I am frankly tired of pulling the UK and EU's nuts out of the fire. All the cash going into banks outside of the US only helps to downgrade my currency assets that remain in US dollars.

Foreign banks were among the biggest beneficiaries of the $3,300bn in emergency credit provided by the Federal Reserve during the crisis, according to new data on the extraordinary efforts of the US authorities to save the global financial system.

The revelation of the scale of overseas lenders’ borrowing underlines the global nature of the turmoil and the crucial role of the Fed as the lender of last resort for the world’s banking sector.

The developments have echoes of the pressure applied by Washington on European capitals last May to create the near $1 trillion EFSF safety net that was last week used to rescue Ireland after its banking crisis spiraled out of control.

The IMF, whose biggest single shareholder is the United States, has committed 250 billion euros to the EFSF.

While reluctant to dictate to Europe how it should address the unfolding debt crisis, the U.S. government is growing concerned about the global fallout of Europe's predicament. U.S. Treasurys' prices fell and the euro strengthened against the dollar on Wednesday after the news that the United States would be prepared to support an enlarged EFSF.

However, news that banks such as Barclays of the UK, Switzerland’s UBS and Dexia of Belgium borrowed billions of dollars at favourable terms from US authorities may further anger critics already enraged about the Fed’s rescue of Wall Street.

US Ready to Back Bigger EU Stability Fund: Official

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40454469

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4dd95e42-fd6d-11df-a049-00144feab49a.html#axzz16v5xsS5X

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fed_crisis_lending

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a5e3ac4-fd89-11df-a049-00144feab49a.html

Of course I am just kidding. I realize the money must be spent even though it reduces the value of my dollars.

I do think however all the UK and EU people posting here should realize just who it is bailing you out.

I do think however all the UK and EU people posting here should realize just who it is bailing you out.

China? I mean, if we are borrowing so much from China isn't that ultimately who is bailing out the EU? Still, Europe doesn't have to pay back China so it is us. It wouldn't matter anyway. I doubt most Europeans here would ever admit that the US actually helped them out with anything.

I do think however all the UK and EU people posting here should realize just who it is bailing you out.

China? I mean, if we are borrowing so much from China isn't that ultimately who is bailing out the EU? Still, Europe doesn't have to pay back China so it is us. It wouldn't matter anyway. I doubt most Europeans here would ever admit that the US actually helped them out with anything.

They only have to read the news stories. People in the US are upset at the extent of the UK and EU bailout paid for with tax payers dollars.

I do think however all the UK and EU people posting here should realize just who it is bailing you out

only if they get (like you) their twisted information from CNBC, FT, FAUX News et al. get real man! where was the global shit we are in caused and who caused it? besides, can you differentiate between interest bearing loans and free gifts?

I do think however all the UK and EU people posting here should realize just who it is bailing you out

only if they get (like you) their twisted information from CNBC, FT, FAUX News et al. get real man! where was the global shit we are in caused and who caused it? besides, can you differentiate between interest bearing loans and free gifts?

http://news.yahoo.co..._crisis_lending

That twisted too?

Firefox can't find the server at news.yahoo.co..._crisis_lending.

with "twisted" i mean telling half the truth which in some cases is worse than lying. a good example are reports which concern IMF loans, insinuating that exclusively the dollars of U.S. taxpayers are used for bailouts. nowhere some mentioning that the U.S. share of the IMF is a mere 18%, that these bailout loans carry interest rates which pay for the IMf administrative setup plus a hefty profit and that all big loans have been paid back much ahead of their maturities.

the FED providing liquidity to the global banking system has nothing to do with any bailout or "nuts out of the fire". this liquidity is in the interest of the FED and the "Greatest Nation on Earth™ and not only to the benefit of individual countries. and neither is this liquidity a free lunch for anybody.

I mean, if we are borrowing so much from China isn't that ultimately who is bailing out the EU? Still, Europe doesn't have to pay back China so it is us. It wouldn't matter anyway. I doubt most Europeans here would ever admit that the US actually helped them out with anything.

Your Honour, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury... i rest my case and will consider from now on Mark's postings as amusing jokes

Firefox can't find the server at news.yahoo.co..._crisis_lending.

with "twisted" i mean telling half the truth which in some cases is worse than lying. a good example are reports which concern IMF loans, insinuating that exclusively the dollars of U.S. taxpayers are used for bailouts. nowhere some mentioning that the U.S. share of the IMF is a mere 18%, that these bailout loans carry interest rates which pay for the IMf administrative setup plus a hefty profit and that all big loans have been paid back much ahead of their maturities.

That "mere 18%" is still by far the largest amount given by any country.

So why does the uber-rich EU need IMF money anyhow? How much have they and the World Bank loaned the USA for bailouts?

