SavageDrums
22418
495
17
https://www.dcreport.org/2025/12/29/ny-fed-unlimited-cash-infusions-bank-crisis/
"Ominous signs that at least one of America’s “Too Big to Fail” banks is yet again seriously short of cash emerged this weekend in documents examined by James Henry, DCReport’s economics correspondent.
For the past two months the Federal Reserve has been silently injecting tens of billions of dollars of cash into banks.'
Most viral edit: listen to my band! https://linktr.ee/blamethrower
Cooper1977
icannotthinkofanyrationalname
Reading this post, after reading this https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/business/banking-deregulation-jamie-dimon.html today. Sickening.
ctgjerts68
Unfucking believable.
GreenMnM
This. This is why we need to burn the system down. Its built for the very few to win and the rest to suffer. We wont be free until we have a serious talk with the top 1% and a guillotine.
TheOldSchoolisBack
Bullshit ragebait. Literally the least risky thing the Fed has ever done. Last time I checked the repo market (overnight borrowing between banks secured by Treasuries) was $18 fucking TRILLION dollars. The Fed holding a balance on a given day hasn’t gotten any attention because it is not at all noteworthy. Neither is JPM making a dumb bet on the silver market that might (but won’t) cost them one quarter worth of profits.
As rage bait goes, it’s well done. The Epstein tie in was a nice touch.
EternalStudent07
All money related actions by (pseudo)government groups should be public. The moment money is lent, up on the internet for others to see. Free markets can't work without information.
nation543
This is the SEC hard at work, friends. Businesses request loans through their bank, the bank requests a loan through the SEC, businesses stiff the banks on their payments, banks request loans to make up for the losses. The business owners then stash their money in offshore accounts and then give the Republicans a cut. This is why Republicans only care about their rich friends.
Speaker2Animals
Biggest mistake Obama made was to allow SecTreas Tim Geithner and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke prevent FDIC Chief Sheila Blair from doing with the big banks that got bailed out in 2010 what had been done with every other bank failure since the Depression: FDIC takeover and tight controls on all spending. Especially C-Suite bonuses and stock options. Iceland put their crooked bankers in prison.
LincLoud
.
Mgxr44
✨capitalism✨ it’s a scam
Bundalicious
American citizens dont need food or Healthcare, the banks need that money.
CaveJohnsonHatesLemons
Its sarcasm and pointing at the problem but I just hate them so much that I can't upvote you. I wont downvote you, but I cant upvote either.
Huor
Every bailout encourages further risk, and a need for bigger bailouts.
SomebodythatIusedtonope
Of course..we are building the future for billionaire, isn’t it?
TinyBadger101
The only, ONLY proper way to manage a bailout is to basically nationalize whatever is bailed out. It can be temporary- just until the business repays the loan, effectively- but then it gets put back into the economy scrubbed clean of its prior board of directors and executives. Plus, if it's "too big to fail", then it gets broken up. This is what the US did for the auto industry under Obama and it was a wild success.
aoshistark
Iceland didn't bail out their banks when they failed. They arrested and tried the bankers who caused the economic crumble too. After that, their economy boomed. Arrest the banks. Hold these people accountable to their failures.
berserk
I agree with you, but the important thing the Icelandic government did, was to tell the bank's creditors to take a hike when they demanded repayments.
Shawnofavitch
I can tell because what I have in my bank ain't worth shit.
BipedalHumanoidWithSlightlyDifferentNoseRidge
Nothing new.... I mean, the fed literally just prints the money when asked. It is a credit, ostensibly to be repaid in the future.
But that can be waived at their discretion, ie when you are a member of the purple circle-jerk group/round table at the top...
Thus, for the wealthy owners of the corporations, it IS literally free money on tap.
