Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2T in Fed Secret Loans

Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2T in Fed Secret Loans

www.bloomberg.com

The balance was more than 25 times the Fed’s pre-crisis lending peak of $46 billion on Sept. 12, 2001, the day after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. Denominated in $1 bills, the $1.2 trillion would fill 539 Olympic-size swimming pools.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Food Stamp Stimulus Felt Coast to Coast
Obama to present new ``stimulus package`` on Sept. 16

So the truth finally comes out, but you all nutjob Conspiracy Theorists for assuming as much. Even now that the truth has come out, it's not like anyone is screaming for an investigation. Even the banking elite are declining to comment as stated repeatedly in the article.

So, let's get this straight.

TARP : $700 Billion
QE 1-2-3 : Over $1 Trillion but who can be sure?
www.businessinsider.com...
Fed Secret Loans : $1.2 Trillion
Food Stamps for 1 in 5 Americans Declared Stimulus by Obama : www.abovetopsecret.com...
New Stimulus TBA in September: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone care to do the math on how many dollars that is per person we just created out of thin air?

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So now they're giving money to Wall Street in secret?

I guess they didn't like the general reaction the last time.

reply to post by N3k9Ni


No they're not just giving money away - it was loans - some at low interest rates for sure - but the only actual period mentioned is 28-day loans. And they required collateral - starting with the banks' own treasury bonds.....but also anythign else that might have had value - including sub-investment rated bonds and stocks which represented more risk.

And the $1.2 Trillion is the highest total amount that was on loan at any 1 point in time - as I read it, the cumulative $ amount would be, in total, much more than that - probably several times as much.

But it has/was/is being paid back.

And much of it was lent around the world:

It wasn’t just American finance. Almost half of the Fed’s top 30 borrowers, measured by peak balances, were European firms. They included Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, which took $84.5 billion, the most of any non-U.S. lender, and Zurich-based UBS AG (UBSN), which got $77.2 billion. Germany’s Hypo Real Estate Holding AG borrowed $28.7 billion, an average of $21 million for each of its 1,366 employees.

The largest borrowers also included Dexia SA (DEXB), Belgium’s biggest bank by assets, and Societe Generale SA, based in Paris, whose bond-insurance prices have surged in the past month as investors speculated that the spreading sovereign debt crisis in Europe might increase their chances of default.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


Interesting... How about we call in those loans and just start seizing assets?

Use that stuff to pay of china and move on.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The only length of loan meentioned in the article is 28 day loans - those were paid back years ago.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

The only length of loan meentioned in the article is 28 day loans - those were paid back years ago.

I want you to stay with me here.

Read the Headline of the Thread.
Read your reply.
Read the Article Cited.
Scan the part at least twice about how most of the people recieving loans had agreements to secrecy.

Now you tell me if what you said makes sense.

Fed officials argued for more than two years that releasing the identities of borrowers and the terms of their loans would stigmatize banks, damaging stock prices or leading to depositor runs. A group of the biggest commercial banks last year asked the U.S. Supreme Court to keep at least some Fed borrowings secret. In March, the high court declined to hear that appeal, and the central bank made an unprecedented release of records.

So that's as far as you got, right?

Since you never read the original article, let me save you the time and bounce down to the bottom.

Bloomberg News combined Fed databases made available in December and July with the discount-window records released in March to produce daily totals for banks across all the programs, including the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, Commercial Paper Funding Facility, discount window, PDCF, TAF, Term Securities Lending Facility and single-tranche open market operations. The programs supplied loans from August 2007 through April 2010.

If I am correct in my recollection. We are entering the fourth quarter of this year 2011. That means that next month is September, 2011.

The FOIA Request released records up until April 2011.

Stay with me here.

On Jan. 20, as the stock sank below $3 for the first time in 16 years amid investor concerns that the lender’s capital cushion might be inadequate, Citigroup was tapping six Fed programs at once. Its total borrowings amounted to more than twice the federal Department of Education’s 2011 budget.

Citigroup was in debt to the Fed on seven out of every 10 days from August 2007 through April 2010, the most frequent U.S. borrower among the 100 biggest publicly traded firms by pre- crisis market valuation. On average, the bank had a daily balance at the Fed of almost $20 billion.

So, what we can learn from reading the articles is that these banks are :

1) Borrowing whatever money they can while turning record profits, because lets be honest. If you had unlimited purchasing power, you would make money too.
2) Taking out short loans of 28 days, but records are released from April 2007 to April 2010. I may remind you it's 2011 and about to be 2012 now.
3) The Fed actually fought the court system... You know the one that is supposed to protect us from criminals to release this data that is over a year old.
4) The real moral of the story is that if this type of borrowing was going on, not only would you not know about it... you would have to fight the Fed to get it, and by then it would be a year old.

