Fed Issues Surreptitious Payments to Bank Welfare Queens At Taxpayer Expense

By Lee Adler, The Wall Street Examiner:

The Fed renewed its Term Deposit facility a couple of weeks ago initially taking in $110 billion in 7 day deposits paying 0.26% of interest. That amount rose to $219 billion today from 69 banks. Since these interest payments reduce the surplus which the Fed returns to the US Treasury, the taxpayer bears the cost of the program. The US taxpayer is now on the hook for a direct subsidy to the banks on excess cash which the Fed handed them for free in the first place.

This is an outrage!

Below is the video I produced on June 20, 2014, to vent my outrage and explain this issue when it first came to my attention. The principles are the same. But the numbers have gotten bigger:

Meanwhile, the essential ingredient in a thriving housing market is skidding inexorably in America. Read…   The American Dream Going Bust – in One Chart

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the beer and iced-tea mug to find out how:

Would you like to be notified via email when WOLF STREET publishes a new article? Sign up here.

  2 comments for “Fed Issues Surreptitious Payments to Bank Welfare Queens At Taxpayer Expense

  1. Julian the Apostate says:

    “May you live in interesting times”, the old Chinese curse, seems particularly apropos today, especially given their chess moves in all of this.
    The world has shifted 180 degrees, with the Chinese lecturing us on fiscal responsibility and Pravda warning us not to repeat the Stalinist experiment.
    When the shift comes it will be a 10 on the Richter scale. To quote the late Redd Foxx: “If you can read the handwriting on the wall, you’re in the toilet.”

  2. Petunia says:

    The Fed gets away with this because the people we send to congress have no idea how the Fed makes money or the financial system works. This is what happens when the govt is made up of mostly lawyers. All they produce is paper and obstruction.

Comments are closed.