Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Bloomburg magazine: 7.7 Trillion in bailouts

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 8, 2011, 8:26 a.m. EST by Teamster (102)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Bloomberg magazine published a report this week detailing loans made by the Fed in 2008 and 2009, loans that totaled more than a trillion dollars on a single day in December 2008, and more than $7 trillion in loans and other commitments to saving the financial system between 2007 and 2010.

The extent of the loans to specific banks wasn't revealed to Congress at the time. The article also says that banks earned billions of dollars of profits on these loans, and that a number of Wall Street firms borrowed money even as they publicly told investors that their financial position was strong.





Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 10 years ago

Good post.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 10 years ago

All the laws that were changed under Greenspan's fed have turned our banking system into a giant purse for wall street gamblers who no longer fear making bad bets because they can hold taxpayer bank deposits hostage until they get a bailout. It's a really bad way to run a country

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

interesting that bernanke chose to attack bloomberg, and others, while failing to ignore the report, hosted on the united states .gov website, which clearly states the Fed made "secret loans" of 16 Trillion dollars and these criminal act are grounds for the loss of The Feds 'private franchise'.


[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 10 years ago

7.7 Trillion in Undisclosed Loans, Rigged Markets, 3 Billion in MF Global Client Money "Stuck", No Indictments, And I get a parking ticket for mismanaging the meter by 15 minutes!

:::::John Crudele: Bloomberg News confirms that stock market was rigged:::::



::::::::Fix was in: Bloomberg Mag Seconds a Scoop::::::::


-December 8, 2011-

(John Crudele) It has been a little lonely telling this story over the past few years.

But now that another news organization has finally gotten off its lazy butt, I’ll tell it again: Under former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, confidential government information was regularly leaked to select people on Wall Street.

As I’ve explained many times before, The Post got hold of Paulson’s telephone records back in 2009. And the phone logs show that Paulson, the former head of Goldman Sachs, regularly spoke with influential people on Wall Street with whom he shouldn’t have been communicating. These phone calls could have been — let’s use the word “enriching” — for the recipients.

Among his regular phone buds was Lloyd Blankfein, who, for example, spoke six times with Paulson on Sept. 18, 2008. That was a day of great market turmoil and — while there is no way of knowing what the two men spoke about — the calls did coincide with a major turnaround in stock prices.

That was just one example.

There were many recipients of Paulson’s calls. And the conversations went on for years and were especially frequent when Washington needed a friend on Wall Street.

All an investigator — not to mention a prosecutor — would have to do is check the trading records of the firms on the receiving end of Paulson’s chats to determine if there was any suspicious activity.

And, guaranteed, they’d find it.

That’s what I’ve been writing for the past two years. And it is the biggest story that’ll ever be broken in the history of American financial journalism — the US markets are rigged, with the elite and connected getting a distinct unfair advantage over the rest of us schlumps.

Enter Bloomberg Markets magazine last week with a story headlined, “How Paulson Gave Hedge Funds Advance Word.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/how-henry-paulson-gave-hedge-funds-advance-word-of-2008-fannie-mae-rescue.html

It addresses the morning of July 21, 2008 — a time when both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored organizations that buy most of the nation’s residential mortgages, were in serious trouble.

Bloomberg says Paulson met with reporters and editors of The New York Times that morning and told them he expected an audit of Fannie’s and Freddie’s books to give the financial markets confidence.

But he told a different story when he met that same day with hedge-fund managers at the office of Eton Park Capital Management.

“Around the conference table were a dozen or so hedge-fund managers and other Wall Street executives — at least five of them alumni of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.,” according to Bloomberg Market’s January issue.

(((Continue Reading this article Here)))


[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 10 years ago

"And I get a parking ticket for mismanaging the meter by 15 minutes!" Well they need to get bailout money from somewhere.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 10 years ago

Welcome to the point of the Fed. This is what the Fed is for. They dont have to report this kind of stuff because it's not stimulus like the type congress passed. It was just a super big loan that had an interest rate below inflation, meaning the Fed will have to eat the losses.

We're not going to end up bailing out the Fed and that 7 trillion wasn't taxpayer money so people flipping out about this thinking "how are we going to pay for this?!" don't know what they're talking about.

That being said, it was a weird move because the Fed essentially paid banks to give them money since the interest rate is so low.


[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 10 years ago

If there's been securities fraud because of this, the SEC hasn't done anything about it. I doubt they were completely in the dark on this though.

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 10 years ago

The SEC makes believe it regulates Wall Street and Wall Street makes believe it is regulated.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 10 years ago

Derp. Pretty sure this is a logical fallacy called "Argument From Ignorance"

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 10 years ago

No, imbecile, it's totally logical and it supports what you just said "I doubt they were completely in the dark on this though". Think before you attack. You're just an apologist for the banks based on your comments in this thread. Get lost.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 10 years ago

Absolutely not. I don't support the bailouts but your statement had nothing backing it up and was very assumptive.

[-] 1 points by Teamster (102) 10 years ago

So then why did they ask the government for bailouts from taxpayer money if the fed bailed them out? If congress knew about this would they of still given them the bailout money? That's like taking welfare to pay your bills when you already have a inheritance of money in the bank.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 10 years ago

I don't know what the order of events was but if you were offered 100b would you just refuse? It's a silly question.

I've heard a few times that TARP has almost fully been paid back as well.

[-] 2 points by Teamster (102) 10 years ago

Offered?? I think they demanded the bailout. Remember how the banks said the whole world would fall apart if they didn't get the bailout. Oh and remember how they still got $10 million bonuses. So it was ok for them to still take the taxpayer money?? Who's being silly now.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

The bailouts, secret loans and TARP funds all went from "The Feds" keyboard, into their own banks and then ultimately into their own pockets.

Like magic.

[-] -1 points by fuzzyp (302) 10 years ago

You're still not listening. What order did this happen?

  1. The banks demanded the bailout, got the bailout and then the loan from the Fed

  2. The banks demanded the bailout, got the loan from the fed and then got the bailout


  1. The banks got the loan, demanded the bailout and then received the bailout

If it was number one or two, the question is silly.

And again, most of the money is paid back. It wasn't taken, it was given by politicians. Be mad at the people who bailed out the banks, not the banks.