We got the preliminary results of one of the better provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill today. The Federal Reserve has released the results of its first “audit” – information on all its emergency lending during the financial crisis. This contains over 21,000 individual transactions of over $2 trillion dollars outside of the so-called “successful” TARP program, including the controversial “Maiden Lane” program and other lending facilities. Zach Carter is liveblogging the results as he finds them, and it’s quite astonishing:
Until September 15, 2008, the collateral accepted by the Fed at the Primary Dealer Credit Facility remained relatively robust, in terms of credit ratings.
On September 15, as Lehman Brothers and everything else hit the fan, the Fed began accepting total garbage as collateral. Including CCC-rated (beyond junk bond status) collateral from JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley [...]
The Fed accepted a total of $1.31 trillion in junk-rated collateral between Sept. 15, 2008 and May 12, 2009 through the Primary Dealer Credit Facility. TARP was nothing compared to this.
Let me posit that anyone who claims that TARP was a successful, cheap program to “save the financial system” is just ignorant of the facts. TARP makes up 2% of the total bailout cost at most. And what we’re finding in this report is that the Fed just bought everyone’s trash, as collateral, and in turn advanced trillions to the banks. THAT’S what saved them, and it was plenty costly, from both a raw financial standpoint and especially a moral hazard standpoint.
Matt Stoller writes at Naked Capitalism about the importance of this release:
This network of politicians, advocates, and bloggers will go to town on whatever revelations come out of that (though the Fed obnoxiously put its Maiden Lane disclosures in a non-copy or printable PDF format, so we’ll see how easy they make it to get this info). The defenders of technocracy are out in force as well. Paul Krugman is standing behind the institution, if not its every decision. The Democratic partisan class is going after right-wing Fed critics, while more liberal independents are pointing to the Fed in the 1940s and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation as a very different monetary model.
Not since the populist movement of the 1890s has there been this much discussion of monetary structures among the public, and so much dissent about how money is created and circulated throughout the economy. It’s happening for a reason. The public is now paying attention to finance. We did a focus group in Orlando last year, and one of the surprising conclusions was that nearly every independent voter knew who Ben Bernanke was. People don’t like the structure of our financial oligarchy, and they are talking about it. Even the deficit hysteria and the Fannie/Freddie GSE fights are a function of this monetary debate.
This heated debate is an important step forward. It means that we will be able to examine the real power structure of the American order, rather than the minor foodfights on view in our current political system. This will bring deep disagreements, profound ones, but also remarkable possibility. Modern American industrial policy is to push capital into housing, move manufacturing abroad, build a massive defense establishment, and maintain an oligarchic financial sector. This system isn’t a structural inevitability. People built it, and people are unbuilding it. People with names, motivations, and reputations. People like us, and like Sarah Palin.
The Fed used to be an extremely secretive place, but the castle walls have been pierced. Today’s release is a real and legitimate step forward. Alan Grayson, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders should be proud of their work. But it’s really just a beginning. Hopefully we’ll have a lot more to report about the Fed and these disclosures in the weeks to come.
UPDATE: Chris Hayes and Nomi Prins detail exactly how the government propped up the banks in five different ways. This is a year old and it’s irresponsible for anyone pushing the “TARP worked!” line not to know all of this.
UPDATE II: From Zach:
This Fed Audit data should shame all of the conventional-wisdom Democrats out there declaring TARP a success because of the recent CBO score. To put it mildly, these folks are totally missing the point. TARP was a “success” in large part because of the Fed’s no-strings-attached efforts. And we now know that the Fed was willing to accept junk– literally junk bonds– as collateral for its no-strings-attached loans.
TARP and the stress tests only “worked” insofar as they convinced banks that the government would shoulder infinite future losses from the banking sector. We’re now paying the price for that commitment in the form of massive foreclosure fraud, in which untold numbers of borrowers are being improperly kicked out of their homes in the name of bank profits.
