BusinessWeek Logo

The Bailout Talks: What Remains On The Table

Posted by: Jane Sasseen on September 27

Complex negotiations over the Treasury Department’s proposed $700 billion rescue package for the financial sector intensified late Saturday afternoon, as Secretary Henry Paulson and top Congressional leaders met starting a little after 3 PM in hopes of hammering out the final details of the package by Sunday. Though the Democratic leaders participating –- including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Rep. Barney Frank and Senators Chuck Dodd and Charles Schumer — heavily outnumbered the main Republican negotiators, Rep. Roy Blunt and Sen. Judd Gregg, there was renewed optimism that a deal could be reached despite the disarray that surrounded the talks following a contentious White House meeting late Thursday. Speaking on the Senate floor before the Saturday afternoon meeting, Reid said an “agreement in principal” was within reach.

Sources close to the talks say that staffers who worked late into Friday night to prepare the groundwork for the final talks identified 16 core issues that the principal negotiators must still resolve. The full list is below, following the jump.

Most are the key issues that have been at the center of the talks for a week. Whether or not bankruptcy courts will be allowed to reduce the value of mortgage debt owed by bankrupt homeowners remains on the table, for example, though few believe it will survive into the final package.

But a few new items have taken on more prominence as negotiators have approached the end game. For the first time, the issue of whether financial institutions will be forced to mark down the value of all their mortgage-backed assets to whatever price the Treasury agrees to pay for the toxic tranches that it buys has emerged as a key issue. Financial institutions have fought heavily against being forced to “mark-to-market” the value of all their mortgage assets, which could essentially force even those institutions that don’t participate in the program to treat whatever fire-sale price the Treasury pays as the new market value for other troubled mortgage assets. Lobbyists for the financial services industry argue that doing so would exacerbate the institutions’ ability to meet regulatory capital requirements and weaken their balance sheets overall, thus defeating the whole purpose of the rescue plan. They want accounting rules requiring firms to “mark-to-market” such assets temporarily suspended as a result.

Following the rebellion on Thursday by conservative Republicans, who put forth a proposal that the government should relieve troubled banks by insuring their bad assets rather than buying them outright, negotiators are now considering giving the Treasury the option of providing loans or guarantees to troubled banks. That’s unlikely to change the direction of the bailout much however; after all, it is unclear why any bank wishing to reduce the toxic assets on its balance sheet would want to replace them with a loan rather than cash from the Treasury. “It’s window dressing,” says one source closely following the talks.

And negotiators are still wrangling over how much of the funding to approve right away. On Friday, Congressional leaders had proposed authorizing $350 billion in spending initially, with another $100 billion upon certification by the Administration that it was needed, and the final $250 billion tranche subject to further Congressional review. But Paulson is fighting back to increase the size of the initial cash layout to $500 billion.

On executive pay, negotiators appear to have agreed to limit severance and “golden parachutes” for executives at companies which participate in the plan. But they continue to fight over two issues:

First, Democrats are trying to include actual dollar limits on the amount of compensation that a participating firm can pay to its executives. But Paulson is arguing that specific limits should not be included; instead, he argues the bill should simply give the Treasury discretion to review the pay packages at firms taking advantage of the program.

One source close to the talks says a second measure is gaining traction among Democrats: an effort to limit the tax deductibility of executive compensation, which currently stands at $1 million. Rep. Charlie Rangel, (D-NY) the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has proposed limiting that to $400,000 – the amount the President earns. While it’s unclear whether this will ultimately remain, there is no longer any question that some limits on executive compensation will pass. Democrats and Republicans alike need to be able to point out to constituents angry about a package widely perceived to be a bailout for Wall Street that they have whacked down executive pay.


Here’s the full text of the memo that staffers presented to the Congressional leaders for what all concerned hope will be the final round of negotiations:

Issue: Whether to expand authority to explicitly permit Treasury to provide guarantees or loans.
Issue: Add full guarantee program framework and reporting.