REOJackwagon
https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1dmh3eHhxOGk3YXN3NTJpazY3bWF3ejJic3E3bmRtMGt3YTNmdDExOSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/WACn37twaNLuE/200w.webp
TheOldSchoolisBack
Sigh. . .how many examples do you have of the Federal Reserve waiving repayment of a debt? There are logical arguments to be made against having a central bank, but it pains me to see shit like this just made up and people beleive it. Imgur peddles dangerous amounts of misinformation.
WholeWheatBunnyHugger
What percentage IS paid back?
TheOldSchoolisBack
All of it. If not, the lender (in this case the Fed) sells the bond that was provided as collateral. That’s how Repos work. If you look at the chart in the original post, it shows the line going to zero regularly. That’s because their were no borrowings that day. The repo market is mostly overnight lending.
CaveJohnsonHatesLemons
Here you are again, blatantly saying dumb fuckin shit hoping it sounds confident enough to fool people into being tricked. Because you probably work for a bank etc.
You LOSE. Good DAY sir. Get better at capitalism. Don't like it? Same answer to all small business owners who fail: get fucked. Get absolutely fucked. Die and rot, and let the small business feast on your corpse and rebuild with competition, in true capitalistic style.
Lovin it yet? When its held against you?
TheOldSchoolisBack
Yes. You and I completely agree on these points, as best I can tell. Banks should be allowed to fail. Large banks that present systemic risk should be broken up, or at a minimum, much more heavily regulated and capitalized. Government intervention should protect depositors and the economy as a whole, not those that caused the fucking problems.
BipedalHumanoidWithSlightlyDifferentNoseRidge
Sigh. If you look at the Fed as a single country's "central bank" rather than a part of a larger global group, its easy to claim they are a harmless institution only concerned with keeping a stable economy for the public.
TheOldSchoolisBack
I’m gonna take that as a “no” to my question. If you want to outline a case for corruption in the financial system, I’m all for it. What I’m not in favor of are news articles that spin something totally innocuous in daily operations into something sinister, followed by others piling on with false statements as to what any given institution or individual actually does. Misinformation is bad, no matter what side you’re on.
BipedalHumanoidWithSlightlyDifferentNoseRidge
**Points to** The entire history of the global financial system... and even just recent US history.
Ignorance is bliss hey buddy, "everything is fine"...
🔥🔥🧨
TheOldSchoolisBack
Ignorance may be bliss, but misinformation might be the death of us all. Everything is not fine. Made up bullshit makes everything worse. I wish you peace and happiness.
Miller16of16
Student loans should be interest free.
Leaps
The government should not be in the business of student loans at all. All it does is encourage higher tuition prices.
SavageDrums
All education should be free, but until that time, keeping anything "for profit" out of education is preferable to allowing capitalists to wet their beaks.
MaskedTrout
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
JasonMacza
Is what Mark Carney said to stop doing when he took over Bank of England
KingKrabvoldIV
I’d rather they publicize the bodies of the CEOs instead. Mussolini style.
TheGhostofElizabethShue
Come on now what do you expect, rich people to become poor? If they were supposed to be poor they wouldn’t be rich, QED.
gingerpholife
Ai bubble soon
TheOldSchoolisBack
OK, so here’s a comment on this thread I actually agree with. A lot of AI driven data center loans cross my desk. They aren’t all going to pan out.
LicensedAdHominem
They... are, it's only becoming more profitable to use and abuse it. Few people seem to understand this is a war effort, too. The bubble will be pumped full of money even regardless of profitability because the power it seems it could bring is much more valuable.
