Take a peek at these two charts released from the FED today and tell me what you see.

ok that didnt work out so well... not trying to annoy..

just trying to understand...

i changed the date range on the link that Omega provided to one year ago roughly 2007 april ist...

trying to compare

Omega, posted this the other day on paladins thread. In case you missed it:

US Government Facing Fiscal Armageddon- US Dollar in Deep Trouble

[link to www.marketoracle.co.uk]

if all of these loans are to be paid back in 30 60 90 etc days , Where are the banks going to generate enough income?

if all of these loans are to be paid back in 30 60 90 etc days , Where are the banks going to generate enough income?



Good point, and the bottom line is-they can't.....

The FED is taking subprime, alt a, credit card and auto loans tranches as Collateral.

They are assuming the risk and giving out money like candy in a desperate attempt to stop the bleeding. It's all they can really do, the result is what you see in the charts I posted.




It ain't gonna work


Think Wiemar Germany.

I was thinking that was just so violent a spike that there had to be something about it, searched this down, maybe explains it?

Non-Borrowed Reserves: False Alarm
A number of people on Wall Street have noticed a recent plunge in non-borrowed reserves in the banking system and wondered it is a sign of distress in the banking system or of unusually stringent monetary policy. They dropped from $42 billion last November to negative $2 billion at the end of January.

It’s probably a false alarm, though. The drop is purely technical, a function of how the Fed has chosen to classify the money lent through its new Term Auction Facility.

Some background. All banks are required to hold some reserves in the form of either cash on deposit at the Fed or currency in their vaults. The Fed manages interest rates by increasing or decreasing these reserves. The Fed ordinarily does this through open market operations: It buys, usually temporarily, Treasury bonds and bills from dealers, and the funds get deposited in the dealers’ bank accounts at the Fed. That causes reserves to go up. Banks usually lend out anything in excess of their requirements, putting downward pressure on the federal-funds rate. Banks also obtain reserves by borrowing at the discount window, which often occurs if they fall short of their regulatory requirement.

According to economic theory, the Fed can target either the price (interest rate) or the quantity of reserves, but not both. Back when the Fed hated to admit it controlled interest rates, it targeted reserves. Since the amount banks borrowed from the discount window was somewhat beyond their control, they focused on reserves minus discount window borrowings, or “non-borrowed reserves.” In 1990, the Fed began to explicitly target the federal funds rate in one of its most important and least appreciated moves towards greater transparency. Since discount window loans were usually pretty small, total reserves and non-borrowed reserves were pretty close.

Last December, the Fed concluded that open market operations weren’t providing relief to some quarters of the interbank funding market and introduced the TAF. Like open market operations, the TAF enabled the Fed to lend a predetermined amount of funds to the banking system, with the interest rate at which they were lent determined through an auction process. But like the discount window, the money was lent directly to banks rather than primary dealers, and against a wide range of collateral rather than just Treasurys and agency securities. The TAF didn’t add to the money supply because for each dollar lent through the TAF the Fed was careful to liquidate a dollar of its holdings of Treasury bills and bonds to keep its overall balance sheet unchanged. But because the TAF is essentially discount window credit, the Fed decided to classify it as borrowed reserves.

As Michael Feroli of J.P. Morgan Chase explains, “Defining TAF funds as borrowed reserves is mostly a legal technicality that has allowed the Fed to be more creative in how they enter liquidity into the banking system. Economically, reserves created by repo operations (non-borrowed reserves) and those created by the TAF (borrowed reserves) are both funds lent by the Fed to the public against collateral.”

As it happens, in the last week of January TAF credit reached $50 billion. The amount of bank reserves the same week was only $48 billion. So, by definition, nonborrowed reserves, the difference, fell to negative $2 billion.

Mr. Feroli says: “The banking system is holding excess reserves — total reserves less those legally required — of between $1 to $2 billion,” roughly the “normal range seen over the last ten years… .The banking system certainly has its problems, however the notion that the recent data point to banks have trouble maintaining reserves stems from a superficial reading of the Fed’s statistical reports.” –Greg Ip

[link to blogs.wsj.com]

LOL. My old friend....

Of course JP Morgan is gonna step up to the plate and try and jawbone their way outta it. They ain't stupid. This concerns the psychology of crowds, the little guy believes the major banks are in trouble and you'll have good ole fashioned bank runs, ala Northern Rocks in the UK.

Can't have major banks runs in the US, we got guns man....

I stand by my position. The charts don't lie. US banks are INSOLVENT.

I have about 16,000 in a retirement account. Should I withdraw all of it? I'm wondering how much taxes would come out of it. I'll be 70 yrs old in Sept.

Anyone know or can give advise?

Thanks

LOL. My old friend....

Of course JP Morgan is gonna step up to the plate and try and jawbone their way outta it. They ain't stupid. This concerns the psychology of crowds, the little guy believes the major banks are in trouble and you'll have good ole fashioned bank runs, ala Northern Rocks in the UK.

Can't have major banks runs in the US, we got guns man....

I stand by my position. The charts don't lie. US banks are INSOLVENT.

Hmmmm....makes me wonder why the dumbass fed would even put something like that out if if there was just basically a renaming of data, why wouldn't they just make a notation then and keep the stats steady?....if they were.......

It's all over but the crying folks. US banks are INSOLVENT. The Feds are backstopping them to prevent the end of the fucking world as you know it.


The boys over at the ticker tape forum are having a field day with this one.

It's all over but the crying folks. US banks are INSOLVENT. The Feds are backstopping them to prevent the end of the fucking world as you know it.



The boys over at the ticker tape forum are having a field day with this one.

It's all over but the crying folks. US banks are INSOLVENT. The Feds are backstopping them to prevent the end of the fucking world as you know it.


The boys over at the ticker tape forum are having a field day with this one.


You're one stupid hill billy fuckhead. Using your one chart explains the world logic, here's one for you from the same website.

[link to research.stlouisfed.org]

Notice how GNP is CONTINUING it's UPWARDS curve. Gee, assclown, I guess everything is fine then, isn't it?

It's all over but the crying folks. US banks are INSOLVENT. The Feds are backstopping them to prevent the end of the fucking world as you know it.


The boys over at the ticker tape forum are having a field day with this one.


You're one stupid hill billy fuckhead. Using your one chart explains the world logic, here's one for you from the same website.

[link to research.stlouisfed.org]

Notice how GNP is CONTINUING it's UPWARDS curve. Gee, assclown, I guess everything is fine then, isn't it?

Tell us something we don't know. Fool. I thought you didn't educate for free. Idiot. Oh, that's right you're not educating, you're pointing out the obvious. Prick.