Use of Profits for affordable housing
Issue: Whether 20% of profits on ultimate disposition of assets should be used for Affordable Housing Fund

Foreclosure mitigation
Issue: Whether to include a requirement that Treasury adopt a systematic program for reduction in foreclosures.

Assistance to homeowners
Issue: Whether to require the FHA, Federal Reserve, and FDIC to: (1) adopted systematic approach to preventing foreclosure; (2) make foreclosured properties available at a discount to state and local governments receiving emergency assistance; and (3) encouraging loan servicers to engage in loan modifications and make properties available to state and local governments.

Warrants from auction participants
Issue: Whether to require that Treasury obtain warrants from financial institutions that purchase assets through auctions (additional language being considered).

Executive compensation policies for auction participants
Issue: Whether to require auction participants to adopt certain executive compensation policies (additional language being considered).

Corporate Governance requirements for direct transactions with individual institutions
Issue: Whether individual institutions that engage in direct transactions with the Treasury (i.e., not through auction) should be required to adopt certain corporate governance policies related to proxy access and advisory votes on executive compensation (additional language to be considered).

$700 billion availability and amount
Issue: Size of authority.
Issue: Whether there should be a mechanism to permit Congress to act in an expeditious manner prior to use of Treasury authority over certain limits.
Issue: Whether the $700 billion authority should be "revolving" such that the proceeds of sales of assets can be used for additional purchases.

Bankruptcy
Issue: Whether there should be any provision concerning reformation of mortgage contracts by bankruptcy judge in connection with a primary residence.
Issue: If bankruptcy provisions are to be included, should it be retrospective or prospective?

Authority of the Executive Committee - the Oversight Board composed of three heads of agencies (currently Federal Reserve Board, SEC, and FDIC) and two Congressionally appointed members. [replacements?]
Issue: Whether the Oversight Board should have an Executive Committee and whether it should have operational authority to "direct, limit, or prohibit" activities of the Secretary.

Special Inspector General
Issue: Whether there should be a new Special IG established within Treasury with respect to the operation of the Treasury facility.

Composition and ratio of Congressional Oversight Panel
Issue: Size of panel and ratio of appointees: 2-1 from both House and Senate, with members to select a chair for a total of 7 members; or 1-1 from both House and Senate, for a total of 5.

Money market mutual fund provisions
Issue: Whether to require immediate replenishment of Exchange Stabilization Fund by reconstitution the recently established money market fund guarantee program within the new facility approved by this bill.

Definition of "Financial Institution" - current definition covers financial institutions that are organized, regulated and have substantial operations in the United States.
Issue: Whether to permit financial institutions that are "licensed," but not organized, in the United States.

Eligibility of assets held as collateral for loans to failed banks by foreign authorities
Issue: Whether foreign authorities that have provided support to financial institutions against collateral will be permitted to participate.

Suspension of "mark-to-market" accounting
Issue: Whether to include a provision stating that the SEC has the authority to suspend the application of mark-to-market accounting rules with respect to any category of issues.

Reader Comments

jethromayham

September 27, 2008 08:48 PM

If there is no stiff oversight, I can picture the government going corrupt.
Just take the Iraqi war as an example:

Spending $11 billion a month, we know millions are going into the war supporters one way or another. Bush and McCain can make millions while trying to use scare tactics.

John D. Johnson

September 27, 2008 08:55 PM

If the executives involved wish to save their "way of life" let them volunteer to correct this problem. Give them military pay.If they won't volunteer,then declair a national emergency and draft them. If they don't show up then arrest them. I am dead serious on this.

garth

September 27, 2008 09:43 PM

It would seem sad that a country which was once in black in terms of bugetry position is not in the red and is further mortgaging away the future of its' citizens, with the only escape being how much capital one actually has once the dust settles.

