Fed to lend to companies in emergency move

advertisement

Frantically trying to stop the bleeding on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve took a first-time step Tuesday to get cash directly to businesses and hinted that interest rates could come down soon. Stocks continued their free fall anyway and hit new five-year lows.

The central bank invoked emergency powers to lend money to companies outside the financial sector and buy up mounds of commercial paper, the short-term debt that firms use to pay for everyday expenses like salaries and supplies.

The Fed, which has only loaned money to banks before, made the move as the gravest financial crisis in decades wore on and concern spread around the world.

In a speech to the National Association for Business Economics, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke delivered a strong signal interest rates may need to be cut. And he warned the country could be stuck in the economic doldrums for some time.

"The outlook for economic growth has worsened," Bernanke said. "The heightened financial turmoil that we have experienced of late may well lengthen the period of weak economic performance."

The gloomy assessment appeared to open the door wider to an interest rate cut on or before the Fed convenes again Oct. 28. The Fed's key interest rate now stands at 2 percent.

Wall Street turned its back. The Dow Jones industrials lost 508 points, more than 5 percent, to close at 9,447, the lowest since Sept. 30, 2003. The Standard & Poor's 500, a broader stock index, closed below 1,000 for the first time since that same day.

President Bush again sought to strike a reassuring tone and said the nation would make it through an economy blighted by job losses, record foreclosures and shriveled retirement savings. Congress' top budget analyst estimated Tuesday that Americans' retirement plans have lost as much as $2 trillion in 15 months.

"Have faith, this economy is going to recover over time," the president said in a speech in Virginia. "I wish I could snap my fingers and make what happened stop. But that's not the way it works."

Bush reached out to European leaders earlier Tuesday to urge coordination on efforts to solve the crisis. The White House said Bush was open to the idea of a summit.

The contagion has spread overseas. Britain's chief financial regulator was readying a statement to make before markets opened Wednesday, and the BBC reported that the British government was poised to announce a rescue package for the banking system there.

Concerns are mounting that a global recession is developing, and pressure is growing on the U.S. government to do something beyond the $700 billion financial bailout package that Bush signed into law Friday.

To that end, the Fed announced it would begin buying companies' short-term debt. The powers were bestowed during the Depression as part of the Federal Reserve Act.

The government's bailout package is aimed at thawing lending by buying bad mortgage-related debt off the books of troubled financial institutions. The idea is that the banks would then be in a better position to lend and get the economy moving.

Commercial paper borrowing usually ranges from overnight to less than a week. But in the current climate of mistrust, the market has dried up considerably.

The action makes the Fed a crucial source of credit for nonfinancial businesses in addition to commercial banks and investment firms — and also exposes it to risk because so much of the debt would not be backed by collateral.

Credit markets, clenched up for weeks now, relaxed somewhat after the Fed's move.

The Fed said it was creating a new entity to buy two types of short-term debt, known as three-month unsecured and asset-backed commercial paper, directly from eligible companies. It hopes to have the program up and running soon, Fed officials said.

Fed officials said they would buy as much of the debt as necessary to get the market functioning again but refused to say how much that might be. They noted that around $1.3 trillion worth of commercial paper would qualify.

The Treasury Department, which worked with the Fed on the program, said the action was "necessary to prevent substantial disruptions to the financial markets and the economy."

The Treasury will provide money to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to support the new program, the Fed said. The money would be separate from the $700 billion financial bailout package.

The Fed said it planned to stop buying the short-term debt on April 30 but may extend the program.

There was $1.6 trillion in outstanding commercial paper, seasonally adjusted, on the market as of last week, the most recent data from the Fed. The market has shrunk from $2.2 trillion last summer.

___

Associated Press writers Madlen Read and Tim Paradis in New York and Ben Feller in Washington contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS New throughout; corrects amount of outstanding commercial paper. Moving on general news and financial services. AP Video.)

  • 5 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
7.6
1.5
{"commentId":3233917,"authorDomain":"alec5649"}

Sure. Give more business welfare, er, tax cuts. That'll sure solve the problem. Is anybody paying attention?

{"commentId":3233917,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"alec5649"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:12 PM EDT
{"commentId":3234070,"authorDomain":"paulpeg1"}

There ya go, more tax breaks for business! Use tax payers money to bail out, er rescue business and throw them tax cuts as a perk!

Last time I checked I didn`t have near a 100,000 in the bank let alone 250,000, but I will bet most congress people do. Nice job of protecting our (your) money!

LOL McCain call it a rescue, almost as funny as him being a change candidate.

