The Fed uses Wall Street ‘shock’ as cover for deregulation

(8 pm. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

The Financial Times first reported in news that Wall Street banks are fighting for life early this morning that the U.S. Federal Reserve was making “it easier for financial institutions to access Fed liquidity by easing terms on its borrowing facilities and accepting a much wider range of assets as collateral.”

The Fed likely figured the shock of bank failure today was an excellent time to sneak in a regulatory change. The Fed “widened the set of assets eligible as collateral for loans of Treasuries to include all investment grade paper, and raised the size of these Treasury loans to $200bn.”

The Fed also suspended rules that prohibit banks from using deposits to fund their investment banking subsidiaries.

The NY Times reports that the Fed loosens standards on emergency loans. Not just loosen, but “dramatically loosen” their standards.

In an obscure but highly important announcement late Sunday evening, the Fed said it would let Wall Street firms post as collateral much riskier assets – including equities, junk bonds, subprime mortgage-backed securities and even whole mortgages – in exchange for emergency loans through the Primary Dealer Credit Facility.

The Fed created the emergency loan program in March, at the same time that it engineered the shotgun marriage of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan. In itself, the program marked a historic expansion of the Fed’s lending to cover investment banks rather than only commercial banks.

Under cover of the turmoil on Wall Street as a major investment bank declared bankruptcy and another investment bank was purchased by a consumer bank, the Fed is, once again, changing America’s financial flight plan while most people are distracted, looking at the burning wreckage of failed investment banks.

As I suspected back in March, the Bush administration and Federal Reserve are going to try to use the shock of the collapsing economy to quickly deregulate the entire economy to make it easier to loot.

So what will the Federal Reserve now allow as collateral?

Before the Fed’s announcement on Sunday, investment banks could pledge as collateral any kind of “investment grade” debt securities, which meant securities rated BBB or higher and included many securities backed by subprime mortgages.

But with the new announcement, the Fed will accept stocks and some debt that has junk-bond status and some securities that may have few real buyers.

More deregulation! Welcome to the world of “high-risk collateral”! About 15 percent of a bank’s collateral now can be in equities and debt “below investment-grade”.

So does this new loosening done by Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairmen Ben Bernanke do for us? In exchange for Wall Street to cover its own risks, they are “potentially putting more taxpayer money at risk.”

The public statements about getting tougher with suspect banking and their calls for more regulation seem to be just a clever smokescreen to give them cover to do exactly the opposite — use economic shock to sneak in more deregulation that creates more taxpayer money available for corporate looting.

In the end, the government succeeded in getting Wall Street to create its own insurance policy. But at the same time, the Fed, in agreeing to loosen terms under which it lends money to firms, is potentially putting more taxpayer money at risk.

The events over a harrowing weekend indicate that top officials at the Federal Reserve and at the Treasury will take a harder line on providing government support to troubled institutions. But that does not mean they are unwilling to provide indirect help, or even relax regulatory requirements temporarily.

So, by getting Wall Street to agree to spend bad money on bad investments, the Federal Reserve is put more of our good money to shore up their bad investments. Wall Street upheaval! Time for deregulation.

I’m not an economist. I’m not a professional investor. So this is just my read, but it sure seems like shock doctrine at work, once again.

 

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

 

19 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Magnifico on September 15, 2008 at 22:08
      Author

    I’m not really sure who is “shocked” by the investment banking collapse…

  1. …Allow riskier paper as collateral?  I really don’t know much about the “dismal science”, always far too dismal and boring for me,,,,,BUT…aren’t these the proceedures which have gotten us into this mess?

  2. It worked for, what, 65 years or so?  Less than 10 years after its repeal…here we go again.

    F*&^ing idiot GOPers.

  3. the old US monetary system has to end.

    What they are after is the living standard of Americans and their energy use.  Both are going to be re-allocated so to speak to third world countries that can show a profit margin.

  4. …and that anyone in their right mind would grant it–though after being an inmate forcibly detained in bush-world for the last nearly 8 miserable years, I shouldn’t be.