Bill Rush

September 27, 2008 09:43 PM

Paulson, Bernanke, and Bush are trying to sell the American people a car (bailout plan) we don't want. They say, you may not want the car but we are going to include air conditioning, a radio, cruise control, and airbags. We say we still don't want the car, but they say that they know best and we need it.

There is no reason they can't postpone this until after the election.

Democrats have no reason to cooperate with Bush. He lied about the Iraq War, and he has ruled as an imperial President.

They aren't doing this to protect Main Street. They are doing this to protect all the investors and pension funds still in the stock market.

Democrats are playing Russian Roulette with their control of Congress and possible control of the White House.

Tim

September 27, 2008 10:09 PM


Why do lawmakers insult Americans intelligence by using a car wreck example. The proposed plan to "clear the wreckage," creates wreckage elsewhere, inflation, higher taxes, and higher oil prices; it allows the same drivers to drive faster, taking more risk because they know they will be bailed out if they crash again.

Paulson's view of the world is distorted. Dire consequences are exaggerated because the discount window is already wide open; Fannie and Freddie are federal agencies and they are making mortgages; the commecial banking system can provide a lot more financing as it did twenty years ago before the Wall Street crooks sold its overly cooked securities and deriviatives.

America can prosper with a much smaller Wall Street.

We don't need to preserve the same system that gave us Enron, the $1 billion fine paid by the securites analysts for lying to support their investment bankers, and the auction rate security scandals. What further damage and fraud will the Street perpetrate?

Lastly, the bamboozled law makers continue to talk about profits from selling the securities back, but Paulson and Bernanke have testified that there will be losses when the government sells the securities, if it ever can.

DAVID SOLOMON

September 27, 2008 10:50 PM

I am disgraced by how AMERICA, has been destroyed by GEORGE BUSH, AND DICK CHENEY.The last eight years under the BUSH, ADMINISRATION,has created two made up wars, destroyed the CONSTITUTION,also the housing bubble.But,lastely,killing the economy,as well and letting greed in Wall Street go crazy.

hillary widebottom

September 27, 2008 11:07 PM

Use of Profits for affordable housing
Issue: Whether 20% of profits on ultimate disposition of assets should be used for Affordable Housing Funds.

Is this the pay off to people like Acorn? NO THANK YOU!

Terry Bergstedt

September 27, 2008 11:36 PM

In an effort to be of assistance to MAIN STREET put a limit on the percent
credit card companies are permitted to charge on their debit balances. 28% and 30% being charged by some is usury and counter productive to helping MAIN STREET get back on their feet.If an effort is being made to help keep legit
families in their homes ,give them a shot at paying off their debt at reasonable rates of interest.

Arthur Lelie

September 28, 2008 12:25 AM

Affordable housing for deserving workers has been out of reach for many years with no steps taken for relieve. The bailout could address this by changing accounting from "mark-to-market" to 25% of salaries of personnel in designate areas is ear-marked for home financing.

Jeff Struve

September 28, 2008 02:16 AM

How about a provision that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and any other Congressman (maybe some Republicans) disgorge campaign funds from Fannie, Freddie and any entity (AIG) that gets a cent of bailout relief? How about a provision that no one involved (CEO's of relieved banks, politicians-in office or retired, Paulson etal) can act as a consultant, lobbyist, or equity owner in any entity that stands to benefit from this travesty of a "bailout".

The funds going to "affordable housing" is preposterous. That's how the whole thing started.

