Draft Bailout Bill

The Paper of Record is hosting the 110 page .pdf draft bailout bill.  [So is C-Span.]

The WSJ has an article summarizing the talks; it's a starting point but light on details.

I am especially curious to see how Dodd's bizzaro equity scheme mutated - apparently something involving equity made it to the final draft.

Section 113 starting on page 33 is the place to look.  At a quick glance it appears that the Treasury Secretary is exhorted but not obliged to buy warrants giving the taxpayer some upside participation - the Dodd formulas have disappeared, thank heaven.  But at second glance, it appears that *any* purchase by Treasury must be accompanied by warrants of some type; earlier reports suggested that auction purchases would be exempt.  The Secretary has broad flexibility in setting terms but I suppose he would be evading the spirit of the bill if he set an absurdly high exercise price with the idea of making the warrants meaningless.  Paulson was worried that healthy firms would stay away from the auctions rather than deliver warrants.  I guess we'll see if he's right.

And having said that, how would an auction work with that added warrant provision?  Firms would be obliged to name their price for a package of troubled assets and warrants in their own firm.  Imagine that Goldman Sachs and a hypothetical BadCo have the same troubled assets available for sale.  Goldman and BadCo may have the same target price for the assets but BadCo may put a lower value on its warrants.  In that case, as the lower bidder, BadCo wins the auction and Treasury gets the troubled asset plus warrants on BadCo.  In a slightly different scenario, Goldman may have a lower price for the asset but a sufficiently higher price for its own warrants.  BadCo could become the winner by offering the less expensive package of assets plus warrants even though it attached a higher value to the assets.  How that will aid price discovery eludes me.

And a bonus concern - a classic objection to warrants is that they create equity when the firm doesn't need it, i.e., after their share price has risen.  Assuming Treasury exercises its warrants rationally (hmm...) they will be putting new capital into firms whose share price has moved up from the time the warrants were issued, but not into firms that are moving closer to the brink of doom.  A strange sort of bail-out.

Here we go:

10 (d) CONDITIONS ON PURCHASE AUTHORITY FOR WARRANTS AND DEBT INSTRUMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not purchase, or make any commitment to purchase, any troubled asset under the authority of this Act, unless the Secretary receives from the financial institution from which such assets are to be purchased—

(A) in the case of a financial institution that is registered (or approved for registration) and traded on a national securities exchange or a national securities association registered pursuant to section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-3), a warrant giving the right to the Secretary to receive non-voting common stock or preferred stock in such financial institution, as the Secretary determines appropriate; or

(B) in the case of any financial institution other than one described in subparagraph (A), a senior debt instrument from such financial institution, as described in paragraph (2)(C).

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The terms and conditions of any warrant or senior debt instrument required under paragraph (1) shall meet the following requirements:

(A) PURPOSES.—Such terms and conditions shall, at a minimum, be designed— (i) to provide for reasonable participation by the Secretary, for the benefit of taxpayers, in equity appreciation in the case of a warrant, or a reasonable interest rate premium, in the case of a debt instrument; and (ii) to provide additional protection for the taxpayer against losses from sale of assets by the Secretary under this Act and the administrative expenses of the TARP.

(B) AUTHORITY TO SELL, EXERCISE, OR SURRENDER.—The Secretary may sell, exercise, or surrender a warrant or any senior debt instrument received under this subsection, based on the conditions established under subparagraph (A).

(C) - [If the firm is delisted the warrant converts to debt in an amount determined by the Secretary.]

(D) - [Innocuous and generic anti-dilution protection for warrants re stock splits, dividends, mergers, recapitalizations, etc.]

...(E) EXERCISE PRICE.—The exercise price for any warrant issued pursuant to this subsection shall be set by the Secretary, in the interest of the taxpayers.

DEVELOPING...

EARLY PROVIDERS OF LIQUIDITY NEED NOT APPLY:

From page 9, the politically necessary stricture against "profiteering":

(e) PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT.—In making purchases under the authority of this Act, the Secretary shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in a program established under this section, including by preventing the sale of a troubled asset to the Secretary at a higher price than what the seller paid to purchase the asset. This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in conservatorship or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, United States Code.

FLICKERING BY:  Somewhere I noticed that the Federal Reserve will start paying interest on reserve deposits in one year, rather than in the three years previously planned.  That is clearly intended to shovel some money back into the banking system and avoid penalizing banks with high reserves.

