Comments on: TARP datapoint of the day http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/21/tarp-datapoint-of-the-day/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Tom Cole http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/21/tarp-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-717 Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:29:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/21/tarp-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-717 Amazingly, congress seems to be the only part of our government displaying any sense of responsibility. With the Feds and Treasury handing out free money hand of fist, congress has used its powers to impose compensation limits as a test to see if the companies receiving the payouts are as desperate as they claim. Congress called the bankers bluff. And since the compensation limits were put in place, no one seems to think their company is in the dire straits they claimed just a few months ago.

]]>
By: Don the libertarian Democrat http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/21/tarp-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-709 Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:40:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/21/tarp-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-709 “Saturday, October 4, 2008
Problems With The Bailout
From the NY Times article “For Treasury Dept., Now Comes Hard Part of Bailout”, I see the following problems with the plan as envisaged:

1) Possible conflicts of interest with the administrators of the plan.

2) Overpaying for assets.

3) Doesn’t do enough to ease credit markets or makes it worse.

4) When the assets are eventually sold, there is a huge and unanticipated loss.

5) Lobbying by hedge funds, etc.

Are there others? ”

These are inherent problems in any government/private sector hybrid plan. The recent past has shown this. You cannot rid the arrangement of them. All that you can do is get people to try and supervise the process closely. These issues also turned up in the Fed’s MBS purchases program.

“Conflicts of Interest
The first area of vulnerability is that the private parties managing the PPIFs might
have a powerful incentive to make investment decisions that benefit themselves at
the expense of the taxpayer”

“Collusion
A closely related vulnerability is that PPIF managers might be persuaded, through
kickbacks, quid pro quo transactions, or other collusive arrangements, to manage
the PPIFs not for the benefit of the PPIF (and taxpayers), but rather for the benefit
of themselves and their collusive partners.”

Both of these I call Conflict Of Interest. They are inherent in hybrids.

“Money Laundering
National and international criminal organizations — from organized crime, to narcotics
traffickers, to large-scale fraud operations — are continually looking for opportunities
to make their illicit proceeds appear to be legitimate, thereby “laundering”
those proceeds.”

And? This applies to any financial business in the US.

The solutions:

“Treasury should impose strict conflict-of-interest rules upon PPIF managers across all programs…

Treasury should mandate transparency with respect to the participation and management of PPIFs.

Treasury should require PPIF managers to provide PPIF equity stakeholders (including TARP) “most-favored nations clauses,” requiring that the fund
managers treat the PPIFs (and the taxpayers backing the PPIFs) on at least as favorable terms as given to all other parties with whom they deal.

In order to prevent money laundering and the participation of actors prone to abusing the system, Treasury should require that all PPIF fund managers have
stringent investor-screening procedures, including comprehensive “Know Your Customer” requirements”

In other words, watch out. Come on. If you don’t like the plan, it’s riddled with demons. These same kinds of problems turn up in all areas of government largess. Fraud, Collusion, Negligence, and Fiduciary Mismanagement, are essential areas of worry in financial concerns. Period.

If you don’t trust the FDIC and Treasury and the Fed now, why would you trust them to do anything right, including seizing banks?

]]>
By: cjh http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/21/tarp-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-707 Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:22:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/21/tarp-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-707 I don’t get the money laundering angle. Just buying an asset with dirty money and then selling it doesn’t conceal the source of the funds. If I put $10 of dirty money in the PPIP and then get (say) $12 out, there’s still an audit trail – I have $2 of legitimate investment gain, but I still can’t explain where the $10 came from.

On the other hand, if I could (plausibly but falsely) say that I invested only $1, then I still end up with $12, but it would look like $11 was investment gain. I still have $1 to explain, but I’ve laundered the other $9. But that only works if there’s no record of the investment – PPIP investments won’t be made with bags of cash.

What am I missing?

]]>