RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

“Will Be Held to Account….”

All eyes were fixed on Washington on Tuesday. Prior to addressing dramatic developments in the world of finance, I would like to make a brief comment about the inauguration of Barack Obama from a historical perspective.

I am proud to be an American and revel in seeing the smooth transfer of power. I think back to the stories my Dad shared with me as to how Irish politicians in Boston gained power.

In the late 1800s, many job listings in Boston, and I assume other cities as well, included the letters NINA. “No Irish need apply” branded my ancestors as second class citizens. My Irish forefathers had a burning desire to move out of the ghetto. That desire was aided by the general ascent of the Irish to political power in Boston.

While I certainly do not agree with President Obama on a wide array of issues, I do hope President Obama’s ascendancy to the highest office in the land inspires current and future generations of African Americans and others who may have felt disenfranchised. For our country and all her citizens, I wish him well as he undertakes his role.

In the course of his speech this afternoon, President Obama remarked, “those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account–to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day–because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.” I am going to take him up on this.

As I heard this remark, I thought of my desire to pursue further questioning of proposed SEC chair Mary Schapiro. Rest assured, we will push on for the simple reason that our democracy deserves no less. I hope everybody who reads our work will join our efforts and, as necessary, will write or forward material to your respective representatives in Washington.

Despite the total focus on Washington, the world of global finance did not have a holiday but did have some ENORMOUS developments. In an attempt to save on verbiage, allow me to share some figures with you. On Tuesday, we saw the following price changes:

DJIA                            -332pts  -4%             
Nasdaq                        -88pts    -5.8%
S&P 500                       -45pts    -5%
10yr Tsy                      -6/32 !!!   No bond rally today!
Municipal Bonds               -1%
High Yield Bonds             -1.5%

Individual Stocks
RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland)     -70% !!!!!!!!!!!!
State Street Bank                     -59%
Citigroup                                 -18%                           
Bank of America                        -28%
JP Morgan                              -20%
Wells Fargo                            -24%
Goldman Sachs                        -19%

What happened you may ask? I would respond with the following:

1. The virtual certainty that parts of the banking system in the UK will be nationalized.
Read how “In U.K., Currency Tumbles on Fear Bailout Will Fall Short.” Including the fact that European government bonds and the Euro itself are selling off given the expected further capital injections. Is that a precursor for government and mortgage rates here in The United States? I think so.

2. The strong likelihood that the banking system in the United States has some form of nationalization. These are truly historic and challenging times and how this banking meltdown is handled from here will be both gut wrenching and critically important to our immediate and long term economic health and well being. We will be watching VERY closely.

3. State Street “warned investors that some obscure off balance sheet assets could leave the bank at risk of heavy losses in the future.”

4. On November 12th, a reader asked how and why he could ever invest in a bank. I responded “that is a very good point. Investing in banks is now a much higher risk proposition because one does not know just how deep losses are in individual banks.” 

The WSJ offers, “State Street Earnings Drop

Good Bank/Bad Bank Model
There has been significant speculation and discussion on this topic. In the midst of an interview this morning, Senator Chuck Grassley was asked his opinion on how this topic should be addressed. He responded, “I’m not sure. I can’t answer your question. I’m not sure anybody in this town can answer your question.”  Well, Senator, enjoy the ball this evening but tomorrow we better get to work on this. As I mentioned on my show Sunday evening, I do not believe that we should allow the banks themselves to establish good banks and bad banks under their own bank holding company umbrella. We have always needed strong hands with real staying power to gain control and the only entity that can do that is Uncle Sam. Thus, I do believe with certain banking franchises, the government should literally declare them as insolvent, take over the bank, and guarantee creditors. 

From there, Uncle Sam can sell desirable assets to offset costs, save the taxpayer from continuing to inject more good money after bad for existing management, erase the remaining shareholder equity, guarantee creditors and depositors up to the FDIC limit. To the extent that some form of the bank can resurrect itself over time with the injection of private capital, then a new banking system will rise from these ashes. For those banks that have more judiciously managed their affairs, at this time to the victors go the spoils. This approach is largely the model being promoted by Sheila Bair and is similar in nature to what occurred in the late ’80s and early 90s.