Firefox can't find the server at news.yahoo.co..._crisis_lending.

with "twisted" i mean telling half the truth which in some cases is worse than lying. a good example are reports which concern IMF loans, insinuating that exclusively the dollars of U.S. taxpayers are used for bailouts. nowhere some mentioning that the U.S. share of the IMF is a mere 18%, that these bailout loans carry interest rates which pay for the IMf administrative setup plus a hefty profit and that all big loans have been paid back much ahead of their maturities.

the FED providing liquidity to the global banking system has nothing to do with any bailout or "nuts out of the fire". this liquidity is in the interest of the FED and the "Greatest Nation on Earth™ and not only to the benefit of individual countries. and neither is this liquidity a free lunch for anybody.

I mean, if we are borrowing so much from China isn't that ultimately who is bailing out the EU? Still, Europe doesn't have to pay back China so it is us. It wouldn't matter anyway. I doubt most Europeans here would ever admit that the US actually helped them out with anything.

Your Honour, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury... i rest my case and will consider from now on Mark's postings as amusing jokes

Yahoo link:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Federal Reserve on Wednesday lifted the lid on the vast scale of help given to foreign banks during the financial crisis, publishing details about trillions of dollars' worth of loans.

Unleashing a flood of details about its moves to keep the financial system afloat, the central bank unveiled data on more than 21,000 transactions, many involving non-US firms.

Britain's Barclays and Bank of Scotland emerge as major beneficiaries.

Barclays alone borrowed more than 200 billion dollars through one tool -- the Term Auction Facility -- via two subsidiaries in New York and one in Delaware.

In total the facility was used over 4,200 times by dozens of firms between December 2007 and March 2010, when it was closed.

The dates span one the most volatile periods in financial history, as banks from Brazil to Japan struggled with fallout from the subprime crisis and looked to the Fed for help.

The Term Auction Facility had been established to allow banks confidential access to low-cost Fed loans while avoiding rumors of poor liquidity that could have sparked panic or a run.

The Fed had released the data only after a demand from Congress and stressed Wednesday that the tool was open "only to institutions that are financially sound."

France's Societe Generale, Switzerland's UBS, Belgium's Dexia, and German's Bayerische Landesbank, Dresdner Bank and its now-partner Commerzbank were all frequent users, each drawing down billions of dollars.

Almost all major US banks also used the facility, but the scale of use by non-US banks is likely to fuel anger that US cash aided foreign firms.

Watchdogs have already criticized the Treasury Department's parallel relief program, because much of the 700 billion dollars doled out to firms like US insurer AIG went to European counter-parties.

But other data released Wednesday served to underscore the depths of the financial crisis, and the central role the Fed played to prop up the economy.

Another Fed lending tool -- the Commercial Paper Funding Facility -- allowed companies to tap dried-up money markets and helped keep the gears of industry rolling.

Hm.. OK So, the reality is that the Term Auction Facility was the American component of a multi-national operation put in place on 12 December 2007. The Fed was acting in concert with, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Swiss National Bank. The action was to put in place for specific qualified entities [e.g. in Fed terms OC10's] measures designed to address severe stress within the short-term funding markets.

Regards

Hm.. OK So, the reality is that the Term Auction Facility was the American component of a multi-national operation put in place on 12 December 2007. The Fed was acting in concert with, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Swiss National Bank. The action was to put in place for specific qualified entities [e.g. in Fed terms OC10's] measures designed to address severe stress within the short-term funding markets.

Regards

As far as I can see the TAF was funded by the FED. Other banks may have had other programs but the TAF was funded by the US government. I can find no reference to any other bank outside of the US funding the TAF.

The banks you mentioned had counterparts to the TAF but were not the TAF nor were they funding it.

Regards

Firefox can't find the server at news.yahoo.co..._crisis_lending.

with "twisted" i mean telling half the truth which in some cases is worse than lying. a good example are reports which concern IMF loans, insinuating that exclusively the dollars of U.S. taxpayers are used for bailouts. nowhere some mentioning that the U.S. share of the IMF is a mere 18%, that these bailout loans carry interest rates which pay for the IMf administrative setup plus a hefty profit and that all big loans have been paid back much ahead of their maturities.

That "mere 18%" is still by far the largest amount given by any country.

So why does the uber-rich EU need IMF money anyhow? How much have they and the World Bank loaned the USA for bailouts?

uber-rich? amounts "given"?

i have no intention discussing the paint stroke of an old master or the colours of a sunset with blind people who resort to ignorant and irrelevant polemic

do your homework and try to take your nuts out of the fire

p.s. and don't forget to file your 1040, your taxes are needed to "smoke out al-Qaeda and the Taleban from their caves" before the 10 year anniversary as well as for a potential invasion of Iran.

FWIW [and assuming there's anyone cognizant to listen] the Fed stated that it had incurred no credit losses on programmes that have been since wound down [including but not limited to the Term Auction Facility] and, further, that it didn’t expect to incur any losses on the remaining programmes.

The aim of the programme was to provide liquidity [though it did have some unforeseen results re LIBOR] which on balance it managed to do. Market participants were able to utilise these loans [usually 28 days, some at 84 days] for which they entered into an auction to purchase them, thereby having to repay the funds plus interest as agreed, and as noted above by the Fed they did so.

The last auction was in March 2010, so the Fed's statement about losses re this programme are made after final repayment dates.