MARKET TRANSPARENCY:  In Section 114 (p. 39), any firms that sell to Treasury may be subject to greater disclosure requirements if the Secretary determines that their current reporting does not paint a fair picture.  Again, that will deter the healthy, which may be the point.

...If such disclosure is not adequate for that purpose, the Secretary shall make recommendations for additional disclosure requirements to the relevant regulators.

MARKET REACTION:  At 9:45 EDT the S&P 500 futures are essentially unchanged.  The Dec Euro future is down from 1.20 to 1.4503, which means the dollar is rallying (probably more due to Fortis, the collapsing Belgian bank).

THE LARGE LINGERING CLOUD:  Five years down the road the President needs to submit a plan to make the taxpayers whole (p. 90):

SEC. 134. RECOUPMENT.

Upon the expiration of the 5-year period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, shall submit a report to the Congress on the net amount within the Troubled Asset Relief Program under this Act. In any case where there is a shortfall, the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt.

First of all, preventing a serious recession will be a great way to protect the taxpayer.

Secondly, one hope is that the financial services industry will recapitalize itself, presumably through a combination of dividend cuts, improved earnings, and outside investment.  But won't potential investors be daunted by the mystery of how much "the financial industry" will be deemed to owe in 2013 and how they will be expected to repay it?

Announcing today that financial services firms may or may not be subject to a huge future tax is probably not the best way to attract new investors.  It certainly is not "fair" to firms that side-stepped the mortgage mess, and it suggests that only a fool would bring new capital to a new financial services venture prior to learning what the new rules will be.  New capital, stay away.  Responsible firms?  Sorry, as the last men standing you get the tab.

The politics of this are easy to grasp but the economic logic is hazier.  I don't recall anything like this following the RTC venture, but I welcome a history lesson.  More on recoupment here - the idea originated with the conservative Blue Dog Dems, apparently.

Comments

[paul]

seriously,

how many house republicans are going to sign anything?

it's all up to you, nancy.

has anyone heard of a gop house member is 'onboard'?

[Neo]

This bill still feels like an abortion, but the Dodd bill was economic suicide.

[paul]

"Just 30 percent of Americans say they support Bush's package, according to an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released as White House and congressional leaders struggled to rescue the plan after House Republicans rebelled against it. Despite the president's pleas that the package is urgently needed to prevent an economic meltdown, 45 percent say they oppose Bush's proposal while 25 percent said they are undecided.

"Underscoring the hesitancy members of Congress have shown to approve the plan quickly, opposition was solid across party lines. Fewer than four in 10 Republicans, three in 10 Democrats and one in 10 independents said they support the package."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428921,00.html

the above breakdown...
only 40% gop support, 30% democratic support, 10% independent!!!

political suicide.

[Neo]

Seriously, after reading what I did .. I wondered if the Wall Street guys have considered creating a holding company to funnel all these "crippled assets" through, therefore limiting the exposure on the CEO compensation scheme in the bill to only the CEO that holding company.

[Jim Ryan]

Pence: Duty is ours, outcomes belong to God.

Sorry, but that's a mere facsimile of moral deliberation. There is also a duty not to plunge knives into the abdomens of children. But Pence wouldn't recommend against appendix surgery for a child.

There may be a political reason for GOP to vote no: Let the Dems pass the needed legislation and take the heat for it. Sleazy? No. The Dems caused the mess. Let them take the heat from a misinformed public.

But if enough Dem votes aren't there at the end, GOP should step forward and support the bill. In chicken, at the last second you turn your vehicle sharply away from catastrophe.

[Chris]

Ugly? Definitely. But probably also necessary. Can't wait for the roll to be called and see who steps up, or in it.

[Pofarmer]

45 percent say they oppose Bush's proposal while 25 percent said they are undecided.

First off, this isn't "Bush's proposal" This is primarily the Democrats proposal.

But if enough Dem votes aren't there at the end, GOP should step forward and support the bill.

Respectfully disagree.

[Rick Ballard]

"Duty is ours, outcomes belong to God."

Lemme guess - Nathan Bedford Forrest - great Confederate cavalry genereal who (along with the Democrat Copperheads) is sometimes credited with giving Lee such cause for hope that the Civil War dragged on for an extra year. (That's the year that was marked by Sherman's 'Georgia Torchlight Tour'.) Forrest later founded an organization known as the Knights of something or other.

