This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Of The Fed's $120 Billion In "Other Assets" - An $80 Billion Gift To Primary Dealers?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/26/2011 14:51 -0400

Following our latest Fed balance sheet update, where we get another confirmation that for another week the Fed's assets have hit a fresh all time record (Bernanke now owns nearly $200 billion more Treasurys than China), there are two items that we believe deserve far closer scrutiny. The first is the as expected drop in MBS and Agency prepayments, which after seeing an initial surge in activity when rates were low enough to merit prepaying existing mortgages, has now plunged. In fact in the last several weeks the average prepay activity is roughly half of what it was in the September-December period. This is critical as it impacts the amount of debt the Fed can monetize via the QE Lite component of the ongoing monetization procedure. Should this weekly prepayment amount remain constrained, the Fed will have far less of a marginal impact on share prices (which is what POMO ultimately is) then if QE Lite was working at its expected $25-35 billion a month monetization run rate (in addition to the $70-80 billion from QE 2). Yet far more questionable is the recent surge in "Other Federal Reserve Assets" - an observation we have commented on previously, yet which we attributed merely to capitalized accrued interest on the Fed's portfolio. However, following the recent remittance of tens of billions in interest expense from the Fed to the Treasury we now know that is not the case, so we kindly request that the Fed answer the following simple question: just what is the key driver in the growth of this asset category, which in the week ending March 23 hit a fresh all time high of $120.4 billion? In fact, we are rather stunned that nobody before has asked just what "other assets" comprise a line item that is greater than the GDP of about 80% of the world's countries.

Charting the change in the "Other assets" category in time:

Here is how the Fed defines this catch all category:

This item includes other Federal Reserve assets and non-float-related as-of adjustments. In addition to the as-of adjustments, there are many components in this category, including the following major items:

Assets denominated in foreign currencies: Foreign currencies are revalued to reflect movements in market exchange rates each day. If, in the revaluation, the value of the currency increases, then other Federal Reserve assets increase. On the other side of the balance sheet, "Other liabilities and capital" increase because the increase in value of the currency becomes earnings, which are reflected in the earnings category within the capital account. Other liabilities and capital decline in value as the earnings are removed from this category and the U.S. Treasury's general account increases because the funds are remitted to this account at the Reserve Banks.

Since 1963, the Federal Reserve has occasionally agreed to warehouse foreign currency for the Treasury. In such transactions, the Federal Reserve takes the foreign currency from the Treasury in return for dollars provided to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve makes a spot purchase of the currency and protects the value of those currencies purchased by simultaneously selling the same amount of currencies forward at the same price to the Treasury.

When the Federal Reserve warehouses foreign currencies for the Treasury, both "other Federal Reserve assets" and "U.S. Treasury, general account" increase in value at the time of the spot transaction. Both accounts decline when the forward transaction is completed or when currencies are withdrawn from the warehousing arrangement prior to maturity.

Premiums paid on securities bought: This release reports Federal Reserve holdings of securities at face value, not necessarily at market value. If the Federal Reserve pays more than the face value for securities it purchased, the premiums over the face value are amortized as the securities mature. Part of the premium is transferred daily to the earnings category as a "negative earning." As the premium in "Other Federal Reserve assets" is reduced, a simultaneous balancing reduction is made in "Other liabilities and capital." Securities purchased at a premium over face value are accounted for in this way because, at maturity, the Federal Reserve Banks receive only the face amount of the securities, not the amount actually paid.

The premiums paid on securities bought under repurchase agreements, though, are not amortized. These premiums are, in effect, returned to the Federal Reserve Banks when the securities are repurchased by the dealer, since the negotiated price in the original transaction reflects the premiums.

Accrued interest and other accounts receivable: This item represents the daily accumulation of interest earned on U.S. government securities--other than bills--owned by the Federal Reserve or held under repurchase agreements, on loans to depository institutions, and on foreign currency investments. Interest is accrued daily.

Reserve Bank premises and operating equipment less allowances for depreciation: This item states the value, at initial cost, of the land and buildings of the Reserve Banks and branches less an allowance for depreciation on buildings, including building-related machinery and equipment.

If the accrued interest category is not applicable (which we believe may be the case as the value has not had a step down following the remittance of unpaid interest back to the Treasury), the only other possibility is the "Premiums Paid on Securities Purchased" - if indeed this is the marginal variable, then the Fed in essence confirms that since the start of QE1 it has overpaid in POMO operations by roughly $80 billion (the value trended at ~$40 billion pre QE1 and is now a record $120 billion). And one wonders where the Primary Dealers get their bonus money from these days...

Of course, since this is a non-exclusive list, it could very well be the catch all value of ES holdings warehoused at the Fed, that the FRBNY purchases from Citadel whenever the Plunge Protection Team goes active. $80 billion in ES purchases, magnified using HFT reflexive algorithms, can surely push the market up quite nicely...

Alas, this is all purely speculation - without further information and clarification from the Fed, there is simply no way to know. Luckily, we are confident some journalist will ask Ben Bernanke in April during the Chairman's first ever press conference just what this incremental $80 billion in "other assets" truly is.

Next up, here is a chart of the declining prepayments of MBS and Agencies. In essence, QE2+Lite is running at 80% of full power due to the recent spike in interest rates.