Aside from the shareholders, the current employees at many of these banks may also suffer as businesses are liquidated or downsized. While this scenario is playing out, the healthy banks will gain market share and the government will want to direct capital to them to increase lending.

So much more to address as we move forward. To the extent you have issues or questions that you would like me to look into, please do not hesitate to ask. God Bless America!!! LD

     

  • bart

    Hey LD!

    Firedoglake did an apocalyptic piece the other day. I don’t know how close it is, but it was food for thought.

    http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/18/the-american-death-wish/

    So because no one will do what is necessary, catastrophe will happen. What I mean by this is a severe decline in the US standard of living, probably between 20% to 40%, starting in 4 to 6 years and taking place for a decade. Might happen sooner if folks keep refusing to do what needs to be done to fix the financial crisis and stop it from turning into a worldwide Great Depression. Even before it happens, you’re going to see real wages declining for Americans while their assets collapse in price.

    To see what a precipitous decline in standard of living is like, read up on Russia’s history in the 90′s. A lot of people will die of starvation, of cold, of heat, of lack of medical help and from violence.

    Not being a professional, I’ve pretty much decided to fatten my cash reserves and pay off the mortgage as soon as possible, hoping the property taxes don’t get so high I’ll have to worry about that.

    But I’m also guessing my IRA money is completely at risk. Having already gone down a lot, I’m just hoping the funds don’t collapse. So, I don’t play to put any money there, despite the “buy now” mantras I’m hearing.

    Or is this all too negative??

    • LD

      Thanks for sharing that link. I appreciate his sentiments but I do not share them.

      I do think that you are taking the right approach with your finances. Well done.

  • tek

    I do hope this president will be held accountable. I think his approval ratings can’t help but be high for awhile because Bush was so terribly unpopular. I read this morning that he has suspended all Bush regulations for investigation. Things like that have to give people hope. I believe whoever the incoming president was–especially a Democrat–would have been met with the same wild enthusiasm. It’s the end of the Bush era. I just hope we haven’t lost the democratic process to a handful of old men in a backroom in D. C. who can get away with selecting the president in this age of American Idol.

    • AMERICA R.I.P.

      LMFAO…Obama suspended the most recent Bush Executive Order for his OWN self interest. The Executive Order states that ANY Federal Employee could be “re-investigated” so several people took that as an opportunity to file MORE lawsuits on the birth certificate issue. Obama’s not protecting private citizens. It’s all about HIM. Get used to that “all about him” thing.

  • Sassy

    Thanks LD!
    My concerns now extend to my personal family.
    My son-in-law is in the banking sector, as a computer security specialist.
    So far his job is not threatened, but as a younger, over-extended family, they would have very little to fall back on.
    I will keep my fingers crossed!

  • fiscalliberal

    LD – did you see Roubini comment

    Roubini Predicts U.S. Losses May Reach $3.6 Trillion (Update1)

    From Bloomberg???

    They better get Geitner confirmed and in that office. I do not think Summers can do it part time from the White House

    • LD

      I did see Roubini’s forecast. He has been prescient throughout this meltdown but I do wonder if he is being overly pessimistic with that number.

      I imagine that Geithner will be confirmed. I have very mixed feelings about that given his tax issues. Ultimately it is a team effort and Geithner and Summers will both be deeply involved.

    • heather

      Help me understand. I have heard all the tales of Geithner’s tax issues, I have also heard that Geithner was instrumental in designing the first bailout, which doesn’t seem to have done boo-diddly. So why is it that you think that we need a guy who either can’t figure out his own taxes, or isn’t honest enough to, who runs fast and loose with the rules (as evidenced by the deductions that he took), and who obviously didn’t get it right the first time, confirmed and in that office? I’m not trying to be sassy with you, but it really seems crazy that we’re willing to have him there no matter how dishonest he appears to be. Seems like we’re still on the too big to fail bandwagon to me.