He was a very religious and moral fellow with a rock solid faith in his cause and himself.

[Neo]

I still keep feeling this bile in my belly that this same federal government that created the GSE-s that generated all this "crippled" paper is now exacting a price to re-guarantee this "crippled" paper when they had previous allowed an inferred guarantee on this same "crippled" paper to lapse.

On the one hand, there is greed on Wall Street, but, last I checked, it's still a crime to commit fraud on both the rich and/or the poor.

When the government sets up a "snake oil" enterprise, both the rich and the poor, who are represented by this government, are responsible for the actions of their respective "snake oil" representatives in making good on their claims, so don't think of this as a bailout, but rather restitution.

I realize that restitution requires assumption of responsibility, and responsibility seems to be the most difficult concept for any public official (and the public, rich or poor) to assume.

[Neo]

But if enough Dem votes aren't there at the end, GOP should step forward and support the bill.

After that "Republicans are 'unpatriotic' for not resuming talks swiftly" speech by Nancy Pelosi, I left wondering exactly how many "unpatriotic" Democrats won't save the economy by voting for this measure.

Nancy should stop interchanging 'duty' and 'patriotism'. It belittles the Office of the Speaker.

[Thomas Collins]

In the hands of a savvy Treasury Secretary, section 114(b) could be a means to bring into the sunshine opaque financial company practices. Although technically the provision provides the Treasury Secretary only the authority to recommend additional disclosure rules, I'll bet that any recommendations get a lot of press, and the background statement accompanying any recommendations could make some folks squirm.

By the way, I recognize that section 112 (coordination with foreign authorities and central banks) is necessary given the global scope of the problem, but I wonder if there will be political heat if Paulson buys some foreign bank assets.

[Verner]

After that "Republicans are 'unpatriotic' for not resuming talks swiftly" speech by Nancy Pelosi, I left wondering exactly how many "unpatriotic" Democrats won't save the economy by voting for this measure.

I wonder if Mme Pelosi will be calling any democrat contender "unpatriotic' if he goes after the republican incumbent for voting for her bill. Hmmm...me either.

I think the House GOP should flush out a few bluedogs, and make them vote yes. It's only fair, since they are the ones who made Frank and Dodd chairmen, and Pelosi speaker.

[Rick Ballard]

Thomas Collins,

I could see a point where a sovereign bank held a big enough chunk of a MBS that a purchase (say, to issue that Fed backed insurance) would be wholly justifiable. Treasury needs wide flexibility to deal with as many "unknown unknowns" as possible.

The use of "may" rather than "shall" in the warrants section is another example of flexibility by design. I've seen much shorter bills which were much, much harder to interpret. I'm still looking for the bear traps and mine fields but I haven't found any.

Yet.

[Jack]

"Paulson was worried that healthy firms would stay away from the auctions rather than deliver warrants. "

Why is this a bad thing to worry about?

[Neus trash imy]

The list of homes we bought and where they are should be very interesting. How many in Chicago, CHA?

[Thomas Collins]

Rick Ballard,

Although Hammerin' Hank Paulson did not get his sought after "I Am The Law" exemption from judicial review, section 119 seems reasonable (note that Hank gets an automatic albeit temporary stay under section 119(a)(4) against lunatic US District Court judge injunctions). By the way, in line 22 on page 60, do you think that "a" was intended instead of "any?"

[Herny McFraner]

"has anyone heard of a gop house member is 'onboard'?"

Here's a start:

"According to a source in the room, the plan has so far won endorsements from Minority Whip Roy Blunt, who negotiated it on behalf of the House Republicans; Eric Cantor, the chief deputy whip; and Paul Ryan, a hard-core conservative from Wisconsin who may hold more sway with conservatives on this issue than any other member of the House."

[Herny McFraner]

... Minority Leader John A. Boehner will be voting for it as well.

[Neo]

"Paulson was worried that healthy firms would stay away from the auctions rather than deliver warrants. "

As I stated above, healthy firms are free to sell them to the "weaker" firms to resell them to the feds. (or are they ?)

[Rick Ballard]

"Except as established in any contract, a
22 servicer of pooled residential mortgages owes any
23 duty to determine whether the net present value of
24 the payments on the loan, as modified,"

Shhh, the finest legal minds in DC have vetted this bill. Or was that 'the finest vets don't mind this bill'?

