Why Does John Paulson Hate The Safecracker?

Considering he has apparently transformed into a mortgage backed securities bull (in selective cases) it's interesting to hear that John Paulson doesn't seem interested in using cheap government leverage and guarantees to participate in the public-private plan to pick up legacy assets, as he told the Times. Why not? We actually have no idea, given Paulson's soft spoken treatment of the subject, but it is great fun to speculate.
Perhaps the prospect of an ever-changing regulatory morass or retroactive witch-hunts turned off our hero? Or perhaps Paulson would simply prefer to cherry pick his own hit-list of prospective value plays, avoid the gamble of an auction and the spectacle of banks trying to game the system? Lots of buyer's regret potential here. Leveraged buyer's regret, actually. It is also not particularly hard to imagine that anything the banks want to sell might be less attractive than a few carefully picked distressed assets from better motivated sellers.
Is Paulson alone? We would like to find out. Dealbreaker is going to keep a running tally of who decides to opt out and in. So far:
Bridgewater: Considering it.
Citadel (according to sources): Considering it.
Paulson: No.
Let us know as you hear. Share: tips at dealbreaker dot com.
Top Hedge Fund Managers Do Well in a Down Year [The New York Times]