Bailout and worries update

Second installment is “opt out” and not “opt in”; CEO pay cap could be largely symbolic

Here’s the latest word, and yes, some of my worries remain.

The bill would pay $250 bil up front with Treasury to get another $100 bil if it could “certify” it needed it.

Is that like AG Mike Mukasey “certifying” that telecoms need immunity?

The other $350 bil remains in the pipeline unless Congress actively votes no; in other words, per the online subscriptions world, this is an “opt-out” and not an “opt-in” on the remaining money, one of my main concerns.

And $250B plus a $100B sidebar is more than Chuck Schumer’s proposed $150B first installment.

John Schoen, in his analysis piece, has a few more details, and possible grounds for concern.

No Resolution Trust Corporation equivalent to manage this. Barney Frank’s idea of the New York Fed having a hand could be better, or it could be worse. Given that we know little of what the NYFed knew and when about the crisis, without more transparency, I’ll pass on Frank’s idea.

The reverse auction and mark-to-market issues are still unclear. Does Treasury set an absolute minimum price, for example? And, given August housing numbers, will many people even touch MBSs right now?

The CEO pay cap? With deferred compensation issues, plus options on stocks that will, perversely, now gain value, this may be little more than symbolic.

So far, MSNBC’s unscientific poll is trending toward “do n ot approve.”