Where Did the Fed Foreign Lending Story Go?
Last Friday, in what one would think would be a bombshell story headlined "Foreign Banks Tapped Fed’s Secret Lifeline Most at Crisis Peak," Bloomberg's Bradley Keoun and Craig Torres reported that foreign banks secretly and routinely tapping the Federal Reserve's "discount window" lending program, primarily in 2008 and 2009. Some specifics:
- "(The) loans protected a lender to local governments in Belgium, a Japanese fishing-cooperative financier and a company part-owned by the Central Bank of Libya."
- Dexia SA (DEXB), based in Brussels and Paris, borrowed as much as $33.5 billion through its New York branch ..."
- "Dublin-based Depfa Bank Plc, taken over in 2007 by a German real-estate lender later seized by the German government, drew $24.5 billion."
- "...foreign banks ... (accounted) for at least 70 percent of the $110.7 billion borrowed during the week in October 2008 when use of the program surged to a record."
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke fought for two years to keep the information secret after Bloomberg filed a Freedom of Information Act request in 2009. The Bloomberg report quotes Bernanke as claiming in April 2009 that disclosure "might lead market participants to infer weakness."
In the Bloomberg report, Congressman Ron Paul is quoted making a prediction that has sadly been way off the mark:
“The American people are going to be outraged when they understand what has been going on,” U.S. Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the Fed, said in a Bloomberg Television interview.
Well, Congressman, the American people aren't "outraged," because the American people don't "understand what has been going on." The reason they don't understand what has been going on is that the rest of the establishment press in the U.S. has been relatively uninterested in reporting the facts, let alone the legality of a nation's sovereign bank opening up its discount window to the rest of the world.
A "past week" Yahoo News search on [Bernanke "foreign banks"] (input exactly as indicated between brackets, sorted by time, returns 28 items (it looks like 61 at first, but it's really only 28). Considering the gravity of the story, that's barely a ripple, even given the 2-1/2 years which have since passed.
A March 31 Associated Press report by Jeannine Aversa and Derek Kravitz on the Fed's document release and its related "there's nothing here you could possibly be interested in" headline ("Fed names banks that drew loans during crisis") should probably serve as a model for journalism students assigned to cover a story but to reveal as little as possible while doing so.
The pair's write-up didn't mention the existence of foreign bank borrowings until its seventh paragraph, and gave no hint of the existence of anything other than domestic loans until that point. Of the six specific dollar amounts they identified, only one was associated with foreign banking entities. Aversa and Kravitz mentioned the existence of loans to an Arab bank in which the central bank of Libya has a large stake, but "somehow" forgot to tell readers that what was involved, according to Zero Hedge quoting Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, was "more than $26 billion in credit."
Here are the first eight paragraphs illustrating Kravitz's and Aversa's aversion to the core story:
For the first time in its 98-year history, the Federal Reserve on Thursday identified banks that borrowed from its oldest lending program.
The Fed was compelled to name the banks that drew emergency loans during the financial crisis after the Supreme Court rejected a bid by major banks to keep that information secret. It's the latest sign of how the Fed is becoming more transparent - either by choice or by force.
The central bank lent up to $110 billion through its emergency "discount window" at the height of the crisis. After Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, banks turned to the Fed as a lender of last resort because their credit had frozen up. The Fed argued then that naming those banks could have stirred a panic, leading to a run on those banks and defeating the program's purpose.
The documents released Thursday showed that a range of large and small institutions borrowed from the program from August 2007 through March 2010.
Most of the lending took place in the two-month stretch between September and October 2008. The specific program that the banks drew from has been redacted from the documents, but the data points to most of the loans being through the "discount window." In many cases, those loans were paid back the following day.
Some of the biggest loans were drawn by the nation's largest banks. For example, U.S. Bank took out an overnight loan of $3.35 billion on Sept. 10, Wachovia borrowed $29 billion on Oct. 6, and Morgan Stanley drew more than $3 billion on Oct. 9.
But foreign banks also relied heavily on the emergency lending program. On one day in late October, Dexia, a Belgian-based European bank, and Depfa, a German subsidiary headquartered in Dublin, each drew about $25 billion in overnight loans. That represented about half of the money that was borrowed by 44 banks that day.
The documents also show that the Arab Banking Corporation took out loans from the discount window during the financial crisis. The central bank of Libya owns a large stake in that bank, according to the bank's web site.
It would not be out of line to suggest the possibility that the AP pair and the wire service iteself hoped that there would be little interest in the story on the part of subscribing outlets if they kept foreign banks out of the report's headline and deferred mentioning them as long as possible in its content. It would appear that they largely got their wish.