{"commentId":3234070,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"paulpeg1"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:25 PM EDT
{"commentId":3234369,"authorDomain":"davemitchell59"}

Is the part of the tax cut you will get considered welfare too?

Now if the whole lot of them can cut the pork and trim the fat, maybe it will all come together.

Problem is that McCain is the only one willing to veto pork and cut spending. Obama wants to spend, and tax, more.

Seems like the choice is obvious now that the Senate has set sail the rescue boat.

McCain-Palin '08

{"commentId":3234369,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"davemitchell59"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:51 PM EDT
{"commentId":3254299,"authorDomain":"alec5649"}

"Obama wants to spend, and tax, more."

I don't understand.  Wasn't it Milton Friedman who equated spending with a tax increase?  Democrats want to spend and try to pay for it now, albeit by increasing tax revenues.  Republicans want to spend, but prefer to borrow the money, pay interest, and pass the increasingly monstrous national debt to our progeny.

If you subtract the debt incurred by conservative Republicans, i.e. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, our finances would be in tip top shape and we would not be indentured to the Chinese.

It's really a choice between tax and spend versus borrow and spend.  The Republicans have been the biggest spenders of all.  They just like to rail at the Democrats because they use the tax straw man to disingenuously portray themselves as frugal when the only real difference is one of priorities.

The Republicans have always been about the sanctity of property rights.  The Democrats have respected those rights, but have tried to balance that with a dose of human compassion as well.

BTW, without a line item veto, "vetoing pork" just means that Congress will come to a standstill and the government will be frozen.  Even the military appropriations comes with slabs of pork attached.  It's always a Hobson's choice, regardless of who the President is.

{"commentId":3254299,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"alec5649"}
  • 2 votes
#3.1 - Thu Oct 2, 2008 1:07 AM EDT
{"commentId":3304471,"authorDomain":"alec5649"}

Yeah, McCain sure vetoed pork when he voted for the revised bailout bill.Now I don't fault him for this.  Congressmen are routinely faced with a choice between voting for bills the nation desperately needs even though there are earmarks (usually because without them there weren't enough votes), or standing on principle at the cost of meeting the nations needs.McCain has voted for pork before for the same reason he did so today.  All Congressmen do.  But if he means what he says about vetoing ANY bill containing earmarks, it's going to be a long time before much of value gets through Congress under a McCain administration.Of course, there is also the other possibility.  The wheels may have come off the straight talk express.  Did you notice, as I did, that while he was attacking Obama's earmarks, and Obama happened to mention that his earmarks included such things as day care centers and medical facilities (no bridges to nowhere in Illinois), McCain just talked right over him?In fact, if McCain hasn't fought to get necessary appropriations for the special needs of Arizona over the years, then he really doesn't deserve to represent that state.  But, of course, we all know that that's not true, either.The bottom line is that McCain wants to talk about every bullet point that doesn't relate to the past eight years or that concerns the next four years, other than to assure us that "change us coming."  Well, he's right about that.  I hope that he votes for the change in the Senate.

{"commentId":3304471,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"alec5649"}
  • 1 vote
#3.2 - Sat Oct 4, 2008 12:53 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":3234419,"authorDomain":"paulpeg1"}

Actually McCain doesn`t cut the pork, just changes the labels.

{"commentId":3234419,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"paulpeg1"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:56 PM EDT
{"commentId":3254304,"authorDomain":"alec5649"}

One politician's pork is another politician's bacon.

{"commentId":3254304,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"alec5649"}
  • 1 vote
#4.1 - Thu Oct 2, 2008 1:07 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":3235114,"authorDomain":"mcrutchfield"}

The Senate measure will graft the bailout language to a tax bill it approved last week, on a 93-2 vote. It includes: a provision to prevent more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from feeling the bite of the alternative minimum tax, $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana and some $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extensions of expiring tax breaks.

In a compromise worked out with Republicans, the bill does not pay for the AMT and disaster provisions but does have revenue offsets for part of the energy and extension measures.

These BASTARDS! So it's not $700 Billion in new debt, it's already closer to A TRILLION!!!

"Americans are frightened right now" and political leaders must give them an immediate solution and a longer-term approach to the problem.

Right. SOME Americans are frightened, and mostly because your president TOLD them to be.
Now, about that "longer-term approach"...

{"commentId":3235114,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"mcrutchfield"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#5 - Wed Oct 1, 2008 12:13 AM EDT
{"commentId":3235332,"authorDomain":"blueboy"}

Sigh,

Just when I thought the world was looking up a few months back. It looks like the world is no different than it was 100 years ago.

This is proof we are all controlled by the big corporate companies. You think the politicians are in control ? This is the proof that they are just the pawn of the big businesses.