It doesn't matter if China one-ups everything AI from the US for $3.50 and half a banana; this in fact already happened. The entire US credit rating will burn before surrender.
yuugian
Rich people are the only ones with real feelings anyway /s
TheOldSchoolisBack
There are no losses here. Of all the things in the world that might cost the taxpayer money, this is probably dead last.
areyouelonmusk
TheOldSchoolisBack
So many downvotes, so few rebuttals. But since folks like to downvote anything contrary to the ragebait de jour, I’ll be a good sport and provide yet another comment so folks can downvote me one more time, along with my favorite downvote gif for everyone’s entertainment.
fubizdaddie
Also, be a 'good sport' and stop mocking people for recognizing that you're not a challenger, you're one of those fancy-shot jackasses who is so up their own ass that they make a single point and mock you for it all through losing because of how much better at it they supposedly are than you. You're a carnival barker, using whatever phrase or taunt you think will bring in the next fool. That's why nobody said shit to you, laughed at you, and kept on moving. We don't HAVE to engage with you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
TheOldSchoolisBack
I’ve posted several lengthy (by Imgur standards, at least) rebuttals on this post and others, if you’re actually interested. But if you’d rather just call me names, I get it. I hope you are doing well, and that your dreams come true.
SarcasticComment
no one owes you a platform
TheOldSchoolisBack
Fair enough. Yet here we are. Have a good day.
fubizdaddie
So the thing is, you picture yourself as some paradigm of debate, and challenge all passers to see if they can meet the bar you've raised. You picture yourself well dressed, making "that point" which shuts everyone up. The reality is, you're dressed in normal clothing standing on a street corner, next to a bar that's rolled into the gutter, flailing about and wondering why nobody wants to talk to you. They don't engage because it isn't worth it, and even just on the surface it's obvious. So...
TheOldSchoolisBack
Whoa, easy there. I’m trying to explain facts on which I am well versed, so that people aren’t misinformed.
Yes, I admit to finding humor in the outrage this inspires. But have I really done anything to inspire quite this level of spite?
However much we disagree, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position. I agree that you don’t owe me a response, so I appreciate you providing one. I hope you have a good day.
MeeseOnABeam
according to the article the new york fed has injected several tens of billions into wall street banks. taxpayer money, socialized money, is being placed squarely in the pockets of wealthy private individuals, as a result of their own poor financial management of their companies. the fed only does this when companies responsible for the "stability" of the economy are at risk of imploding, as seen in 2008. not sure if you wanted a genuine answer cause google is free or this is just bait, but yeah
TheOldSchoolisBack
Thank you for providing a genuine answer.
I believe the article is misconstruing the nature of the Federal Reserve’s Standing Repo Facility, which I have tried to explain several times. I also believe the particular activity highlighted in the article is extremely low risk compared to what the Fed does everyday, or the Fed’s remit in general. There’s dozens if not hundreds of good examples of government subsidies benefiting the wealthy. This just isn’t one of them.
Thanks again.
Bastiroid
The 2008 financial crisis has cost about 443 billion dollars of tax payers money. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/heres-how-much-2008-bailouts-really-cost
Have another downvote.
TheOldSchoolisBack
Thank you for an actual meaningful rebuttal. I’m not sure what the cost of the 2008 bailouts has to with the current Fed Standing Repo Facility, but whatever.
I read Dr. Lucas’ paper when it was published. Her argument, which is sound, is that the taxpayers did not receive a satisfactory or “market” rate of return for risks taken, therefore the risk adjusted return is negative. This is very different than claiming the taxpayers lost money. Happy to discuss further if you’d like to PM me.
seriouslessly
Taxpayers clearly lose money through the treasury though. I think you may have a bias view here for some reason but the job of the fed reserve is just to “settle” the shortcomings over time. That doesn’t mean there aren’t real losses or gains, they’re just moved around to create more “stability”. Money lost is money lost and if the taxpayers fund it then they lose the money while these banks/fed owners/members are guaranteed no losses.
JzowVX1FZeuXhyXL01RW
Before people get too breathless about this: the SRF or Standing Repo Facility is a tool for managing the repo market. The repo market is kind of like credit cards for big businesses, allowing them to fund day-to-day operations on short term (think overnight/ couple of days) loans. Borrowing from the repo market, you have to offer collateral, in the form of securities, usually bonds. The collateral becomes the lenders' property until the loan is repaid, hence the name repurchase agreement 1/?