      • LD

        You make a lot of good points. His not paying taxes bothers me to no end. When I say that he will likely get confirmed I am merely offering my opinion as to what the vote on him will be.

        In regard to the bailout, the depths of the problems are so deep that neither he nor anybody could have implemented any single program that would have corrected this mess.

        I agree with your assessment that we are still on this “too big to fail” which is why at this time I think it is best that the government take over certain institutions, unwind them, and let market forces with real regulatory oversight get back to work.

  • HARP

    Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who
    has been with us for many years.
    No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long
    ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having
    cultivated such valuable lessons as:

    - Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
    - Why the early bird gets the worm;
    - Life isn’t always fair;
    - and maybe it was my fault.

    Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more
    than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in
    charge).

    His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but
    overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy
    charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended
    from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for
    reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

    Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the
    job they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly
    children.

    It declined even further when schools were required to get parental
    consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could
    not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an
    abortion.

    Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses;
    and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

    Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a
    burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

    Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
    realize a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her
    lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

    Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by
    his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son,
    Reason.

    He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
    I Know My Rights
    I Want It Now
    Someone Else Is To Blame
    I’m A Victim

    And now we have selected a community organizer and his merry gang of retreads.

    GOD HELP US

    • oowawa

      Common Sense seems to thrive in Hard Times, so maybe he will be resurrected in the years ahead. When life is too easy, there is less need for Common Sense. When times are really tough, we can’t live without him.

      • oowawa

        he=she
        him=her

    • FrenchNail

      HARP,

      we seem to share the same point of view. Yesterday, the dinner conversation was on weither prosperity was ultimately good for a nation. America stirred away from hardship for an entire generation or more and we now have a whole segment of the population not accustomed to work, think, save and thrive.

      This entitled generation is going to have a RUDE awaikening. Hallas, more than enough to knock some commun sense into them.

  • mountainaires

    Larry, thanks for your thoughts on the “good bank/bad bank” proposal. I seriously question the wisdom of it. This is grim:

    Economic Times

    US and UK on brink of debt disaster

    20 Jan, 2009

    LONDON–The United States and the United Kingdom stand on the brink of the largest debt crisis in history.

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/rssarticleshow/4004567.cms?flstry=1

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/01/some-thoughts-on-debt-disaster-in-us.html

    • LD

      Mountainaires…we are obviously in “uncharted waters” but I do believe that we are at the point that we need to take the steps I highlighted.

      Thanks for those links.

  • http://sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

    Hi LD! Great information! So to your point #1, since bond prices are going down, interest (and mortage) rates will go up (eventually)?

    When will the MSM pick up a history and/or economics book and read it?!?!?!? We are truly walking down “the road to serfdom” (book by F.A. Hayek).

    We need champions of the REAL free market–the REAL one!! In Hayek’s book, he pens the dedication “To the socialists of all parties”. Democrats AND Republicans are guilty of leading us down this road. It will never lead to liberty and prosperity. Never.

    • http://sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

      P.S.–England is in serious trouble, but I hear Spain is really in deeply. Watch and learn, America–this is where we are all headed.

    • LD

      Sonic…yes, I do think that given the expected massive supply of government debt both here and abroad that government rates and mortgage rates will be headed higher.

      We are seeing that occur overseas.

  • mountainaires

    Gordon Brown Brings Britain to the Edge of Bankruptcy

    Iain Martin says the Prime Minister hasn’t ‘saved the world’ and now faces disgrace in the history books

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-Brown-brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html

    Ouch: “Reykyavik on Thames.”

    Ireland’s Banks Sink With Decline of ‘Celtic Tiger’

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aoqe.IFFd7Ag&refer=home

    And, YET ANOTHER tale of suicide. This is getting really eerie:

    Irish Developer Rocca Found Dead at Home, Police Say

    By Kevin Crowley and Ben Livesey

    Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) — Irish real-estate tycoon Patrick Rocca was found shot dead at his home in a suburb of Dublin in an apparent suicide, police said.