Another curious observation is the previously noted surge in the adjusted monetary base, due almost exclusively to the sudden jump in Excess Reserves, predicated by the now completed unwind of the SFP program.

The surge in Excess Reserves (which is at $1.4 trillion) and the AMB should now moderate a bit, although we still expect it to reach $1.7 trillion by the end of QE2, nearly double the amount of currency in circulation.

The change in the key holdings of the Fed's balance sheet since the start of QE2 is presented below: an increase in Treasury holdings, offset by a slowing decline in MBS, Agency securities, as discussed above.

For the convenience of all who claim that the Fed can simply keep the market on edge by being a marginal buyer of rolling Treasurys, we have some bad news. There are only $110 billion in Treasurys on the Fed's balance sheet that mature in under a year (and another $33 billion in MB). This combination will do nothing at all to appease a market which is used to seeing this much monetization in a month, let alone a year.

Last, here is a summary snapshot of the most recently updated Fed balance sheet.

- advertisements -

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 14:54 | 1103353 Buckaroo Banzai

jeepers. Maybe they have a few shares of NFLX, GOOG, PCLN, and AAPL?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:54 | 1103494 Waterfallsparkles

I actually think the Fed does own stocks that will move the Market. Like Cat, Ibm, Nflx, Goog, Nflx, Aapl. Of course Gs front runs all of their trades and then upgrades the stocks the FED owns.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 17:48 | 1103772 johnQpublic

possibly idiotic questions i have:

1)does the fed earn any money?

2)does the fed pay taxes?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 19:41 | 1103957 FOC 1183

Not idiotic, no need to preface.
1. Historically, yes. But if they try to withdraw qe stimulus via selling purchased securities, they will likely report a huge loss which will become a liability of the treasury (I.e. Taxpayer)

2. No

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 23:04 | 1104499 idea_hamster

The answer to this "other" is likely to be just the same as when someone asked who the "other" buyers of USTs were -- the fed named a few entities who would more accurately fall into the articulated categories, and then said "and others." Total BS that anything short of a full audit will fail to provide clarity on. Audit. Audit. Audit. Oh, and then publish the audit.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 07:48 | 1105012 johnQpublic

ty FOC1183

thats what i'd thought, but wasnt sure

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 10:01 | 1105175 Augustus

The Federal Reserve Bank is owned by the US Govt. All profits are Govt. profits.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-usa-fed-profits-idUSTRE72L6D320110322

The Federal Reserve earned a record $81.7 billion in 2010, largely on investments made to help the economy and banks weather the 2007-2009 financial crisis, and turned the bulk of it over to the U.S. Treasury.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 11:37 | 1105330 crazyjsmith

shallow comment that needs further explanation.

Those profits made are not their profits. They are profits that belong to taxpayer.

They are more than happy to pass on the billions made in transaction fees to their brothers on the street, how convenient. But I am far from grateful when they take my money and buy assets at 10 year lows and return the profits back to the rightful owner, the taxpayer.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 14:59 | 1103364 TruthInSunshine

First, great catch, ZeroHedge.

Anyone doubting the fundamental worth of an outlet like ZeroHedge in a sea of listless, often lazy, and even corrupted (by bias or 'other' factors) Main Stream Media and Academic (Paul Krugman, can you hear me?) resources should consider this article, as but one example. Where else is this being reported?

Second, with respect to this:

Next up, here is a chart of the declining prepayments of MBS and Agencies. In essence, QE2+Lite is running at 80% of full power due to the recent spike in interest rates.

Again, outstanding. And this is why QE has failed, and why additional QE is counter-productive and harmful. Interest rates will continue to spike, and it's more than interesting that Bernanke proclaimed lowering interest rates as one of the goals, if not the biggest goal, of the implementation of Quantitative Easing at its inception!

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:35 | 1103621 nkktwotwozero

Krugman cannot hear you above the brilliance of his (not actually) Noble Prize.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 09:07 | 1105102 DavidC

It's not a Noble Prize, it's a Nobel Prize.

DavidC

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:00 | 1103366 traderjoe

I read an interesting speech by G. Edward Griffin (author of The Creature from Jekyll Island). IMHO, it's a nice summary of the the creation and true purposes of the privately-held Fed. I found particularly interesting his explanation of how inflation works for the benefit of bankers and government and how banks actually want low interest rates (it spurs demand for credit/loans, where they earn interest on money they create from thin air. It's about a 30 minute read, but a good summary in my opinion.

www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 17:55 | 1103787 equity_momo

Great link , thankyou. Been meaning to buy that book for a while too.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:21 | 1104039 Reese Bobby

Great analysis. I fear it is now the minority of people on ZH who would take the time to read this, but some will. I read a lot and this is the best summary of the crime that is a Central Bank controlled fractional reserve, fiat currency system. Thanks.

My only criticism might be the author failed to provide the solution to our condition after suggesting he had one?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 23:48 | 1104572 Vint Slugs

I don't know if your concluding question is rhetorical, wanting an answer from the author, or wanting one from ZH readers. In the case of the last, at least one answer is first of all to abolish the fractional banking system and to institute a 100% (paper) reserve banking system; second to establish a 100% gold coin monetary standard; and third to open the U.S. Mint to the unlimited coinage of gold.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:27 | 1104060 dcb

you mean there is a real person out there that hasn't figured QE is all about making money from the banks, or building up their stock prices (LOL)

I knew from the start that the stated goals of QE weren't the real goals. after all it does the opposite of the claimed effects. They aren't stupid, and have done it twice. therefore it can't be the real goal. figure out how the banks make money from it and you will figure out the reason for QE.

the trick is to throw enough money at the insolvent institutions so they can cover up that they are insolvent and therefore the feds huge regulatory failure won't be investigated and the cover up is maintained.

