The Fed "Used The Vagueness In The Wording Of The Law To Weasel Out Of Fulfilling Their Duty To The American People" → Washingtons Blog
The Fed "Used The Vagueness In The Wording Of The Law To Weasel Out Of Fulfilling Their Duty To The American People" - Washingtons Blog

Thursday, December 2, 2010

The Fed "Used The Vagueness In The Wording Of The Law To Weasel Out Of Fulfilling Their Duty To The American People"

The Fed released a lot of data yesterday.

But as Bloomberg points out, the Fed still held back a lot of information:

The Federal Reserve withheld details on individual securities pledged as collateral by recipients of $885 billion in central bank loans, denying taxpayers a measure of the risks they faced from its emergency aid.


July’s Dodd-Frank law required the Fed to disclose the names of borrowers, the size and interest rates of loans, and “information identifying the types and amounts of collateral pledged or assets transferred.”

For three of the Fed’s six emergency facilities, the central bank released information on groups of collateral it accepted by asset type and rating, without specifying individual securities. Among them was the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, created in March 2008 to provide loans to brokers as Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.

“This is a half-step,” said former Atlanta Fed research director Robert Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist at Cumberland Advisors Inc. in Sarasota, Florida. “If you were going to audit the facilities, then would this enable you to do an audit? The answer is ‘No,’ you would have to go in and look at the individual amounts of collateral and how it was broken down to do that. And that is the spirit of what the requirements were in Dodd-Frank.”


It is “specifically impossible” to know how much risk taxpayers were taking by looking at pools of collateral grouped by asset class and rating, said Sylvain Raynes, a principal at R&R Consulting in New York and co-author of “Elements of Structured Finance,” published in May by Oxford University Press.

“I need to know the individual composition because a $2 billion pool can be one asset of $2 billion, which would be very risky, or 2,000 assets of $1 million each, and that’s not risky at all,” Raynes said. “The spirit of Dodd-Frank was not respected, and they used the vagueness in the wording of the law to weasel out of fulfilling their duty to the American people.”


The central bank also omitted details on individual securities pledged as collateral under its Term Auction Facility and its Term Securities Lending Facility, which was announced on March 11, 2008, as the first program under which the Fed planned to lend to non-bank dealers.

And the Economic Policy Journal notes:

[The Fed released] no data [concerning Maiden Lane] prior to Sep 30, 2008 (ML was funded in June, 2007). It remains to be seen, then, if BlackRock was simply stuffing the SOMA.

What's the Fed hiding? Why no purchase and sales numbers for the Maiden Lane transactions? Why no Maiden Lane data at all for the period June 2007 to September 30, 2008?

1 comment:

  1. FED Used 'Diplomatic Immunity of Plausible Deniability' ;-) who would thunk?

    this is the crux of OUR struggle,
    from both sides of the binary regarding our quest for literal accountability against the ongoing entropy against precisely such

    George has posted some of the best stuff regarding such, and I hope he will get back on that salient target again as such is certainly the crux issue / crack from which the cancer inflicts us to collude complicit against our otherwise stalwart lifetime endeavor toward the holy grail golden rule gospel guidance of literal accountability ;-)

    Greenwald tears down the “Who Coulda’ Thinked It…?”

    The "nobody could have known" excuse and Iraq
    Glenn Greenwald || Aug 31, 2010


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.