Of course, other reserve institutions acted in a similar manner to legal entities within their territory to ensure that the marketplace continued to function during the depth of the liquidity failure as it became known. It is fatuous to look at the HO locale whilst failing to understand the function of a reserve institution.

Regards

The aim of the programme was to provide liquidity...

you have to explain "liquidity" Traveller. otherwise some people might think it has something to do with liquids in bottles which go with roasted nuts.

I think we can all agree that the FED supplied billions of dollars to banks in Europe in low cost loans. Now can someone tell me what institution of another nation supplied billions of dollars to banks in the US?

Because if you can't then the US pulled the UK and EU's nuts out of the fire. And they are going to do it again by backing a bigger EU stability Fund. That is why U.S. Treasurys' prices fell and the euro strengthened against the dollar on Wednesday after the news that the United States would be prepared to support an enlarged EFSF. Just what most Americans really want to do. lower the value of U.S. Treasurys' and strengthen the value of the Euro.

US Headlines today. (Of course they got it all wrong)

BOMBSHELL: European banks took big slice of Fed aid...

Hundreds of billions of dollars...

Fed reveals global extent of its backing...

Taking as a quick example of the 'spin' the majority of the so described RBS funding from this programme was for the American institution Citizens Bank. As I tried to explain looking at HO locale is irrelevant. If Citizens had folded the end result would have been a serious problem for the American economy [the failure of a top 10 bank [iIRC] is not to be taken lightly by any administration].

As to who else did this, the other central banks are unwilling [in the ECB's case unable by law, such is the reality of a cross border system] to provide this kind of data, as was the Fed originally for commercial reasons. So did 'it' happen elsewhere, in my view yes, despite the fact that moral hazard was being ignored. In fact if one knows the marketplace there are more than a few candidates, outside the US who are still 'alive' today. The system needed to be saved, since the alternative was, and is, too unpalatable, though interestingly enough, saved from a contagion which was by and large created by the US system [or one could argue lack of system/controls/ plus an enthusiasm for Ayn Rand]. In the OP's argot, the 'nuts' were placed into the fire by his perceived saviour.

I am not hopeful that this will be understood, but a lack of appreciation of the world economy seems to be viewed as a badge of honour by some residing in Thailand.

Regards

PS As an aside a more realistic headline would have been Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. were among the biggest borrowers from one Federal Reserve programme, the Term Auction Facility, with as much as $45 billion apiece

Taking as a quick example of the 'spin' the majority of the so described RBS funding from this programme was for the American institution Citizens Bank. As I tried to explain looking at HO locale is irrelevant. If Citizens had folded the end result would have been a serious problem for the American economy [the failure of a top 10 bank [iIRC] is not to be taken lightly by any administration].

As to who else did this, the other central banks are unwilling [in the ECB's case unable by law, such is the reality of a cross border system] to provide this kind of data, as was the Fed originally for commercial reasons. So did 'it' happen elsewhere, in my view yes, despite the fact that moral hazard was being ignored. In fact if one knows the marketplace there are more than a few candidates, outside the US who are still 'alive' today. The system needed to be saved, since the alternative was, and is, too unpalatable, though interestingly enough, saved from a contagion which was by and large created by the US system [or one could argue lack of system/controls/ plus an enthusiasm for Ayn Rand]. In the OP's argot, the 'nuts' were placed into the fire by his perceived saviour.

I am not hopeful that this will be understood, but a lack of appreciation of the world economy seems to be viewed as a badge of honour by some residing in Thailand.

Regards

PS As an aside a more realistic headline would have been Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. were among the biggest borrowers from one Federal Reserve programme, the Term Auction Facility, with as much as $45 billion apiece

A part of the reason people don't understand it is because you don't write clearly nor do you answer the questions posed in the previous post. Something posters on TV have been trained to look for.

These are current headlines from the Washington Post along with a couple of paragraphs from FT. I think they are written in a simple and straight forward manner. Perhaps you could answer them in a simple and straight forward manner.

Foreign banks were among the biggest beneficiaries of the $3,300bn in emergency credit provided by the Federal Reserve during the crisis, according to new data on the extraordinary efforts of the US authorities to save the global financial system.

The revelation of the scale of overseas lenders’ borrowing underlines the global nature of the turmoil and the crucial role of the Fed as the lender of last resort for the world’s banking sector.

The biggest users of the Fed lending programs were some of the world's largest banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Swiss-based UBS and Britain's Barclays, according to more than 21,000 loan records released Wednesday under new financial regulatory legislation.

"The American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multitrillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America," said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime Fed critic whose provision in the Wall Street regulatory overhaul required the new disclosures. "Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions."

Foreign-owned banks also benefited from the Fed's commercial-paper facility. The Korean Development Bank, owned by the South Korean government, used the program to the tune of billions of dollars, including a $407 million short-term loan on a single day. Many foreign banks, including the French BNP Paribas, the Swiss UBS and the German Deutsche Bank, took extensive advantage of various programs. Even a major bank in Bavaria benefited, as well as another one headquartered in Bahrain, a tiny island country in the Middle East.