I would gues they aren't stocks, futures give much more bang for the buck, and I think move the market more. not sure how it works though, as I have been unable to find out how futures work from any source for over a year, and the efffects they have on the market.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:48 | 1104133 Reese Bobby

I think there are a lot of real people out there, including you, who can't put together a simple, concise and damning summary of the private Federal Reserve scam. Ron Paul is our Congressional champion and he can't string it together? Read more, talk less...

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 21:27 | 1104259 cranky-old-geezer

... and how banks actually want low interest rates (it spurs demand for credit/loans, where they earn interest on money they create from thin air.

Creating money from thin air is counterfeiting, plain and simple.

Yes, fractional reserve banking operates by fraud and counterfeiting.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:05 | 1103373 AssFire

And they continue to lie that the "household sector" buying these bonds..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439980457619301048325288...

Ya right and Osama is still alive and we shold fear him.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:06 | 1103376 fbrothers

Ponzi is alive and well. They are unable to be creative.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:17 | 1103379 FunkyMonkeyBoy

The biggest scam the world has ever seen. Buying huge amounts of real assets using nothing but self-printed notes and/or adding extra zeros to an account. All government sponsored, they are one-in-the-same-criminal-beast.

In a saine world, people would be on the streets heading towards their nearest government building to find some one to hang from the nearest lamp post... but, here we are, and it ain't happening, and it ain't going to happen.

Go back to bed America, your government is in control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:25 | 1103597 T-NUTZ

SLEEP WELL, BITCHEZ!!

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 18:21 | 1103826 Waterfallsparkles

You know I never really thought about it that way. Yet, if you think about all of the Mortgages they have purchased that pay interest with Money created out of thin air. Wow. Makes you think.

Yet, the Money they use is a Debt to all Americans. So, they buy Mortgages with 0 Dollars (or dollars they print) to get Mortgage backed assets and charge the American people for the cost.

Brillant. They impoverish the Amercan people buying assets that make them money and charge the Debt for those assets to the American People while keeping the assets and the interest on those assets.

OMG, the light bulb just went off. For every asset they buy they create Debt to the American People and keep the asset and its interest for themselves.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:57 | 1104163 Yen Cross

I like your Ideas. Just Quit PISSING on your self! Move ahead. I see all!

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:08 | 1103381 TorchFire

The bernank had best be reading the sports pages....that's likely to be the only question he will get. Works for the other puppet so why not for bastard bernank?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:14 | 1103389 The Axe

WOW,,,great job ZH and Tyler...How do you guys find this stuff and figure this shit out? outstanding.. Could it be suborinated notes from TBTF firms. ???

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:15 | 1103397 augie

I'm a 25 y/o undergrad finance major at st johns. can someone explain to me

where " the last several weeks the average prepay activity is roughly half of what it was in the September-December period." that information is available, and also either

explain, or give me a linke to how and why, "This is critical as it impacts the amount of debt the Fed can monetize via the QE Lite component of the ongoing monetization procedure."

I may be ignorant, but I'd really like to be able to make a clear case against the

fed when my economic history professor tries to defend it.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:27 | 1103417 Careless Whisper

you're obviously way smarter than your professor, so why are you wasting your money sitting in his class?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:59 | 1103520 Monetary Lapse ...

Augie, QE "lite" is the bond buying that flows from the interest and principle (pay offs) from all the assets sitting on the FED balance sheet.. which I call the magic free money machine. Some will argue technically that these asset purchases are not adding to base money (as does the QEII printed money monetization).. but this is semantics in my opinion. In a non-QE world, FED balance sheet incoming should flow back to the treasury and reduce our freaking debt, not be used to create non-exogenous US debt demand.

Less FED balance sheet income (due to less roll over, or whatever cause) means less ammo for QE lite. Simple.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 09:47 | 1105153 augie

Who is paying the interst on all this paper? i the fed paying themselves? Thanks for the explination. Sorry it took me so long to respond.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 09:49 | 1105155 augie

Double post.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:21 | 1103585 Dr. Porkchop

I hope your professor is one who is at least open to discuss things, even if he/she may not agree. If not, it will be a good life lesson. A lot of companies like to say they want creative thinkers, but what managers really want are yes men who will stroke their ego by agreeing with everything. If your lucky, once in a blue moon, you get one who actually is good at managing people.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:59 | 1103685 traderjoe

Agreed. I would counsel against trying to challenge a PhD economics professor some of their long-held beliefs. That level of education is really tantamount to indoctrination. It's also very likely that the professor benefits on some level from the existence of the Fed, i.e. studies, consulting, etc., etc. More likely then not, you would be simply pissing into the wind.