[Pofarmer]

"Paulson was worried that healthy firms would stay away from the auctions rather than deliver warrants. "

Why is this a bad thing to worry about?

Because he isn't worried about he MBS's. He's worried about the CDS holders. He doesn't want to take a chance on another write down or problem creating another wave of CDS defaults. This thing only incidentaly deals with mortgages. If folks new that the real deal is the CDS's, then they would be double pissed.

[paul]

good for boehner and cantor.

boehner won 64-36 in 06.
same numbers for cantor.

If you face a close race, the decision might be a little harder.

[boris]

Italiacto!

[DrJ]

Off?

[Pofarmer]

Thanks boris.

[Rick Ballard]

"He doesn't want to take a chance on another write down or problem creating another wave of CDS defaults."

Not exactly. The concern is that the arsonists holding the synthetic CDS will start another fire. And then another one. That's what the suspension of short selling was about. Arsonists R' Us Hedge & Pawn was using naked shorts as a fire starter with a stack of synthetic CDS to fan a brisk flame. Once the blaze was strong enough to set off a trigger event, the arsonists get their payoff.

You really have to set a firebreak because there is nothing stopping the blaze. Look at the haircut GE was taking.

[Verner]

Something I read at the WaPo that I hope one of you might know something about.

Does Nancy Pelosi own a bunch of AIG stock?

I know that 2 former Clintonistas were on the board (Cohen and Holbrooke)

Did she lose her money, or will she get bailed out too?

I'd just love it if millionaire Pelosi became one of the upper middle class, so she can enjoy all those nice taxes Obama is going to burden all of us "rich folks" with.

Also, did ya'll read the NYT piece on AIG and it's London branch that sold all the CDS? Sue posted it I believe. Shheesh. That little outfit made a lot of profit for AIG shareholders while the money was good. And literally brought it down.

I am still in disbelief that none of the great business minds saw CDS for the total disaster it turned out to be. But then we have Franklin Raines telling us in 2004 that housing was a 100% secure bet!

Oh, and the AIG branch that issued CDS was based in Ct--home of Chris Dodd.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

If folks new that the real deal is the CDS's, then they would be double pissed.

explain why, Pofarmer.

Show your work.

You will be graded on both the mathematical correctness of your work, and your understanding of the terms of CDS's.

[Verner]

Well, I went to google, and answered my own question:

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The market storm that brought down Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., American International Group Inc. and other pillars of U.S. finance may have also blown holes in the portfolios of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry and more than 50 other members of Congress.

Pelosi, in her most recent financial disclosure form, reported that her husband owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in AIG, which ceded majority control to the U.S. government this week in exchange for $85 billion of loans.

Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, disclosed that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had more than $2 million of AIG stock at the end of 2007, when shares were worth $58.30. AIG has fallen 85 percent this week to close yesterday at $2.69. The lawmakers' aides didn't respond to calls seeking comment.

Altogether, 56 senators and representatives had stakes in AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns Cos. or IndyMac Bancorp Inc. -- some of the biggest casualties of the market bloodbath -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The most recent annual disclosure filings list investments as of Dec. 31, 2007, and reveal the size of holdings only within a range of values. Lawmakers may have sold shares since then.

``Lawmakers, like everyone else in America who has any kind of retirement portfolio or stock holdings, are going to be suffering,'' said Gary Kalman, a lobbyist for the Boston-based U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-advocacy organization. ``This is a serious issue. We need to have a serious response.''

[Pofarmer]

Also, did ya'll read the NYT piece on AIG and it's London branch that sold all the CDS? Sue posted it I believe. Shheesh. That little outfit made a lot of profit for AIG shareholders while the money was good. And literally brought it down.

What struck me is that the losses really weren't that big. They were talking 30 billion or so in losses to a company that was worth around a Trillion. That should be doable.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Sadly, neither a quarter mil for nan, nor a couple mill for Terry and John, is going to make them worry about making the mortgage next month.

It would be too much to hope to find out that they'd sold their holdings in August.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

What struck me is that the losses really weren't that big. They were talking 30 billion or so in losses to a company that was worth around a Trillion. That should be doable.

Good point. Now, why would losing $30 billion in cash hurt a company with that much in assets?

