Forum Post: GAO Finds Serious Conflicts at the Fed
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 23, 2011, 4:10 p.m. EST by Hanuman
(18)
from Großweitzschen, SN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
October 19, 2011
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - A new audit of the Federal Reserve released today detailed widespread conflicts of interest involving directors of its regional banks.
"The most powerful entity in the United States is riddled with conflicts of interest," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said after reviewing the Government Accountability Office report. The study required by a Sanders Amendment to last year's Wall Street reform law examined Fed practices never before subjected to such independent, expert scrutiny.
The GAO detailed instance after instance of top executives of corporations and financial institutions using their influence as Federal Reserve directors to financially benefit their firms, and, in at least one instance, themselves. "Clearly it is unacceptable for so few people to wield so much unchecked power," Sanders said. "Not only do they run the banks, they run the institutions that regulate the banks."
Sanders said he will work with leading economists to develop legislation to restructure the Fed and bar the banking industry from picking Fed directors. "This is exactly the kind of outrageous behavior by the big banks and Wall Street that is infuriating so many Americans," Sanders said.
The corporate affiliations of Fed directors from such banking and industry giants as General Electric, JP Morgan Chase, and Lehman Brothers pose "reputational risks" to the Federal Reserve System, the report said. Giving the banking industry the power to both elect and serve as Fed directors creates "an appearance of a conflict of interest," the report added.
The 108-page report found that at least 18 specific current and former Fed board members were affiliated with banks and companies that received emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis. In the dry and understated language of auditors, the report noted that there are no restrictions in Fed rules on directors communicating concerns about their respective banks to the staff of the Federal Reserve. It also said many directors own stock or work directly for banks that are supervised and regulated by the Federal Reserve. The rules, which the Fed has kept secret, let directors tied to banks participate in decisions involving how much interest to charge financial institutions and how much credit to provide healthy banks and institutions in "hazardous" condition. Even when situations arise that run afoul of Fed's conflict rules and waivers are granted, the GAO said the waivers are kept hidden from the public.
The report by the non-partisan research arm of Congress did not name but unambiguously described several individual cases involving Fed directors that created the appearance of a conflict of interest, including:
- Stephen Friedman In 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap Fed loans. During the same period, Friedman, chairman of the New York Fed, sat on the Goldman Sachs board of directors and owned Goldman stock, something the Fed's rules prohibited. He received a waiver in late 2008 that was not made public. After Friedman received the waiver, he continued to purchase stock in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009 unbeknownst to the Fed, according to the GAO.
- Jeffrey Immelt The Federal Reserve Bank of New York consulted with General Electric on the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility. The Fed later provided $16 billion in financing for GE under the emergency lending program while Immelt, GE's CEO, served as a director on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- Jamie Dimon The CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the same time that his bank received emergency loans from the Fed and was used by the Fed as a clearing bank for the Fed's emergency lending programs. In 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns.At the time, Dimon persuaded the Fed to provide JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. He also convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank.
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=70c40aba-736c-4716-97d1-45f1a1af10a0
I'm not a big fan B. Sanders, but at least he has recognized there is a problem at the Federal Reserve. Does he have the awnsers to fix the problem. That's debatable. What needs NO debate is the information in the audit. What needs no debate is that the Too Big To Fail banks are out of control, making bad bets on their investment side, and dumping the losses on their commercial side (lending side). Leaving taxpayers to give them more bailouts to gamble with.
I think that this partial audit has uncovered more than enough hazardous activity to warrant a very -FULL- Audit of the Federal Reserve.
(D) Representative Alan Grayson agrees, Im sure.
Alan Grayson (High Quality Version): Is Anyone Minding the Store at the Federal Reserve?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ
Alan Grayson: "Which Foreigners Got the Fed's $500,000,000,000?" Bernanke: "I Don't Know."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ
Alan Grayson on the Worst Deal Since Manhattan Was Sold for $24 inTrinkets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-DOwLnQ4nk&feature=relmfu
Grayson v. Broun on the Constitution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKz5ZHM8kFM&feature=related
Can you believe this guy (Alan G.) wasn't re-elected? Well my point withthe Alan Grayson stuff is this. Representatives from both sides of the aisle are capable of identifying clear problems. And many other representatives from either side of the aisle are prone to trashing the people interest.
