Federal Reserve Seeks Delay in Disclosing Recipients of Emergency Lending

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

By Mark Pittman

Aug. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve asked a judge yesterday to delay enforcement of her decision requiring the central bank to identify companies in its emergency lending programs.

Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in Manhattan said on Aug. 24 that the Fed had until Aug. 31 to disclose daily reports on borrowing by banks and other financial institutions. The central bank wants Preska to stay her order, made in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, until the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York can act on an appeal that the Fed said it intends to file.

The Fed and U.S. banks would suffer irreparable harm if details of the loan programs were made public, according to the central bank’s senior counsel, Yvonne Mizusawa.

The Clearing House Association LLC, an industry-owned group in New York that processes payments between banks, filed a declaration that accompanied the request for a stay.

“There are numerous examples of financially sound institutions collapsing or suffering further financial deterioration from the loss of public confidence,” Norman Nelson, vice president and general counsel for the group, said in the document.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a5bjqcBdkB48

[lordhelmet]

1. Transparency

Don't we have the right to know where those TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars are going? Why all the secrecy?

[rhett o rick]

6. Agree. Come on Pres Obama, show us the change. We want the transparency you promised. nt

[scheming daemons]

13. Um... you DO realize that the President doesn't run the Fed....right?

He appoints the chairman, but by LAW, cannot be involved in the operation of the Fed.


He can't provide "transparency" for the Fed even if he wanted to...



But keep bashing Obama without any facts on your side....

[mbperrin]

17. You do realize that the President chooses the head of the Fed, right?

And that he just reappointed Chopper Ben five months earlier than he had to?

Perhaps he could have picked someone who is committed to transparency?

[bemildred]

2. The publics right to know trumps speculative future harm to the banks.

The judge already said that. You start to wonder if these guys ever read anything.

[avaistheone1]

3. I strongly agree. The public has a right to know.

I wonder if it is Goldman Sachs, or AIG?

Make your bets.

[DetlefK]

4. You won't like that: his decision was right

What if you would hear that the bank where you have your money is currently operational though struggling.

Your money is save. And yet you would pull your money out and doom the bank. (Don't deny it.)

The judge had to decide what's more important: Your right to know what's happening with taxpayer-dollars, or the broader economic wellbeing.

[bemildred]

5. The judge already decided that.

The judge decided that speculative future harm to the banks does not outweigh the real and present public interest in effective oversight. That was the basis of the decision they are appealing to delay implementation of.

[rhett o rick]

7. That's bullshit. Big brother keeping us in the dark because we cant be trusted. Thats bush* bullshit

[femrap]

8. You seem to want someone to take care

of you. Someone to make you feel safe. Forget it. Give me the truth so I can decide where to invest.

The second leg down is getting ready for the Fall...nothing has changed. The derivatives and other toxics are still on the books.

This was The Biggest Heist Ever of taxpayers money. We only reward bad behavior...traders who fuck up and people who drive gas hogs.

WASF.

[DetlefK]

10. Simple information theory: there is no future information, just present information

Let's say, if you have information that the stocks of company A will double next year. Does this information affect you right now or next year when it actually happens? Now.

Any information on the future state of company is affecting it now: by you, the investor.

To quote you: "Give me the truth so I can decide where to invest."
Exactly my point: You will pull your money out of a bank that might have recovered within a few months. But no, you will pull out your money RIGHT NOW because the bank is in trouble RIGHT NOW. And as a result the bank tanks.

There is always more to a picture.





Just because a decision makes sense to me, that doesn't mean I agree.

[bemildred]

11. That seems like refusing chemotherapy because it might kill the cancer.

I can see your argument, but I don't agree that the death of those banks is a bad thing for America. They look like parasites we would be well rid of to me.

[tama]

15. More simpler

there is no information, future or present, just guessing what others consider as information and react to.

[femrap]

16. Unwelcome to DU. nt

[girl gone mad]

9. Just more extortion..

from the clowns who engineered the collapse and then threatened to destroy the economy if we didn't hand over trillions of dollars, no questions asked.

Enough.

[mbperrin]

18. Yes, more than enough!

Glad I quit banking 31 years ago....

[Babyserendip]

12. HR 1207 ON ITS WAY! Barney Frank today said it would be passed!!

Keep the Heat On!!

[wildbilln864]

14. kick! nt