Reply With Quote
$45 bil? That's about 4 days' worth of federal spending.
Anyways, sure, if you can print money to buy you can probably do alright.
chew on that...By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Wall Street firms aren't the only banks that had a banner year. The Federal Reserve made record profits in 2009, as its unconventional efforts to prop up the economy created a windfall for the government.
The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public do ents. That reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury.
The numbers are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy -- though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms.
This turn of events comes as the banks that benefited from the Fed's actions are under the microscope. Starting at the end of the week, major banks are expected to announce significant earnings and employee bonuses. Anger in Washington is at such a high boil that the Obama administration will probably propose a fee on financial firms to recoup the cost of their bailout, officials confirmed Monday.
As it happens, the Fed's earnings for the year will dwarf those of the large banks, easily topping the expected profits of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase combined.
Much of the higher earnings came about because of the Fed's aggressive program of buying bonds, aiming to push interest rates down across the economy and thus stimulate growth. By the end of 2009, the Fed owned $1.8 trillion in U.S. government debt and mortgage-related securities, up from $497 billion a year earlier. The interest income on those investments was a major source of Fed profits -- though that income comes with risks, as the central bank could lose money if it later sells those securities to reduce the money supply.
The Fed also made money on its emergency loans to banks and other firms and on special programs to prop up lending, such as one that supports credit cards, auto loans, and other consumer and business lending. Those programs impose interest and fees on participants, with the aim of ensuring that the Fed does not lose money.
And while the central bank in its most recent financial report had recorded a $3.8 billion decline in the value of loans it made in bailing out the investment bank Bear Stearns and the insurer American International Group, the Fed also logged $4.7 billion in interest payments from those loans. Further losses -- or gains -- on the two bailouts are possible as time goes by. The Fed also charges fees for operating the plumbing of the financial system, such as clearing checks and electronic payments between banks.
ad_icon
From its revenue, the Fed deducts operating expenses, such as employee salaries, then returns to the Treasury almost all of the earnings that remain. The largest previous refund to the Treasury was $34.6 billion, in 2007.
"This shows that central banking is a great business to be in, especially in a crisis," said Vincent Reinhart, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Ins ute and a former Fed official. "You buy assets that have a nice yield, and your cost of funds is very low. The difference is profit."
The Fed plans to release its estimate of 2009 earnings Tuesday. The Post's calculation is based on combining data through September from the Fed's monthly balance sheet report with more recent data from the Treasury's daily budget statement.
Fed officials do not make policy with an eye toward maximizing profits. They are charged by law with managing the nation's money supply to keep employment high and prices stable, and earnings fluctuate depending on a wide range of factors as they pursue that goal. In the crisis, the central bank's policy has been to create money and use it to buy a wide variety of assets, which in turn pay interest.
In effect, the unprecedented range of actions taken to address the crisis has made the Fed's balance sheet more like that of a private bank. A firm such as Bank of America takes money from depositors, whom it pays little or nothing in interest, and lends it out at significantly higher rates. The Fed, similarly, takes money that banks keep on deposit, at a rate of 0.25 percent, and lends it to the U.S. government by buying Treasury securities and, lately, to home buyers and other private borrowers though more exotic investments.
While that resulted in higher earnings in 2009, it exposes the Fed to more risks down the road. "They've moved up the risk-return curve, as they have more long-term assets and more things that involve credit risk," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial.
If the price of Treasury bonds or mortgage-related securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to fall in the years ahead, and Fed leaders decided they need to drain money from the financial system by selling off some of their portfolio, the central bank would lose money. "If they do enough asset sales and rates go high enough, that could eat into future profits pretty substantially," said Michael Feroli, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase.
Even as the Fed comes to resemble private banks in terms of its balance sheet and its earnings power, there remains one big difference. The CEO of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, received a modest cost-of-living raise for 2010, despite the record earnings: He now makes $199,700, with no bonus at all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components
$45 bil? That's about 4 days' worth of federal spending.
