Yesterday it was reported that the Fed earned about $46bn last year, mostly because it diversified its portfolio into riskier assets as a way of injecting capital into the banks. Fed payments to the Treasury also increased, and were north of $20bn.
This is unequivocally good news. Combined with the profits from TARP (at least the banking interventions), and it now appears that the government may make as much as $100bn from the interventions into the banking sector. That's right: not only did it not cost us trillions, as some claimed, or even the hundreds of billions of TARP outlay, but there will be a substantial profit.
Last fall, a lot of more liberal commentators like DeLong and Krugman were advocating a Swedish-style nationalization of the banks. As DeLong put it, if the government was sharing downside risk with banks it should share in the upside as well by acquiring equity stakes. Now we see that the government was sharing in the upside by buying depressed assets at low prices, waiting for the markets to stabilize, and then selling them back. All without having to bother full nationalization and the pitfalls that may have entailed.
This is very good news indeed.
IPE @ UNC
IPE@UNC is a group blog maintained by faculty and graduate students in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed on these pages are our own, and have nothing to do with UNC.
Bookshelf
Tags
Academia Adjustment Afghanistan Africa AIG America Argentina Austerity Bailout Banking Bargaining Basel Bernanke Bias Blogging Business cycle; recession; financial crisis Cap and Trade capital controls capital flows central banks; moral hazard Chavez China China Trade Climate Change Contentious Politics Cuba Currencies Currency Crises; financial crisis Current Account Data Debt Debt; China; United States; Decession Politics Decoupling Deflation democracy Democrats; Trade policy development Diplomacy Dollar; China; Currency Manipulation; Exchange Rates dollar; exchange rate policy ECB ECB; Fed; Monetary Policy Economic Growth Economics Egypt election EMU; monetary union Environment EU; Agriculture; Common Agricultural Policy Euro Europe; labor; immigration European Union Exchange Rates Farm Bill; Agriculture FDI Fed; Monetary Policy finance financial crisis financial crisis; subprime Fiscal Policy; monetary policy; elections Fiscal Stimulus Foreign Aid Foreign Policy France Free Trade Agreements G-20 G20 Summit Game Theory Germany global recession globalization Grand Theory Great Britain Greece health care reform Hegemony Human Rights Iceland imbalance IMF immigration Incentives income distribution income inequality; globalization India Inequality inflation institutions Interests international finance International Law International Monetary System International Relations Investment IPE Iran Iraq Ireland ISA Italy Japan labor markets Latin America Libya Macroeconomics Marxism Mexico Microfinance Miscellany monetary policy Monetary policy; Federal Reserve moral hazard Narcissism Networks Nobelist Smackdown North Korea Obama Oil PIGS Pirates Political Economy Political Methodology Political Science Political Survival Political Theory Power Protectionism Protests Public Choice Public opinion Rational Choice regulation Research Review Russia Sanctions Security Dilemma security threats Soccer Social Science Sovereign Debt Spain Sports Statistics stock markets Systems Tariffs TARP Taxes TBTF Technocracy technology terrorism Trade trade policy UNC Unemployment United States US-South Korea Venezuela WTO WTO; Doha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(478)
-
▼
January
(61)
- Somali Pirates: 21st-Century Robin Hood?
- "Too Big to Fail" vs. "Too Small So We Failed"
- Obama Finally Talks About Trade
- Interview Research in Political Science Conference
- The Strategic Logic of American Senators
- The Strategic Logic of American Jihadists
- Zero-Value Bribes (Or, The New Testament in India)
- Strange Bedfellows
- Berlusconi Gets OWNED!
- Bernanke Update
- The Rise of Open Access
- Some Optimism at the IMF
- Awesome
- Just How Socialist Is Latin America?
- The Prisoner's Dilemma in Banking
- 230,000,000% inflation to 1%...HOW?!
- Wait, What Year Is It?
- How the Chinese One-Child Policy Caused the Financ...
- Extra! Extra! Obama Is a Politician!
- The Definition of Hubris
- Sunday Links
- Would 'Civil Unions' Undermine Traditional Marriage?
- All Some Politics Is Local National
- Chavez: U.S. Purposefully Caused Haiti Earthquake ...
- O Canada
- Ouch!
- A "Gender and Foreign Policy" Reading List
- The Obama/Volcker Regulation Plan
- Not a Good Trend
- That SCOTUS Decision
- Q. What Gets Poorer the More It Gets Richer?
- More on TBTF
- Was Kant Right All Along?
- The Changing Europe
- Against Punitive Populism
- True or False?
- A Test of "Soccer Violence"
- Sunday Links
- The Intellectual Drift of Thomas Friedman
- Stop Giving Money to Haiti
- Why We Shouldn't Be Worried About Inflation... Yet
- The Bank Tax
- Best Paragraphs I've Read Today...
- The Fed's Profit
- Why Aren't Political Scientists More Visible?
- On Krugman on China
- No, We're Not Myopic
- Hugo is at it Again
- Sunday Links
- Nobody Could Have Seen This Coming
- Why Blog?
- The American Public: Only Half-Stupid
- Adjustment in the Eurozone
- Did You Know?
- Carolina #1!
- The Russian War on Drugs
- Sentences to Ponder
- Sick of Hearing About Climate Change?
- Sunday Links
- Moneyballing Hollywood
- In Which "Public Citizens" Support the Further Imp...
-
▼
January
(61)
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Fed's Profit
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Au contraire. This is bad news that's an unsurprising outcome. The Fed bought masses of securities to drive down bond yields. The end result is increased asset prices--it's simple supply and demand. If it really wanted to, the Fed could reap even larger "profits" by distorting markets via even more public intervention.
The basic end result of these actions, however, is subversion of price discovery. As a result, we don't know how this action will pan out when the Fed releases us from this artificiality.
Last I checked, making a profit wasn't a Federal Reserve objective but maintaining price stability and full employment.
I disagree. Yes, the Fed's actions pushed down the yield curve -- although the flight to safety from institutional investors probably played a greater role -- but that is also very good news for a country seeking to finance large amounts of debt. And if the panicked flight from risk overshot, as is likely, then pumping up asset prices closer to their "fundamental" values (whatever those are) is no bad thing.
I also don't buy that the Fed perverted price discovery. Nevermind "distressed" markets, the Fed purchased assets that were essentially unsalable, but were still subject to mark-to-market accounting rules. Since there was no functioning market there was no price, but these assets remained on balance sheets as black holes (despite not being worthless, as we now know and as I always suspected) and firms that were *not* insolvent were threatened with insolvency through illiquidity and accounting rules. By creating a price for these assets, the Fed actually facilitated price discovery; how else could they now unwind at a profit?
So the Fed was able to kill three birds with one stone: 1. restore liquidity to illiquid financial institutions; 2. push down the bond yield making the Porkulus stimulus less onerous; 3. jump-start the market for distressed securities while turning a profit that off-set part of the deficit.
This looks like a win-win-win for me.
So why doesn't the Fed just do this all the time? Because in normal times when distressed assets cannot be purchased for pennies on the dollar, the risk of gambling with public monies is too great. But in crisis times when distressed assets *can* be purchased for pennies on the dollar, the risk of *not* gambling with public monies is great. Esp. when they're pushing against the zero-bound of monetary policy.
The Fed is tasked with maintaining price stability and low unemployment, but as a quasi-private bank it regularly turns a profit (with which it pays off Treasury). Admittedly, this is easier to do when you can print the cash, but it's still far better for the public purse than if they'd shown a loss.
Post a Comment