Hint.

[bad]

I object to the use "Badco."

[Stephanie]

Vote with your pocketbook.

Just change your witholdings on Monday to the max and put that into your local bank (most of them are reputed to be doing just fine). Should solve the liquidity problem and starve the bastards in congress that started this mess.

NO $$ for the crooks in congress to divvy around anymore...

I realize this does nothing about the other taxes that they collect, but why should we be the only ones being asked to sacrifice for the good of the markets?

Starve the Bastards...

[Pofarmer]

If folks new that the real deal is the CDS's, then they would be double pissed.

explain why, Pofarmer.

Show your work.

You will be graded on both the mathematical correctness of your work, and your understanding of the terms of CDS's.

Rick and I were discussing this on anther thread. Now I can't find it. I'm tired and I'm taking a shower and going to bed. Night.

[Pofarmer]

Good point. Now, why would losing $30 billion in cash hurt a company with that much in assets?

Hint.

I understand about liquidity. But, here's the deal. These companies were managed like there would never be a down market, like profits would proceed at X% interminabley into the future. The first time they didn't they folded. Can't take a 3% loss???? That's not a crisis, that's pathetic managment.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

NO, no, no.

Look, think of it this way: the little regional banks are small power companies. The big names, like JPMC, are BIG power companies.

The liquidity crisis and corresponding credit crunch happens when some of the BIG power companies can't generate power any more. The power grid fails, and causes a blackout, like the one in New England in 1865. Now, even though there's plenty of generating capacity in the other power companies, no one can get it. until the "transmission grid" is up, nobody gets power.

Oh, and Stephanie, if you try that, then next year you'll have to pay a penalty --- I think it's 10 percent --- and start filing quarterly. You might want to talk to a CPA before you do it.

[Rick Ballard]

"That's not a crisis, that's pathetic management."

Some poor management, sure. You really have to give the arsonists a bit of credit though. The FBI is sure going to try to see that they get what they deserve.

I don't think they will be successful though. I believe that it will be found that no rules govern the conduct of Arsonists R' Us Hedge & Pawn except for 'gentlemen's agreements'. It seems an odd way to run a whorehouse and casino but there you have it. A few thousand bad apples, etc.

[Verner]

Rick:Some poor management, sure. You really have to give the arsonists a bit of credit though. The FBI is sure going to try to see that they get what they deserve.

Do you think we'll hear any names named soon?

This is nothing short of domestic economic terrorism. They all need to do major jail time.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I understand about liquidity.

Not demonstrably. Talk to your bank: see if it wouldn't cause them problems to have 3 percent of their total assets taken out in cash in the span of a few days. IndyMac was wiped out by people withdrawing 6 percent of their total deposits.

That's how "fractional reserve banking" works: you give them cash, they invest it in other things, like mortgages, that pay them a big return, and they pay you a small return. But those things that give the big return are illiquid; they keep only a very small proportion of the actual assets in cash.

Can't take a 3% loss???? That's not a crisis, that's pathetic managment.

Maybe so. Certainly if they really were writing CD swaps that could pay 20 times the notional value total against a single note, it was; I'd even go so far as to suggest that could be criminal.

But, dude, they're dead. The management's gone, they're going to be forced into reorganization. Their assets are being sold off. Their stockholders no longer control, and they've lost 90+ percent of their money.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Ooh, just found a really good Wikipedia article on cascading failures in a network.

Look at the animation, and think of those loads being cash reserves rather than computer power.

[Rick Ballard]

"Do you think we'll hear any names named soon?"

I doubt it. The CDS market is self regulated (for about another week or so). As I said, I'm not at all sure that any laws were broken.

I think it fair to question the leaders of the Democrat NewD irection whether oversight hearings on this aspect of finance might have been more beneficial to the nation than the search for evidence of Karl Rove having jaywalked.

See y'all in the AM.