Anyways, sure, if you can print money to buy you can probably do alright.
Beats buying those assets for a loss. (keeping fingers crossed)
And so what if it's a small piece of the pie? It's not a bad thing.
It's been a bad thing.
it. The discontented can always move to Iceland.
Nice. A neocon of another feather.
Bernie Madoff turned a nice profit for awhile also.
Man, I'm not trying to talk serious or blame anyone for being pissed. and I don't know about economics. And I don't have RG around anymore to give me the illusion of being educated. But as far as I can tell, what's done is done. As long as you're an American, you're in this , like it or not. Might as well root for your own team. Especially after they score.
That's a nice chump of change for a fool like me. I wonder how much he would actually be making if the economy would be good.
Eh, some people aren't too happy when don't meet their doom-and-gloom scenario...
Egads. Man, that's an old song.
So what? If Iraq wasn't a mismanaged disaster, I might've gotten on board. Doubt it, but who knows? The point is, it makes no sense to complain when goes right.
Eh, I'm not happy when the benefit of the Fed operating its own hedge fund for Uncle Sam is mere crumbs, at the cost of expanding the national debt by 50% within a year. Not to mention that I suppose we should be happy that Wall Street is paying out record bonuses, again, thanks to Boomin' Ben's activities. And that all of this has done little to affect the generally ty economy this country is stuck in. I guess this is the benefit of not being wedded to one particular party, I don't have to pretend that worthless news like this is some to get excited about, or hail as an accomplishment.
Buy into the hype much?expanding the national debt by 50% within a year.
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2009
Treasury Direct09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
Add in the Fed's balance sheet.
So, are we paying down debt with this or not?
lol whats the point of payin down ur debt, when 50b wont do much to it...
50b can buy you a few bankrupt states in europe and treat it as ur base
This is the equivalent of getting a $100 bonus when you owe someone $30k.
The government power that is in the best position to make profit did so. Unfortunately for Americans, the other 99% of government bureaucracy is hemorrhaging cash with China covering.
I say they pump this money right back into the govt and give civil servants a 10 cent raise.
Use this to cover a tax cut.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a4PnUdySIinkThe Federal Reserve asked a U.S. appeals court to block a ruling that for the first time would force the central bank to reveal secret iden ies of financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest government bailout in U.S. history.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan will decide whether the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. In August, a federal judge ordered that the information be released, responding to a request by Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.
“This case is about the iden y of the borrower,” said Matthew Collette, a lawyer for the government, in oral arguments today. “This is the equivalent of saying ‘I want all the loan applications that were submitted.’”
Bloomberg argues that the public has the right to know basic information about the “unprecedented and highly controversial use” of public money. Banks and the Fed warn that bailed-out lenders may be hurt if the do ents are made public, causing a run or a sell-off by investors. Disclosure may hamstring the Fed’s ability to deal with another crisis, they also argued. The lower court agreed with Bloomberg.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A4XU20100111The December report for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, showed that the fiscal 2009 net loss included estimated losses of $30.4 billion for AIG and $30.4 billion for automakers, with $27.1 billion in losses from the Home Affordable Modification Program.
Some leftists we have in this country who cheer when Wall Street booms while the working class suffer.
So, Dan, do I read these numbers correctly to indicate that the national debt actually DOUBLED during the time period 9/30/2000 to the period 9/30/2006? Isn't that the time period that the fiscally responsible Republican Party, who are so concerned about my grandchildren's financial future, had control of the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency? Can these figures possibly be accurate? Am I miscalculating this grossly? What are the implications of this for the elections in 2010, when the American electorate is supposed to come back to its senses and return us to the Republican Party rule?
Curious minds have to wonder.
I can understand the impulse to seize on ostensibly favorable news given the dominant downward vibe of this forum and the news in general. I just don't agree with it.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-12-2010 at 11:37 AM. Reason: commas removed
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