JzowVX1FZeuXhyXL01RW
The repo market is important because a lot of large businesses don't necessarily have the ability to keep cash on hand for all their running expenses, or have their money tied up in long-term financial instruments (remember, keeping cash on hand means eating losses from inflation). The repo market allows for liquidity in the market. During the financial crisis, the repo market blew up - and with it, businesses *outside* the banking sector started to fail because they could no longer secure 2/?
JzowVX1FZeuXhyXL01RW
the cash needed to make payroll or pay suppliers. Thus, the next time the repo market blew up, the government stepped in to keep up a lifeline for businesses. The SRF is a continuation of this policy by different means.
JzowVX1FZeuXhyXL01RW
To elaborate on the SRF itself, its purpose is to keep the interest rates in the repo market below a certain limit, 3.75%. During distress, it's usually possible to borrow from the "open" market but the interest rate charged rises above what businesses can afford. The SRF is intended to put a ceiling on the rates, by always having the option of borrowing from the fed at that fixed ceiling rate. If market rates spike above that, businesses shift from borrowing from the fed, and when they dip 4/?
JzowVX1FZeuXhyXL01RW
back below it, they move back to the open market. Now for the bad part - when it was created, the SRF was meant to be an extraordinary instrument for extraordinary situations. However, the rising trend in its usage indicates that banks and businesses are not effectively responding to the tightening of liquidity in the market - that is, there's less cash around to be lent and borrowed - and their demand for short-term funding hasn't changed accordingly. So now they're having to go more 5/?
JzowVX1FZeuXhyXL01RW
often to the fed to get their fix. This increasing dependence is a worrying sign - any disruption to the SRF would allow the repo market to blow up again and put the businesses dependent on the repo market for their day-to-day financing under immense financial pressure. And since that group of businesses includes banks, the risk is systemic. 6/6
cantbelievethisisstillavailable
Holy shit. The facts laid out in that article are nuts. The big banks have an open tap of cash from the Fed that amounts to them taking more money per day to cover shortfalls than they collectively made in profits for all of last year. What? How is that possible?
FelonyRaptor
It's called Freedom, look it up!
areyouelonmusk
I was told freedom only cost $1.05
OmgOptimized
I mean... How is it possible for you to borrow more than a year worth of income to buy a home? This isn't actually *that* different AIUI, but the "injection" wording paints things in a skewed way. The banks are expected to pay this back, and they do indeed offer up security in order to get the loan. I think the banks turning to the fed for this is certainly less than ideal, but this article also seems overblown.
cantbelievethisisstillavailable
"The banks are expected to pay this back" is asking us to trust institutions that have proven themselves unworthy of that trust time and time again, and done so while destroying the lives and savings of millions of Americans but simultaneously handing out golden parachutes to the bank executives who drove us to ruin.
TheOldSchoolisBack
That’s just it. The fed buying repos isn’t asking us to trust the banks at all. The fed holds over $4T of U.S. gov’t debt. A few billion of bank debt secured by gov’t bonds isn’t a consequential change.
Compared to the “discount window”, which is the fed being the lender of last resort in a financial crisis (a major reason the fed was created), the activities the article tries to paint in a nefarious light have negligible risk.
HowlingRollercoaster2
If banks had credit scores like regular borrowers do I wonder how many would be credit worthy?
OmgOptimized
I don't particularly disagree, but that is still a far cry from the fed just handing out cash free of charge.
TheRedBaron8
The secret ingredient is crime!
ShyWifeGingerKitten
"Facts"? There isnt a single source and a whole lot of ball fondling for "Henry". I don't doubt banks are at this bullshit again, but this article cant be considered journalism........