A March 31 New York Times story appearing on Page B1 of the April 1 print edition (i.e., not on the front page) revealed much of the truth which the AP overlooked:
Perhaps the most surprising revelation in Thursday’s documents was that foreign banks quickly became the largest and most frequent borrowers. On Sept. 15, 2008, the day that Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, the Austrian bank Erste Group borrowed $4 billion. By the end of that week banks from Spain, France and Japan had also borrowed billions.
An analysis of discount window lending from February 2008 to February 2009 shows that the vast majority of the loan volume went to foreign institutions.
No one seems to be asking what one might think would be a couple of pretty central questions:
- Is the foreign lending, which the Fed may never have engaged in until 2007 (and certainly never at the level then undertaken), legal or constitutional?
- Was Ben Bernanke telling the truth when his answer at a 2009 Congressional hearing concerning which European financial institutions received money was "I don't know"? His ultimate answer was that he knew 14 central banks got money, but that he didn't know the names of specific banks which got money from those central banks, which is hardly satisfying.
It would seem that the vast majority of the establishment press isn't interested in finding answers to these questions. They should be.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Obama and his whole
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 2:10am.
Obama and his whole administration needs to be removed now. This issue needs to be hammered home. Contact your elected representatives and demand answers.
It's time to yank Boehner's ass out of the tanning booth
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 2:20am.
...and if he can't bring himself to completely defund this rogue hack of an administration from Hell once and for all, then let's run his ass off and get someone in place who can.
Like this coming Monday morning.
I am tired of the excuses.
We are out of time.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
While the story itself is interesting,
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 6:42am.
I have to notice that you are asking the wrong questions again.
Is the foreign lending, which the Fed may never have engaged in until 2007 (and certainly never at the level then undertaken), legal or constitutional?
Is "may never have" your way of indicating that you have no idea, while at the same time insinuating that something outrageous has happened? From the Bloomberg article you linked:
The Monetary Control Act of 1980 says that a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank that maintains reserves at a Fed bank may receive discount-window credit.
So it was legal. That the Federal Reserve is indirectly funneling loans to foreign banks is hardly surprising. That European and other foreign banks were the main beneficiaries is nothing surprising too (from the NYT article):
Donald L. Kohn, the Fed’s vice chairman during the crisis, said that many foreign banks needed dollars to meet their financial obligations. The Fed arranged swaps with central banks in other countries to provide dollars, but the flow was insufficient.
As to "may never have": This was the first time the Fed had to disclose information about who they were lending to. But I would bet a lot, that for example some of the $46 billion dollars the Fed lend via the discount window on September 12th 2001 benefited foreign banks
Was Ben Bernanke telling the truth when his answer at a 2009 Congressional hearing concerning which European financial institutions received money was "I don't know"?
The question that was discussed in this hearing concerned the currency swaps between the Fed and other central banks in the world, mentioned in the NYT quote above. As a financial measure it was independent of what you are discussing here. And his answer was actually satisfying as it is a little bit of a mystery why the Federal Reserve Chairman should have detailed knowledge about who his counterparts around the world are lending money to.
iz funneez germanzeez storiz.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 6:54am.
Ha. Ha. Iz already on floor. Iz looking butt pop off. cannot findz. Ha. Rofflez murrycan. iz merkel she iz laffiz too. iz power laffiz. why murrycan? iz tru storiz dis timez. iz linkee linkee linkee for murrycan. you go dere murrycan. you lafffiz. you come back. look for you butt that pop off.
According to a police report obtained by 7NEWS, Troggiz Trolliz, 19, was arrested Friday in a park near Foothills Highway and Colorado Avenue after demanding money and attacking the deputy. Police said that Hibbs insisted he was a troll and owned the bridge the deputy was trying to cross.
You murrycan yu alrediz know. No feed trolls. Nezzer Nezzer Nezzer feed trollz.
You go here Mizzer Blumer. Learn to no feed trolliz. ---
A blog dedicated to education and awareness of Internet trolls and cyberstalkers.
Don't Feed the Troll
Gosh you wasted a lot of time on this
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 7:14am.
The questions stand.
1. Is the lending constitutional?
At the 2009 congressional hearing, "Bernanke said the Fed had a 'long standing legal authority' to hand money to foreign banks under section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act, a claim contradicted by Bernanke’s own report ..." He didn't mention the Money Control Act. It seems that the Times was trying to bail Ben out.
The Money Control Act says that the entities described "may receive discount-window credit." That doesn't mean they automatically WILL get it to the tune of billions. And in any event, you haven't proven that the Money Control Act is constitutional.