Why did I bother even explaining this to you?

I HAVE NO IDEA.

Maybe you'll read it.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


Because sometimes it takes another person to focus the info to get the whole picture.

I still say we do a margin call. If these CEO's / businesses are turning record profits, they can use that money, they dont need any more bailouts.

They need to fail and we need to rebuild on firmer footings.

Also if I remeber right didnt the bank oversight committee under Barney Frank get slammed because of interference by legislators to get preferential loans for their supporters / friends / family / domestic partner?

I would argue any loans to banks / businesses should be a matter of public record (how that money is spent can be kept sealed since it would be an insight to operations, but should be audited regualrly by oversight comittees).

I wouldlike to see crmiinal invesitgations conducted for violation of RICO statutes along with defrauding the American people.

reply to post by Xcathdra


What about charging the bas%^$%s reasonable interest instead of close to/or zero ??

No wonder they're making record profits..
Joe public is paying interest on that debt so the banks get 100% profit on their loans..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

What about charging the bas%^$%s reasonable interest instead of close to/or zero ??

No wonder they're making record profits..
Joe public is paying interest on that debt so the banks get 100% profit on their loans..

Because the Federal reserve system is independant of the Fedeal Government except for top tir bord members and congressional oversight and audit.

Charging the Federal reserve intrest is essentially the government saying we are going to place intrest rates on the money we print and distribbute to the federal reserve system.

In other words it would be like a murder suicide pact with a semi automatic pistol. The "murderer", instead of shooting and killing his victem, decides to start the plan off by killing himself first. oesnt quite work out all that well.

What we need to do is revoke the charter of the Federal Reserve and force Congress to do their job, since monetary issues reside with them.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I'm talking about charging the recipients interest, not the Fed.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I'm talking about charging the recipients interest, not the Fed.

Like a rat on a sinking ship. You really don't want to start grasping for small fixes to the issues we are facing brought on at it's core by a fiat currency and no real reserve. The dollar is backed by the dollar.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

the 28 day loans

were the only ones mentioned?

That statement is untrue. !!! What are you doing??

The article --- which encapsulates a wide-spectrum analysis and report done by Bloomberg, who FOUGHT to get the information, which has up to now been "SECRET" because banks wanted it to be -- mentioned all kinds of programs -

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 -- the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg -- was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

I have heretofore refrained from responding to your posts, Aloysius, but they get on my nerves often. Today I see you are again trying to distort a thread. And then I read your signature line. You seem to be a card-carrying member of the disinformation clan. Or am I mistaking your meaning? Are you a flag-waving Wall Streeter, or do you just believe what your broker tells you?

The truth has come out. Stop lying about it..

reply to post by sbctinfantry


Thanks, I see you already tried to shoot down the false remark Aloysius made. I should've read through before posting but it was just the last straw in terms of my irritation.

Good on ya, for your pointed rebuttal.
Brother! Some people...

This article was really interesting, and in particular -- although it made me gag, as usual when I see the name -- Jamie Dimon saying well, yeah, JPMorgan did borrow a little, but only because the Fed asked us to, so that, like other banks would do it, you know, like role-modeling. I think he is the Anti-Christ, btw. Closest thing to it walking around. But then, I'm sure he's only one of the dozens.

We are all brothers and sisters, the best we can do is give them a nudge from time to time. Those that are set in their ways are lost to the flood. It's fine with me, of course, because I am doing my best to inform people. Working on a book as we speak, about to enter into talks with a publisher.

The world is full of magick, not the kind you see on TV. The kind where real illusions are weaved like the illusion your are not a debt slave because though each American (for example) owes multiple times their salary in US Governmental Debt, has a house not or even rents, doesn't own their car and in some cases even rent their furtnite, as long as they can swipe their card and it doesn't say -$, they're not in debt.

Let's break out whomever desires the freedom because some will die without the parasite, without the chains that bind them to this world.

Maybe a little too esoteric, but I feel it makes the point.

Everyday is Merry Christmas to bankers and US government. Print money all the way

Thanks for the info. I'll check it out!

I've listened to him in the past and I can pretty much guess what he will say, we'll see and I'll respond later!

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

the 28 day loans

were the only ones mentioned?

That statement is untrue. !!! What are you doing??

OK - what other loan periods are mentioned?

the 28-day period is in this paragraph:

While the Fed’s last-resort lending programs generally charge above-market interest rates to deter routine borrowing, that practice sometimes flipped during the crisis. On Oct. 20, 2008, for example, the central bank agreed to make $113.3 billion of 28-day loans through its Term Auction Facility at a rate of 1.1 percent, according to a press release at the time.

