U.S. Sets Plan for Toxic Assets

The federal government will announce as soon as Monday a three-pronged plan to rid the financial system of toxic assets, betting that investors will be attracted to the combination of discount prices and government assistance.

But the framework, designed to expand existing programs and create new ones, relies heavily on participation from private-sector investors. They've been the target of a virulent anti-Wall Street backlash from Washington in the wake of the American International Group Inc. bonus furor. As a result, many investors have expressed concern about doing business with the government in this climate -- potentially casting a cloud over the program's prospects.

The administration plans to contribute between $75 billion and $100 billion in new capital to the effort, although that amount could expand down the road.

The plan, which has been eagerly awaited by jittery investors, includes creating an entity, backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., to purchase and hold loans. In addition, the Treasury Department intends to expand a Federal Reserve facility to include older, so-called "legacy" assets. Currently, the program, known as the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, was set up to buy newly issued securities backing all manner of consumer and small-business loans. But some of the most toxic assets are securities created in 2005 and 2006, which the TALF will now be able to absorb.

Finally, the government is moving ahead with plans, sketched out by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last month, to establish public-private investment funds to purchase mortgage-backed and other securities. These funds would be run by private investment managers but be financed with a combination of private money and capital from the government, which would share in any profit or loss.

All told, the three efforts are designed to unglue markets that have seized up as investors have stood on the sidelines. One big problem is that many of these assets no longer trade, which means it's very hard to put a price on them. Banks are unwilling to sell at too low a price, and investors are unwilling to take the risk.

There's more about AIG in today's NYT.

Coupled with yesterday's mention of a story in Rolling Stone, I think the public may be just beginning to understand what's happening. One wonders where the outrage will end...

E. Swanson

The Times article was interesting-what was left unsaid is that many large publicly traded financial firms are not businesses. In many cases the bonuses paid out exceed the profits-the shareholders do not control the business in any way. Theoretically, there should never be a need for the public or politicians to complain about excessive employee compensation at a business-upper management would control expenses (including payroll) as they manage the business-this is not happening and not just at AIG. This really cannot be fixed-it is the Wall Street culture-were this to infect XOM, CVX or COP, as an example, billions of dollars in bonuses would be paid out (looted from the owners) and those would need bailouts-it hasn't happened as the corporate culture is different. Basically, Wall Street is based on the Scam, the Grift and when you hire Grifters to work for you or watch over your capital they will do their best to steal it every time. So now the money isn't just being stolen from the owners, now the taxpayers are being looted, with the promise from the Chosen One that someday this will end when the Grifters are finally sated. Maybe, but by that time the USA will have been permanently wounded economically.

"Theoretically, there should never be a need for the public or politicians to complain about excessive employee compensation at a business-upper management would control expenses (including payroll) as they manage the business-this is not happening and not just at AIG."

So the US owns these businesses in all but name.

If the US formally states ownership, all toxic (fraud)
assets (horse race tickets) would be immmediately priced to market.

That would be $1.5 trillion for AIG alone.

The fraud here is AIG replaced "insurance" with "swap"
purposefully negating regulation and having only $100
million to back them.

I think arresting Cheney would buy us 6 more months.

Mac, many governments will not allow a foreign corporation to operate inside it's soverignty if the foreign corporation is more than 79.9% owned by a foreign government.

That is one reason that the US Gov does not totally own some corporations that it has taken a large ownership in. As you pointed out there are other reasons.

BrianT: This really cannot be fixed-it is the Wall Street culture-were this to infect XOM, CVX or COP, as an example, billions of dollars in bonuses would be paid out (looted from the owners) and those would need bailouts-it hasn't happened as the corporate culture is different.

You're kidding, right?

Exxon Chairman Got Retirement Package Worth at Least $398 Million

XOM currently is valued at approx 100X the value of AIG (as an example). This headline therefore would be comparable to "AIG Chairman gets retirement package worth $3.98 million dollars"-you won't see that headline-even the traders that wrecked the company would laugh at such a trivial sum. Why do you think XOM is worth so much-one of the reasons is that management has resisted the temptation to gut the company as the financials have been gutted.

That "Trivial Sum" is more than both my parents made over their entire working lives.