TARP failed. Its losses are so low because the Fed stood behind the banks, allowing them to play one arm of the government against the other. Even if we had “turned a profit” on TARP at its formal interest rate without Fed malfeasance, look what we got in return. In the Depression, FDR secured massive national foreclosure relief and still turned a profit. Today, we have a predatory program called HAMP.
UPDATE III: I’m intrigued by one part of Shahien Nasiripour’s excellent roundup:
The Fed effectively telegraphed its intentions to the Street before buying the bonds. Legendary money manager Bill Gross, who oversees more than $1.2 trillion at Pacific Investment Management Co. said last month during a television interview that part of his success over the last 18 months was due to buying securities in front of the Fed, and selling them to the Fed at a premium, allowing him to profit handsomely. Gross runs PIMCO’s $252.2 billion Total Return Fund.
Morgan Stanley sold the Fed more than $205 billion in mortgage securities from January 2009 to July 2010, while it’s much bigger rival, Goldman Sachs, sold $159 billion. Citigroup, the nation’s third-largest bank by assets, sold the Fed nearly $185 billion in mortgage bonds. Merrill Lynch/Bank of America sold about $174 billion.
It’s not clear how much these firms profited by engaging in the kind of activity that allowed Gross to profit so well, known as “front running.” However, it’s abundantly clear that they did turn a profit.
He also notes that foreign banks like Deutsche Bank profited the most from the sale of mortgage-backed securities to the Fed. Notably, Deutsche happens to be the biggest trustee for MBS as well.
UPDATE IV: Lots of non-bank corporations benefited from Fed largesse. Verizon took $800 million dollars. McDonald’s took some.




46 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I wonder what the economy and unemployment rate would be today if the FED had simply paid off all of the mortgages. OK, some servicers and robo-signers would have lost their jobs, but other than that? Think of all of the consumer spending we’d all be able to do to support the economy. Black Friday would have been stupendous. Who needs to buy anything when they’re homeless? We are ruled by greedy idiots. They are like rats pressing the bar for pellets. Addicted to stealing other peoples’ money. Killing the goose that lays their golden eggs.
Thank you Jane.
Bernie Sanders?
I’m sorry, but all Bernie did was cave under pressure. He’s only capable of putting up a strong fight when he can’t possibly win.
I enjoyed him on Rachel last night, but you’re right. He’s folded everywhere his vote was needed. Only when his vote wasn’t needed to advance the conservative agenda did he actually vote progressive.
His speechifying yesterday made for some great sound bytes, though!
Rachel Maddow has drunk the KoolAid. She was braying about how TARP only cost 25 billion!! What happened to her?
there, fixed it for ya
You can add Kucinich to the list, too.
read a piece on Vermont politics that had an eye opening nugget or two in it about ol Bernie – written by a recent Book Salon guest – I blame that Hamsher woman :D
Any thoughts on the implications of the FED holding all that crappy paper…short, medium and long-term? Seems that might be an issue (to put it delicately) going forward.
This kind of thing is why I’m a socialist with some Marxist tendencies, and not just a liberal. While the general public’s new-found interest in finance is a very encouraging sign, there’s no way it can be sustained, over time, at a level sufficient to rein in the high-finance grifters. In the long run, the only way to prevent banks from robbing the public blind is to prevent banks from existing.
I saw $8 Trillion to European Central Banks – someone better tell me that’s a typo
and I can’t find it right now (hey, I’m following 6 tabs !) but there’s the appearance of some game playing on the part of Goldman’s just before today’s disclosure – time stamped 11:55 am – yeah, I’m shocked as well
will post when I find it
‘nother shock – looks like Merrill and Goldman’s used foreign subsidiaries to double down on Ben’s giveaways
I see our Best & Brightest as being greedy yet incredibly stupid and short sighted, Studying history or making history….who cares “we’ll all be dead.” (GWB)
With this small bit of the Fed-Treasury-Wall Street collusion now “out there” (Cokie) the Republican’s choice is what to do with it: support Wall Street or support Main Street. Or hold hearings on global warming, but that’s taking the long view of the earth’s and our species future and as Senator Inhofe (Ridiculous Skeptic, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021528.php) would say: “God will fix it.”