And I'm supposed to automatically believe that every single foreign bank that got Big Ben's discount window money had "a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank" with "reserves at a Fed bank"? So they open up a $10 checking account at some Fed bank and that gives them automatic access to billions just because they ask?
Thus, the question remains legitimate.
Sidebar to item 1: You ask if "'may never have' is your way of indicating that you have no idea." As usual, you have no idea of what you're talking about.
At the 2009 Congressional hearing in question, then-Congressman Alan Grayson, the normally moonbatty Floridian who was engaging in a rare bit of coherent activity, caught Bernanke in a clear misrepresentation:
Bernanke again claimed that the authority (to lend to foreign banks) had been used numerous times before.
Grayson debunked this claim by pointing to Bernanke’s own report, which stated that the entire amount had been handed out starting from the last quarter of 2007, and the amount given out before that to foreign banks was zero.
Since I don't have the report in my hands, I don't know whether it indicated that the balance "was zero" for a few years prior, or for a period going all the way back to the creation of the Fed. Thus, "may never have" was an appropriate qualifier in the circumstances. Bernanke was trying to create a misimpression that what the Fed was doing was not unusual; Grayson called him on it. Ben's body language and demeanor at the hearing is that of a defiant "how dare you question me?" jerk.
2. Bernanke's "I don't know" statement.
Questioning whether he was telling the truth is legit, unless one assumes that the Fed can lend any amount of money it wishes to any other central bank it wishes to lend to without having any idea of who the ultimate recipient is -- like, I don't know, the bank of Gaddafi. If he really didn't know, it's an unbelievable disgrace. If he knew of ANY ONE recipient of funds from ANY ONE of those central banks, he was arguably not telling the truth, unless "I don't know" can somehow be twisted into "I don't know everything, so I don't have to tell you anything, even when I'm under oath at a Congressional hearing."
Thus, the question remains legitimate.
As noted, you wasted an awful lot of time on this, and of my time as well, thanks to your uncalled-for and ultimately unsupported questioning of the integrity of the post's content.
Bravo, Tom
Submitted by falcon on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 8:30am.
Your article, and the rebuttal to the liberal troglodyt's attempt at misdirection, were wonderful. I, too, would like to see those questions answered, but sadly I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime. The Fed is, and always has been, an extra-constitutional non-governmental agency whose sole true purpose is to command and control the American economy by the flow of money. And by controlling the economy, they control not only us but the Government as well.
Posters like troglodyt (which I mean to say the liberals on this board) always attempt to redirect the question and muddy the waters by focusing on miniscule, unimportant issues (many times nothing more than semantics). In that way, they believe they can control the discussion and move it away from the more serious issues.
They think we're soooo dumb. When in reality they're the ones wasting time crafting meaningless posts that do nothing but prove Shakespeare's quote - "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Once again, bravo.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
Mr. Blumer
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 9:13am.
He didn't mention the Money Control Act. It seems that the Times was trying to bail Ben out.
He didn't mention the Money Control Act in the hearing, because he didn't have any reason to do so. The hearing was not about the discount window but about currency swaps with other central banks around the world. And as Bloomberg was referencing the same law, I think you have to direct your "bail out" accusation to them too.
The Money Control Act says that the entities described "may receive discount-window credit." That doesn't mean they automatically WILL get it to the tune of billions.
And? They have to provide collaterals. I assume that is what they did. See below.
And in any event, you haven't proven that the Money Control Act is constitutional.
Well before I do that, you should give me a reason why you think it is unconstitutional. If you think the remarks by Grayson are an indicator for that, I believe you are mistaken, as the portion of the Constitution Grayson is quoting refers to the Treasury and not the Federal Reserve.
And I'm supposed to automatically believe that every single foreign bank that got Big Ben's discount window money had "a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank" with "reserves at a Fed bank"? So they open up a $10 checking account at some Fed bank and that gives them automatic access to billions just because they ask?
You may believe whatever you want to believe. Best is you read the articles you linked. The Bloomberg article for example mentions that "Dexia SA (DEXB), based in Brussels and Paris, borrowed as much as $33.5 billion through its New York branch from the Fed’s “discount window” lending program". As the data is public now, you can check out yourself whether all the banks have accounts at the Federal Reserve. Concerning your second question, I'd refer you to this. For what is discussed here this portion might be the most relevant:
U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks that hold reserves are eligible to borrow under the same general terms and conditions that apply to domestic depository institutions.
As neither Bloomberg nor the NYT mention any violation of the Fed's own rules, I'm inclined to believe them, especially since the former went to court to get the information in the first place.
