Big One from the Washington Post: Obama Administration Plans to Devise Scheme to Avoid Company Restrictions on Bailout Funds

This one is intriguing:

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.

The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.

Perhaps Obama believes that "if" doling out trillions to the banks gets the economy (artificially) working again that people will forget that he is doing something that goes against his promises concerning transparency, accountability, and, ahem, change.

Source: Washington Post

House Committee Endorses Less Restrictive "Bonus" Measure

The House of Representatives Financial Services Committee has endorsed a measure that would give the Treasury Department the authority to determine whether the public should become outraged over executive bonuses for TARP participants. Actually, the measure would give the Treasury Department the discretion to say whether executive compensation at bailed out banks was too excessive. But I suppose public (and media) outrage would closely track the Treasury Department's position on the issue. Although the measure would give the Treasury Department the authority to determine when executive compensation has gone too far, earlier this year, officials in the department pressured Senator Christopher Dodd to remove language from a provision he sponsored that would have prohibited highly controversial bonus payments made by AIG.

The measure would not apply to participants in the proposed trillion-dollar "toxic assets" purchase plan. Recently, White House economic advisor Christina Romer described potential investors in the plan as the "good guys," and media outlets reported that prospective investors had already warned the government not to limit their ability to compensate executives.

Committee Chair Barney Frank, reflecting arguments from the Obama administration, says that flexibility would encourage wider participation in the program. I guess this means that executives will not be subjected to random drug tests, as some states are considering imposing upon recipients of welfare and unemployment benefits.

Surprise, Surprise: Potential Participants in Toxic Assets Plan Ask Government to Stay Away From Executive Compensation

Today, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will begin marketing his plan to encourage private investors to partner with the government and purchase nearly $1 trillion in "troubled" mortgage-backed assets from financial institutions. The government's plan rests on the assumption that the troubled assets actually have value, but because the market cannot accurately measure their value, the assets are causing a credit collapse. After the assets are removed from companies' balance sheets, credit will flow once again. Also, once the market realizes the value of the assets, the government (i.e., taxpayers) and private investors will enjoy profits from their investments.

The New York Times reports that some potential investors fear that the government will regulate the compensation of executives who participate in the plan. Given the outrage over AIG, their concern is legitimate:

[S]ome executives at private equity firms and hedge funds, who were briefed on the plan Sunday afternoon, are anxious about the recent uproar over millions of dollars in bonus payments made to executives of the American International Group.

Some of them have told administration officials that they would participate only if the government guaranteed that it would not set compensation limits on the firms, according to people briefed on the conversations. The executives also expressed worries about whether disclosure and governance rules could be added retroactively to the program by Congress, these people said.

Obama administration officials tried to allay those fears on the Sunday news circuit:

Administration officials took to the airwaves Sunday to reassure investors that the public would distinguish between companies like A.I.G., which are taking government bailout money, and private investment groups that, under this latest plan, would be helping the government take troubled assets off the books of some of the country’s biggest banks.

“What we’re talking about now are private firms that are kind of doing us a favor, right, coming into this market to help us buy these toxic assets off banks’ balance sheets,” Christina D. Romer, the White House’s chief economist, said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

“I think they understand that the president realizes they’re in a different category,” she said, adding, “They are firms that are being the good guys here.”

Nice try, but . . .
The "good guys" language undermines the government's position that the bailout is policy - not handouts to wrongdoers. It also conflicts with the government's previous opposition to meaningful limits on executive compensation. If the new investors are "good guys," while TARP participants are "bad guys," then the government has a good reason to regulate compensation for the latter.

Finally, I suspect that many of the "good guys" will come from the "bad guys'" industry. The world of sophisticated financial investors is tiny. The people with knowledge, resources, and professional credentials to manage and organize the proposed purchase of troubled assets will undoubtedly have worked in institutions that hold these same assets; they could even have work experience designing and marketing the very securities that have spread so much risk across the market. For this reason, some type of disclosure process seems relevant.

Also on Dissenting Justice:

Tangled Webs: Goldman Sachs, AIG and the Feds

Professor Balkin Defends Constitutionality of Bonus Tax

Richard Bernstein of Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Says: Sell Financial Stocks