[haief]

Okay, so all these people who own stock in these companies like AIG, pharmaceuticals, etc. all know that the New England blackout was space aliens, which are really luciferians sent by Satan, making these companies Satanic like the owners and employees. So, they take genetics and stuff for the luciferians from the satanic space ships and say it's okay. Now these companies are going broke because they never really had any money; it was all highly leveraged. Congressmen, etc. owned the stock knowing what 'they(the Satan worshiping employees and Congressmen - luciferian aliens taking human parts)' did making them evil as the employees who all worked for the government(diplomats, CIA) allowing the luciferian space aliens to take genetics to their satanic ships. So, the Satan worshiping people really weren't worth it, so it was more lucifer than anything else, except for the time travel and teleportation which was Satan rather than lucifer until it was found that these people were shit working at the companies, etc. so we ended up with Bill's luciferian insanity instead of pure Satanic works like time travel and teleportation,etc. in it's real work instead of a bunch of luciferian eyeballs, which most think is Satan and that's good so the government can do cover ups.

FBI? Maybe they can do something since these never were up for Satan, but simple minions of lucifer watched and heard like luciferians by Satan while they did their time travel and teleportation.

[boris]

gnarly

[Charlie (Colorado)]

FBI? Maybe they can do something since these never were up for Satan, but simple minions of lucifer watched and heard like luciferians by Satan while they did their time travel and teleportation.

And let that be a lesson to you.

[bad]

Wrong thread. The drinking one is two clicks away.

[StrawmanCometh]

I read a poster arguing with another at , IIRC, Megan's place re: short term deposits vs. long term borrowing. I felt a flicker in my dim bulb.

[Stephanie]

I fully realize that, but if enough of the taxpayers were to do it, we could control congress instead of being the willing conduits of their scheming.

They think they have us by the ****s, but in reality, they can't do nearly as much damage unless we allow them to. We are the enablers. And I hope others join in. If we reach a threshold, the "Tea Party" is on.

Do you think the Sons of Liberty were worried what the crown would do? You bet. They did it anyway.

When you enable the mismanagement, you have no recourse for complaint. And the government knows that, for the most part, the electorate is afraid to rock the boat.

I just think it's time to tip the damned thing over. We can financially prop up the local banks and smaller lending institutions (by moving our with holdings to them) and other fiscally responsible corps on Wall Street without enabling the wholesale destruction of our society by the propping up of the corrupt politicians and the irresponsible execs.

[Tom Maguire]

"Paulson was worried that healthy firms would stay away from the auctions rather than deliver warrants. "

Why is this a bad thing to worry about?

Well, if the goal of the "auction" is to shovel above-market prices to desperate firms, it's not.

But if the goal of the auction is to bring in as many participants as possible to set a fair price and kick-start the market, discouraging healthy firms from participating is counter-productive.

I can see the benefit from keeping them out, however - a healthy firm might bid a low price just to be rid of some stuff, thereby obliging weaker firms to mark to the new "market" price. That is a less likely outcome if only weak firms are participating.

As to the losses at AIG-FP - yeah, they seemed too small to bust the whole firm. IIRC, the impending AIG downgrade triggered something like $13 billion in collateral calls, leading to their liquidity crunch.

But AIG had a market cap over $200 billion in 2004 and over $180 billion in 2006.

The collateral calls were the proximate cause of their bankruptcy but I see some scapegoating here, too.

[Tom Maguire]

Still on AIG, this is from their Aug 6 2008 10-K:

AIG participates in the U.S. residential mortgage market in several ways: American General Finance, Inc. (AGF) originates principally first-lien mortgage loans and to a lesser extent second-lien mortgage loans to buyers and owners of residential housing; United Guaranty Corporation (UGC) provides first loss mortgage guaranty insurance for high loan-to-value first- and second-lien residential mortgages; AIG insurance and financial services subsidiaries invest in mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), in which the underlying collateral is composed in whole or in part of residential mortgage loans; and AIG Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading Group Inc. and their respective subsidiaries (collectively, AIGFP) provides credit protection through credit default swaps on certain super senior tranches of CDOs.

That said, AIG-FP dominates the ensuing discussion, and the liquidity issue was noted:

It is estimated that, as of the close of business on July 31, 2008, based on AIGFP's outstanding municipal GIAs and financial derivative transactions at that date, a downgrade of AIG's long-term senior debt ratings to 'A1' by Moody's Investors Service (Moody's) and 'A+' by Standard & Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (S&P), would permit counterparties to make additional calls for up to approximately $13.3 billion of collateral, while a downgrade to 'A2' by Moody's and 'A' by S&P would permit counterparties to call for approximately $1.2 billion of additional collateral...

