http://www.bloomberg.com/…

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, seeking to allay renewed concerns over the health of the nation’s financial system, said the central bank may extend its emergency-loan program for investment banks into next year.

“The Federal Reserve is strongly committed” to financial stability and is “considering several options, including extending the duration of our facilities for primary dealers beyond year-end,” Bernanke said in a speech to a conference in Arlington, Virginia.

Woot! More inflation!

Bernanke also endorsed proposals to set up a federal liquidation process for a failing investment bank. The Treasury should “take a leading role in any such process” in consultation with regulators, he said. Such a resolution mechanism may help reduce concern that investors and dealers begin counting on Fed aid in case their bets go wrong.

So like enforcing the current bankruptcy laws? I somehow doubt it.

Fed officials are working with the Securities and Exchange Commission and securities dealers “to increase the firms’ capital and liquidity buffers,” Bernanke said.

More inflation!!

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon told the same conference that he supported Fed and Treasury proposals for “policies, because of what happened, to take proper action if a large investment bank goes bankrupt.”

Of course he does. He, and the rest of Wall St., directly benefit from this intervention and inflation.

Without any liquidation procedure in place, the Fed in March decided to make a bridge loan to keep Bear Stearns out of bankruptcy. The central bank then agreed to take on $30 billion of hard-to-trade Bear Stearns assets to help secure its takeover by JPMorgan.

“The Federal Reserve in essence bought $30 billion of mortgage product from Bear Stearns; I want to remind people we bought $350 billion,” Dimon said today. “We don’t really think” the deal will end up costing taxpayers money, he also said.

I do. Anyone with a cursory understanding of economics could see that taxpayers will be both directly and indirectly paying for this. The indirect in terms of all the likely new regulations and powers the Fed will get on top of the inflation that will continue to destroy the middle class and poor are likely the greatest costs.

Congress should legislate “consolidated supervision” of investment banks and other big securities firms, with the unspecified regulator having authority over capital, liquidity holdings and risk management, Bernanke also said today.

The Fed should also get “explicit oversight authority” over payment and settlement systems, putting the it on a par with counterparts from around the world, Bernanke said.

U.S. central bankers will already play a part in setting capital cushions at securities firms under an agreement yesterday with the SEC. The two agencies will collaborate in determining “guidelines or rules concerning the capital, liquidity and funding” arrangements of investment banks, the accord said.

Because obviously planned economies have worked so damn well. They function like clockwork everywhere they have greater control. Right Ben?

Gabor Steingart reports from the Spiegel’s Washington DC bureau:

Humiliation for Mr. Dollar: Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Bank, faces a general investigation by the International Monetary Fund. Just one more example of the Fed losing its power.

The United States Federal Reserve Bank, or Fed, seems as much a part of America as Coca-Cola or Pizza Hut. But at least one difference has become apparent in recent days. While the pizza chain and soft-drink maker are likely to expand their scope of influence in the age of globalization, the US central bank is finding that its power is shrinking.

[snip parts explaining the doom and gloom of the current financial situation]

Under its bylaws, the IMF is charged with the supervision of the international monetary system. Roughly two-thirds of IMF members — but never the United States — have already endured this painful procedure.

For seven years, US President George W. Bush refused to allow the IMF to conduct its assessment. Even now, he has only given the IMF board his consent under one important condition. The review can begin in Bush’s last year in office, but it may not be completed until he has left the White House. This is bad news for the Fed chairman.

When the final report on the risks of the US financial system is released in 2010 — and it is likely to cause a stir internationally — only one of the people in positions of responsiblity today will still be in office: Ben Bernanke.

<sarcasm>Poor Ben.</sarcasm>  Reaction to the this article can be found on The Age (an Australian news website).  Liberty Maven discusses the dilemma in which the IMF puts Ron Paul supporters:

We are against the IMF and federal style regulation over markets at all levels, yet we painfully yearn for more transparency from the Federal Reserve. If we aren’t yearning for more transparency from the Fed we are advocating abolishing it outright.

So the question is then, do we support the IMF investigating the hated Federal Reserve because it conveniently supports our anti-Fed sentiments? Or are we truly and purely against the IMF and it’s authority to perform such investigations?

http://www.forbes.com/…

Remember when Ben Bernanke was a fan of a more transparent Fed, with bright lines on where inflation should be and how to get there?

“Inflation-targeting countries have achieved lower inflation rates and lower inflation expectation,” he wrote in his 1999 book Inflation Targeting: Lessons from the International Experience. “There is also evidence that the use of inflation targeting increases public understanding of monetary policy, improves policy-maker accountability, and provides a discipline-enhancing ‘nominal anchor’ for monetary policy.” In 2003 Bernanke said targeting in the 2% range seemed “the optimal long-run average inflation rate” for the U.S.

But since taking office, you’ll hear no such comments from the chairman. The reason? Reality. While the European Central bank’s primary concern is controlling inflation, the American Federal Reserve has the dual responsibility of maintaining both price stability and employment, making Bernanke’s job a tough one.

No one ever seems to look at those goals and ask why price stability is important and how exactly does what the Federal Reserve do which effects employment.

Read More…

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=755108158

Notice the dead air after Eeden lays the first accusation out. It’s sad they actually believe the Fed’s stats.

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/…

The U.S. Federal Reserve got even more deeply involved in the credit crisis on Friday by offering more loans to the banks through two of its newly established “facilities.”The Fed has become the mother of all credit exiles, accepting Wall Street’s over-valued, under-performing, dead-beat loans. At least that is what it’s done in a metaphorical sense. What did it do practically?

First the Fed increased by US$25 billion the amount of money it will auction to banks (commercial and investment) through its Term Auction Facility (TAF). Here banker people, borrow more. Please.

Second, the Fed expanded the list of collateral it will accept for asset-swapping through its Term Securities Lending (Facility). Remember, that’s the one that lets banks and prime brokers swap mortgage-backed securities for Treasury bonds for up to 28-days.

The Fed is now expanding that list of asset-backed securities to include collateralized car loans, credit card receivables, and student loans. It’s doing so because the lack of demand for bonds backed by those assets has had a real political impact in an election year. Students can’t get loans for American universities because investors won’t buy bonds issued by the banks who made the loans to the students. No funding, no college.

We don’t know if you are as agitated reading about the Fed loan programs as we are writing about them. It’s pretty agitating. You have to translate what the Fed has done from Central Bank speak to what it really means.

What it really means is that that the Fed has lowered interest rates as far as it can to deal with the bank lending crisis. It still hasn’t encouraged banks to loan to each other, or investors to buy bonds backed by various kinds of consumer liabilities. But it HAS had some effects.

Remember last week we said the interest rate on U.S. Treasury bonds is below the rate of inflation? Well, American real estate speculator Sam Zell says this has lured some investors back into the market for residential mortgage-backed securities. “Is it in large volumes? No. Is it the natural first step in the evolution? Yes.”

The evolution of what? New credit markets? A credit market where the Fed trashes the yield on U.S. government debt in order to make the yield on mortgage-backed debt look less trashy? One asset might look less trashy in a side-by-side comparison. But for investors, isn’t this like choosing which leper you’d like to take home and introduce to your mother?

Our take is this: the Fed has probably stopped cutting rates for awhile because it’s apparent that cutting rates has not solved the problem in the credit markets. That problem is still the same: poor asset quality. But even on that score, not everyone agrees.

This is really, really pathetic. Sounds a bit like what happened to Japan doesn’t it?