SideBoobsWillGetYouBanned
It isn't. This one is garbage, it's unfortunate that people aew so upset with Trump they believe anything
SideBoobsWillGetYouBanned
To be clear, I hope he does soon. All I wish is people to not trust blindly everything they read
TheOldSchoolisBack
Because the facts are skewed to make something routine sound malicious. Look at the chart. See how often it goes back to zero? That’s because these are short term cash fluctuations that happen every day in banking. The only change is that banks are now issuing a few repos to the Fed in addition to each other. Over ten TRILLION dollars of repos are outstanding on any given day. The fed’s decision to hold some is a nothing burger. ->
TheOldSchoolisBack
<-Part of the Fed’s job is to provide funding to banks via the “fed funds window”. These are unsecured funds provided at the short term rate that the fed famously sets. This article sensationalizes the fed getting more involved in the repo market, which are secured funds that have massively lower risk to the Fed and the taxpayer.
If banks started borrowing Fed Funds, that would be noteworthy and perhaps even ominous, but not scandalous. This article villainizes something of zero condequence.
GoldenBran
Is it really zero consequence? I would disagree. The data shows this activity spiking, which would strongly indicate that banks are making riskier trades, leading them to not having enough cash on hand. Even if all legal, this sounds like a springboard to volatility
TheOldSchoolisBack
That’s is the insinuation. The reality is a policy change by the fed to allow a net positive repo balance in their daily operations. Given that the Fed buys and sells govt bonds every day to maintain the fed funds rate at its target, repos are a logical tool for the portfolio. Repos are overnight loans secured by government bonds. The repo market is over $10T daily. The fed holding $40B for one day as part of normal portfolio operations isn’t that noteworthy. It sure as fuck isn’t a bailout.
NKato
Basically if the Fed is printing money to support the banks it's going to cause bigger problems down the road.
mmmurppp
Thanks for your insight. Sorry it’s getting down voted.
MangoisaFatPootinsBiiitch
I really dont know why are you being downvoted for trying patiently and thoroughly to explain something. Itts standard overnight repo.
AndroidSoul
If you post facts but they don't agree with the narrative, you get drive by downvoted by people who assume the post is true and the comment is false. Especially if the post is already negative and people can rationalize that arbitrary metric as proof of falsehood. No one group has the market cornered on low-info emotional responses to things they don't want to hear
TheOldSchoolisBack
Because I’m going against the grain. And being a little bit snarky about, I admit, although I try not to be. I am a bit of an asshole sometimes. There’s another post today with a much better article on the topic.
SavageDrums
Massive, massive corruption.
TheOldSchoolisBack
Tell me you don’t understand how the Fed works without telling me you don’t understand how the Fed works.
SavageDrums
I said "massive, massive corruption". Which is exactly how the entire global financial system is run.
TheOldSchoolisBack
OK, cool. There’s plenty of corruption in the world, my dude, but the Fed issuing repos ain’t it. This just makes you look silly to people who actually understand the system.
This article is the equivalent of an antivax youtuber making a logical sounding argument to someone who knows nothing about vaccines. It sounds convincing to the uninformed, and leads to dangerous conspiracy theories. The healthcare system has massive corruption too, but vaccines aren’t the problem.
SavageDrums
Buddy, I'll take the opinion of a nobel prize winning journalist and a well respected, credentialed economist that this is wrong, over the opinion of a jackass on imgur who cites literally nothing but "trust me bro".
CaveJohnsonHatesLemons
Man stfu. SHUT THE FUCK UP. This doesn't work anymore. Capiche? Nobody buying your "confidently wrong" support of concepts you PROBABLY WORK FOR AND PROFIT FROM anymore. You understand that? No amount of "Uhm ackchuyally" or "huh, Im a random internet professional, and you can trust me more than the cited, proven professional making a statement on it" works.
Stop. Trying. And tell your fuckass friends in other positions of power it doesnt work anymore too. Leave our-
SideBoobsWillGetYouBanned
Agreed. Trump has even tried to get rid of the fed boss for a while but he refuses to be bullied. But when non-economists read that article it's like a red flag. They don't understand the mechanisms behind and the article is.. Yeah, you said it best.
You are getting downvoted by those who doesn't want to be informed, which is a damned shame.