From the article/speech I linked at the beginning of the thread:

"These fellows were not stupid. You have to give them credit. They didn't get to be where they were by being country bumpkins. They understood politics, they understood mass psychology and they played their cards exceedingly well. Meanwhile these same individuals out of their own pockets were paying the price for the costs of bringing up what they called grassroots study clubs all over the country. They sponsored these clubs and they held public meetings and printed brochures and pamphlets extolling the virtues of the Federal Reserve System. They gave large amounts of money to some of the better known universities in America; they created newly formed departments of economics with that money; they hand picked their own people to be the professors to head up those departments and then those professors with all of their academic credentials gave speeches and wrote scholarly essays extolling the virtues of the Federal Reserve System."

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 18:25 | 1103842 KickIce

I'm betting his pension depends on the inflated markets.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 09:56 | 1105165 augie

Perhaps you are right. I just watch all these 20-21 year olds in my classes on facebook, or their cell phones and it pisses me off because their apathy is what allows all this Malarkey to continue. I tried to ask my finance 1100 professor how the POMO markets operate to maybe open a discussion that would spark some interst in my class mates, and she looked at me like i had three heads and said "what is POMO". I guess i shoulda taken out some student loans and gone to a better school.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:28 | 1104058 Reese Bobby

I believe the answer is higher rates = less refi activity. Normal amortization conitues on schedule. However I am not sure of this answer. Good luck.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 21:10 | 1104204 TemporalFlashback

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/maidenlane.html#maidenlane

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 21:29 | 1104257 Reese Bobby

If there is an answer to the kid's question in these links why don't you share it?

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 00:51 | 1104687 TemporalFlashback

When prepayments decrease, there will be less CF to use towards USTs.

TD is measuring prepayments as the weekly reduction in MBS/Agencies (see footnote to graph 2 above). The numbers that TD uses as inputs can be found on the second link that I posted previously.

For a better explanation see paragraph 4 here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/why-qe2-qe-lite-may-mean-fed-will-purch...

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:04 | 1107374 Reese Bobby

Belated thank you.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 10:01 | 1105168 augie

Thank you for the links. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 21:42 | 1104299 cranky-old-geezer

I'd really like to be able to make a clear case against the fed when my economic history professor tries to defend it.

Forget it. Not worth the effort. He beleves what he wants to believe. You'll never change his thinking.

Your grade is based on how well you parrot back what he believes. Doesn't mean you have to believe it.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:16 | 1103401 Atomizer

Shhhhhhhhh. Be vewy qwiet about this

The Fed’s bubblicious AIG turnaround

http://www.clearingandsettlement.com/2011/03/the-feds-bubblicious-aig-turnaround/

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:30 | 1103425 jimijon

Was that translated or such. I couldn't even get past the first paragraph the grammar was that bad.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:47 | 1103449 Atomizer

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/maidenlane.html#maidenlane2

I realise that the best spin doctor can lose patients on the operating table.

Edit: Felt it was necessary to help a prole find the correct tab.

The Federal Reserve has received a formal offer from American International Group, Inc. (AIG) to purchase the assets in Maiden Lane II, LLC (MLII). The Fed has been aware of AIG's interest in those assets for some time. Any decision on a possible disposition of these assets will be made in a way that maximizes the proceeds to the taxpayer and that is consistent with the goal of fostering financial stability.

Contacts:

Jack Gutt
(212) 720-6142
(646) 720-6142
jack.gutt@ny.frb.org

Jeffrey Smith
(212) 720-6139
(646) 720-6139
jeffrey.smith@ny.frb.org

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:18 | 1103402 themosmitsos

Tyler, are you sure it cant be the FX side, involving the €500B Swaps Extended to ECB over the summer?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:23 | 1103412 Tyler Durden

All FX swap lines have been unused for the past 3 weeks (see H.4.1). Additionally, as per the description, the FX variance occurs on a forward swap contract with the Treasury and has nothing to do with liquidity swaps, which are assets denominated in USD and thus not subject to FX adjustments (if the Fed was receiving foreign currencies it would be a different story).

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:36 | 1103454 themosmitsos

Thank you, and I understand the forward swap w/TSY. I'm simply suggesting perhaps they are/were receving foreign currencies as part of the liquidity swaps--somehow, although I know that's not how it's normally done. Just saying, the numbers fit :)

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:44 | 1103480 themosmitsos

Also, thanks for the link. A very simple, rudimentary observation: "Other holdings" Starts rocking as soon as the CP facility kicks in.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:41 | 1103846 SwingForce

From the week of March 4, 2009 to Aug 12, 2009 holdings doubled from $42 to $82 billion. That's when bank stocks like JPM, GS and PNC doubled+. Then they slid the third week of August into options expiration, so did Other Assets down to $60b. Within 3 weeks it was back over $80b again . These are bank stock holdings, didn't you hear The Bears say in part 2 that The Fed bought stocks in Banks?

You can pick up the scent again after The Benbernank's speech at Jackson Hole, bank stocks and Other Assets both put in a bottom 8/25/2010 and ran up into February 2011. Other Assets climbed from $90b to $120b the week BEFORE the BKX topped. OA dropped to $113b 2/16/11 and has been rising ever since despite all stocks falling until 3/16/11. I'll guess that new funds were brought in after 2/16 but not deployed until 3/16, is this the PPT's account? Some banks allowed to pay dividends again 3/17 announced in WSJ. When did that weird email come in to Tyler about a huge purchase of ES? Sounds like somebody's betting the farm in Connecticut that (somebody else) will be jamming this market much higher, wow.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 23:49 | 1104576 rocker

That couldn't be Pimco could it !?!