  5. neo-liberals and neo-conservatives use to advance their dreams of world domination and Milton Freidmanesque unregulated, laissez-faire economics. To do this they make use of fear and intimidation so that people will willingly accept their losses of liberty.

    The crisis of 9/11 brought us the Patriot Act, the latest FISA legislation, the unitary executive, torture, loss of habeas corpus, decimation of the first and fourth admendments and the Bush Doctrine.

    Iraq was “shocked” and awed (more like enraged and fought back) which allowed the Chicago Boys, through Paul Bremer, to impose their 100 orders on Iraq. Iraq is now a free-market paradise just in case you didn’t already know.

    I just can’t wait to see what this financial crisis which is of their own making will bring. So odd. None of our elected lawmakers – well perhaps with the exception of Ron Paul – are standing up and calling a spade a spade, placing the blame where it belongs and taking any action to get rid of these crooks who brought all of this on. Looks like we’ll sit idly by and wait for the next axe to fall.

    Sometimes it causes one to wonder to what extent these crises are due to incompetence and to what extent they are intentional.

    Shock Doctrine it is.

  6. not surprised? Meanwhile back at the farm… both candidates are talking regulation. After years of both parties saying that regulation was protectionism and a unAmerican commie plot.  Obama is making it clear he’s not against ‘free market’, that’s a sacred cow and the source of all their money and power.  

    • skymutt on September 17, 2008 at 14:29

    Just look at what the Fed and the Treasury Department have done this week.  First, they told Lehman Bros thanks but no thanks on a Federal bailout.  If this was about looting, why turn down a golden opportunity there?  Then, last night the AIG bailout… sure, the taxpayer lent AIG $85 billion, and you can look at it from the perspective that we are now on the hook for that.  But if you really look at what’s going on here, the government took 80% equity in AIG for the taxpayer, and is charging 11% interest on the loan.  Meanwhile, AIG contains many profitable insurance businesses which should be able to generate billions in cash, especially now that the confidence of customers will be restored at least partially.  Bottom line, you can look at it from the perspective that the government made a good deal here, kind of like a private equity firm and snapping up a real company on the cheap during a period of distress.  I think it is very likely that the government will realize a profit on AIG, and therefore the taxpayer will benefit.

    Meanwhile, if they didn’t bail out AIG, the fallout could have been catastrophic.  You seem to be calling for the hands-off approach of Hoover: let the big financial institutions fail and liquidate on their own.  That didn’t work well before when we tried it.  Meanwhile, big bailout operations like the Resolution Trust Corporation did work pretty well.

    All that being said, we don’t want to have to bail out any more firms than necessary.  That’s why the Fed has made it easier for companies to obtain emergency loans– to keep as many institutions going on their own, not to loot the taxpayer or to have the taxpayer holding the bag with nothing but worthless assets left to show for it.  

    None of this is to say that the taxpayer has not assumed risk of losses through this whole process, because they have.  But there were risks of inaction too, perhaps far larger than what we’re on the hook for with Bear Stearns, Fanni/Freddie, and AIG.  When Lehman was allowed to fail, the fallout caused the stock market to lose $800 billion in value in a day.  A lot of that lost value is in the 401k’s and IRAs and brokerage accounts of the same taxpayers.  So the taxpayer loses when there is no bailout is undertaken and no regulations are loosened.

    Finally, let’s give Hank Paulson at Treasury some credit.  The Bush Andministration heretofore has been characterized by an inability to “change the flight plan” when conditions warranted it… the obvious case of inability to change the plan taking place in the Iraq quagmire.  Paulson is probably not inclined ideologically to look favorably on government bailouts, and during 2007, when bailouts of lenders were proposed, they were all rejected; but Paulson was able to recognize the best available path in a bad situation and change the plan, which makes this episode fairly unique in the Bush Administration.

    Anyway, that’s my two cents.  Hope you’re doing well, Mag, it’s been awhile since I’ve checked in on one of your diaries.  

Comments have been disabled.