These problems will not be solved by one party or the other. Its going to take a collective effort on everyone's part from all parties, all walks of life, and from every tax bracket to come together to agree on the biggest frauds out there, and work together to identify the fraud, and the perpetrators.
-Together or Nothing-
"Sanders said he will work with leading economists to develop legislation to restructure the Fed and bar the banking industry from picking Fed directors"---I got a better idea Bernie. Why don't you enforce the existing laws on the books and bring these toads to justice? That would include congress too
This forum software suxs if I have to do this.
Hanuman (Großweitzschen, SN) -WROTE "Do you mean something like http://zelea.com/project/outcast/_overview.xht? permalink"
The reply button doesn't display so I answer here.
That is a diagram/concept of a complex model of democracy. I've described a simple check and balance upon government that is initiated upon 34 states applying for a convention to amend the constitution which IS contained in the constitution assuring that democracy is the final mode of change.------
Now do you understand why I question you not caring about the constitution?
Chris, it is not intentional from me ... I like your concerns and I understand that the constitution topic is very serious.
Good. And the dilution of the facts or methods of solution by unreasonably redundant definition of the problem, can prevent solution. Such is dysfunction. To not understand the constitution, and how it provides an avenue of solution when the government has been acting against the peoples needs, against the constitution, seriously enables the dysfunction.-
Now do you understand why I question you not caring about the constitution?
If the below were true, would you support the US constitution in order to see all of the demands of OWS met functionally?--
"Article 5 is the only way to deal with this, or, the only way to re establish constitutional government. For 140 years we have not had it."-
This is not a trick question. I believe the current government is infiltrated secretly and that they are against the constitution. Realize that the US constitution is the only social contract on the planet that grants democracy in order to amend it.----
Realize, that any contemporary movement that cannot discuss the natural law recognized by the Declaration of Independence, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, could easily be created and led by the infiltrators of the government, because they would never rationally discuss the natural law of the constitution or the democracy that can recognize it and support it.
Hello Chris, I don't care about the constitution. I'm just providing facts supporting the movement by this post. ;) H.
Hanuman wrote: I'm just providing facts.END-------
Can you justify that such a position works towards meeting demands, meeting human needs outside of the constitution?
Great coaching question! ;)
I don't really understand your questions.
What is your major concern?
Your thread is redundant description of problems, issues, demand related details, not solution meeting demands and resolving issues. Alleviating human suffering is what I'm talking about.----
All reserach here, in north America, shows that ONLY the constitution controls the government. And if it is unconstitutional. THEN the people, through their states, can democratically amend the constitution to control the federal government and cease being unconstitutional.-----
Now do you understand why I question you not caring about the constitution?
Yes, you are right. Please, check my further posts - I propose a solution.
I don't believe that any constitution can CONTROL any government.
So this is why I can't understand your question. ;)
The US constitution formally puts the people in control of the government through Article V. All this says is the government is illegal IF they do not recognize Article V. THEN the military takes over and controls it and institutes democractic control:) -
Now do you understand why I question you not caring about the constitution?
I'm trying, but I can't understand you.
I'll rewrite it some.--
The US constitution formally puts the people in DEMOCRATIC control of the federal government through Article V. All this does is make it OBVIOUS that the government is illegal IF they do not recognize Article V. THEN the military takes over and controls it and institutes democractic control because they have taken an oath to support and defend the constitution from enemys within and those external:) -
Now do you understand why I question you not caring about the constitution?
Sorry, I'm just a monkey. :)))))
Monkeys benefit too from a nation as powerful as the USA, that operates constituionally with respect for, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.--
Now do you understand why I question you not caring about the constitution?
Do you mean something like http://zelea.com/project/outcast/_overview.xht?