Further downgrades could result in requirements for substantial additional collateral, which could have a material adverse effect on AIG's liquidity. For a further discussion of AIG's credit ratings and the potential effect of posting collateral on AIG's liquidity, see - Capital Resources and Liquidity - Credit Ratings and - Liquidity herein.

[Jim Ryan]

Thanks for all you do, Tom.

[bgates]

SCANDALL!!!eleven!1!
AP breaks the cone of silence around the wretched hive of villany and evil that was Wasilla c 1996: [Palin] gladly accepted gifts from merchants: A free "awesome facial" she raved about in a thank-you note to a spa. The "absolutely gorgeous flowers" she received from a welding supply store. Even fresh salmon to take home.
Here you people are rambling on about some seven hundred billion dollar vote in Congress, and we're on the verge of naming a Vice President who accepted flowers and fish twelve years ago.

[glasater]

Charles Murray wrote something to the effect awhile back--if all the world's wealth could be divided among all the people equitably--we would all be poor.

We may be finding out if that saying will become true.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I fully realize that, but if enough of the taxpayers were to do it, we could control congress instead of being the willing conduits of their scheming.

If you're going to try to kill the king, then you'd better kill the king. If you really want to knock over the cart and take over, overwitholding isn't going to be the way you do it.

I just think it's time to tip the damned thing over. We can financially prop up the local banks and smaller lending institutions (by moving our with holdings to them) and other fiscally responsible corps on Wall Street without enabling the wholesale destruction of our society by the propping up of the corrupt politicians and the irresponsible execs.

No, Stephanie, you can't. It doesn't work that way, any more than you could, at this point, have your local power company take you off the grid.

And you know what? If you did somehow manage it -- I mean, Point Barrow actually is off the general grid, because they're many miles of icy tundra from its nearest outpost -- then what you'd get is service that is more expensive and less reliable.

I an understand you're angry, but if you want to change the way things work, it usually works best if you first find out the way things work.

[M. Simon]

Any one care to comment on this American Thinker article?

Some bullet points:

* If the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers.

* Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families.

==

say aren't a lot of State and local government pension plans in trouble?

[Bob]

You won't believe where that $700B figure came from!

Here's a quote from that Forbes story:

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

They made it up to be sufficiently ginormous to frighten everyone into rapid action.

And it worked.

--Andrew Malcolm

[M. Simon]

Barney Frank Frankly Not Frank. Barney is outed by the Boston Globe. I also go into an American Thinker article on the The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis. Short version of that was first espoused by Lenin: Worse Is Better.

Did I mention coup? Well not in the piece I wrote. Connect the dots folks. Connect the dots.

[Extraneus]

Good post, M. Simon. That James Simpson article about the Cloward-Piven strategy was an eye-opener, even for someone already suspicious.

These are the same people who root against us in war, talk down the country and economy every chance they get, invite an under-educated army of aliens to stream over the borders, oppose any logical approach to reducing oil prices, etc. Good news for us is bad news for them and vice versa.

Why not think that they'd be happy to to precipitate a depression, as long as they could do it during a Republican adminstration without leaving fingerprints? The data certainly fits the hypothesis.

[Pofarmer]

But, dude, they're dead. The management's gone, they're going to be forced into reorganization.

They'll be back is the problem, management I mean. The dude at AIG had worked for Milken. There's a reason the peasants used torches and pitchforks and guillotines. They wanted the rabble OUT.

[Amused bystander]

It is gping to be brutal on the markets today.
Not even 10AM yet and the dow is down 200 points.

Here is your October Surprise.

May the Good Lord help us.

[Amused bystander]

*going*

[Amused bystander]

-300 now (DOW)

[M. Simon]

Extraneus,

So can I now cout you among the "it is a coup" contingent?

[paul]

apparently political suicide trumps economic suicide--

the bill is failing.

congrats nancy.

