There is an interesting post over at the Business Insider Clusterstock blog regarding the bonus tax bill that recently passed in the House and is now on its way to the Senate. The bill was written mainly in response to the recent AIG bonuses that Congress wrote into the previous 1000+ page bill that no one read (or had time to read). Apparently, some members of Congress have finally gotten around to reading the bill they passed - or at least their constitutes did - causing outrage, both real and opportunistic. The bonus tax would essentially apply a 90% tax rate to bonuses paid at firms which have taken over $5 billion from the Government TARP program. While I cannot really disagree with trying to spend bailout money wisely, attacking the bonuses in this way after the same body passed them just weeks before seems not only wrong, but reactionary. In addition, you have to wonder why Congress decided on the 90 percent number. If the bonuses are unacceptable, why not 100 percent? Is 10 percent OK for poor performance, while 20 percent is an outrage? Furthermore, why are only big companies affected? Is it just the size, or is there some other guiding principal? In case you are interested, the companies that reach the $5 billion bailout threshold and are potentially affected by the bill include some of the usual suspects, along with a few others who want to get out of the lineup as quickly as possible:

• AIG
• Bank of America
• Citigroup
• General Motors
• GMAC Financial Service
• Goldman Sachs
• JPMorgan Chase
• Merrill Lynch
• Morgan Stanley
• PNC Financial Services Group
• US Bancorp
• Wells Fargo
  

While it looks like the bill will fail in the Senate, since it seems to be unconstitutional (kind of a sticking point), it certainly gives you an idea of which companies are likely to be the targets of future hostility against wealth creation. It also gives you an idea why more and more companies and states are looking to pay back TARP money as quick as possible, and reject any future stimulus and TARP-type funding. Investors can certainly expect the companies on this list to have difficulty going forward as their best talent moves to companies not affected by any future legislation impacting companies on the government dole. Their competitors, on-the-the-hand, are going to have a field day snatching up talent that is trying to escape lower paying government wages, along with the restrictions placed on such businesses.

A few weeks ago in a post I made a comparison of how both baseball and the markets had a steroid problem, although with the markets the steroids were in the form of leverage, loose lending standards, poor risk management, complex derivative products, unrealistic valuations, and unethical behavior, among others. Another comparison is unfortunately coming to bear. As with baseball, as long as the markets and the government continue to focus more on the juicers, and less on the solutions for fixing the current problems, both will continue to suffer and fail to reach their objective - reminding us of the opportunity that the markets have for making our lives better. Even though daily 450 foot home runs are a thing of the past, hitting a natural home run is still a thing of beauty, and something to be encouraged, both on the field and in the markets.

According to a recent WSJ article, in the wake of the recent Madoff and Stanford scandals, hedge fund investors have been requesting their money back at an increased pace over the last few months. Morgan Stanley analysts are forecasting that assets under management could fall by another 30 percent before the year is over. This follows an already 20 percent decrease at the end of 2008, reducing total hedge fund AUM to below $1 trillion. The withdraws are getting large enough that some funds are now left with only illiquid assets, most of which have to be sold at depressed prices. Increased selling has certainly help pressure the market recently, and will likely continue to do so if the hedge fund redemption forecasts from Morgan Stanley are correct. Having the DJIA fall to 6,000 and the S&P 500 fall to 700 would certainly seem more likely under such intense and systematic selling.

It looks like Morgan Stanley has found a way to reward its top employees without getting in trouble for using bailout money for bonuses. Instead of bonuses, the company will be handing out "Retention Awards" after its merger with Citigroup (see New York Magazine article). I guess the conversation will be something like: "Congratulations, since you are still employed, please accept this cash award." Something tells me that is not going to fly with Congress. Just what we need ........ another hearing.

Even hedge funds that are doing well are seeing withdraws (see Reuters article). Why sell a good fund? As it turns out, the main sellers could be those that operate fund-of-funds. As a result of other funds (holdings) being down, redemption request at FoF are causing selling across the board, dragging down performing funds as well.

There is an interesting article from Cam Hui at SeekingAlpha discussing the need for hedge funds to return to basics, and for investors to rethink their expectations. Of interest from the article is the quote: "Hedge fund investors found out what they had wasn’t a contract with a hedge fund manager, but a call option on a management contract. When the incentive fees dried up, the manager packed up and went away." This gives me an idea. How about selling an option on ......, never mind.

Rumors of a Goldman / Citi merger have changed to a Goldman / Morgan Stanley merger (see Here Is The City News article). Still waiting for the Goldman / Yahoo / Microsoft rumor to surface.

I was just kidding about the 10 million. I did not want a bonus afterall (see Clusterstock article). Merrill and/or Thain doing damage control.

Fleckenstein, a regular guest on Fast Money, is calling it quits, or at least closing his short-only portfolio (see FINalternatives article). He is planning to open a new fund (not a hedge fund) that would be available to retail investors (ie., everyone). In a blog post, Fleckenstein states "I now (sic) longer want to run a short-only hedge fund, as it is very stressful, nerve-wracking and generally not very much fund (sic)." Then again, the money was nice .........

There is an interesting New York Magazine article on Jim Chanos. Even though he seems to be on CNBC just about every time you turn around, the article provides a little more detail on his background, and provides some insight into his approach. Interesting read.