On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
> He said that it was their intent to include language that would allow
> equity infusions. No doubt Frank, who's a very smart fellow, was part of
> this discussion.
I don't think there's any doubt of that. Frank made it clear right from the start in public speeches that equity stakes was one of his make it or break it red lines, along with supervision. I'm sure if someone had pointed the assets/liabilities finesse out during discussions, his crew would have been more than happy to have written "assets or liabilities" in the statute instead of "assets" and that would have solved everything (and been just as opaque to most lawmakers). I think there's no doubt this was their whole intention.
This is just the tiny story of how one detail got partially botched in haste and then how they fixed it. And even in Roubini's somewhat self-aggrandizing account, it looks like it was Frank who came up with the solution.
This is just wonk gossip. I didn't mean it as more -- and certainly didn't mean it to mean that this equity idea hadn't crossed Frank and Dodd's minds. Roubini's not making that claim at all. It's clearer in the part I cut (and I guess I cut too much).
Michael