Fed Cuts Discount Rate on a Sunday Open Thread


The Wall Street Journal reported moments ago:

In an extraordinary weekend intervention, the Fed announced the most dramatic expansion yet of its lending, promising to lend for up to six months to securities dealers under terms normally reserved only for tightly regulated banks.

The central bank also cut the rate on such direct loans by a quarter of a percentage point, just two days before it is likely to slash interest rates more broadly. It also made a rare weekend cut in the discount rate -- ordinarily charged on direct loans to banks, and now also to securities dealers -- to 3.25% from 3.5%, while helping bring Bear Stearns into the arms of J.P. Morgan Chase.

This is a truly rare weekend event according to Forbes:

Its 'Sunday Surprise' shows the Fed's crisis control urgency. Ashraf Laidi of CMC Markets said, 'the last time the Fed did any sort of weekend announcement was the infamous 'Saturday Night Special' pulled off by the Volcker Fed in October 1979 to target money supply rather than interest rates in the battle against inflation.'

When the Federal Open Market Committee meets on Tuesday, it is expected to lower rates by an additional 50 to 100 basis points. With this in mind, just how bad is the current liquidity crisis, and what's the next shoe to drop?

Also, do you think the Fed should be bailing companies like Bear Stearns out, or should they let the chips fall where they may regardless of the possible impact to the economy?

Read comments

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wow...Wow...and WoW! I

Wow...Wow...and WoW!

I just caught a bit of this at the bottom of the news hour on Fox.

Going to be interesting to see just what happens tomorrow morning when the stocks open.

I'm no genius at all when it comes to Bear Sterns, but I feel the Fed. should keep out it and let the chips fall where it may...I feel the same about the mortgage BS among other things over the years, let the markets work, good or bad...gov. stepping in is not what I think is capitalism...but on the way towards socialism more and more.

I knoew others that know far more than I do about all of this will chime in soon enough.... 

Was it really a "bailout"?

Was it really a "bail out"?  From what I gathered, the Fed gave them some emergency liquidity in order to facilitate a buyout by JP Morgan.  Apparently JP Morgan bought Bear Stearns for $2/share, after it was trading at $57 on Thursday!!  That doesn't sound like a bailout to me.  If anything, the Fed arranged to give JP Morgan a sweetheart deal.

Granted, they probably HAD to do this.  Institutions like these are too big to fail.  If a big money center bank or an investment bank like those go down, that can really undermine our entire financial system.

 

"women and minorities hardest hit"

MC

MC,

Well, you've got a point. It's not a classic bailout, but the Fed is certainly making loans to entities it typically doesn't. Just wait until our Libertarians check in. :-) ns

My only worry is inflation right now.

The economy/credit markets say cut rates, but the falling dollar says raise them.  I don't envy Ben Bernanke's position right now.

 

"women and minorities hardest hit"

MC is correct.

I think that from previous history whatever the Fed does is either too much, too little, too early or too late. They are by nature a reactionary entity. The problem with capitalists ( as thet perport to be) is when things don't go 100% their way they become socialists. I say allow the market to do it's thing. REAL capitalists jump in wherever an opportunity opens. That will settle a market. What the government "gives" it can and will take away.

Exactly right

Real capitalists are in favor of allowing poorly-run firms with overpaid executives GO OUT OF BUSINESS. Will some overpaid executives "suffer" under real capitalism compared to our current socialism some would like to call capitalism? Yes. But some of these executives NEED to learn the words "would you like fries with that?"
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

If Congress weren't

If Congress weren't debasing the currency while letting the Fed try to control the resultant inflation with monetary policy, none of this propping up would be happening.

Yes, just wait

NB is at least covering the issue, I'll give you that, but it's a bailout, too. And we all know it, even if it's a non-classic type. When runs happen on financial institutions and obese government "comes to the rescue," it leads to what's called "moral hazard." We've got it right now, despite years of Cassandra-warnings from fiscal conservatives who feared this very day.

Taxpayers are now bailing-out fiscally-irresponsible fat cats while "we" attack fiscally responsible firms at the same time. If I were the Democrats, I'd be skinning the Republicans alive rhetorically for this newfound socialism. Taxpayers now in essence "own" part of an irresponsible financial firm. Oh, joy.
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

Make no mistake. It is a

Make no mistake. It is a bailout.

