http://www.bloomberg.com/…

The following table details how the Fed and the government have committed the money on behalf of American taxpayers over the past 20 months, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

===========================================================
                                  --- Amounts (Billions)---
                                   Limit          Current
===========================================================
Total                            $12,798.14     $4,169.71
-----------------------------------------------------------
 Federal Reserve Total            $7,765.64     $1,678.71
  Primary Credit Discount           $110.74        $61.31
  Secondary Credit                    $0.19         $1.00
  Primary dealer and others         $147.00        $20.18
  ABCP Liquidity                    $152.11         $6.85
  AIG Credit                         $60.00        $43.19
  Net Portfolio CP Funding        $1,800.00       $241.31
  Maiden Lane (Bear Stearns)         $29.50        $28.82
  Maiden Lane II  (AIG)              $22.50        $18.54
  Maiden Lane III (AIG)              $30.00        $24.04
  Term Securities Lending           $250.00        $88.55
  Term Auction Facility             $900.00       $468.59
  Securities lending overnight       $10.00         $4.41
  Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility   $900.00         $4.71
  Currency Swaps/Other Assets       $606.00       $377.87
  MMIFF                             $540.00         $0.00
  GSE Debt Purchases                $600.00        $50.39
  GSE Mortgage-Backed Securities  $1,000.00       $236.16
  Citigroup Bailout Fed Portion     $220.40         $0.00
  Bank of America Bailout            $87.20         $0.00
  Commitment to Buy Treasuries      $300.00         $7.50
-----------------------------------------------------------
  FDIC Total                      $2,038.50       $357.50
   Public-Private Investment*       $500.00          0.00
   FDIC Liquidity Guarantees      $1,400.00       $316.50
   GE                               $126.00        $41.00
   Citigroup Bailout FDIC            $10.00         $0.00
   Bank of America Bailout FDIC       $2.50         $0.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
 Treasury Total                   $2,694.00     $1,833.50
  TARP                              $700.00       $599.50
  Tax Break for Banks                $29.00        $29.00
  Stimulus Package (Bush)           $168.00       $168.00
  Stimulus II (Obama)               $787.00       $787.00
  Treasury Exchange Stabilization    $50.00        $50.00
  Student Loan Purchases             $60.00         $0.00
  Support for Fannie/Freddie        $400.00       $200.00
  Line of Credit for FDIC*          $500.00         $0.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
HUD Total                           $300.00       $300.00
  Hope for Homeowners FHA           $300.00       $300.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC’s commitment to guarantee lending under the
Legacy Loan Program and the Legacy Asset Program includes a $500
billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.

Awesome. And Krugman says they aren’t spending enough. I guess we need to catch up to Japan with their debt being 170% GDP. Obama’s going to have to do better than $10 trillion deficit over the next 8 years to pull this off.

http://www.reuters.com/…

Under fire for regulatory missteps, top U.S. securities regulator Christopher Cox defended his agency’s record but acknowledged some regrets over how he handled the worst financial crisis in decades.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has been lambasted by lawmakers and others for not doing enough to prevent the 2008 collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, interfering with markets and failing to detect the alleged $50 billion fraud at Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff’s firm.

Cox, a Republican and former California congressman, said the SEC’s focus has been customer protection and broker dealer regulation and that the agency “performed that traditional role superbly.”

However, Cox said he had some regrets over a drastic action the agency took as markets were hurtling downward in September. For a few weeks, the SEC stopped investors from making bearish bets on financial stocks like Morgan Stanley and Citigroup.

The SEC’s office of economic analysis is still evaluating data from the temporary ban on short-selling. Preliminary findings point to several unintended market consequences and side effects caused by the ban, he said.

“While the actual effects of this temporary action will not be fully understood for many more months, if not years, knowing what we know now, I believe on balance the commission would not do it again,” Cox told Reuters in a telephone interview from the SEC’s Los Angeles office late on Tuesday. “The costs appear to outweigh the benefits.”

The SEC imposed the temporary ban under intense pressure from the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department which insisted it was crucial to the short-term survival of these institutions, Cox said.

A few weeks after the temporary ban was lifted, global markets were again dropping precipitously, U.S. banks were begging the SEC to reinstate its short-sale ban and there was talk of shutting the markets down.

Cox said the chief executive of one major U.S. investment bank even urged suspension of normal trading rules across the entire U.S. market, likening the situation to how Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and Franklin Roosevelt sent Japanese-Americans to internment camps during World War Two.

The chief executive said, “that is how America made it through such crises, and we couldn’t be too focused on maintaining the rule of law,” Cox said. “That was advice we rejected.”

Wonderful. Comparing his their actions to that of outright tyrants. In one respect I agree. What was done was but a difference of degrees and not kind. But the level of degrees is so great it’s a bit of an insult to those who suffered as a result of Lincoln’s and FDR’s actions.