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 14:47 | 1106130 SwingForce

Good thinking, but I think the Total Return Fund is limited to fixed income investments.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:58 | 1104168 Yen Cross

Thanks! OUT

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 17:58 | 1106681 themosmitsos

Pardon?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:29 | 1103418 buzzsaw99

It must be nice to be deemed TBTF.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:30 | 1103428 pauldia

How does this effect Jim Rickards thesis? taken from King World News :

"As we approach the end of the Fed’s quantitative easing program many are prepared to shout, “QE is dead!” Few realize the old royal salute is more appropriate – “QE is dead, long live QE!” Because an heir to the throne is here and will be with us for a long time. QE has now become a permanent part of the financial landscape of the United States.

The reason is that the size of the Fed’s balance sheet is now so vast that the reinvestment of principal payments from the existing assets will be enough to monetize a large portion of the Federal deficit without having to increase the total size of the balance sheet. The Fed’s balance sheet is to the bond market as Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan was to society – a monarch beyond the capacity of its subjects to change. Apart from the obfuscation of words like “stocks and flows” coming from Brian Sack at the New York Fed and Ben Bernanke, there’s nothing hidden going on, it’s just a matter of math. The key fact is that while the Fed will not expand the balance sheet, they will not let it shrink either. Keeping the balance sheet unchanged means reinvesting the entire maturing principal on the existing assets. And when the assets are big enough, that reinvestment becomes enormous. This is what is behind the talk of “stocks and flows.” When the stock is large enough, it is the flow." Jim Rickards

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:36 | 1103448 Tyler Durden

Rickards' thesis would work if $1 trillion+ was with a maturity of 1 year or less. It isn't

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:29 | 1103600 Printfaster

Ummm, Tyler.

The over ten year entry, is not an asset. MBS is a writeoff. There is no asset there. It goes really bad if there is a rise in interest rates.

I am thinking that I agree with Ricards, in principle, not literally.

I also think that you have to look at the Fed balance sheet if it were liquidated, not mark to market. MTM is a fiction when you are the dominant holder. Kind of like those penny stocks where the float is 1% and the 99% owner wants to value his shares to market.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:33 | 1103615 Cthonic

Given that the estimated FY11 deficit (presuming the debt limit is raised) is around ~ $1.3T, can we estimate that the size of QE3 is going to be at least $500B and that they'll use this to buy the shorter end and later roll it out longer as interest rates rise (?)

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:42 | 1104116 Reese Bobby

A rise in interest rates should work out swell for the largest holder of UST's, that sports an implicit guarantee from lowly taxpayers. And higher rates would blow the doors off the whole Ponzi scheme in general, no?

Otherwise, a nice orderly plan...

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:31 | 1103430 Careless Whisper

"Other Assets"

correction: "Other Unaudited Assets"

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:38 | 1103455 jsavage

Other Assets: Loan to Goldman Sachs

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:28 | 1103974 tom a taxpayer

Likely suspects for the Fed's "Other Assets":

AIG IOUs.

1,000 windshield flyers good for 10% Off Interest on PayDay Loans.

Signed copy of Hank Paulson's book "1,000 Ways to Keep Taxpayers as Slaves Pickin' Cotton for Goldman Sachs".

10,000 Coupons for Dollar Store discounts on lipstick, toilet paper, and imported Chinese vaseline.

The original draft of Lloyd Blankfein's "The Selection and Care of Eunuchs - Three Case Studies: Ben, Timmy, and Dudley".

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:37 | 1103459 jimijon

Hasn't it been five days yet?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:41 | 1103469 Bansters-in-my-...

Holy Shit Batman.....
Thers a TERORIST in town.....!!!
Oh....Benny.....!
Where are you.....Zap Biff-Powww.!!!!!

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:51 | 1103498 Bansters-in-my-...

I see the Ferderal Reserve Corporation likes to anal fuck the citizens without lubricant.

And seems like not much wiggling to get away by most.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:50 | 1103502 b_thunder

It's nothing more than "Repo 105" from the "money-good" stress-tested, dividend-rising banks

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 15:54 | 1103514 LivermoreJim

The true face of socialism: if you don't feed me, buy me a house, give me a fair portion of another person's wealth -- I'll riot, destroy property, and maybe even kill ya.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:59 | 1103686 falak pema

that's a feudalist baron disguised in socialist clothes...But a lot of socialists are like that...starting with Stalin...Peron...you name it...but it is not socialism...it is human nature...wolf in sheep's clothing...doesn't mean sheep are wolves! Capito?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:05 | 1103535 Muir

I've got to read this slower and check out FRED.

(meanwhile enjoy the boobies)

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:08 | 1103548 Everybodys All ...

Isn't the Federal Reserve TARP bank data dump due out today?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:14 | 1103571 Amish Hacker

I'm a little confused by the "Premiums paid on securities bought" category. Were any of the toxic mortgages that made up the Fed's MBS purchases trading at a premium to face at the time? If not, it seems like there would have been no premiums to amortize.

I think the "missing" $80 billion ($120 billion?) represents the bid-ask spread on a trade that the too-big-to-jail banks were guaranteed to win. In other words, the Fed overpaid their friends by that amount.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:53 | 1103677 sgorem

I think Tyler and The Hedge are so fucking ahead of the "game" that the criminal government, the fraudulent Fed & Treasury, and the damn wall street carpetbaggers, will eventually try and shut this GREAT SITE down. I have never seen such an informational/researched/factual backed website as Zero Hedge. Thanks for the heads up on ALL the shit goin down, I've been preparing for quite awhile because of all you guys. God, Gold, and Guns.............

