Post the reasons why you believe that. I'll be happy to show why they're wrong.
Before we launch into a war of semantics, I should confess that I don’t really care whether you believe me that the Federal Reserve is not an agency.
The term agency is so broad you could call almost any organization that, but you wouldn’t be adding anything to the discussion.
Here is a brief description I found at stlouisfed.org:
“The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public. So is the Fed private or public?
The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank’s board of directors.”
I believe there is support in that description for both your point and mine - so I say we call a truce.
The issue of whether you can call the Federal Reserve an agency is irrelevant to the points I was making.
I am saying that any appearances that the Federal Reserve is accountable to the federal government or to the people, are just that; appearances. If the Federal Reserve Act was originally passed with good intentions (which I doubt), it has since been coopted by special interests who do not represent what is best for the citizenry.
I think it was a sham from the get-go and I hope I live to see the day when politicians confront this corrupt gang of robber barons.
Again, I don’t really care if you call it an agency or what you call it.