Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Should Paulson's Fund Welcome Outside Investors?
Here's an idea I probably haven't thought through properly, but shouldn't outside investors be not only allowed but welcome in the new fund being set up by Hank Paulson? The fund is, after all, a distressed-debt fund at heart, and there are a lot of investors who would love to take this opportunity to buy up distressed assets on the cheap -- especially if they could piggyback on the negotiating leverage that Treasury will have.
At the same time, every dollar invested in the fund by an outside investor is a dollar which taxpayers don't need to come up with themselves, and is one less dollar added to the national debt.
I'm not even sure you would need particularly long lock-up times for investors. After all, the fund will surely have some kind of quarterly mark of what its assets are worth. Investors would be able to put money in or take money out each quarter, at whatever that mark is -- while paying maybe a 1% annual management fee. If in any quarter investors withdraw more money than they invest, Treasury would then make up the difference -- but at least it would have gone all that time in the interim without having to borrow the money.
Another way of achieving much the same end would be to sell equity in the fund: set it up as a company, majority-owned by the government, but with a small public minority float with an IPO at say $100 a share. The share price would then be a very good day-to-day indication, if you believe in the wisdom of crowds, of how the bailout fund is doing and whether the government is making a profit on it. And of course the fund could raise new equity any time it liked, as an alternative to funding itself entirely on the debt markets and thereby placing an extra burden on the public fisc.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are already in a very similar state; AIG soon will be. Why not get to a similar place with the bailout fund, only instead of nationalizing a private company, privatize some of a public company? Maybe Hank Paulson himself should be encouraged to buy say $10 million of shares for his personal account, to get the ball rolling.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