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 17:02 | 1103700 falak pema

You sound like you're heading for a crusade...the original Templar. You've seen the light...lol, amen to you...all Templars are fools in my book, deluding themselves about true light. But what the hell ...that's how the west was won...or so they say...

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:21 | 1104042 RedMeansGo

Very much agree. I have learned way more about the financial industry from this website than I ever did obtaining my degree in finance last year. My co-workers think I'm crazy for not using the company's 401 plan and instead buying physical gold and silver with my leftover income. The day of reckoning is coming, and I will bring them a coke when they are in line at the bank trying to get their money out.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 16:58 | 1103688 SwingForce

Its Bank Stocks.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 17:24 | 1103726 Infinite QE

A little known government fact is that the SETI organization is heavily involved in trying to solve the US debt issues. The true meaning of the acronym is Search for ExtraTerrestial INVESTORS.

Seems the boyz at the Fed knew a long time ago that the only hope for the USSA was to find alien lifeforms that they could send some of their bloodline, think Geithner, Paulson, Blankfein, to convince them what a great opportunity it would be to invest in Treasuries.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 22:47 | 1104458 Atomizer

I'm so relieved to finally make the SETI connection with UNOOSA. Your post was comedy gold. All we can do is laugh at them..

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 17:33 | 1103740 Bastiat

After finally watching "Inside Job" last night I'm totally convinced that whatever the Fed is doing, it's for our own good. I bought a copy on Amazon for $15 or so so I could lend it to as many people as possible. Even with the Academy Award not nearly enough people will see it without a prod.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 23:54 | 1104584 Reese Bobby

Any film that exposes Hank Paulson as a criminal blowhard hack is o.k. with me. And decent soundtrack...

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 17:38 | 1103749 AUD

"non-float-related as-of adjustments"?

Now that's financial engineering!

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 17:46 | 1103768 f16hoser

Tax payer money well spent. Glad to see the FED's and Treasury are responsible stewards of the "Peoples Money." I think, as a Republican, I will vote for Obama because he will hasten the end of Americas currency and we can reset the system sooner rather than later.

NOT!

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 17:49 | 1103777 prophet

Is some amount of prepayment activity driven by foreclosure processing?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 18:22 | 1103830 SayTabserb

I add my kudos to Zerohedge on another fine piece of analysis, one simply not found anywhere else on the web or the MSM. I note, sardonically, that Paul Krugman even blogged a note about the Fed's "laundering" of Treasury purchases through the Primary Dealers, although he had to do it in his usual irritating, overly-complicated way. Once he was forced to admit that the Treasury auctions aren't really the "free market" he likes to pretend they are, the Nobelist of course jumped immediately to the front of the parade. But the real work on this pt. has been done by ZH, not be these tag-along poseurs who shill for the Fed. That $80 billion in "Other Assets" is indeed interesting, and maybe Ron Paul can start digging to find out what's really going on. If this is part of the baksheesh the PD's are paid in order to play their part in the shell game, then this is a real find, hiding in plain sight. It's obvious the conspiracy between the Fed & the PDs is not based on the phases of the moon or any such signal; if the PDs are going to hold this low-return scrip, even for a little while, then the "premium paid" by the Fed must be making up the difference between the return they want and what they can get by providing laundry service. Keep up the great work, my worthies. You don't have to nail it the first time, every time; you're on the trail and it will force the truth to the surface.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 19:32 | 1103943 Seasmoke

they cannot hide it forever !

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 19:59 | 1103986 hubbywan

Call me naive. Why do we call them assets as all? They are debt vehicles created out of thin air. Their whole scheme is ponzi-fried. Correct te language and the argument becomes very clear.
If they are anyone's assets, they are the assets of the American citizens. And yet they are being used to enslave use and our offspring to the 4th and 5th generations.
Thank you.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 00:00 | 1104597 Reese Bobby

You are not naive. The "assets" just seem like book entries to calculate the interest the Fed banks steals from us lowly citizens...

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 18:40 | 1103858 bingaling

You want an an answer as to what those "other assets " are . My best guess would be Japanese bonds . They may even be shorting the yuan renmibi . But this is pure speculation. Maybe if you request the information via FOIA is your best bet. I guess Ron Paul has really not asked the hard questions yet ( I like the guy but sometimes he falls short ) .

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 19:13 | 1103921 Yen Cross

China 1.2t Japan 800m That is just change in the cash box.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 19:31 | 1103941 PulauHantu29

Excellent analysis. Expalins where the Bank Bonuses come from and clarifies the "stock market ralley."

How does the REPO market interact with all this. I am not entirely clear?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF11rk1M_Rw

I flunked Econ 101. Can someone explain this REPO aspect?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 21:00 | 1104175 Yen Cross

REPATRAITRIATION ASPECT> my love.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 19:41 | 1103959 A Man without Q...

Perhaps it's the S&P contracts they buy when Asia opens on Sunday evening? I don't know, but I have a feeling the game of propping up the S&P is played by someone who isn't concerned about losing money on the deal.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 19:50 | 1103970 LMAOLORI

Tyler what do you make of this?