{"commentId":3235332,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"blueboy"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#6 - Wed Oct 1, 2008 12:49 AM EDT
{"commentId":3235427,"authorDomain":"blerten"}

Selfishly, I will be glad if the bill includes another extension of jobless benefits. My wife has been trying hard to find a job for, gulp, almost two years. It's been a rough road;-(

{"commentId":3235427,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"blerten"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#7 - Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:00 AM EDT
{"commentId":3254308,"authorDomain":"alec5649"}

If she's been looking long enough, she doesn't even count in the unemployment statistics anymore.

{"commentId":3254308,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"alec5649"}
  • 1 vote
#7.1 - Thu Oct 2, 2008 1:08 AM EDT
{"commentId":3304708,"authorDomain":"blerten"}

I know, but at my household, 50 pct. unemployment (OK, 75 percent if you count the cats, but their main job is helping keep my frustrated wife sane, so maybe we're down to 25 pct.?) isn't cutting it after two years;-/

{"commentId":3304708,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"blerten"}
    #7.2 - Sat Oct 4, 2008 1:27 AM EDT
    Reply
    {"commentId":3235480,"authorDomain":"agentil"}

    So where is the homeowner bailout? That is really what stalled this bill in the first place. WHY won't they give the bankruptcy judges the power to rewrite the mortgages so people can stay in their homes? I'm not saying give people free money, but give them a 40 year loan instead of a 30 year, or add a balloon payment 10 years down the road when they have more of a chance of becoming solvent or selling the property in a fair market. That just seems like common sense. We don't want a bunch of homes sitting empty and people living on the street who need to be supported.

    Here's my idea. Why not take the homes that are already vacant and give them to homeowners who have lost their homes in disaster areas. Not give them outright, but have them trade their damaged property and take on a mortgage at a reduced rate. Then save our money by NOT rebuilding in the flooded areas. New Orleans is BELOW sea level - we weren't meant to build houses there - give it up already. Parts of Galveston too. That will save billions in spending on schools, roads, etc. Just tear the damaged houses down and let it go back to wetlands.

    Adrian, Salt Lake

    {"commentId":3235480,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"agentil"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#8 - Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:07 AM EDT
    {"commentId":3236934,"authorDomain":"davemitchell59"}
    So where is the homeowner bailout? That is really what stalled this bill in the first place. WHY won't they give the bankruptcy judges the power to rewrite the mortgages so people can stay in their homes?

    Slippery slope when the judicial branch is given the blank check and ability to legislate. Plus, a lot of these people are overextended. They need to realize that and get on with their life is a smaller house.

    The problem with your idea is that these homes are spread out all over the country. Galveston residents aren't going to want to move the the cold and snowy heartland. They live in TX, on the coast, for a reason. They know the risks and choose to live their anyway. It's their choice. One of the great things about the U.S. Plus, could you imagine the government spending to facilitate such a plan. You know that Nancy and her band of thieves would want a cut of that action.

    This isn't just a housing issue. It's a credit issue as much as anything. Banks aren't moving money around because they aren't confident that they'll get it back. Not only don't they want to give it to John Q Public for a house, car, boat, etc. They don't want to give to 1st National Bank of Smalltown USA either. Money has to move to do anything, even if it's just between banks, and it's just not happening.

    {"commentId":3236934,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"davemitchell59"}
    • 1 vote
    #8.1 - Wed Oct 1, 2008 7:47 AM EDT
    Reply
    {"commentId":3254353,"authorDomain":"alec5649"}

    "Slippery slope when the judicial branch is given the blank check and ability to legislate. "

    This is hardly the beginning of a slippery slope.  Bankruptcy judges are already empowered to rewrite mortgage terms for second, third and other additional residences.  Folks like Sen. McCain will always be able to avail themselves of this right should their circumstances ever become so dire that such actions are necessary.  The only limitation on bankruptcy judges is for owner occupied residences.  Again, the 90% of us who live in the real world get it in the neck.  I guess that when the financial industry lobbied for this limitation, they wanted to be sure that it would never affect people like themselves.  Just the poor saps who were being enticed to buy things that they couldn't afford with promises that housing always goes up and that the eventual payment would be easy to pay out of the equity that they would rapidly accumulate.

    {"commentId":3254353,"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423","authorDomain":"alec5649"}
    • 2 votes
    Reply#9 - Thu Oct 2, 2008 1:14 AM EDT
    {"canLink":false,"threadId":"374255","isPrivate":false}
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    {"threadId":"374255","contentId":"1937423"}
    Start TrackingStart Tracking
    Stop TrackingStop Tracking