Thus, the question remains legitimate.
Maybe, but for me it's nothing more than hot air. That Ron Paul thinks otherwise is hardly a surprise, as he, to put it mildly, has a problem with the whole idea of a Federal Reserve. I guess that you don't question the legality of what was done is progress.
Since I don't have the report in my hands, I don't know whether it indicated that the balance "was zero" for a few years prior, or for a period going all the way back to the creation of the Fed.
You can find the report here. What Grayson was referring to, was a chart on p.28 about the "net financial inflows" which goes back to 2004.
Bernanke was trying to create a misimpression that what the Fed was doing was not unusual
Nice use of the (non-)word "misimpression". If I look at the video it seems to me that Bernanke wanted to point out that it was a crisis measure.
Ben's body language and demeanor at the hearing is that of a defiant "how dare you question me?"
No question here. On the other hand Grayson's condescending attitude towards Bernanke wasn't nice either. Not to mention that Grayson seems to have serious problems understanding the nature of what happened.
If he really didn't know, it's an unbelievable disgrace.
No it wouldn't be. It's called trust. The same trust the European Central Bank has, when it is giving Euros to the Fed. It would be rather surprising if he knew exactly what financial institutions got money from the ECB or other central banks.
iz troggiz trolliz angriz?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 9:17am.
iz make big noisez? iz callz merkel fer powerz? rawrrrrr. no mer funniz nah? troggiz is cereal nah.
zzzzz .... zzzzz ....
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:01pm.
zzzz ... misimpression is a word ... zzz ...
Not in England
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:15pm.
though. And they invented the language. btw: Thx for proving falcon's point, you know
always attempt to redirect the question and muddy the waters by focusing on miniscule, unimportant issues
Game. Set. Match.
Game. Set. Match.
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:22pm.
To Mr. Blumer.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Wow that was original.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:24pm.
Continue and hammer me with your returns.
iz funny germanzee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:57pm.
iz merkel got cyberstalker. iz merkel power cyberstalker ---- Not! Iz funnee murrycan. you rock on floor nah. you roll on floor nah. Pop! you butt fall off nah. Ha! nah, not rilly. iz troggiz trolliz miss fwankie. iz lonely waiting to get ban like all udder trolliz.
You are flailing, trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 11:10pm.
and while I would see that as comical with most trolls, with you flaunting the superiority complex you picked up at a discount store, I find it hilarious.
Call out a man who uses words for a living, call him out utilizing his own native language, of which you are NOT a native speaker, for using a word that does not, according to you, even exist in that language, and then get proven wrong in front of viewers and posters alike.
Antonym for credibility = troglodyt.
MD
While that is all quite interesting MD...
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:58am.
especially the part where you omitted praise for Tom Blumer's choice of words, I'm inclined to say two things:
1.) Notice the brackets around "non" above? They have a purpose.
2.) While reading the troll blog the Vet linked and realizing that he falls into this category:
Playtime Trolls: an individual plays a simple, short game. Such trolls are relatively easy to spot because their attack or provocation is fairly blatant, and the persona is fairly two-dimensional.
, I was asking myself whether you could be classified as one of the
Psycho Trolls: These trolls have an unconscious psychological need to feel good by making others feel bad. Such people may use their real names on the internet, and they may not even realise that they are “trolling”.
If that is the case, it doesn't work.
Your synonym for incredibility
trog.
iz funniz germanzee jokez.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 6:54am.
pop pop pop go you butt murrycan. you getz drity rollz on floor. iz vacuum first. iz merkel turn power on you. iz merkel say you power. not her. iz try to make mad murrycan. iz fail. iz sad again. iz fail.
iz time murrycan. iz time for merkel to pray iz trolliz bibliz!!!1~!~!!!
6. When your tactics are turned on you, call your opponents trolls. Do not accept the fact that by calling someone using your tactics a troll that makes you the real troll.
trogster, you might want to check on---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 2:18pm.
some of the rave notices you get that are woven throughout these threads.
I know that there are some that don't much care for me as a poster; but until that number gets as high as yours currently is, I'm not going to lose much sleep over the fact that you consider me to be one of the number of people around here who not only refuse to grant you any type of superior status; but who actually think you are a real life putz.
MD
MD
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 3:21pm.
but until that number gets as high as yours currently is
You have a lot of safeguards that will prohibit that from ever happening. One is your tendency to wait and let other people verify whether a member is worthy of inclusion into the community. After that verification fails you happily join the chorus of bashing.