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2011/03/emergency-unlimited-coverage-extended.html

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:08 | 1104014 Tyler Durden

Was first discussed here: A Broke FDIC Expands Checking Account Insurance From $250,000 To Infinity

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:51 | 1104146 Translational Lift

Sounds to me like someone is expecting the shit to hit the fan..........soon.....

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 21:00 | 1104143 Vuvuzela

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 20:55 | 1104160 Dollar Bill Hiccup

Uncle Ben buys EEEEESSSSSS !

Who woulda thunk it?

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 21:02 | 1104179 Yen Cross

I'm out time to travel.

Sat, 03/26/2011 - 23:03 | 1104502 Yen Cross

Market Makers?

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 00:37 | 1104654 plocequ1

Its so good to know there is an option.. MOVE. If one dosent like it, Move. My finances friend moved to Russia and loves it.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 01:11 | 1104695 Mr Lennon Hendrix

Ben is moving gold from "reserve" to "asset." The gold on reserve is priced at $35 per. When it changes books it is entered in at today's price. Then the loan is spun, and with the cash the Fed buys bank stocks, equity in semi-conductors, and even Chinese solars. My question is, how does Ben still get away claiming gold has nothing to do with his books, when his books rely on gold?

If you wake up at a different time and a different place, could you wake up as a different person?

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 02:45 | 1104853 davepowers

good catch

I'm pretty sure that if you run thru the full definition of 'other assets' you will arrive, at the end, with the phrase 'and other assets.'

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 04:21 | 1104908 pcrs

"Bernanke now owns nearly $200 billion more Treasurys than China"

A petty it says 'China' Why not make it consistent and say

"Ben no owns nearly $200 billion more Treasuries than Wen Jiabao"

or "Ben no owns nearly $200 billion more Treasuries than Zhou Xiaochuan" It is not that the tax slaves could get their hands on any of that money anyway. A piece of land does not own anything, so just name the names.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 09:15 | 1105111 boooyaaaah

That's a really good point

ZH personalizes the US central bank because it is more like fresh meat to the tigers of progressive socialism.

Scott Walker is also fresh meat to the new revolutionaries.Who will not abide freely won elections.

Why

Because they are right, they were born right.

I think they are all the same the Keynesian, the Progressive Socialist, the Unionist, The Fed,

All agree on one thing bleed the independamt wage earner

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 09:45 | 1105092 Cvillian

May I suggest putting this post at the top of home page in the special shaded box as a must-read?

I think many of the other stories we're seeing on the site nowadays (the non-natural disaster ones) are just symptoms of these activities, no?

Outstanding work and just another reason why I opt to read this instead of my "required" CFA text.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 10:07 | 1105181 Augustus

Federal Reserve profits of $81 billion turned over to the US Treasury.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-usa-fed-profits-idUSTRE72L6D320110322

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 11:00 | 1105245 sudzee

Maybe just a coincidence but we hear of derivitives floating around the world valued at 1,200,000,000,000,000. If one values supposed CB (800,000,000 toz )gold holdings at current price one would come up with possibly 1,200,000,000,000,000 USD. If CB supposed holdings are approx 1/6 of known gold mined, 150,000 tonnes, they are not in control. In an effort to control gold the CBs might have created derivitives ( paper gold ) in a number sufficiant to overwhelm the owners of the remaining 83% of physical gold. Maybe leverage of 9/1. If a run from fiat and all things paper happens and CBs need to cover the 9/1 short we could see a minimum of printing of 9x1,400x800,000,000 toz in fiat in the near future.

Then again maybe I'm finally loosing it and thinking gold is actually the antichrist of CB's.

Thu, 03/31/2011 - 18:59 | 1123227 Archibald Holbroke

the following article appeared on "the market oracle" web site - http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26444.html

Comments are in (( double brackets))

Fed New Accounting Change Means its Impossible for the Fed to go Bankrupt!

Politics / Central Banks

Feb 21, 2011 - 08:11 AM

By:

Robert_Murphy

On January 6, in the opening of its weekly H.4.1 release — which details changes to the Fed's holdings from the prior week — the

Fed announced

the following:

The Board's H.4.1 statistical release, "Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions and Condition Statement of Federal Reserve Banks," has been modified to reflect an accounting policy change ((this is the "new math")) that will result in a more transparent presentation of each Federal Reserve Bank's capital accounts (( if the banks are insolvent they have no reserve balances)) and distribution of residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury. Although the accounting policy change does not affect the amount of residual earnings that the Federal Reserve Banks distribute to the U.S. Treasury, it may affect the timing of the distributions. Consistent with long-standing policy of the Board of Governors, the residual earnings of each Federal Reserve Bank, after providing for the costs of operations, payment of dividends, and the amount necessary to equate surplus with capital paid-in, are distributed weekly to the U.S. Treasury. The distribution of residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury is made in accordance with the Board of Governor's authority to levy an interest charge on the Federal Reserve Banks based on the amount of each Federal Reserve Bank's outstanding Federal Reserve notes. ((so what if there are no earnings to distribute?))