[Joe]

First freeze all CEO's Assets
$150,000,000,000.00 of unjust enrichment. Fact; .
Evidence show a scheme through a variety of devices
breach of fiduciary duties
without making adequate disclosures.
liability stems from his position
engaged in discussions undisclosed withholding fair value,
the failure to disclose
misrepresentation of other information and of other material information
laws which prohibits waivers of the duty of loyalty
"for acts or omissions not in good faith
involve intentional misconduct
a knowing violation of law.
Then be so greedy to unjustly enrich them self of $20,000,000.00 in the last few days of total collapse unhitch they knowingly spite of duty, trust, and law caused. To let the CEO's unjustly enrich himself for knowingly, willingly, bankruptcy America is a crime in itself. For them to unjustly enrich them self 10's of millions the last few day is spite of the laws. Now that we are victims All Americans forced to take a loss and bail out the CEO. By Law Americans can and will demand restitution of unjust enrichment. CEOS for year have violated many laws and received unjust enrichment. By law victims/Americans can go back several years and by law demand restitution moneys from All CEO's that violated trust even thought unjustly enriched from years past. Think of it this way. CEO unjustly enriched 10's of millions still were not happy so the unjustly enrich them self 100's of millions still not happy, so they unjustly enriched them self billions still not happy. All the Greed in the world they unjustly enrich them self did not buy happiness. It show them money dos not buy happiness. So let us the law to make them happy. Freeze there assets. Use laws like unjust enrichment to refund $150,000,000,000.00 in unjust enrichment. They will then be happy. We all will be Happy. What is it worth to gain the world and loss your sole? Will there soles be saved? Will they be happy? or die chocking on money.All the money in the world cant buy true Honor and Respect. Rem; Honor and Respect is the key to heaven.

[Dennis]

Did i miss in the bail out bill specific language that rolls back banking laws to pre-Greenspan era or was it all encompassing in the broad powers given to the secretary? When will the CEO's be held accountable? In what court? Enron was brought to trial what about the CEO's of Freddiemac abd fanniemay?

[Joseph]

Lawless America; Victims have lost Law enforcement to stop corruption. Contracts corruption preventing American the Protection of The Constitution, preventing restitution for unjust enrichment to victim corrupt unjust law makers. Unjust law maker violate just Laws by perception using newly created unjust laws. Americans PLEASE take 5 min read the oath and duties under law which Judges ,Attorney, CEO, Board of Directors, and many that are given power by position. You will find they have Fidelity to Duty. Unjust law makers have violated there position to create unjust laws. To protect corruption. Enforce the true laws and many if not most Judges and Attorney would go to jail. America is lawless. All America needs to do is enforce the true unjust enrichment laws, freeze bail out CEO assets for the last 5 years and recover restitution of $100,000,000,000.00. This will bring back Honor And Respect for one position ans stable the World market. The sad thing is. It is not to be. Justice, Congress, Judges, and many in position are the weakest. Money ,Power, greed over Honor

[Joseph]

Americans know Bail Out means Bribe Officials The Bail Out is $700B dollar bribe to cover up corruption.
Tax payers and consumers being robbed again and agian by a conspiricy. Pass the bail out to stop investigations. To Investigate and Convict Martha Stewart on B.S.
Many have state there is much blaim to go around. That is called a conspiricy. Corrupt or stupid, breaking the laws, is breaking the law or has America become Lawless.
Congress and CEO's $700B bail out with not one word of stopping the leaks. Bribery has been stated by many, even congress them self.
bribery.
Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty. No Buts,ors,ands,ifs,maybes, about it. bribery has been proven Even stated on TV by some in congress

. Enforcement of the Laws
.Recovery of money but more than money this will stop the leaks/corruption in it tracks.
Over 1000 CEO have been unjustly enriched. CEO must repay over
$100B in bonuses.
Unjust Enrichment by laws recover from years back.
Knowledge is immaterial under the law of unjust enrichment
Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:23:00 -0500
Re: Unjustly enriched executive
"Former HealthSouth Corp. chief executive officer Richard Scrushy has been
ordered by a judge to repay his former company more than $47.8 million in
bonuses, according to published reports. ... Judge Allwin E. Horn III of
Jefferson County Circuit Court in Birmingham, who made the ruling as part of
a summary judgment in a shareholder lawsuit, determined that Scrushy is not
entitled to the payments whether or not he participated in the fraud or knew
about the scheme."

"While the company initially reported profits during the period, Horn wrote,
HealthSouth really lost money, making Scrushy and other executives
ineligible for any bonuses."

'Knowledge is immaterial under the law of unjust enrichment,' the judge
reportedly wrote. 'Scrushy was unjustly enriched by these payments to the
detriment of HealthSouth. And to allow Scrushy to retain the benefit of
these payments would be unconscionable.' "

[sophy]

Please do not hesitate to have twelve sky Gold . It is funny.