A second safeguard would be your stunning lack of posts having content that could be regarded as being rooted in any kind of conservatism, whether social or fiscal, while at the same time incessantly claiming or implying to be a conservative. Why is that a safeguard? Because it amends and complements what was described above and fits neatly into an athmosphere of discussions that is dominated by people who are more interested in venting their frustrations about what they perceive to be their opponents than reflecting upon the principles they cherish so much.
You are a shining example of what we in Germany call a "Mitläufer". But at least an intelligent and witty one, I have to admit.
troglodyt---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 8:52pm.
You lean too hard on the now banished j.frank wilson's assertion that I am just a poor second banana.
I have no problem with initially jumping upon a troll's ass and raking same with heavily roweled spurs.
So your accusation that I am capable only of being a follower is basically either ingenuous, meaning you don't do a lot of reading here at NB's; or it is an out and out lie, meaning that you are a liar.
I also have no compunction whatsoever to joining in on troll bashing where ever it happens to be taking place.
I have done it before and I will do so again; up until the time I suffer the fate of numerous liberal trolls here at NB's, and get banned for improper language use.
And you, Euro-troll, would presume to judge me on what your definition of being conservative either is or is implied by you to be?
That is pure, unadulterated, bullshit.
You then engage in twenty-five cents worth of pycho-babble.
Psycho-babble from a psycho of a continental troll.
Not too impressive.
I have read your posts, and have no doubt that you are the personification of the saying "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."
You are a shining example of what we in America call a "bullshit artist". But at least a dull and unoriginal one, I must admit.
MD
MD
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:55am.
I'm judging you by what you write and how it squares with what you claim to be. That every time, your character is questioned and/or judged by someone else, you get itchy and try to turn it around is and was basically lame.
iz funnee germanzziz joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 12:45pm.
diz time wait for you to pop butts and roll drity floorz before talk abut pop buttz and drity roll floor. iz merkel, after poop on floor, iz got new joke. iz merke got knockee knockee joke. but you have is start. you say knockee knockee.
Pee ess: iz merkel conservatiz. got bone fides.
You need, trogster, to be a bit more---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:33pm.
definitive if you choose to insult someone by using colloquialisms in your non-native tongue.
I know of few who are saintly enough to have their character questioned and then pretend it never happened; nor do I know too many people who are judged by someone else, who don't react to a judgment call, especially when that call is in error.
What in the world makes you think that a piss ant call by you, over electronic transmission lines, would have any effect whatsoever on my life?
I have enough maturity to suffer the slings and arrows of both fate and misfortune, and have no fear of whatever my ultimate destiny may be.
What got me "itchy"? What was " basically lame"?
Insults directed at you?
You are just another liberal fool to either argue with or take potshots at.
Nothing more, nothing less.
MD
no iz funnee germanzee jokez todei.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:17am.
no iz pop butts or get drity on floorz roll and hold belli laff till hurtz. iz cereal nah.
You no iz no how to act mattoodin. YOu. Veet. Mizzer Blumer. Blonde hardoo. You no no to actz. You no conservativz. how trolliz know? You know say you conservativz when talk to trolliz. This how you talk trolliz mattoodin. Exampelz pliz:
Hey U trolliz, you dummie from big dummietown. You big dummiz all dummiz. Ha! How you like dat trolliz? Pee Es: me mattoodin supportz strong national defense, free marketz, merkel, free trade, rugged individuality, mountain men, limited governmentz.
Or
Hi you trolliz. Hey, you suk trolliz. YoU suk suk the sukk suk troolliz. Ha! How u like dat trolliz? Pee Es: I iz conservative. Iz got Reagan tatoo on arm. i go look in mirror, make muscle, make Reagan tatoo wink. He wink merkel all de time.
Or
Go away trollix. Me no like you. You ferry stupid. I hit you stupid stick. yoU say ouchez. Ha! How you like that trolliz? Pee Es: me go look wall now. Goot Sharon Statement on wall. go read. Salute Bill Buckley picture while iz reading. Iz kiss merkel picture.
Or
Hey trollix. wHy you hate monkeypipples? We iz nice. You no bulb bright. yU bulb dim. Ha! How you like that trollix? Pee Es: I go hang outz udder conservativexes now. We ride big Ess U Vee. Burn lots of gas. Make lotz C.O.TWO. Run over poor pipplez. Run over homelezz pipples. Run oVer Homosexualitiz. say hi merkel. Wave. Run oveR HoBo. Make Hobo Stew.
Ix like that mattoodin. You show you conservativz principles and Valu-Rite when U talk trollix from now onz.
Sincerezly,
Is trolli tell you how to act. Give you orderz. Call you germanzee name like monkeez or meatloaf.