billion that autumn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/federal-reserve-emergency-loans-secret_n_867729.html

THE FED GIVES GADDAFI BILLIONS!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Secrist
those who forget are condemned to repeat
11:04 AM on 05/29/2011
Of course the while thing is BUSINESS AS USUAL. Our 'representatives' (name only) are stealing as much as they can carry (in fact everyone near the Washington Hog Farm Trough called payroll tax revenue is stealing as much as they can carry. And no one is doing anything. WHY ? Because the fox is guarding the henhouse. Bernake is beholden to Wall Street, why wouldn't he help banks in secret. What about his poverty wage (for him) job at the Federal Reserve, is going to transform him into a socially progressive individual ? NOTHING OF COURSE! I can't believe all the bru-ha-ha--ha about this. Where have you people been, MARS? The Country was sold out starting with REAGEN in 1980. And the band plays on ...
photo
earto44
Defender of planet Erf.
09:50 AM on 05/29/2011
I would support Elizabeth Warren as V.P. in 2012 if Biden decides to leave.
Obama Warren 2012 would be AWESOME !
photo
laterthanyouthink
My snark font is: ON
11:23 AM on 05/29/2011
Yup!

then Warren, Spitzer in 2016.

Payback time!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
04:45 PM on 05/29/2011
F