    Rocca died at his home in Porterstown, Castleknock, and his body was discovered at about 8.30 a.m. on Jan. 19, Sergeant Maire O’Sullivan, a police spokeswoman, said today by telephone. Police don’t suspect anyone else was involved in Rocca’s death, she said.

    Rocca was involved in property through his company, Accorp Properties Ltd. He had investments in both Ireland and Britain, according to the Irish Times, which said Rocca was 42.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aCptcJXozjZM&refer=uk

  • I’m a Linda too

    Yesterday I screemed at the tv when that chick on HLN was saying “experts are saying it will take years to receive any benefit from the stimulus package the Democrats are proposing”. “Yes, I hope people realize that this isn’t a quick fix”.

    YOU STUPID IDIOTS! If the stimulus package actually had the correct ingredients, IT WOULDN’T. She seems to have missed the point, that the only things that will target stimulating the economy, WILL take time. If they actually used the stimulous or bailout plan to STIMULATE the economy, it wouldn’t take so long and we wouldn’t be losing while they are using our tax dollars for their special interests paybacks.

    I believe FDL may be correct, that these years ahead will make our country CRASH. But, we’ve been warning that. Like even Krugman, these plans aint gonna fix jack. He like Hillary’s plans, but that’s not what we got.

  • MrMike

    From there, Uncle Sam can sell desirable assets to offset costs, save the taxpayer from continuing to inject more good money after bad for existing management, erase the remaining shareholder equity, guarantee creditors and depositors up to the FDIC limit.

    If government holds true to course, those assets will be sold off for pennies on the dollar to some politico’s crony.

    • LD

      MrMike….not necessarily so. The process needs to be competitive and transparent. Honest auctions should be the process. That did occur back in the early 90s through a facility known as the RTC, Resolution Trust Corp.

  • mountainaires
    • Annie Oakley

      Also from Denninger:

      SAN DIEGO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Intuit Inc. (Nasdaq: INTU – News) today released the following statement responding to Capitol Hill testimony by Treasury Secretary-designee Tim Geithner regarding his use of TurboTax software. It can be attributed to Dan Maurer, senior vice president and general manager of TurboTax.

      Each year, millions of Americans use TurboTax to accurately prepare and file their federal and state tax returns. The software helps taxpayers report their income and find the deductions and credits they’re entitled to claim.

      “TurboTax, and all software and in-person tax preparation services, base their calculations on the information users provide when completing their returns. TurboTax also has built-in error-checking tools that routinely catch common taxpayer mistakes.”

      That is pathetic. The Treasury Secretary select was claiming he was too incompetent to use TurboTax.

  • I’m a Linda too

    LD, just to let you know, comments are being sent in to the spam filter, apparently.

    • I’m a Linda too

      OH HEY, IGNORE THAT…apparently they have just shown up in a big lump.

  • Sam

    I am well aquainted with Federal employees who manage to spend tax dollars on themselves and their families like there is no limit! They do very little of the “peoples” work – but take a lot of vacation, personal time, sick days and schedule medical/dental/mental heath/physical therapy/etc. appointments for themselves and their kids for every little bump and bruise. This is in addition to the lavish benefits they are automatically given. The “work” they do consists of submitting a couple of college freshman level “reports” that they “contributed” to (“teams” of them) with stuff they swiped off the internet into a video or power point presentation every year. They travel to exotic locations all over the US and overseas to “present” these “reports.” These “reports” basically state how “important” thier particular jobs are to the United States. They stay in great hotels and do a LOT of shopping. I doubt that even Obama will make a dent in that lifestyle. It’s carved in federal contract stone.

    • I’m a Linda too

      Obviously. Especially when you have the current president always making excuses for outrageous spending as “that amount won’t solve our problems”. Actually, you idiot, when you take all those folks abusing 100 million dollars at a pop it will. But that never excuses waste and abuse anyhow.

      He knows it all to well, as Obama spent over 120 million of taxpayers dollars to throw himself the most lavish party for his swearing in, while he’s doling our more money to his contributors and asking US to SACRIFICE.

      uh huh

  • http://www.WriteHillaryIn.com tamerlane

    ” I do hope President Obama’s ascendancy to the highest office in the land inspires current and future generations of African Americans and others who may have felt disenfranchised. ”

    Yes, what a glorious moment for our nation! For now, all across America, millions of parents can say to their young daughters: someday you can’t become president.

    • http://deleted Buzz Latte LaRue

      Absolutely!!!

      Obama is the poster boy for misogyny and chicanery at any cost to make sure women don’t succeed.

      Blacks? Meh. They’ve had Affirmative Action for years. Many of them didn’t care enough to better themselves, hence their shytty statistics for welfare, out of wedlock babies, criminal activity and incarceration, and the general malaise among their group. I’ve worked in public service with many, I do know what I’m talking about.

      In fact, if Mr. Affirmative Action president, who doesn’t know enough to use a handkerchief instead of the back of his leather glove to wipe his nose, is any indicator to blacks, they have a long way to go.

    • Ferd Berfle

      Yes, what a glorious moment for our nation! For now, all across America, millions of parents can say to their young daughters: someday you can’t become president.

      An unfortunate truth, I’m afraid.

  • What goes around

    Some guy made an interesting observation on the tube last week:

    If you had a certain amount invested in the market and and the market dropped by half, what remains will now have to double in value just to get you back to where you started. In other words, to break even after a 50 percent loss, you’ve got to hope for a 100 percent gain.

    I’ve been trying to get a grip on what this actually means to regular people.

    • LD

      It means the same for everybody and leads to the question as to how much risk people were taking, are taking, and want to be taking.

      Not sure if that helps you but that is the simple basis for one’s approach to the market and investing.

  • http://deleted Buzz Latte LaRue

    How many would be willing to take those financial risks if they had other choices for their retirement monies?

    When you aren’t able to decide where to put your retirement money because of the canned retirement plans your employers offer, it is a moot point.

    • LD

      Fair point. If the retirement plan does not offer a wider array of options then people need to make sure that they are not taking greater risks in other parts of their financial holdings.

      I would encourage people to aggressively pursue all the options offered. Typically retirement plans have a number of different options.

  • Annie Oakley

    Thanks, LD.

    In the course of his speech this afternoon, President Obama remarked, “those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account–to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day–because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.” I am going to take him up on this.

    It sure sounds good to me, and if he delivers, I’ll vote for his re-election. I’ll be joining you in taking him up on it. For my part, I’m going to focus on his healthcare reform. The government created Group Purchasing Organizations that are not being to account. This cost to the system is now a private monopoly, I believe. President Obama could go a long way to restore trust if back room deals like this were revoked. As a cost saving measure, it would make a lot more sense than devoting $50B or so to helping them tighten their monopoly on the healthcare marketplace.

    • LD

      Annie,

      Up until this election I had NEVER once sent an e-mail or made a call to any of my representatives in Washington. I now do it regularly (granted it has only been a few months) so that I can be on record as sharing my views.

      I would think that at some point they may start to recognize my name and then as need be I will follow up with phone calls, including to their local offices.

      • Annie Oakley

        Good for you, LD. Maybe we’re a relay team because I’ve been writing and phoning right up UNTIL this election. I’m a little burned out – and I don’t think name recognition helped me in my effort! I’m sure I’ll get back to pestering my duly elected representative soon – I’ve even got a fresh one, lol.

  • fiscalliberal

    LD

    Is it correct to make the statement that the shadow banking system was the mechanism of the banks to form special purpose vehicles and put the securities in them for long term income. These SPV’s financed these purchases by issuing short term borrowing which had to be renewed. The SPV’s were not regulated, and they had very low reserves.

    As the security instruments reputation diminished, the short term money dried up. Hence the SPV had to sell into a fire sale or had to be bring the securities back onto the bank balance sheet. That put the reserve crunch on and is possibly the reason the TARP money is going into the banks and not being used for lending. It is being held in the reserve account.

    In short we will never see the banks lend the tarp money. Transparency in the TARP program would shure help. I heard today that the AIG TARP money is going to the counterparties.

    Furthermore, could it be Roubini’s comments were based on the number of SPV’s out there and the continued failure of the SPV toxic paper.

    Certainly a lot of fog, any insight you have will help.

    • LD

      Fiscal…

      Your analysis is well thought out and written.

      With money being fungible it is not only difficult but virtually impossible to “pinpoint” exactly where money is directed.

      Forward losses of the kind that Roubini is highlighting can only be forecasted based upon an assumed level of defaults on loans.

  • MBC

    Hi LD,

    Can you explain what the ramifications are if we nationalize US banks?

    The strong likelihood that the banking system in the United States has some form of nationalization. These are truly historic and challenging times and how this banking meltdown is handled from here will be both gut wrenching and critically important to our immediate and long term economic health and well being. We will be watching VERY closely.

    Thanks so much, remember like you are explaining to a high school student.

    • LD

      MBC,

      Well given that we have never nationalized banks and had them continue operating all I can do is offer my opinion.

      We effectively have nationalized banks via the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) but then paid off the depositors and closed the doors after selling off assets.

      That is what I am recommending for institutions that are deemed insolvent. This approach was taken in Sweden in the early 90s and the economy recovered fairly quickly (a few years)

      In these instances, the shareholders are effectively wiped out. The creditors (people who have lent money to the banks) would get paid out up to the FDIC limit (250k) for individuals. For institutions which have lent money they would have their repayment largely if not totally guaranteed by the government. Departments or divisions that have value could then either spin themselves off or be sold. After all this is done, shut the doors. The party is over. Why would such draconian steps have to occur? Simply because the losses on loans of all types along with losses on investments will have overwhelmed the capital in the bank.

      The government may very well take the step of nationalizing the institution but continue to operate it in hopes of generating revenue to writeoff the losses. What is the risk here? That the losses on the loans and investments just merely get worse and it ends up costing even more money down the road than it would cost right now. This approach was taken in Japan in the 90s and the economy did not turn aroudn for a full decade (it is called The Lost Decade)

      In each of these scenarios we need to be aware that the motives of the government are far different than the motives of private capital. The government is here to serve the public welfare. The private capital is in business to serve the interests of shareholders. Given changed motivations we can only assume that there will be different business practices.

      Ultimately we are trying to achieve not only stability in the banking system as a whole but growth and increased lending.

      Does this make sense? Hope it helps.

    • LD

      MBC,

      After writing my own response to your question, I just saw this article from the Wall Street Journal.
      The people there must be monitoring NQ for ideas.

      I have yet to compare my reply to this article.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258304319904345.html

  • MBC

    Here is what I take away from your response and the WSJ article – nationalizing the banks will take away the competitive edge, diminish the desire for institutions to provide good customer service, stifle innovation, and reduce the incentives to those who strive to play by the old rules to maintain high standards of financial and personal responsibility.

    In essence both of the opinions expressed the same sad thing.

    From your response:

    “In each of these scenarios we need to be aware that the motives of the government are far different than the motives of private capital. The government is here to serve the public welfare. The private capital is in business to serve the interests of shareholders. Given changed motivations we can only assume that there will be different business practices.

    From the WSJ article:

    “If the government takes over a bank, management will be under even more pressure to cut costs. Expect more branch closings and poorer customer service. “Think of the bank as the DMV of the future, run by government employees who have little upward mobility,” says Mr. Kaytes.”

    I think we can expect that over time, the nationalized banks will be less open to innovation and new product development, more conservative in their approaches, and more constrained in their actions and subject to tighter scrutiny,” says Jim Eckenrode, banking and payments research executive at TowerGroup.”

    Everyone will be treated the same, loan rates will be consistent regardless of your credit history, investment rates will be the same regardless of the amount or duration of investment, etc. The taxpayers will end up subsidizing more than they realize as the loan standards will be reduced to meet the lowest common denominator. Consequences for not paying will be relaxed(or forgiven), taking away the incentive to build a solid credit history and/or financial future.

    I think this may be what got us into this fix in the first place (with Fannie and Freddie).