Quote:
Originally Posted by yads
The federal reserve banks are not the same as the Federal Reserve board of governors. They act as central banks for the regions in the country. The banks that own stock in them cannot sell them nor do they get to control said federal reserve banks. They do, however, get to elect 6 of 9 governors. Their profits are not taxed, because I'm guessing due to the Federal Reserve act their profits belong to the US government. Doesn't make sense to tax your self. Are the IRS profits taxed?
As for your quotes from the audit statement. Do you purposefully omit sections to make your argument? Right above the line you quoted it says:
So while they didn't audit the internal controls over the Fed's reporting they were required to "obtain reasonable assurance" that the numbers they were given were not fabricated.
As for the accounting practices being different. Read Note 4.
The only thing that stands out is due to some elements of the FAM. Management has to make certain estimates/assumptions. They do however amend the numbers in next year's report once the numbers become available.
Furthermore, the US Fed does not print money. That's what the US Treasury does. They do however, buy/sell US T-bills on the open market and hold these types of securities. That's one of the tools they have to set the monetary policy of the country.
|
so you've conceded that the federal reserve is a private corporation?
sure, the treasury prints the money, but only at the request of the fed. so really, what's the difference? the fed controls the printing of money, plain and simple.
so what is a 'reasonable assurance'? is it bernanke saying "yes, those numbers are real". if an auditor cannot verify the numbers, there is something to hide. how can you take an audit seriously if estimates & assumptions are being provided by the fed, and the auditor has to take them as fact. would this really pass in any other business audit?