Effective January 1, 2011, as a result of the accounting policy change, on a daily basis each Federal Reserve Bank will adjust the balance in its surplus account to equate surplus with capital paid-in and, in addition, will adjust its liability ((exactly how does one adjust a liability when it is insolvent?)) for the distribution of residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury. Previously these adjustments were made only at year-end. Adjusting the surplus account balance and the liability ((so what if the liability exceeds the surplus?)) for the distribution of residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury is consistent with the existing requirement for daily accrual of many other items that appear in the Board's H.4.1 statistical release. The liability for the distribution of residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury will be reported as "Interest on Federal Reserve notes due to U.S. Treasury" on table 10. Previously, the amount necessary to equate surplus with capital paid-in and the amount of the liability for the distribution of residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury were included in "Other capital accounts" in table 9 and in "Other capital" in table 10.

If the reader had the stamina to go through the entire statement above, he or she can understand why nobody thought much of it, at the time of the release. The Fed seemed to be saying that the rule change was no big deal, was perfectly consistent with the treatment given to other items, and that, if anything, it was a move promoting greater transparency of the Fed's operations.

It was not until later in the month that skeptical financial bloggers realized the implications of the rule change: the Fed was now impervious to bankruptcy, as a matter of accounting.

Bernanke Wanted to Focus on the Positive …

Here's a summary of the new situation from an

investment website

Here is how Bank of America's Priya Misra explains this curious, and most certainly politically-motivated development: "The Fed remits most of its net earnings on a weekly basis. Prior to this accounting change, any unremitted earnings due to the Treasury would accrue in the 'Other capital' account, but will now be shown in a separate liability line item called 'Interest on Federal Reserve notes due to the Treasury.' As a result, any future losses the Fed may incur will now show up as a negative liability (negative interest due to Treasury) as opposed to a reduction in Fed capital, thereby making a negative capital situation technically impossible regardless of the size of the Fed's balance sheet or how the FOMC chooses to tighten policy." (emphasis in original) ((a negative liability must by definition be an asset because a liability is a negative and a negative times a negative is a positive, hence a negative liability must be a positive or equal to an asset))

Well now, that's rather a different flavor from the Fed's original statement, isn't it? To see how the two are consistent, let's look again at the critical passages from the Fed's announcement:

[E]ach Federal Reserve Bank will adjust the balance in its surplus account to equate surplus with capital paid-in and, in addition, will adjust its liability for the distribution of residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury. … The liability for the distribution of residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury will be reported as "Interest on Federal Reserve notes due to U.S. Treasury" on table 10. Previously, the amount necessary to equate surplus with capital paid-in and the amount of the liability for the distribution of residual earnings to the U.S. Treasury were included in "Other capital accounts" in table 9 and in "Other capital" in table 10.

The trick is that the Fed led the reader to assume that "the balance in its surplus account" would be positive. (( now this is where the rubber meets the road - a trick)) In other words, the Fed was dealing with the standard case where its assets grow over time (because of interest earnings on its bonds, etc.). That would lead the left-hand side of the balance sheet (i.e., the "Assets") to grow, and so something on the right-hand side of the balance sheet (i.e., "Liabilities and Capital") would need to grow by the same amount.

Prior to the announcement, the immediate move would be to mark up an increase on the "Assets" side with a corresponding credit to the "Capital" (or "Shareholder Equity") items on the right-hand side. But now, the Fed is saying that when its assets appreciate, it won't credit the capital accounts. ((and that would hide the fact that the new "assets" are now liabilities that do not belong in the capital account anyway)) Instead, it will make the right-hand side of the balance sheet go up by entering a new liability, titled (paraphrasing) "Earnings We Need to Send to the Treasury." ((these "earnings" cannot be sent to the Treasury if they are really liabilities in disguise, thus the Fed may need to send them but can't))

(To understand the big picture, keep in mind that after the Fed pays its bills, any excess earnings are remitted to the Treasury. As I argued in

this piece

, that mechanism means that Uncle Sam effectively pays no interest on those bonds held by the Federal Reserve.)

Denial Is Normal after a Traumatic Loss

Ah, but as Bank of America's Misra pointed out, the real fun happens when the Fed suffers losses on its assets. (( I think we get traction here)) In normal accounting, when the market value of a company's assets goes down, the firm marks down its "Assets" (left-hand side of the balance sheet) and correspondingly marks down its "Capital" by the same amount (right-hand side of the balance sheet).

The danger is that if a firm loses too much, then it might wipe out all of its capital. At that point, the firm would be insolvent, because its remaining "Assets" would be smaller than its "Liabilities." Remember the basic accounting truism: (( by definition all banks are insolvent because of the fractional reserve basis upon which they function, thus if the reserves completely disappear they have nothing at the Fed from which to cover their liabilities. So how does the FED credit them with reserves to keep them solvent? By counting losses as negative liabilities and as "assets" on its own balance sheet and giving them reserves in exchange, thus printing money against losses???))

Assets = Liabilities + Capital (or Equity)

If the company ((or country?)) suffers such large losses that its "Capital" (or "Equity") becomes negative, that is simply another way of saying that the company owes people more money (i.e., its liabilities) than it has in assets. (( man if that don't sound like Uncle Sam and the rest of the worldwide banking scam I don't know what does.)) That is the

definition of insolvency

, and unless the situation is rectified the firm will eventually default on its obligations and go bankrupt. (( I think the FED would have become bankrupt without this new accounting trick.))

((I am not sure if this is relative or not, but I thought it might merrit some consideration.))

Sat, 08/13/2011 - 06:19 | 1556818 juyitrade3