• Sharebar

It looks like the Federal Reserve is on its last leg in its ongoing attempt to block the public from seeing which banks were bailed out, for how much, and how precarious the individual banks' situations were. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York refused to review the ruling by a lower court forcing the Fed to disclose the information. Without a stay, the Federal Reserve will have to publish the documents by Friday.

If they get the stay, the Fed can appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Even if they're successful in receiving a stay, they only have 90 days to request a Supreme Court ruling, and I'd be surprised (but not astounded) if that ruling went in their favor. In other words, the truth will set us free.

Quote:
"The decision is of exceptional importance," the Fed's lawyers wrote in a legal brief on May 4 in which they asked the circuit court to reconsider the decision. "The real-world consequence of the panel's decision will be serious, perhaps irreparable harm to the institutional borrowers whose information will be revealed."

Fuckin'-A, I hope so. A guy like me thinks bad business decisions should have been allowed to do serious, perhaps irreparable harm to the institutional borrowers who made them. It's about time these losers were named and shamed.

Incidentally, I don't expect the Federal Reserve to ever comply with this court order, even if it's upheld by the Supreme Court. They're above the law, and they know it.

I know I've asked this before, but I've never received a good answer. What is the worst that can happen if the Fed is forced to reveal this data? Is the whole world going to suddenly realize that Citi is a POS? Seriously, can somebody give me a good reason for the stonewalling?

Comments (18)

  • The Young Investor's picture

    I never like the government refusing to expose information especially when no human lives are at stake. MAKE IT PUBLIC!

    Yours truly,
    The Young Investor

  • loki276's picture

    I don't think it should reveal it yet tbh. Should wait at least another year. Secret bailouts means that the confidence in the business is maintained. Over here in the UK the bank of England provided loans secretly to some major banks which meant that they weren't forced to nearly collapse unlike the previous ones which got the loans publicly. Althoug saying that the secret loans were made public a lot sooner than how much the fed would like

  • George87's picture

    Agree with loki276, think they should wait at least another year before disclosing the information. The reason is that I believe it might be a bit counterproductive having provided that bailout money only to inflict damage to these institutions' reputation now when they are starting to do slightly better by disclosing who took what and how much etc. That being said, I def agree that they should reveal it at some specified time in the future, people have the right to know how that money was allocated/used.

  • Haywood J'Ablowme's picture

    These are US taxpayer dollars, the information should have been released when they took the funds.

    ~If money could talk, it would say "goodbye".

  • Barboone's picture

    That will further fuck up the DJI when released 8000 by next week

    "The higher up the mountain, the more treacherous the path"
    -Frank Underwood

  • Barboone's picture

    ^^^^^ what I just said in different words

    "The higher up the mountain, the more treacherous the path"
    -Frank Underwood

  • In reply to The Young Investor
    eokpar02's picture

    The Young Investor wrote:
    I never like the government refusing to expose information especially when no human lives are at stake. MAKE IT PUBLIC!

    Much agreement.

    I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
    -Styles P

  • Dr Barnaby Fulton's picture

    I'm all about naming and shaming, but if revealing such information would really could cause "irreparable harm to the institutional borrowers whose information will be revealed" then maybe the Fed has pretty logical reasoning here. I think with the markets the way they currently are, now is not the time to name and shame. Maybe in say, 10 years??

    Sometimes what we don't know can't hurt us.

  • In reply to loki276
    Haywood J'Ablowme's picture

    loki276 wrote:
    Haywood J'Ablowme wrote:
    These are US taxpayer dollars, the information should have been released when they took the funds.

    But than the US taxpayer would have to do another bailout as markets would lose confidence in the institutions that were bailed out privately

    No bail outs, let bad business fail... the banks were privately proped up to save them from being bought at a steep discount, if citi was not bought by the fed, it might have been bought by a foriegn country, which would have been amusing...does capitalism still exist?

    ~If money could talk, it would say "goodbye".

  • Czech-yo-premiz's picture

    Haywood, the traditional form of capitalism is focused around a large number of small, but competitive firms. This is not capitalism. Banks simply get bigger and bigger, to ensure safety. After all if you are big to fail, then you get bailed out if in trouble. Until you get too big and then the dominos fall down. There is a certain tipping point for all levels of structure (whether business or political) where an increasing level of size and complexity brings you down as innovation is choked out.

  • Czech-yo-premiz's picture

    Haywood, the traditional form of capitalism is focused around a large number of small, but competitive firms. This is not capitalism. Banks simply get bigger and bigger, to ensure safety. After all if you are big to fail, then you get bailed out if in trouble. Until you get too big and then the dominos fall down. There is a certain tipping point for all levels of structure (whether business or political) where an increasing level of size and complexity brings you down as innovation is choked out.