News

US Made $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans to 10 Biggest Banks

This morning a report by Bloomberg News shatters everything we thought we knew about the US financial crisis.

In 2008, as the financial crisis descended into chaos that rattled the foundations of the country, the Federal Reserve announced a $700 billion bank bailout called TARP, in addition to a $160 billion public bailout meant to bolster the balance sheets of America’s biggest banks.

As the bets they’d made turned bad and lax regulations required them to have little cash on hand to deal with such a crisis, the Fed was forced to step in as lender of last resort, or face the potential insolvency of America.

Today, for the first time, we find out that’s only half the picture—literally.

At the same time TARP was being announced, the country’s biggest banks were actually being propped up by another fund of public bailout loans—these ones secret—that dwarfed TARP and the announced $160 bailout combined.

The Fed loaned an additional $1.2 trillion at record-low interest rates—less than one third the going rate that banks themselves were charging for institutional loans—to the country’s biggest investment and retail banks. And it was all top secret.

Records of the titanic loans were kept secret for more than two years, until Bloomberg News filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the records and spent months litigating the issue. The banks last year asked the US Supreme Court to keep the loans secret, but the court recently granted Bloomberg’s request and turned over the previously classified information.

But it wasn’t just the banks that were seeking to keep the loans secret—it was the US government as well. “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,” reports Bloomberg.

This pattern of protecting the interests of banks over that of US businesses and consumers has run rampant. It manifested in the unconditional nature of the loans—they were made without any requirements for actually lending the incoming capital back out to US consumers or businesses to keep the economy moving, and as bank balance sheets rebounded over the last two years the real economy remains in the toilet and unemployment remains sky-high.

Not only that, but it seems we could be on the verge of another crisis.

Last year’s new financial regulations passed in the Dodd-Frank Act still fall short of making the banks keep healthy enough balance sheets to keep this kind of thing from happening again.

Bloomberg reports:

The rules, which mandate that banks keep enough cash and easily liquidated assets on hand to survive a 30-day crisis, don’t take effect until 2015. Another proposed requirement for lenders to keep “stable funding” for a one-year horizon was postponed until at least 2018.

Indeed, “reforms undertaken since the crisis might not insulate U.S. markets and financial institutions from the sovereign budget and debt crises facing Greece, Ireland and Portugal, according to the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council.”

And all signs now point to a heightened chance of renewed recession in the US, with banks still years away from being required to fortify themselves against even so much as a 30-day crisis.

So what have we learned since 2008? Not much, it would seem.

  1. August 22, 2011 at 4:09 pm, bryce said:

    Those bastards….they could have bailed out the homeowners problems whcih were caused by the banks, but gave it ALL to the banks.  

    Reply

  2. August 22, 2011 at 4:09 pm, bryce said:

    Those bastards….they could have bailed out the homeowners problems whcih were caused by the banks, but gave it ALL to the banks.  

    Reply

  3. August 22, 2011 at 10:31 pm, susan said:

    a. tarp was enacted by congress and funded by the treasury, not the fed.

    b. the article criticizes the secrecy, but it was never a secret and congress was aware, it’s just that the borrowers names were not disclosed until now to avoid causing further panic. revealing names at the time could have caused disastrous bank runs. bad idea.c. the article also criticizes that the funds weren’t lent out, but then it also criticizes that the banks are still unsafe. these are two competing interests, and all points on the spectrum have their pros and cons. either a bank can retain the cash to insulate against losses or it can take more risk by lending it out, but you can’t have it both ways.

    i mean there are definitely reasonable disagreements with “too big to fail,” but these criticisms are weak. total transparency would’ve been bad for the public, and saying they should both lend more and be safer is totally pulling a “give him the stick, don’t give him the stick.” (http://youtu.be/Qu51vkm0SuQ)

    Reply

  4. February 11, 2012 at 4:02 pm, a4919251 said:

    I’ve said that least 4919251 times. SCK was here

    Reply

  5. February 12, 2012 at 3:41 am, Oram Plus Discount said:

    Hello! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 4! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the outstanding work!

    Reply

  6. February 12, 2012 at 3:50 am, interest free look provision said:

    Amazing! This blog looks just like my old one! It’s on a completely different subject but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Excellent choice of colors!

    Reply

  7. February 12, 2012 at 7:40 am, Gracia Whidbee said:

    I needed to put you that little bit of observation to be able to say thank you over again with your wonderful knowledge you’ve contributed in this case. It was quite wonderfully open-handed of people like you to allow publicly precisely what numerous people would have distributed for an electronic book in making some profit on their own, most notably seeing that you could possibly have done it in case you decided. The thoughts likewise acted to be the great way to fully grasp that someone else have a similar passion just as my personal own to figure out great deal more in terms of this matter. I think there are some more pleasurable periods in the future for individuals who check out your website.

    Reply

  8. February 12, 2012 at 7:53 am, solicitors in abergele said:

    Hmm it appears like your blog ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I had written and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I as well am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new to everything. Do you have any helpful hints for newbie blog writers? I’d definitely appreciate it.

    Reply

  9. February 12, 2012 at 9:40 am, south ockendon solicitors said:

    Have you ever considered about including a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is important and all. However just imagine if you added some great images or videos to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and video clips, this website could undeniably be one of the very best in its field. Very good blog!

    Reply

  10. February 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm, Marion said:

    Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas. Being author, I’m continually in need of unique and different approaches to look at a topic. I actually find excellent motivation in doing this. Many thanks again

    Reply

  11. April 05, 2012 at 9:20 am, Paul said:

    Hey I found cheap and with very high quality Mockingjay Pin

    Reply

  12. April 29, 2012 at 8:26 am, Anne Robertson said:

    Anne Robertson…

    [...]o Such a wonderful article! I have no clue how you managed to write this repo wy[...]…

    Reply

Add New Comment

Showing 12 comments
Subscribe by RSS