The San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank spent originally in "original investment" for a building $520,785, spent $232,895 for "remodeling," spent $448,776 for "new building" operations, making a total cost to September 30, 1921, of $1,202,456 and then "charged off" for "depreciation allowance" $530,795, so that after spending $681,671 on "remodeling" and new buildings on an original purchase of $520,785, it emerges with a value of but $671,661! Or in other words, after spending $681,671 on a $520,785 purchase it claims the gross value to be but $671,661, or but $150,876 more than the original purchase! Or in other words, it got but $150,876 of value for an expenditure of $681,671! Does San Francisco real estate depreciate as fast as that, or are Federal Reserve business oligarchs futile wastrels, or is this method of accountancy just a camouflage? Figure it out for yourself.
The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank made an "original investment" in building of $1,311,197, spent $560 on "remodeling" and "charged off" $685,000 for "depreciation allowance," emerging with a value of $626,575 for an expenditure of $1,311,757! Another case of swift shrinkage in value or wastrelcy in expenditure or camouflage in accountancy. Figure it to suit yourself.
The New York Federal Reserve Bank paid $4,797,882 for its site, spent up to September 30, 1921, $758,072 on building operations, making a total expenditure of $5,555,954 and immediately charged off to "depreciation" the enormous sum of $1,841,618! Did it pay too much for its site or does real estate in the heart of the greatest city on earth depreciate almost 40 per cent almost immediately after purchase? Figure it for yourself. Later on reference will be made to this New York oligarchical palace of splendor.
Up to September 30, 1921, Federal Reserve satrapists had spent $36,158,056 on its twelve building operations and had "charged off" as "depreciation allowance" the gigantic sum of $6,684,213! In other words, in a very few years, and in most cases practically at once, it depreciated its own building accounts by about eighteen per cent!
Incidentally up to the same date it had spent $3,212,349 on its Branch Bank buildings and had depreciated them by $346,369. In its Helena Branch it made an "original investment" of $15,000, blew in $161,438 on the purchase and then "charged off" for "depreciation allowance" $77,738 when it got through, or about 45 per cent on the whole transaction.
Up to September 30, 1921, Federal Reservists, including branch banks, had "reserved" $39,370,405 of your money in building operations and had them "depreciated" by the enormous sum of $7,030,582, or about 18 per cent, almost immediately. You are entitled to draw your own conclusions as to the necessity for these palaces, for the splendor of their equipment and for the real motive of so speedily "charging off" such enormous sums for "depreciation allowance." You are entitled to draw your own conclusions as to the wisdom of allowing a coterie of bureaucrats to spend such huge sums for their personal comfort or convenience or splendor unsupervised and unhindered. You are entitled to ponder on the proposition that these huge expenditures aren't obtained by legislation from Congress, but are made to suit the whim or ambition or convenience or extravagant ideas of an appointive body.
The New York Federal Reserve Bank in cost, in expenditure, in equipment, in splendors purely for the convenience of its occupants is intended to surpass any like building on earth. Its cost has been estimated at from $17,000,000 to $20,000,000. Its corner stone—amid speeches and plutocratic glorifications—was laid on May 31, 1922. The fees of architects and engineers alone amounted to the stupendous sum of $1,106,000. It is intended to house 5,000 employees—about 2,500 more than it now has.
Make right here some comparisons.
In the first week of May, 1922, the loans and discounts of the New York Federal Reserve Bank amounted to $89,956,248, and it must have a $17,000,000 building and equipment to handle its activities. On the same date the loans and discounts of the National City Bank of New York amounted to $506,840,494, and its bank buildings to but $6,060,000. On the same date the loans and discounts of the National Bank of Commerce of New York amounted to $259,165,930, and its bank building to but $4,000,000. Figure it for yourself. It makes some difference whose money is being spent, doesn't it? Private business is one thing, and public business is another thing, when it comes to housing it, isn't it? Compare the volume of the loans of these banks, compare their building costs and draw your own conclusions.