This was completely predicted by anyone with half an economic brain. The ban was obviously pushed for by John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs along with other major bank players. No net good can occur due to government interference. Only relative to the bad they caused prior.

http://www.marketwatch.com/…

Central bankers and regulators are rethinking their faith in the ability of market forces alone to police the increasingly complex global financial system.

In a speech in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed’s toughest challenge is not restoring growth, fighting inflation, or providing fragile banks with sufficient liquidity to get through the current financial crisis. Rather, it’s finding a way to prevent the next one.

The bailout of Bear Stearns in particular represents a failure of the supervisors to monitor the system. Bear wasn’t a particularly large institution, but its assets and liabilities were so thoroughly linked with the rest of the financial world that its failure would have been devastating, Bernanke said. Read the speech.
It’s not that Bear Stearns was too big to fail, it was too interconnected.

Bernanke suggested that the Fed and other bank supervisors need to use a holistic approach, rather than look at each institution in isolation. The explosion of securitization and derivatives in the past few decades has shifted risks in ways that aren’t immediately apparent. A risk that would be manageable for one bank would be unbearable if it applied to all, because systemic risks tend to create illiquid markets.

The regulators also have to clearly explain when and under what conditions financial institutions will be allowed to fail and when they will be bailed out, Bernanke said. To limit moral hazard, bailouts should be structured so that shareholders are wiped out, similar to the way failing banks are now treated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Imposing systemwide supervision and regulation won’t be easy to design or cheap to implement. Unintended consequences are certain to appear. But the alternative of doing nothing would consign us to periodic costly boom and bust cycles that could leave us all poorer.

Just… wow. The organization that is the biggest nonfree component of the current economy and who is looking daily to increase its power doesn’t have faith in the market’s ability to handle things. What a shock. I love that last sentence too. “But the alternative of doing nothing would consign us to periodic costly boom and bust cycles that could leave us all poorer.” Is this guy serious? Has this guy ever opened an economics book or thought critically on the subject? Making us poorer? The Fed’s massive inflation has helped do that. So has the socialization of so many aspects of our lives. We have periodic costly boom and bust cycles BECAUSE they refuse to do nothing. The bust doesn’t make us poorer. It makes us wealthier in the end. The bust is the liquidation of bad investments. If you continue on with the malinvestment you’re continuing on with an inefficient system and not investing in the things with the highest priority. The boom shouldn’t be happening in the first place. Spurred on by cheap debt and other manipulations. Some debt so cheap, like today, that they in fact are paying people to take money. Price inflation being higher than interest rates. Even if you don’t believe Mises and Rothbard on that one show me where the Fed has stopped the cycle? Please. Once you’re finished show me how well government regulation and interference in healthcare, education, housing, the poor, drugs, etc. has done.

http://www.economist.com/…

A LIFELONG libertarian, Alan Greenspan does not ordinarily advocate giving the government more power. But he does so in a new epilogue to the paperback edition of his memoir, parts of which were made available to The Economist. The crisis of the past year has convinced him it is the lesser evil. Better someone else be in charge of bail-outs, he argues, than the Federal Reserve, which he led for 18 years.

Mr Greenspan says a high-level panel of American financial officials should be given broad power to seize any financial institution whose failure threatens the entire economy, bail out its creditors and close it down. “We need laws that specify and limit the conditions for bail-outs” and do so transparently with taxpayers’ money, “rather than circuitously through the central bank, as was done during the blow-up of Bear Stearns,” he writes in “The Age of Turbulence”. (Penguin is to release the paperback on September 9th.)

If that means the government has to wade in, so be it. “Our country has long since abandoned the notion that we should leave crises to be resolved solely by the marketplace,” he says. “The critical need…is to formalise…the procedures improvised in the case of Bear Stearns. This should ensure that in the future, government financial assistance to lending institutions does not impact the Federal Reserve’s balance-sheet and monetary policy.”

He says a standby panel, empowered by Congress, should determine if an institution’s failure is dangerous enough to require taxpayer support. It would then form a vehicle to take the firm into “conservatorship”, wipe out the equity, preferably impose a “haircut” on its debts before guaranteeing them, and then sell its assets. Mr Greenspan’s model is the Resolution Trust Corporation (on whose board he served), created in 1989 to take over failing thrifts, sell their assets, then close itself down. He pours cold water on a proposal by Hank Paulson, America’s treasury secretary, to give the Fed broad responsibility over market stability.

Mr Greenspan’s proposal may be politically difficult. For years Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America’s mortgage giants, resisted the creation of a regulator that could close them down. With other large institutions—be they investment banks, hedge funds or insurance companies—there might be even more of a fuss. And the Fed is not yet ready to bow out. “Unless I hear from Congress that I should not be responding to a crisis situation, I think that it’s a long-standing role of the central bank to use its lender-of-last-resort facilities,” Ben Bernanke, Mr Greenspan’s successor at the Fed, said last month.

