mr, this is a good site to keep track of the discount window, not that I think it tells the full story.
http://www.gmtfo.com/RepoReader/OMOps.aspx
As has already been pointed out here by another poster, despite the fed making a big deal of its repo operations on Thursday usa time, in fact they retreived 1.5 bill more than they injected cos there were more maturing short term loans on that date than new ones issued. Some have said that this means the fed announcemnt was all just a publicity stunt to calm the market. I'm not so sure. I think they key question is: how much would they have normally injected on that date? These are short term liquidity injections after all, and there had been a big boost previously so normally they would have kept those maturities and loaned out a more limited amount if all was well in the system. In fact on Thursday last, there was a staggering $262.6 billion requested by the banks, of which the fed 'only' supplied $41 billion on the day. Nonetheless, as can be seen from the 'Totals submitted' and 'totals accepted' columns, both these amounts were well outside the normal daily range. I'm wondering if the most pertinent question is - what did the banks do about the $221b emergency assistance that they requested from the fed and did not receive? Thats a staggering amount of money in any banking system.
As for the question of who owns the stocks that are bought with PPT money, one assumed that the private banks such as the goldmans are the owners of the stocks and credit market derivatives that are bought. I imagine the deal goes some thing like this: the fed will supply the money as new money (possibly as a cheap loan), the banks use that money, are the owners of the stocks or whatever, and they buy in the confidence that the fed will bail them out if those 'market support' operations go pear shaped. Banks after all have a greater capacity to 'store' bad debt and losses than any non banking institution, largely because of their exclusive relationship with the fed.
From the feds perspective, these liquidity injections are intended to be short term but if their banking proxies are unable to sell again at a profit or breakeven, then I imagine the fed then has to write them off. I think the term might be 'monetarise' them. Given that its usd that the fed has printed for the rescue, its no great hardship for them although the effects on global liquidity, inflation, cost of living etc in usa is huge.
Its this point about the fed injections of liquidity that lead me to say that the only beneficiaries are wall st: the extra money bails out wall st in the short term but the cost is borne by the nonwall st economy. That it, ordinary people and business who pay more for fuel, food, etc etc... and now will find it harder and harder to buy a home as well. The feds liquidity injections are in effect a huge transfer of wealth from the nonbank businesses and ordinary people, to the banks.
bbankie would probably respond by saying whats good for the banks is good for the rest of society as well.. the trickle down effect where if the rich get richer then more crumbs from the table fall to the rest of us. Every study I've ever read on the trickle down effect says that its a nice fiction.. a figleaf to cover the transfer of wealth. cheers!
(20min delay)