ShareThis Page

Insider trading fears beset buying of toxic assets

| Saturday, Aug. 15, 2009

WASHINGTON — A controversial $40 billion government program to buy toxic securities from ailing banks has a flaw that law enforcement and financial experts say could allow traders to illegally profit from inside information.

Critics of the program say that without adequate safeguards, traders could use the tens of billions of dollars provided by the government to manipulate prices and exploit the price swings in other trades.

Because the government is providing 75 percent of the program's money — $30 billion — the manipulations could lead to significant losses by taxpayers.

"It is a conflict by design," said Neal Barofsky, special inspector general for the banking rescue program, who has urged tighter controls on the group of nine trading firms selected to participate.

The Treasury Department, which is in charge of the program, says it intends to closely monitor trading activity to prevent illegal insider trading and profiteering at the expense of the public interest.

Barofsky, though, said the government probably stands little chance of beating Wall Street at its own game.

"The Treasury cannot possibly match wits with the innovation and aggressiveness of Wall Street," he said. "If you give them a set of rules and there are technicalities and legal loopholes and things we haven't thought of, they are going to find that out — not because they are bad, but because that is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to seek out profits at all costs."

The program — known as the Public Private Investment Partnership (PPIP) — allows the nine investment firms to use the government money and $10 billion in private funds to buy up toxic securities held by banks.

Chosen last month from a field of about 100 applicants, the nine firms already have begun assembling pools of private investors to buy the securities — composed of troubled mortgages, which have festered on banks' ledger books and hampered their return to health.

The chosen investment firms could earn large profits or bonuses on the trades — but the risk of losses is largely born by the taxpayers, who are putting up most of the money.

"If being a trader in the program gives you information that enables you to do trades on the side, that isn't going to go over very well with the public," said Lynn Turner, former chief accountant at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The practice of using side deals strikes many experts as a return to what created the financial crisis in the first place.

During the Wall Street boom years, huge profits were made by companies trading in unregulated side deals, while ordinary investors earned a fraction of those profits in regulated markets.

The toxic securities, which could total $2 trillion, plummeted in value during last fall's credit crisis and became virtually impossible to sell because of uncertainty over their worth.

Under the government's plan, traders would jump-start the market by making offers to banks for the securities — setting fair prices for the securities and trading them on the open market. The sales could begin as soon as this month.

The danger is that traders in the government program could wield enormous influence in the market — and there are no explicit restrictions on how they could use that influence to profit in side deals of their own. A trader privately could buy up groups of toxic mortgages on the cheap and later drive up the price by purchasing similar mortgages using government money.

Barofsky said a simple solution would be to construct a "wall" between traders in the public program and those in other parts of the firms, thus preventing the manipulation of prices with inside information.

Although the Treasury Department is still finalizing its rules for the program, it has rejected the "wall," saying it would dissuade veteran traders from joining because they would be barred from making other trades.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me