TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Some Pushing For More Oversight Of Federal Reserve Lending

Yesterday, the Washington Post and Bloomberg News both reported on the astronomical sum of money -- the Post put it at almost $900 billion -- that the Federal Reserve is quietly lending to banks and other financial institutions hit by the financial crisis.

Unlike with the $700 billion in bailout money allocated to the Treasury Department, the Fed won't reveal basic details about the program: for instance, which institutions are getting that money, how much they're getting, or which assets are being used as collateral on the loans.

Bloomberg News filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, in order to pry loose the information, but the Fed responded that this was "confidential commercial information", reports the Post, and argued that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which keeps the information, is not subject to FOIA. Bloomberg has now filed a federal lawsuit against the Fed.

Some in Congress are also concerned. Several members at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee last week expressed skepticism about the lack of transparency. And a staffer for Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), a member of the House financial services committee, told TPMmuckraker that the congressman will soon send a letter to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke asking him to provide further details about the loans.

At that same hearing, Bernanke explained the reason for the Fed's secrecy: "There's a concern that if the name is put in the newspaper that such and such bank came to the Fed to borrow overnight for a good reason, that people might begin to worry: Is this bank credit-worthy?" he said. "And that might create a stigma, a problem, and might cause banks to be unwilling to borrow."

Tim Yeager, a former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and now a professor of finance at the University of Arkansas, bolstered that view. He told TPMmuckraker that in normal times more disclosure makes sense, but that in times of crisis like this, "if word leaked out" that banks were going to the Fed to borrow money, "there could be a liquidity run."

We've made calls to the House financial services and oversight committees, and the Senate banking and finance committees, to ask whether they have plans to look into the issue further, given the amount of taxpayer money at issue. We'll let you know what we find out.


8 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

One good way to approach the spurious-information problem would be to release a historical data series first. That way people could see the volume of Fed borrowing in previous years/decades from banks that weren't in trouble. Another obvious thing to do would be to put some kind of time delay on the information (weeks or months), as has often been done with other kinds of Fed decisions.

But a complete lack of oversight is just stupid -- even if you assume absolute probity the Fed isn't a big enough organization to manage this huge a portfolio effectively. And the refusal to disclose makes a body wonder whether even they have a solid idea of what they're holding.

user-pic

It's astounding to watch the "government" handing out billions and billions of our money, to these "white collar" crooks..no questions asked....but fighting tooth and toenail against a loan for the blue collar workers in the auto industry..especially if they are union workers..(No, they do not make 70.00 dollars an hour, contrary to what the union hating, right-wing, corporate ass kissers are saying)

user-pic

Seems to me that there has to be some oversight, even if details are only released to Congress with some kind of confidentiality agreement. Among other things, how else do we know that there's not unwarranted double-dipping into both Fed funds and TARP funds?

user-pic

Must be shocking to some to discover that the Fed is private.

user-pic

If the names of banks who got help were disclosed, the public could actually find out whether the banks were making loans, as they are supposed to. Until recently, there was no obligation to make loans with bailout money, which was being used to improve the banks' balance sheets. Who will keep the banks' feet to the fire if not the public and public interest groups?

user-pic

Another 800 Billion today. Money that is backed by nothing, merely printed and dumped into the system.
Like play money. And of course, since it's "white collar" crime, no oversight, no criminal charges, just the usual BS. Oversight? That's laughable.

user-pic

Now you take your bailout money and buy gold. Then because you have not used the cash to help borrowers, the economy goes in the tank, and gold doubles in price. Get it. Turn the play money into gold before the cash becomes worthless. Thats why they don`t want oversight.

user-pic

Some are pushing for more oversight. SOME? What the hell does that mean? I think everyone who is not pushing for more oversight should have their name published on the front page of every major newspaper in the country and and mentioned on every cable news program.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address