Idiot America.
I’m not joking when I ask about using RICO statutes.
Could you please post a link to the piece you’ve just mentioned? I’m quite disappointed to hear (from those in a position to know) that even Bernie Sanders can’t be trusted. Is there anyone in the current Senate who is really on our side?
IANAL but I don’t think the government can be charged under RICO — unfortunately
darlin’ I’m a little twitterpated today, but if you start to google around the Kentucky and Georgia Fraudclosure RICO cases, there’s plenty of info gold in them there hills considering both were allowed to proceed under RICO.
better yet – go over to http://4closurefraud.org/ and type in RICO in their search box. if not there, try http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/ (note – this page sometimes takes a while to load)
In the past, we’ve been able largely to concede what the crooks had already stolen, counting on productivity to enable us to live decently – accepting a smaller and smaller slice of a larger and larger pie. But at this point, it’s getting so bad that if we want to survive, we won’t be able to avoid simply taking back some of the loot, and denying the moral legitimacy of private ownership of capital. If we’re going to do that, we may as well take it all back, and abolish the economic structure that enabled the brigandage.
But how about the bankers? Looks like some financial crimes have been taken down that way in the past. Imagine…Lloyd Blankfein in handcuffs. That would be a beautiful thing…
On the other hand, these criminals are so powerful that the gubnint is probably afraid of them. Buncha weenies.
Thanks much. I’ll go fish around..
Main post, first update:
ADC14@5:
Am I the only one experiencing some cognitive dissonance here? Chris frequently guest-hosts Rachel’s show; I’m sure they communicate, on average, multiple times every day. Why can’t he get through to her?
they only have to say
“Nice economy you got there, be a shame if somethin’ happened to it… “
Since TARP covered all the mortgages on the books tell me why I still have to struggle to pay my mortgage? Unemployed for two years, no UI benefits left and I’m supposed to give up shelter?
and people have always wondered how Hitler was able to take control of a country…
When things are so very bad, people will grasp for any chance of relief,,I am scared we are heading into that territory…
After all, how long did rome last…maybe it is time for the chineese to take over and we can get back to 3rd world status….
here is what I was referencing at 12
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/goldman-jumps-shark-fundamentally-shifts-its-bearish-outlook-economy-goes-bullish-hikes-outl
Christopher Ketcham
there is nothing earth shattering in the piece -
Zach Carter’s liveblogging at his blog on ourfuture (dot) org included the 3 grafs quoted in DDay’s “Update II” as Zach’s “Update 8.”
Zach’s liveblogging was fabulous, couldn’t find any spot to give him a favorable comment over at ourfuture. However, the second sentence of graf 2 in that update seems just wrong to me:
“TARP and the stress tests only “worked” insofar as they convinced banks that the government would shoulder infinite future losses from the banking sector. We’re now paying the price for that commitment in the form of massive foreclosure fraud, in which untold numbers of borrowers are being improperly kicked out of their homes in the name of bank profits.”
Don’t wanna insult Zach if he has been following foreclosure fraud assiduously, but the foreclosure fraud is, in truth, kicking homeowners out of their homes to profit the banks. Awareness of foreclosure fraud has exploded as realization has dawned that the banks failed to assign mortgage notes to securitization trusts and have no standing to foreclose. But the criminal conspiracies underlying foreclosure fraud have no apparent connection to the Fed’s trillions in bailouts that I can see.
Nobody is saying foreclosure fraud is growing in order to pay back the Fed. In fact, the Fed’s own page discussing the Primary Credit Dealer Facility says that all the trillion-plus in PCDF loans were paid back in full with interest.
