The Federal Reserve is forced by Congress to reveal who it secretly bailed out with trillions of dollars in loans. Yesterday it releases the documents, which reveal that:
— Foreign banks were the biggest recipients of the Term Auction Facility and Term Securities Lending Facility bailout loans numbering in the trillions of dollars
— The Fed took on more than a trillion dollars of toxic assets as collateral
— The bailouts extended to big, non-financial companies like McDonald’s and Verizon
How do you play a story like that?
Stuffed inside on C1 if you’re The Wall Street Journal (and fifth in A1’s Business & Finance column items). There’s no excuse for not putting this on page one, but the WSJ does devote four pieces to the story, compared to two from the FT and Times and one from the WaPo. Only a couple of these—a Times piece about AIG and the WaPo one, mention the word collateral.
I understand that there’s a lot already in the public domain about the emergency loan programs, but it’s important to take a step back on this. We’ve become inured to stuff that was unthinkable a few years ago. Think about how awesome (in the old sense of the world) this bailout was, how stark the contrast between what the banks got and what struggling homeowners got (the shaft), and how much risk the Fed took in our name and in secret. It’s too easy to succumb to a sort of savvy complacency here, but the press has to fight that urge.
For my money (which is ironic, because these are the two outlets here which have never got a dime from me), some of the best coverage comes from Bloomberg and—dare I say it—The Huffington Post.
Bloomberg, for instance, calls out Goldman Sachs in the top of this piece noting that it took $24.2 billion in Fed loans in a single day. It smelled a good story in the fact that the Fed concealed details on $885 billion worth of collateral it accepted.
On the stuff the Fed deigned to release, The Huffington Post reported that the Fed accepted $1.3 trillion in toxic assets as collateral. The HuffPo’s Shahien Nasiripour, who wrote the collateral story, was also the first reporter I saw to zero in on the fact that European banks were some of the biggest recipients of the Fed’s bailouts.
This is a blizzard of data and it’ll take a while to put all the pieces together. But let’s hope everybody’s figuring out how to deploy the resources to really tell this story.
The best comment I’ve read on why this matters so much comes from Sebastian Mallaby in the FT. Read the whole thing and then re-read it:
The Federal Reserve’s revelations underscore the might of unelected central bankers. The Treasury’s Tarp rescue fund, at $700bn, was considered so audacious that Congress at first refused to authorise it. But the Fed doled out no less than $3,300bn in loans to banks and companies without a congressional say-so.
What’s more, the Fed frequently ignored Walter Bagehot’s dictum that central banks should provide liquidity freely, but against good collateral and at high interest rates. The Fed’s borrowers included institutions such as Lehman and Citigroup, which were insolvent rather than illiquid. It accepted collateral that included toxic asset-backed securities, and it charged interest rates that were more palliative than punitive. Moreover, while the Fed took all these risks with US taxpayers’ money, a large chunk of its emergency lending went to foreign banks…