- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Edit #2: Please don't anybody quote the whole damn post when replying, it's too dang long
Link
(Edit #1: I note this copy I found is labeled "Draft for Discussion Purposes", so I can't be 100% sure this is exactly what they are discussing/voting on. I.e., could be other provisions inserted.)
Whoah! So the Secretary of the Treasury gets a butt-load of authority and leeway here. I understood that this was a complaint about the initial Paulson proposal. Seems he still has it.
So, this bill leaves open how these securities are to be priced?? (I think this should generate loads of discussion among finacial professionals - however there are none in Congress
)
And the SoT has the ability to hire outside people to manage the securities purchased by the DoT?
And he gets to decide whose troubled assets are pruchsed?
This is why it is a really really *Good Thing* to be friends with the Secretary of Treasury
Hehe, I would think that the Dems like this bill more than the Repubs. Whoever is in line under Obama to be SoT must be salivating, same with any of his friends in the finance profession.
^ This safeguard sounds like a good idea, too bad there's an enormous loophole in it. But I think only securities held before march '08 qualify, but anybody who bought, through bankruptcy or acquired in a merger before then can sell to the Treasury at a profit. Why is this loophole there? "Friends of Paulson"?
^ Well, this was suggested as an alternative to the *buy out*, looks like they threw this in so now we have BOTH a buy-out and an insurance program.
^ Could be some real profit in here for someone getting a deal from the DoT when buying these things
^ Oh great :thumbsdown: looks like we'll be buying OTHER countries crappy investments. Let's bail out the whole world!!!!
(See the WSJ article below) ^ This was another alternative suggested to avoid having to buy-out these securities. While I'm glad to see this is being looked at, I note we now have (1) a buy-out + (2) an insurance program + (3) the mark-to-market rule change.
Link
I do note that there is quite a bit of oversight provided for in the bill, including an inspector general looking over the SoT shoulder. We'll see how effective it is (or maybe we won't, this stuff is complicated and would be very difficult to trace).
There are many other provisions, I only listed those most interesting to me. I did not see any pork though, nor any ACORN provision.
BTW, the buy-out still has the $700 billion limit, I thought they wanted that reduced?
^This is from a very quick *read* of the thing, it's 106 pages. Probably a lot I didn't pick up in my skimming of the thing, might be wrong about some of my concerns too. But $700B is a lot of money, and seems to me there is a lot of opportunity for many outside of government to profit, whether it be selling these at a profit (loophole above), or getting contracts to manage the mortgages, or buying from the Treasury and selling higher etc.
Cliffs? (badly needed but I've no time now - sorry )
Fern
Link
(Edit #1: I note this copy I found is labeled "Draft for Discussion Purposes", so I can't be 100% sure this is exactly what they are discussing/voting on. I.e., could be other provisions inserted.)
Whoah! So the Secretary of the Treasury gets a butt-load of authority and leeway here. I understood that this was a complaint about the initial Paulson proposal. Seems he still has it.
So, this bill leaves open how these securities are to be priced?? (I think this should generate loads of discussion among finacial professionals - however there are none in Congress
)And the SoT has the ability to hire outside people to manage the securities purchased by the DoT?
And he gets to decide whose troubled assets are pruchsed?
This is why it is a really really *Good Thing* to be friends with the Secretary of Treasury
Hehe, I would think that the Dems like this bill more than the Repubs. Whoever is in line under Obama to be SoT must be salivating, same with any of his friends in the finance profession.
^ This safeguard sounds like a good idea, too bad there's an enormous loophole in it. But I think only securities held before march '08 qualify, but anybody who bought, through bankruptcy or acquired in a merger before then can sell to the Treasury at a profit. Why is this loophole there? "Friends of Paulson"?
^ Well, this was suggested as an alternative to the *buy out*, looks like they threw this in so now we have BOTH a buy-out and an insurance program.
^ Could be some real profit in here for someone getting a deal from the DoT when buying these things
^ Oh great :thumbsdown: looks like we'll be buying OTHER countries crappy investments. Let's bail out the whole world!!!!
(See the WSJ article below) ^ This was another alternative suggested to avoid having to buy-out these securities. While I'm glad to see this is being looked at, I note we now have (1) a buy-out + (2) an insurance program + (3) the mark-to-market rule change.
Link
I do note that there is quite a bit of oversight provided for in the bill, including an inspector general looking over the SoT shoulder. We'll see how effective it is (or maybe we won't, this stuff is complicated and would be very difficult to trace).
There are many other provisions, I only listed those most interesting to me. I did not see any pork though, nor any ACORN provision.
BTW, the buy-out still has the $700 billion limit, I thought they wanted that reduced?
^This is from a very quick *read* of the thing, it's 106 pages. Probably a lot I didn't pick up in my skimming of the thing, might be wrong about some of my concerns too. But $700B is a lot of money, and seems to me there is a lot of opportunity for many outside of government to profit, whether it be selling these at a profit (loophole above), or getting contracts to manage the mortgages, or buying from the Treasury and selling higher etc.
Cliffs? (badly needed but I've no time now - sorry
)Fern
Facebook
Twitter