Now, Zach’s amazing discovery that the Fed sucked up $1.3 trillion junk bonds as collateral for its PCDF loans does certainly raise the question “who is going to take the losses on that collateral?” But if the PCDF loans were repaid, then the Fed presumably returned the junk-bond collateral to the borrowers.
So, what is Zach trying to prove about the cause of “massive foreclosure fraud?” I just don’t see any connection between the ultra-loose gifts from the Fed thru the PDCF and the massive extent of failure to assign mortgage notes to securitization trusts.
Do you get what Zach was trying to say in that graf? What connection is there between the Fed bailouts and the explosion in foreclosure fraud?
The amount of fiscal buggering going on in this release is just shocking. I knew it was bad, but we bought 13 TRILLION in junk bonds?! What. The. Fuck?!?!
There is no way around the truth now. The Federal Government, in its current state, exists only to further the aims of the wealthy.
I just checked the article. Basically all it says about Bernie Sanders is that he’s willing to go along with militarism up to a point. But if he’s a total sellout, why does he go out on a limb by calling himself a socialist, something no other US Senator (from Vermont or any other state) has ever been willing to do?
I can’t speak for him, but I think the connection is not supposed to be direct. As far as I’m aware, you’re right that “Nobody is saying foreclosure fraud is growing in order to pay back the Fed.” I think the connection, instead, is supposed to be that the nature of the bailout signals the banks that the government will let them get away with anything. If I’m wrong about this, and there is a more direct connection, would someone please enlighten me? I don’t have my copy of Matt Taibbi’s Griftopia yet; it’s on order.
This kind of thing is why I’ve emphasized that the general public cannot be expected to defend themselves against the banks with any instrument less blunt than the abolition of private capital. The only constant is the fraud itself; the nature of the game changes every time, and the magnitude of the grift just keeps increasing. The last round was the S&L scandal. If you think my socialism is going too far, just try extrapolating what the next round will be like.
I disagree that the public cannot sustain a critique of banking institutions over a long period of time. In 1963, I had an officer of the National Farmers Organization in southwest Minnesota explain fractional banking to me. I was 14 years old.
What was so interesting about that afternoon is that absolutely NOTHING he told me has proven to be wrong. Even more interesting, his explanation of monetary policy was clear enough so even someone as young as I was could understand it. Turns out, he was using some of the same phrases and arguments developed by the National Farmer’s Alliance and the Greenback Party in the 1870s. Some of these ideas are now over 150 years old–now THAT is staying power!
Even better, perhaps the most successful product of midwest Progressivism still lives on today as the State Bank of North Dakota and new converts like Ellen Brown still wonder at how well it works.
Maybe you should put aside your Socialism for awhile and look at the teachings of the midwestern Progressives. Start with the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota. For unlike the Socialists who are linked to some of the greatest atrocities of all time, we Progressives have great ideas, successful institutions, and no bloodshed.
I cover economics from the Progressive perspective every day at Real Economics. I enjoy talking about the world as cribbed from the idea set of the greatest economic minds of all time.
Where do you drawn the line on “militarism”? The man lobbied for a nuclear weapons developer to move to his state.
Zach might be working his way out of what we saw as his fallacy linking Fed bailouts to foreclosure fraud. Just before 5 pm he posted this latest update:
So, now Zach is saying (1) the banks were insolvent during the credit collapse, (2) the Fed bailed them out to the tune of trillions, (3) but the banks are still insolvent, (4) because they are so desperate for capital they are engaging in criminal and/or fraudulent foreclosures on a massive scale, and (5) because the State is so desperate to cover up the fact that its biggest money-center banks are insolvent, therefore (6) the State (capitalism, the power structure, the Establisment, take your pick) is at least ignoring, or at worse, actively encouraging, massive foreclosure fraud.
That makes a little more sense!
if you’ve read Capital-as well you may have-none of this should be surprising to you. The Labor Theory of Value has been subsequently discredited? Bull. The only way to prevent the collapse (1877, 1893, 1907, 1929) of a pyramid scheme is to shovel money into the foundation-in secret, of course, or the game’s up. That’s where our tax dollars and the Fed come in. Matt Stoller’s “transparency”? “I don’t know how to fix it, but it can be done”? Please, I’m laughing hard enough already. Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich have looked down the maw of the monster.