GeraldD

September 28, 2008 08:27 AM

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON BLAMES DEMOCRATS FOR FANNIE MAE MELTDOWN

President Clinton told ABC News That the blame for the Fannie Mae Meltdown Lies squarely at the feet of Corrupt DEMOCRATS who blocked efforts to regulate and investigate Fannie Mae. You have to admire his candor -

Watch The Jim Angle Report It Links To The Clinton Interview--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHj8-HSi5AA&eurl=

Watch The ABC / Clinton Interview On ABC News ---
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html


But If You REALLY Want To Know How We Got Into This Mess In The First Place, Watch This Video And Pass It Along:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Hear Barney Frank On Video "There Is No Crisis At Fannie Mae"
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194210.php

The New York Post Agrees -- http://www.nypost.com/seven/09242008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/house_of_cards_130479.htm?&page=1


There are 2 former CEOs of Fannie, a former assistant CEO, an Interim CEO, and at least Four United States Congressmen and Senators who should GO TO JAIL for BRIBING members of Congress to block investigations of Fannie Mae Abuses.

bkrupt

September 28, 2008 09:31 AM

I should have the right to opt out of this plan and take my part of the bailout. I think it comes to around 3000.00 to 4000.00. I could use that money too.

Ron

September 28, 2008 11:50 AM

What is so scary is that the very same people that precipated this crisis, Barney Frank and friends, are the ones who are now drafting the legislation that will correct it. One of the provisions, putting money that may be recouped into an affordanle housing fund, is the reason that there is a crisis in the first place. Giving people loans that they can't repay just to get them in homes thay can't afford is the crux of the problem.

The Political Stray

September 28, 2008 01:00 PM

Reread some of those things that still need to be negotiated. Make a list of that which will be helpful to those average citizens placed in a bind by these lenders. Then make a list of that which benefits the guilty lenders. Then make a list of that which gives those that have already proven inept or corrupt more power.
Get the picture? Either they think we're stupid or we actually may be.

Jamie Briant

September 28, 2008 01:29 PM

Don't tell us. Tell your senator and representative:

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Bud Bell

September 28, 2008 01:34 PM

It's time to say no! We have had enough of big business taking over and now its time to turn the door handle again and open up a whole new era of business. No bail out. They took the profits! They took the risks. No its time for them to pay. Small business want to see no bail out because They can grow beyond their dreams. Our government is supposed to be just that, not a banker for big businesses. Were sorry they guy making 20 million a year will have to drive a cheaper car. This is the land of dreams. So let the new and upcoming entrepreneurs show the old business how its done. We as a nation cant advance if were still playing old banking games. The buddy, buddy system is no more, and it's time for new ideas and new people to help this nation grow.
I say no to bail out.

Hartley Lord

September 28, 2008 03:40 PM

Terry Bergstedt is 100% correct. Institution of a reasonable usery cap is imperative at once. A 5% premium above prime should be the limit rate.

Greg

September 29, 2008 12:00 AM

See what got us here www.corporate-america-sucks.com

Kitty Antonik Wakfer

September 29, 2008 07:43 PM

Pertinent to the entire sub-prime mess that began this latest fiasco, which the "mother of all bailouts" was/is supposed to fix, Henry Hazlitt wrote in a subsequent revision of his book, _Economics in One Lesson_ c. 1979, :

"Government-guaranteed home mortgages, especially when a negligible down payment or no down payment whatever is required, inevitably mean more bad loans than otherwise. They force the general tax payer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. They encourage people to "buy" houses that they cannot really afford. They tend eventually to bring about an oversupply of houses as compared with other things. They temporarily overstimulate building, raise the cost of building for everybody (including the buyers of the homes with the guaranteed mortgages), and may mislead the building industry into an eventually costly overexpansion. In brief, in the long run they do not increase overall national production but encourage malinvestment."

Everything about this bailout bill that failed - but will surely see the light of day again this week - is more of the same government shenanigans that brought the financial markets to where they are, the same things Hazlitt was warning against 29 years ago. I don't understand why so many business media writers are not making these facts clear... or maybe they haven't read Hazlitt...?!

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Casa Grande Arizona

Post a comment

 

Election 2008

Washington Bureau Chief Jane Sasseen and other BusinessWeek writers cover the run-up to the Nov. 4 presidential election, paying close attention to how the candidates will handle issues such as housing, the economy, unemployment, and immigration.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links


Magazine

Current Issue

BusinessWeek Cover