SmackLT: Maybe nobody calculated it, but as soon as the Fed dumped the rate and that didn't translate into more loans, everybody called them on it a year ago.

The "secret loans" were called out awhile ago. What wasn't known was the extent of profit these banks pocketed. I'd say $13B pays for a lot of gold plated jets for trips to Washington.

Dear Fed. Thanks for not letting the system collapse. You know. Doing your job. As the lender of last resort.

/srsly, no one else remembers Jim Cramer's meltdown: "open the damn discount window", etc? This is what he was talking about, kids.
//calling it the "so-called" discount window is like saying the "so-called" President of the United States

We need to give people 0% loans. Then the banks get their money and people have money.

/yes I know that some people might blow it on other stuff rather then the debt they created.

FredaDeStilleto: I'd say $13B pays for a lot of gold plated jets for trips to Washington.

Whats the percentage of 13B on 7.7T? What was the rate it was lent at (i.e. how much money did the Fed "make" on these loans?)

/perspective. You haz none.
//0.1% for those too lazy to do the math. Statistically insignificant.
///we don't know the answer - since it wasn't cited in the article. But at "below market" rates, we can assume it was about six billion or so. (1%/12*7.7T = 6.42B)
////a discount window has like a 30day repayment period. It could just as easily have swung the other way - and the Fed still would have collected its 6B
//Since the Fed created the money from nothing, though, the 6B could have also returned to the void. Or maybe it was transmogrified into T-bills. Who knows.

vaderstg: FredaDeStilleto: I'd say $13B pays for a lot of gold plated jets for trips to Washington.

Whats the percentage of 13B on 7.7T? What was the rate it was lent at (i.e. how much money did the Fed "make" on these loans?)

/perspective. You haz none.
//0.1% for those too lazy to do the math. Statistically insignificant.
///we don't know the answer - since it wasn't cited in the article. But at "below market" rates, we can assume it was about six billion or so. (1%/12*7.7T = 6.42B)
////a discount window has like a 30day repayment period. It could just as easily have swung the other way - and the Fed still would have collected its 6B
//Since the Fed created the money from nothing, though, the 6B could have also returned to the void. Or maybe it was transmogrified into T-bills. Who knows.

You're correct. I am truly ignorant. The banks gained nothing from this. The whole deal was done in good faith. Why did I ever think that BoA and its ilk would ever attempt to profit ?

is it that little ?

/surprised
//really

FredaDeStilleto: I am truly ignorant.

Well at least you got that part right.

vaderstg: FredaDeStilleto: I am truly ignorant.

Well at least you got that part right.

Forget to take your meds today?

Step 1: Banks find that the bad loans they make (i.e. bought from brokers) result in dangerously low liquidity, as more and more of those loans are not being repaid.

Step 2: The Fed loans them money at ridiculously low rates to improve their liquidity, intending to free up the financial markets by making sure the banks had, you know, money to loan.

Step 3: The banks use some of that money to issue loans at a higher rate.

Step 4: Profit

Step 5: The banks foreclose on the homes even though the Fed, through a combination of loans (and the profit on them) and aid, basically made good on the banks' losses.

Step 6: Profit even more.

FredaDeStilleto: Forget to take your meds today?

7.7 Trillion dollars.

About half of the GDP of the entire country. 1/10th of the world's total liquid assets. A little over 13% of the total household net worth of the US.

And you're biatching about 13B spread over 130 firms? It's statistically insignificant compared to the money that we're talking about here. This shiat's a rounding error. And they even admit as much at the end of the article if you bothered to get there.

Good god. There's plenty of things to actually complain about. There's lots of shiat that's broken or needs fixing. This is just more outrage over big-sounding-numbers.

vaderstg: This is just more outrage over big-sounding-numbers.

Then why didn't they just split it up between 13,000 working poor / unemployed households and actually have the money back in play? Deb IS inconsequential, now but not for whom you think, or why.

vaderstg: And you're biatching about 13B spread over 130 firms? It's statistically insignificant compared to the money that we're talking about here. This shiat's a rounding error. And they even admit as much at the end of the article if you bothered to get there.

From the article: The six biggest U.S. banks' share of the estimated subsidy was $4.8 billion, or 23 percent of their combined net income during the time they were borrowing from the Fed. Citigroup would have taken in the most, with $1.8 billion.

23% sounds like more than a rounding error.

*adds a "T"*

vaderstg: Dear Fed. Thanks for not letting the system collapse. You know. Doing your job. As the lender of last resort.

/srsly, no one else remembers Jim Cramer's meltdown: "open the damn discount window", etc? This is what he was talking about, kids.
//calling it the "so-called" discount window is like saying the "so-called" President of the United States

Exactly. This is truly shiatty journalism. The Fed, by providing banks with liquidity, not only earned a profit for the taxpayer, but also prevented any further collapse of the financial system and saved millions of main street jobs.

But lazy idiot journalists just go with the OMFG Fed gave banks $7.7 trillion line, which are gobbled up by populist morons who have no idea how much they benefited from the 'bailouts'.

The Great Gazoo: Step 1: Banks find that the bad loans they make (i.e. bought from brokers) result in dangerously low liquidity, as more and more of those loans are not being repaid.

Step 2: The Fed loans them money at ridiculously low rates to improve their liquidity, intending to free up the financial markets by making sure the banks had, you know, money to loan, and didn't collapse which would have reduced lending significantly relative to what it was and is.

Step 3: The banks use some of that money to issue loans at a higher rate.

Step 4: Profit for banks and benefit to the economy

Step 5: The banks foreclose on the homes even though the Fed, through a combination of loans (and the profit on them) and aid, basically made good on the banks' losses. No they didn't make good on the bank's losses. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are aware that loans need to be paid back, right?

Step 6: Profit even more.Profit for the taxpayer

FTFY

None of this malarkey benefits the working class any more than a bored feudal lord scooping up a piece of road pizza and giving it to his hounds. They're still wholly owned dogs eating bad leftovers.

The Great Gazoo: 23% sounds like more than a rounding error.

23% ... but only if the sun was shining just the right way and all of our other assumptions we used to get to 13B were accurate.

And before we go on - whats the rest of that quote: ... What's the whole extent of the "time they were borrowing from the Fed"? Might something else have been going on then that reduced their revenues of these six firms to a low number where 4.8B would be a huge percentage of an otherwise painfully dismal timeframe?

You people are friggin killing me with your lack of context.