I don’t altogether discount the accomplishments of the Progressives, but history is on my side in claiming that the banks cannot be regulated effectively overall. Even the Midwest is not really an exception: look at the midterm electoral results. Ask Russ Feingold how well the public understands in this crisis who their friends really are and are not. The finance industry’s capacity for obfuscation is awesome. When you realize you’re playing three-card monte, you don’t redouble your efforts to keep track of the cards, you end the game.
I’m a socialist with some Marxist tendencies – not fully a Marxist (at least not yet), much less a Soviet Communist. Socialism in itself does not dictate bloodshed at all. Even Marxism is not as inextricably tied to violent revolution as is generally believed; my recent discovery of this fact is one of the reasons for my renewed interest in Marx. From Engels’s preface to the first English edition of Marx’s Capital:
I also take the qualifier “at least in Europe” to hint that Engels thought of the USA in similar terms. Read a bit about Metternich and Bismarck, and you will better understand why Marx and Engels (like the Jacobins before them) thought that in continental Europe, it would be impossible to effect social change without first hanging the ruling classes from the lampposts. Bismarck’s popularity in Germany is likely also a large part of the reason why Nietzsche (from his very different perspective) rejected democracy.
Incidentally, thanks for the link to Real Economics.
The question is not where I draw the line on militarism; it’s where we draw the line between selling out and making tactical concessions to the bad guys. For the latter purpose, his intentions must be taken into account. Is that concession to the developer a clear sign that he’s working for the other side, or could it be sincere expediency on the part of someone whose overall intentions are fundamentally good? I don’t see a clear negative answer here.
On the other hand, it is now looking very much as though I made a mistake in giving Obama the benefit of the doubt for two years, so my judgment on this topic may not be ideal.
Yes, it does make more sense, and I think it’s consistent with my tentative explanation in terms of signaling to the banks that they can get away with anything. The Fed removed the crucifix, and the every-hungry vampires battened down on yet further victims.
All very nice, but there’s a reason Finance capitalism sprouts so quickly from an Industrial capitalist economy: Capitalism is financial in nature. I guess Walter Heller didn’t mention that.
Actually, I haven’t yet, which is one reason why I only call myself a “socialist with Marxist tendencies”, and not (yet) a Marxist. My renewed interest in Marx is quite recent, although I’ve been a socialist for a long time now. But you’re right that the general scenario of capitalist desperation for profits running the economy into the ground, and making fundamental change inevitable, is right out of Marx. All the more reason to plow systematically through Capital. Not the easiest book in the world to read, but then, neither was the Bible, which in my benighted past I read cover-to-cover a number of times.
A tough read, to be sure, but surprisingly quick. Despite the popular and distorted image by people like Sidney Hook, he was a serious journalist who did his homework. But it would be good to have German, French and Italian dictionaries on hand.
Do you know of good editions in English and in German? The one I have currently is published by Modern Library, copyright date 1906 [!], purchased decades ago at a time when I was a far-Right conservative (what we would today call a Tea Partier) and wanted to understand Marxism solely for the purpose of destroying it! This Modern Library copy was printed on acidic paper, and is noticeably yellowed. Also, the publishing history of Capital appears to be quite complicated; I’m not even clear whether the definitive edition of the work is the English Capital or the German Das Kapital.
Incidentally, are you a Marxist yourself? You sound a bit like one, but that’s hardly conclusive evidence.
Because God loves you.
And because Republicans think you need to be pushed to really look for work, regardless of the pay or conditions and corporate leaders just don’t need any more workers who require them to pay money and you should be ashamed to even look to them to invest in you the way America enabled and invested in the corporations.
/snark-off
Was that the folks who backed the Grange?
By design.