David, OT, but I sent you an e-mail last week asking if you’d like to become an affiliate for site I just launched. In the event my e-mail got stuck in your spam file, I’m mentioning this here.

The site is Shortscreen.com, and it offers tools and ideas for short sellers, including a screener based on the Altman Z-Score model (actually, on that model and the Z”-Score version). I think it might be of interest to those of your readers who short stocks as part of their overall portfolio strategy.

If you agree, here is the scoop on the affiliate program.

I’m not saying the people involved here are either competent or honest, mind you, but there are way too many moving parts here.

If you work for Fannie/Freddie what is your professional motivation? To make money for the firm–or the taxpayers–or just avoid screwing up enough to keep getting paid? My guess is the latter.

If the Trsy gains on FNMA and looses an equal amount in taxes — then there is no benefit and no point in hiring hundreds of lawyers to do the deal. So skip it.

If the Goldman pays more for the tax credits than they will save in taxes (stop laughing! this is hypothetical what-if), then the Trsy should print the trade all day. It seems highly unlikely Goldman will pay more for the tax credits than they save

The third scenario: The Trsy loses more in Goldman tax revenue than it gains via FNMA. This is obviously the scenario Goldman would prefer, and arguably THEIR Treasury secretary wants it as well. This is morally wrong and economically wrong, and we all know it.

Obama needs to act like he is the President and TELL (not ask) Geithner to make sure the taxpayers get scenario #2, or else no deal. Probably that means no deal — so be it.

There is no conflict here for someone who is the US Treasury Secretary representing US taxpayers. The dilemma is Geithner’s because he officially works for the taxpayer, but really works for Goldman

And he cannot serve two masters…