The article --- which encapsulates a wide-spectrum analysis and report done by Bloomberg, who FOUGHT to get the information, which has up to now been "SECRET" because banks wanted it to be -- mentioned all kinds of programs -

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 -- the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg -- was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

I have heretofore refrained from responding to your posts, Aloysius, but they get on my nerves often. Today I see you are again trying to distort a thread.

How about showing me where I'm wrong instead of making statements that you dont' actually back up?

And then I read your signature line. You seem to be a card-carrying member of the disinformation clan. Or am I mistaking your meaning?

Yep you have completely misunderstood my meaning. I am all for factual information and not rabid paranoid leaping to conclusions that are not actually supported by the evidence presented.

If that fits your definition of dis-info then so be it - Sadly that is par for the course around here - rational examination of the actual evidence is highly discouraged.

If you have something factual to state then I am happy to be corrected - you have accused me of lying, and failed to provide any evidence to support the accusation.

And yet it is me who is providing the "dis-info"??

Are you a flag-waving Wall Streeter, or do you just believe what your broker tells you?

The truth has come out. Stop lying about it..

That's twice you've accused me of lying without backing it up with any evidence.

I have just re-read the article, and I still see nothing in it about loan terms other than 28 days.

Certainly the various institutions borrowed money over periods longer than 28 days - but that's not the same thing as the periods of the loans. In these circles they will often take out loans overnight or for other short periods to cover lack of funds.

Perhaps you are confusing the 2 concepts - the period of a loan, and the length of time money is owed for??

Feel free to apologise when you realise what a dick you have made of yourself.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
OK - what other loan periods are mentioned?

the 28-day period is in this paragraph:

☼snip☼

Certainly the various institutions borrowed money over periods longer than 28 days - but that's not the same thing as the periods of the loans. In these circles they will often take out loans overnight or for other short periods to cover lack of funds.

Perhaps you are confusing the 2 concepts - the period of a loan, and the length of time money is owed for??

Feel free to apologise when you realise what a dick you have made of yourself.

Just want to set the mood for you real quick.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b87e48b12b08.jpg[/atsimg]

At this point, it would probably interest you to know that the $1.2 trillion secretly loaned to banks with junk as collateral is "about the same amount U.S. homeowners currently owe on 6.5 million delinquent and foreclosed mortgages."

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

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

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.

☼snip☼

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.

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

‘Help Motivate Others’
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said in a letter to shareholders last year that his bank avoided many government programs. It did use TAF, Dimon said in the letter, “but this was done at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system.” The bank, the second-largest in the U.S. by assets, first tapped the TAF in May 2008, six months after the program debuted, and then zeroed out its borrowings in September 2008. The next month, it started using TAF again. On Feb. 26, 2009, more than a year after TAF’s creation, JPMorgan’s borrowings under the program climbed to $48 billion. On that day, the overall TAF balance for all banks hit its peak, $493.2 billion. Two weeks later, the figure began declining. “Our prior comment is accurate,” said Howard Opinsky, a spokesman for JPMorgan.

Count with me now:

1) May
2) June
3) July
4) August
5) September

Tell me this, is that more or less than a 28 day period?

Now remember, there were a maximum of six programs that banks were on at the same time. That's called wordplay for not telling you how many programs there actually were. The 28 day loan is also selective leaking in order to skew reality. The reality is, that very few details have actually been released. The truth is probably so horrible it's sickening.

Of course, I'm only answering your question and I want to thank you for being so rude to the person who replied. I'm glad your ignorance can be exposed and I hope you privately apologize to the poster so we can all get back to the idea behind this site and "DENY IGNORANCE".

Continuing

----------------

Here's some more food for thought. Say there were 100 banks and institutions that recieved these private loans.

Data gleaned from 29,346 pages of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and from other Fed databases of more than 21,000 transactions make clear for the first time how deeply the world’s largest banks depended on the U.S. central bank to stave off cash shortfalls. Even as the firms asserted in news releases or earnings calls that they had ample cash, they drew Fed funding in secret, avoiding the stigma of weakness.

Source: www.bloomberg.com...

21,000 / 100 = 2,100 / 12 (Mo/Yr) = 24.55 / 3 (3yrs of lending) = 8.18333333333 Transactions/Month/Bank

So, assuming that, each bank was taking out 8.2 Loans/Month

Sure, I'll believe that, you want to buy a bridge in Arizona?

I would garuntee that most of those loans are outstanding and still being repaid, just quietly, kind of like Bernake wanted this whole thing to be from the start.