Just because the man used to hang out with Ayn Rand and was apparently a libertarian Objectivist doesn’t mean he continues to be one. Anyone who advocates aggression is not by definition a libertarian. But what better way to destroy a movement then by redefining the words? Eric Arthur Blair would be proud. It was done at around the turn of the 20th century with ‘liberal.’ In economics ‘inflation’ has been redefined. Now a concerted effort appears to be being made to change the meaning of ‘libertarian.’ People like Glenn Beck and Neil Bortz nationally claim to be libertarians. Advocating government manipulation of the market and money bailouts, immigration control and war with people who pose no threat is NOT libertarian.

Posted on his own website a few days ago,

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) called for answers in response to the reported value of the Bear Stearns portfolio released by the New York Federal Reserve today at 4:30pm. Garrett, a member of the Financial Services Committee, will be among those questioning Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke on Thursday, July 10 at 10:00am.

“The Fed’s action in bailing out Bear Stearns sets a precarious standard,” Garrett said. “This unprecedented expansion of authority without congressional approval exposes taxpayers to tremendous financial risk. Like most Americans, I want market discipline – but the Federal Reserve cannot create that by fabricating new regulatory authority.”

Garrett also criticized House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) for the delay in holding hearings into the incident. With the support of 23 other members, Garrett sent a letter to Frank requesting a congressional hearing, a request that was largely ignored for three months. It was only recently that Frank scheduled committee hearings to explore the potential systemic risk associated with the Fed’s actions. In the statement released by the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, Frank announced that the committee would explore the adequacy of current oversight and regulatory tools.

“Our nation’s hardworking taxpayers have been put on the hook for Bear Stearns’ collapse. They deserve a thorough explanation of the Fed’s rationale for the bail-out, as well as a solid plan for how the Fed will deal with future instances of this nature,” Garrett said. “While it is important that the government work closely with industry to ensure the stability and liquidity of our nation’s financial markets, we must be cautious about encouraging further risky business decisions by using government tools to prevent the free market from acting appropriately.”

An audio link of Garrett’s questions and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s answers here.

Transcribed / paraphrased text on the other side of the jump…

Read More…

http://www.bloomberg.com/…

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, seeking to allay renewed concerns over the health of the nation’s financial system, said the central bank may extend its emergency-loan program for investment banks into next year.

“The Federal Reserve is strongly committed” to financial stability and is “considering several options, including extending the duration of our facilities for primary dealers beyond year-end,” Bernanke said in a speech to a conference in Arlington, Virginia.

Woot! More inflation!

Bernanke also endorsed proposals to set up a federal liquidation process for a failing investment bank. The Treasury should “take a leading role in any such process” in consultation with regulators, he said. Such a resolution mechanism may help reduce concern that investors and dealers begin counting on Fed aid in case their bets go wrong.

So like enforcing the current bankruptcy laws? I somehow doubt it.

Fed officials are working with the Securities and Exchange Commission and securities dealers “to increase the firms’ capital and liquidity buffers,” Bernanke said.

More inflation!!

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon told the same conference that he supported Fed and Treasury proposals for “policies, because of what happened, to take proper action if a large investment bank goes bankrupt.”

Of course he does. He, and the rest of Wall St., directly benefit from this intervention and inflation.

Without any liquidation procedure in place, the Fed in March decided to make a bridge loan to keep Bear Stearns out of bankruptcy. The central bank then agreed to take on $30 billion of hard-to-trade Bear Stearns assets to help secure its takeover by JPMorgan.

“The Federal Reserve in essence bought $30 billion of mortgage product from Bear Stearns; I want to remind people we bought $350 billion,” Dimon said today. “We don’t really think” the deal will end up costing taxpayers money, he also said.

I do. Anyone with a cursory understanding of economics could see that taxpayers will be both directly and indirectly paying for this. The indirect in terms of all the likely new regulations and powers the Fed will get on top of the inflation that will continue to destroy the middle class and poor are likely the greatest costs.

Congress should legislate “consolidated supervision” of investment banks and other big securities firms, with the unspecified regulator having authority over capital, liquidity holdings and risk management, Bernanke also said today.

The Fed should also get “explicit oversight authority” over payment and settlement systems, putting the it on a par with counterparts from around the world, Bernanke said.

U.S. central bankers will already play a part in setting capital cushions at securities firms under an agreement yesterday with the SEC. The two agencies will collaborate in determining “guidelines or rules concerning the capital, liquidity and funding” arrangements of investment banks, the accord said.

Because obviously planned economies have worked so damn well. They function like clockwork everywhere they have greater control. Right Ben?