Some trivia, eh?

As a follow up, today it is announced that Obama will attempt to control executive compensation at all Wall Street firms and financial institutions. This appears to be an admission that because of the combination of impotent shareholders (they can sell or sell short, either way management continues looting), corrupt management and lax regulation there is no viable way to prevent these firms from imploding even after they are rescued (short of some sort of government oversight). Now the CEOs whine, but nodbody told them to piss in the pool. I guess they feel we should have told them they shouldn't.

I think the public may be just beginning to understand what's happening. One wonders where the outrage will end...

With the Banksters having all the money and assets and the working stiffs still mumbling and grumbling as they walk to the unemployment office?

The story no longer works:

"Before we become too alarmed about the impending giveaway of $8 trillion dollars on top of the $2 trillion we have already given to the wealthy, let us touch back again upon the reality of money. What actually happens when this money is given away? Almost nothing happens. What happens is that bits change in computers, and the few people who understand the interpretations of those bits declare that money has been transferred. Those bits are the symbolic representation of an agreement about a story. This story includes who is rich and who is poor, who owns and who owes. It is said that our children and grandchildren will be paying these bailout and stimulus debts, but they could also simply be declared into non-existence. They are only as real as the story we agree on that contains them. Our grandchildren will pay them only if the story, the system of meanings, that defines those debts still exists. But I think more and more people sense that the federal debt, the U.S. foreign debt, and a lot of our private mortgage and credit card debts will never be repaid."

http://www.realitysandwich.com/money_and_turning_age

From the Rolling Stone Article cited above:

Meet your shaman:

"the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950. The relevant section, 31 USC 714(b), dictated that congressional audits of the Federal Reserve may not include "deliberations, decisions and actions on monetary policy matters." The exemption, as Foss notes, "basically includes everything." According to the law, in other words, the Fed simply cannot be audited by Congress. Or by anyone else, for that matter...."

This is a political crisis.

I would highly recommend reading the Rolling Stone story The Big Takeover. An excerpt:

In essence, Paulson and his cronies turned the federal government into one gigantic, half-opaque holding company, one whose balance sheet includes the world's most appallingly large and risky hedge fund, a controlling stake in a dying insurance giant, huge investments in a group of teetering megabanks, and shares here and there in various auto-finance companies, student loans, and other failing businesses. Like AIG, this new federal holding company is a firm that has no mechanism for auditing itself and is run by leaders who have very little grasp of the daily operations of its disparate subsidiary operations.

In other words, it's AIG's rip-roaringly shitty business model writ almost inconceivably massive — to echo Geithner, a huge, complex global company attached to a very complicated investment bank/hedge fund that's been allowed to build up without adult supervision. How much of what kinds of crap is actually on our balance sheet, and what did we pay for it? When exactly will the rent come due, when will the money run out? Does anyone know what the hell is going on? And on the linear spectrum of capitalism to socialism, where exactly are we now? Is there a dictionary word that even describes what we are now? It would be funny, if it weren't such a nightmare.

(Moving up my comment to a current thread)

It took some time to read the http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover
article and I forgot where the original link were but it fits this subject.

How much substance is there in the article?

Is it correct that government bailouts and federal bank lending is creating a disadvantage for small banks with lower credit risks and a higher portion of staff that keeps track of their customers and a very large advantage for giant banks with large credit risks and very little personal knowledge about their customers?

Is your financial system realy contracting around your least efficient entities?

I dont care much about who runs the show in USA but if someting like this is correct you ought to get a concentration of power and responsibility that no human or single company can handle. If such a trend runs to completion it would result in the extinction of one of the major feedback mechanisms that creates the complex free market that fine tunes the US economy and a large part of the global economy.

Supreme power withouth the ability to rule wisely since it is beyond the capacity of a human or a group of humans to do what a diverse market full of manny humans do. This is realy scary stuff if you are headed anyway near this direction!

Overshoot: It's not just about lions on the Serengeti, deer on an island or people on the planet.

Complexity: It's not just about social structure, computer networks, and machines.

Chaos: It's not just about drips from a faucet, the fish populations in a pond or fractals.

Greed for power and money? Those never change.

Cheers