 If a company is bankrupt ( which BS would have been ), then its shares are worth ZERO and not $2.00.

According to Bloomberg...

...the cut in the discount rate was meant to buffer any panic on monday morning based on the unbelievable $2 a share deal for Bear Stearns. Things might change by the open but the stock index futures are indicating a 2% to 3% hit tomorrow morning

As all of you probably

As all of you probably know, the Federal Reserve has been lowering the Fed Funds Rate, since September of 2007 (2 1/4% with another 1/2 to 3/4% this coming Tuesday). This is the rate that at which private depository institutions lend to other depository institutions overnight. Think of it as a intra bank interest rate.

The reason this rate is so important is that it sets the interest rate at the low end of the market. The reason that it is flucuated by the Federal Reserve is to cause the economy to pickup (by lowering) or slow down (by raising).

Besides attempting to pickup the econcomy from its recent slowing, the attempt is also to bring down interest rates at the high end such as 30 year mortgage loans, 30 year treasury bonds, etc. The reason that this has been particularly important is to help mortgage owners that are having trouble paying their loans. If they could refinance at lower rates, they may be able to continue to pay their mortgage payments.

Nevertheless, this hasn't been working. Interests rates at the high end began going down only slightly. The is important because this means that those that wished to refinance would not be paying significantly less than with their present mortgage rate.

Meanwhile, the number of defaults on mortgages along with huge inventories of new housing and resold housing continues to mount. This is important because it is causing banks and other financial institutions to own more and more of these assets that they can not resell and whose value continues to plumment.

The book value of these assets is important because financial institutions began serveral years ago to do what is called securitizing or bundling thousands upon thousands of these mortgages. This made it possible to lend to individuals that heretofore would not have been able to obtain a loan. Securitization lowered the risk of these mortgages. Of course, this risk factor remained benign so long as their value remained high and could be measured.

As the value of these securitized loans begin to be doubted the Fed swung into action. However, as I noted, their contribution to the crisis isn't working.

So, now you see a move by the Fed that hasn't been used since the depression of the '30s when it was authorized. And that is to make available to a much broader group of financial institutions the discount window while at the same time lower the discount rate 1/4%.

To recap, the Federal Reserve's Fund Rate is the rate at which banks lend money to each other facilitated by the Federal Reserve.

The Discount Rate is the rate at which banks obtain loans directly from the Federal Reserve.

Ummm... No it does not. It

Ummm... No it does not. It is just the short-end of the curve that's inaccessible to borrowers, only to member-banks. The issue has nothing to do with the short term rates - the issue is that the long-term rates are rising and there is not a damn thing can do to control the long term rates.

Actually, the 30 Yr

Actually, the 30 Yr Treasury Bond has fallen from over 5.25% in mid-June, 2007 to abour 4.328% today. It has fallen, but not as far as would have been expected given the reduction at the short end. Likewise, 30 year mortgage rate spiked just above 7% in mid-June and are now around 6%. It has fallen, but not as far as would have been expected.

We went from a yield curve that was higher at the short end then at the long end to one that is much higher at the long end than is "normal."

This is important because it means that those that are struggling with their mortgages, have not gotten the relief expected by refinancing because the difference between their present rate and what they could refinance for is not as pronounced as would have been expected.

Moreover, few are refinancing, even if they are not in trouble, because the difference between what they financed for just a couple of years ago and now is not that great. Stating the obvious: No business in this industry will eventually cause it to fail.

We're gonna crash

JP Morgan stock has dropped 32% in less than a year, and the Fed facilitates a $200 billion deal for them to take over Bear Stearns for $250 Million?

Both of these entities are in trouble, so this seems to be the only way to help both.

We're running out of plugs for this dike.

♣ a seal

Lower the taxes

What we really need is a lowering of our taxes and a dramatic cut in domestic spending. For entertainment, I received this via e-mail today:

Think about this as the politicians (especially Democrats) promise what all they are going to do for us if they get elected in the next election.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
  • The fifth would pay $1.
  • The sixth would pay $3.
  • The seventh would pay $7.
  • The eighth would pay $12.
  • The ninth would pay $18.
  • The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

  • The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
  • The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
  • The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
  • The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
  • The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
  • The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. ___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber