Enough already -- leave something in the tank for next time!

When the Federal Reserve Board meets on Wednesday they should leave interest rates where they stand. The lack of liquidity in the market place is not coming from high interest rates. It is coming from a de-leveraging of the economy.

The Federal Discount Rate currently is 1.75% and was 2.25% less than a month ago. Alan Greenspan was too quick to lower the rates before and too slow to raise them when he should have. Ben Bernanke was too slow to lower them this time around and I do not want him to be too hasty to lower them further now when he should take a breath.

We're all rooting for you, Ben (what choice do we have?), so deal with the cash sitting on the Treasury's desk now and get back to this interest rate issue next month. Let the European banks lower their rates. That will strengthen the dollar and might help to stabilize oil prices, which have been dropping rapidly. Lower oil prices will put billions of dollars back into consumer hands and the overall economy. Lower oil prices will do more good than lower interest rates.

We need stability! We need predictability! Part of the reason we got into this mess was cheap credit and poor foresight on the part of the government, investors, and lenders.

Global markets are crashing down today. Asia (Hang Seng down 12.7%, Nikkei 225 fell 6.4%) and Europe (Dow Jones Euro Stoxx 50 crumbled by 5.9% and the FTSE 100 index tumbled 5.4%) are collapsing in unison. And in the last year, they have lost 51% of their value -- destroying $29.6 trillion in stock market value. You may have noticed that stockholders are the silent majority of the financial crisis. This is the group of citizens that Richard Nixon tried to mobilize to win elections. And it's the same group that John McCain's advisor, Phil Gramm, talks about when he says Americans are Whiners.

There are plenty of corporations and financial institutions that can afford lobbyists. The clients of lobbyists don't whine -- they get bailouts. As vice chairman of UBS AG (NYSE: UBS), Gramm is one of the lobbyists that the average taxpayer can't afford, so we end up paying to bail out those who can. How much? Commercial Paper (CP) gets $540 billion; Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM), Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), and American International Group (NYSE: AIG) get $322.8 billion; and the top nine banks get $125 billion to pay bonuses (since Hank Paulson did not require them to lend it out).

Even if stockholders could hire lobbyists, it is unlikely that governments would be able to come up with enough cash to reimburse us for the $29.6 trillion we've lost so far -- or for the additional $20 trillion we could lose if things keep going the way they have been. With confidence lost that governments will solve the problem, people are now trying to cut their losses before they get even worse.

That lack of confidence is what will drive global stock markets for the foreseeable future.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He owns AIG shares and has no financial interest in the other securities mentioned.

Ben Bernanke lacks a strategy to deal with the financial crisis. He just keeps dropping more and more money from his helicopter and hopes it will jump start the economic system. The futures market has already baked in a 50 basis point interest rate cut for this coming Wednesday so with the Dow having lost 312 points last Friday, it would probably collapse even further if Bernanke backed off the rate cut.

But what is the point of this cut? 30-year fixed mortgage rates are higher now (6.47%) than they were in August 2007 (6.45%) when the Fed began cutting the Fed Funds rate from 5.25% to what would end up being 1% if the Fed indeed cuts by 50 basis points on Wednesday. Paul Krugman argues that the high mortgage rates may be a result of U.S. policy not to put its "full faith and credit" behind Fannie and Freddie debt -- thereby increasing its risk. If the Fed was trying to loosen up credit, these numbers suggest its rate cuts are not doing the job.

And While there are some who anticipate it will cut only 25 basis points, I am not sure why the Fed thinks this rate cut will do anything more than use up precious ammunition that might be more useful in an even more severe financial emergency. At 1%, there is not much further to cut. And with the November election fast approaching, it is clear that a real strategy to analyze and fix the myriad financial problems Bush leaves his successor will not happen until January.

It looks like Ben Bernanke is getting under the Wall Street Journal's skin. That's because Rupert's Rag is not happy with the direction of its candidate for President. And it is annoyed that a Republican appointee, Ben Bernanke, is helping out the Democratic candidate -- Barack Obama. That's what prompted the Journal's headline -- Bernanke endorses Obama.

Oh poor Wall Street Journal! Is this the best you can do? Why does it bother you so much that Ben Bernanke is supporting Obama's call for a new stimulus package? In an October 13th speech, Obama "urged Congress to act 'as soon as possible' before the Bush administration leaves office on January 20 to pass a stimulus measure. If Congress and the president didn't act 'it will be one of the first things I do as president of the United States.'" says Bloomberg News.

But Rupert's Rag is in the tank for McCain and although Obama is already setting U.S. policy on big issues -- a few months ago, Iraq and Bush agreed with Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan -- the Journal is upset that Bernanke and ultimately Bush will go along with Obama's proposed stimulus plan as well. First Colin Powell, and now Ben Bernanke are reading the tea leaves and choosing to position themselves for power in the next administration.

And the Journal is finally waking up to the fact that it will be on the outs for at least the next four years.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

It might be that the Treasury is lurching slowly in the direction of doing the right thing to fix our financial system. My cull and capitalize plan would pick the surviving few banks and close or merge the others with the winners -- it would then pump a combination of private and public capital into the winners. I think this is a good idea because the surviving banks would be healthy enough to borrow and lend to each other without undue fear of losing their money. This would go a long way to unfreezing the financial pipelines of our economy.

So far, the Treasury has invested $125 billion in nine banks which I am guessing it thinks are among the winners. Now, the Treasury is suggesting that it will dole out more capital to so-called super-regional banks -- such as KeyCorp (NYSE: KEY), Fifth Third (NYSE: FITB), BB&T (NYSE: BBT), and SunTrust Banks (NYSE: STI) -- if they use the money to acquire weaker players. These super-regional banks might be a good investment opportunity now.

Unfortunately, the Treasury is approaching the problem in a haphazard manner. For example, it already gave capital to banks that are losing enormous sums -- Citigroup (NYSE: C) which got $25 billion comes to mind. And of these four super-regionals -- two (KeyCorp and Fifth Third) are losing big bucks and two -- BB&T which posted third quarter profit of $358 million and SunTrust which earned $540 million in the second quarter -- are earning money. Why would Treasury invest in money-losing banks?

Fed Chair Ben Bernanke always likes to remind us that he is a scholar of the Great Depression. But I am not sure he has drawn the right lessons from it based on his actions. As Mark Twain said, history doesn't repeat itself but sometimes it rhymes. There are certain rhymes between the Great Depression and the current circumstance. Income inequality and negative savings rates leading up to the current circumstance are the same as they were in 1929. In both situations, high levels of borrowing and lack of transparency were key contributors.

But things are also different now. For example, securitization is at the core of the current catastrophe and so is the globally-interconnected nature of the financial system. There are $13 trillion worth of mortgage backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) alone and there is perhaps $340 billion worth of capital on the books of leading financial institutions (FIs).

And due to the global interconnections, banks in Germany were wiped out since they bought too much of this financial toxic waste. And this does not even take into account the $54 trillion credit default swap market – which did not exist in 1929.

The Fed's putting pressure on various exchanges to set up a clearinghouse for credit default swaps. That's the "news" this morning. News is in quotes because, first, the exchanges all want to do this, and they have wanted it for months. They need the revenue. Second, we want more than one exchange so there is competition in pricing and we don't want a sweetheart deal by a government so prone to sweetheart deals that I want to vomit every day I come to work.

Third, this is a regulatory issue and it should be done by some superbody - but please not the easily lobbied-Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which will make you put no margin down because then the fees will be huge from trading. And please not the Securities and Exchange Commission, which doesn't understand markets and has blessed a world where these are under deep cover.

Frankly, as much as I want a clearinghouse on this stuff, I don't think it is possible with these sets of regulators to get a fair one. They are just too easily lobbied by the bad guys to do the wrong thing.

And who would be the worst at this? Tim Geithner and his merry band of "everything we do is right" Federal Reserve folks. I was listening to the TV Thursday and some host was asking some guest how she thought Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was doing. She said "he's done a great job." And I found myself thinking, you have to be kidding, you can't possibly believe that, how could anyone think this guy has done a great job?

Anyway, he and Tim "Mr. Let-Me- Call-the-Media-and-Get-a-Good-Story- About-us-Because-I am-Savvy-and-I- Know-How-They-Care-About-the-Call- Back-and-Will-Praise-US" Geithner" (long and deserving hyphenated nickname) would be without a doubt the worst two to be involved in this credit default swap market because they don't play dirty and don't know how the game works. One of the reasons we are in such a jam is that SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has huge faith in the market and Bernanke has huge faith in the power of debate with people like Dick Fisher, the totally discredited Texas Fed man who was saying that inflation is the issue and it is out of control as the greatest wave of deflation overwhelms us since 1932. Fisher's an arrogant and erudite one-man wrecking crew of this economy.

If the Fed is pressuring for these exchanges then we are really in trouble.

I wonder if they even realize that Oct, 21, the day of the Lehman reckoning when we give the Wall Street gangsters their pay off on their hit jobs on Lehman, will cause the federally owned AIG (NYSE:AIG) write gigantic checks and will also reveal who guaranteed this stuff. It will most likely be lots of institutions the Fed doesn't understand or doesn't know.

At perhaps the most critical moment in his presidency, George W. Bush looked into the teleprompter tonight and warned the American people that very bad things would happen to the economy unless Congress passed the $700 billion bailout for Wall Street.

Kudos to Bush's speech writers. He explained the credit crisis fairly succinctly. Of course, he neglected to mention that his administration's opposition to sensible regulation laid the groundwork for the financial maelstrom. That's an issue, though, which will be debated by historians for decades to come.

Details of the bill are still being hammered out. The administration has agreed to caps on executive pay on firms who seek assistance. Some sort of plan to give taxpayers an equity stake in firms that the government helps also seems likely, according to a The New York Times.

The president had little choice but to reach across party lines because members of Congress were not buying the bill of goods being sold by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Paulson, in particular, showed remarkably poor political instincts by insisting that the bailout be approved as written. Whoever told him that Congress would give him a $700 billion blank check was crazy.

Meanwhile, the crisis is becoming the top issue of the presidential campaign. Republican John McCain today suspended his presidential campaign and called for Friday's presidential debate to be postponed. This is a stunt. McCain and Barack Obama do not sit on the relevant committees dealing with the crisis. Their presence in Washington will have little impact on the development of a deal.

Postponing the debates is an especially bad idea. The American people need to hear the plans McCain and Obama have for the economy. My colleague Peter Cohan points out that McCain has said many things about the economy such as "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" which he probably now regrets.

As I was looking over the Paulson plan for the fifteenth or sixteenth time (what the hell -- it's only three pages long), I was struck, yet again, by its incredible vagueness. Moreover, watching the good secretary battle Congress and hearing the statements of various Congressional lobbyists, I continue to be amazed by the degree to which Wall Street seems to be trying to defraud the American people. According to Paulson, placing caps on executive compensation (aka "golden parachutes"), subjecting the Secretary's decisions to judicial oversight, giving the government an equity stake in the companies that it helps, and setting a firm end date to the program are all "deal breakers." In other words, the Secretary is convinced that companies will refuse to accept a federal bailout if these conditions are attached.

Wow. Did I miss something? Weren't Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke just saying that a bailout is the only thing that will save the economy from a catastrophic meltdown? Now, apparently, some financial companies have determined that a full-scale collapse of the U.S. economy is preferable to leaving a job without sufficient bonuses and separation packages. Rather than tell the heads of these companies to stick it in their ears, however, Secretary Paulson is suggesting that America's taxpayers need to cave in to their demands. This seems so amazingly shortsighted, so incredibly illogical that I began to wonder if there might not be another reason that the Secretary of the Treasury is demanding what seems to be tantamount to financial blackmail.

Howard Rodman suggested a bizarre scenario: he theorizes that Secretary Paulson left his job as CEO of Goldman Sachs in anticipation of this crisis. Hank then went to work for the Treasury in order to orchestrate a major rescue of Wall Street. Having coerced the Federal Government into buying billions of dollars of worthless securities with minimal oversight and provisions, he would subsequently return to Goldman Sachs where, presumably, he would be heavily rewarded for his good work in betraying the public trust.

It's official: Main Street does not believe that Wall Street deserves a $700 billion rescue from Congress.

By a margin of 55% to 31% in a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, American said that they don't believe the government should "bail out private companies with taxpayer dollars, even if their collapse could damage the economy," according to Bloomberg News. That's a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration.

Though Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke are thumping their chests demanding that Congress act immediately to head off the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, members of Congress are not so sure. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) indicated to reporters yesterday that passage of the bill this year was not a sure thing. Maybe that's political posturing, but it should scare investors nonetheless.

Democrats and Republicans are getting hammered by outraged constituents questioning why the government should bail out sleazy Wall Street bankers and not lift a finger to help homeowners hurt by the credit crunch. The American people have nothing against people getting rich. They do resent those, however, those who they believe cut corners, which is exactly how Wall Street got into this mess. Anti-bailout sentiment is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

It appears from today's Senate Finance Committee testimony that Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke are getting eaten alive on both sides of the aisle. Since the world has not ended since Sunday night passed without another weekly multi-billion bailout, it looks like their desperate pleas for unfettered authority to spend $700 billion of our money are not working.

I was just watching the hearings and Paulson and Bernanke are looking like they have no idea what they are talking about. They keep mentioning how 'market mechanisms' will help people want to buy toxic waste when such mechanisms failed before their proposed $700 billion plan. They want to hire people from Wall Street to run 'reverse auctions' which will ask banks to compete to sell their toxic waste -- whoever is willing to sell for the lowest price wins.

This is an idea that comes from Bernanke because he thinks auctions work, based on academic research. But the simple fact is that the banks will need to write down their assets and raise capital if they sell below book value. So they will not participate in the auction.

Remember that old joke that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged? Well, maybe we can now say that a socialist is a free marketer who just got a $700 billion government bailout.

Lost among all of the talk about whether Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke have become the new overlords of the American economy, is discussion about helping save homeowners from the Bush administration. All that was said is that homeowners want the U.S. Congress to pass the rescue bill quickly.

Democrats in Congress have other ideas. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told Fox News Sunday that " we have to do something about the mortgage crisis, not just foreclosures but the price of housing."

Schumer makes a good point, but figuring out what to do is tricky. More must be done. The consequences of massive foreclosures are too big to ignore.

I have heard the arguments before that we should not reward speculators and people who bought homes that they could not afford. That sounds great if we lived in a free market utopia. But as the last few days have illustrated, the free market ain't what it used to be.

Years from now, analysts may look back on the actions of Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and their colleagues and say that they saved the economy from an unimaginable fate.

Or, that may not happen at all. The plan to buy toxic assets from banks and put them into a government fund could be damaged by change forced on it by Congress. The debate could delay the help for weeks.

The plan may also be deeply flawed.

There are several potential issues that could make the medicine worse than the disease. One question is: Who gets saved? Banks? Small-town banks? Brokerage firms? Credit unions? College endowments? Hedge funds?

Congress may not like the idea of saving hedge funds where some managers make hundreds of million of dollars. But, if those funds cannot rid themselves of their troubled paper, they may be forced to sell tens of billions in other asset to stay in business. Another round of panic selling could be an unintended consequence of Paulson's program.

If the government miscalculates who should be thrown a life line, the mess could return.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Equity markets in the United States and across the world rose Thursday and this morning as the Federal Reserve and the other major central banks injected billions of dollars into the global financial system in an unprecedented move to stabilize the financial markets. The stock market soared as word spread that the government was also preparing a more long-term solution to the credit crisis. There are also restrictions on short sales and guarantees of money market funds.

The good news with the recent intervention by the Federal Reserve and the other central banks is that this is a tremendous amount of financial and monetary power being applied. Usually, true disasters like the Great Depression or 1973-74 Bear Market occur when the central banks fail to recognize the problem early or a mistake is made. The Fed clearly recognizes the problem, and Chairman Ben Bernanke, because of his obsession with Fed mistakes during the 1930's, is unlikely to repeat these errors.

There is also global coordination among central banks to resolve this. History has shown in the 1930's and 1970's that it is not wise to "Fight the Fed." Even if large stocks, such as the S&P 500, continue to lag Treasury Bills in terms of total return, small cap stocks can rally in this loose monetary environment. This occurred in both the mid 1930's and the late 1970's. This has been documented in my book, Follow the Fed to Investment Success. It also occurred in the early 1990's when we last experienced a credit crisis similar to this.

The New York Times reports that the Federal Reserve has less reserves. Specifically, a year ago it had $800 billion in reserves and that number is down 63% to $300 billion. The other $500 billion is "encumbered" -- that's a nice way of saying that instead of being invested in "safe" Treasury bills, the Fed owns the assets of American International Group (NYSE: AIG), $29 billion worth of grubby former Bear Stearns collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and the like through a little something it calls "Maiden Lane LLC", and tens of billions worth of the same from Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH) and other banks.

I raised the question of Fed solvency in July. Whether it was solvent then, it is less so now. But is there a limit to how much money the Fed can create to fund itself? With demand for Treasury Bills skyrocketing (albeit at interest rock bottom interest rates of 0.14% for the 1-month bill), it looks like now would be a great time for the Fed to replenish its coffers by issuing a trillion dollars worth to shore up its balance sheet. If it can indeed do that, the downside is that these low rates will pay it very little income.

And assuming that the Fed does not want to be in the business of owning half a trillion worth of encumbered assets, it will eventually need to get rid of them. And in so doing, it could find itself in competition with the ever- dwindling portion of the investment banking and insurance industry which the government does not own. How so? Because the Fed will be competing to get the best price for the assets it is trying to sell.

Will it use its power to put those publicly traded companies in a pickle? Or will it forgo the advantage to the taxpayer so its competitors can profit? Beats me.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He owns AIG shares and has no financial interest in the other securities mentioned.