With Bloomberg reporting that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is moving to tighten up the rules for monster hedge funds, private- equity firms and derivatives markets, it's worth looking at what's ahead and whether we should be preparing for the law of unexpected outcomes.

The plan is to give the US government powers to seize and wind down any financial company big enough to hurt the banking system. But how far it will go? Smarting from claims that it's anti-business, the Obama administration appears to be softening its stance on the AIG bonuses. The Economist points out that the big danger for Obama is that he will be accused of pandering to populism. Well, he is a politician. So now, lawmakers are back pedalling on the proposal for a 90% tax on bonuses. Instead, the plan is to give Geithner and financial regulators the power to decide if employee compensation was "unreasonable" or "excessive", and stop it happening. The question is whether that's giving regulators and politicians too much power.

As Bloomberg columnist Ann Woolner notes, the US Government might be asking for trouble. "It doesn't take a genius to grasp that it's grossly unfair for the mere mortals who do good, solid work, who get laid off because Wall Street geniuses drove the economy off a cliff, to wind up paying bonuses to those same geniuses. No wonder the chorus of demands that the government somehow get back that money, contract or no contract. If the Wall Streeters don't like it, fine. Let them sue. How satisfying that would be, and how irresponsible. If the contracts are as airtight as those who have read them say, breaking them would invite a series of lawsuits the government would surely lose. Why is that a good idea? Yes, the government could pour taxpayer money into a bottomless pit of legal fees. But in the end it would still have to honor the bonuses. And you could expect the employees to come after the government for their legal fees, too. That's the tangible loss to the government. It would also signal that the government's contracts, its very word, can't be trusted. (Well, maybe that horse is already out of the barn.)"

Woolner's comments coincide with the resignation letter of Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group's financial products unit, to AIG chief executive Edward M. Liddy, published in the New York Times.

"After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company - during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 - we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials," DeSantis writes. "In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself ... As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house. Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.'s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.'s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you."

Just another surprise development in the tale. Once the Pandora's box is open, the law of unexpected outcomes kicks in.