Outspoken congressman Barney Frank has no shortage of critics, and they're sure to be out in force today. This morning, The Wall Street Journal reported that the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, along with his colleague Anthony Weiner, is actually recommending that Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) relax their lending standards on condominiums.

The controversial request follows a decision by both Fannie and Freddie to tighten mortgage-lending standards for condos. In March, Fannie said it would no longer guarantee mortgages on condos in buildings where fewer than 70% of units have been rented, up from its previous benchmark of 51%. Freddie is due to implement similar measures in July. In a letter to the CEOs of both mortgage lenders, Reps. Frank and Weiner expressed their concerns that the higher standard "may be too onerous," and asked the lenders to "make appropriate adjustments" to their approach.

Here is today's quiz. If you were given $1,000,000 to spend each day, how many days would it take you to spend $12.2 trillion dollars? You are probably wondering where the number $12.2 trillion came from? Well, this is the amount of money the government has committed for economic recovery.

Some of the monies can be accounted for but its still a big mystery where the rest went. So far we know this:

In celebration of Barry Ritholtz's critically-acclaimed new book Bailout Nation, he held The Big Picture Conference, which I was fortunate to attend.

Here are the main points from the most reputable speakers, Congressman Alan Grayson, Nassim Taleb, Doug Kass, and Josh Rosner.

Florida Congressman Alan Grayson discussed how systemic risk is an excuse for socialism and that interconnectedness is the main reason that these institutions are "too big to fail." In fact, these institutions no longer hold social or economic purpose, they are simply too big to exist.

Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) have similar purposes but different structures. Fannie Mae was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression for the purpose of purchasing and securitizing mortgages to keep funds flowing to institutions that lend money to home buyers. In 1968, the government converted Fannie into a private shareholder-owned corporation. Freddie Mac, on the other hand, was created in 1970 as a government-sponsored enterprise to expand the market for secondary mortgages in the US.

In September 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) director James B Lockhart announced that Fannie and Freddie would be placed under the conservatorship of FHFA.

According to a report today in The Wall Street Journal [subscription required], Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) -- those twin titans of mortgage mayhem -- are planning to dish out $210 million worth of retention bonuses over the next 18 months. James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, explained that $51 million in payouts were distributed in late 2008, with the rest of the bonuses to be disbursed through 2009 and into early 2010.

The news is already raising politicians' ire, since Fannie and Freddie are staying afloat only through the grace of government bailouts. The two lenders reported combined losses of roughly $108 billion in 2008, says the Journal, yet 80% of Freddie's employees and 61% of Fannie's payroll will score retention bonuses based on this bleak operating performance.

There is an old saying: "never fight the Fed." If you had been short this bond market, you probably could be wiped out in one afternoon. When the Federal Reserve made its announcement a short time ago that they were buying long term securities the futures on the long bond jumped 4.25 basis points, or more that $4000.00 on just one contract. If you were long say 10 contracts you would be sitting on a $40,000 profit this afternoon.

This port was written by Minyanville contributor Minyan Peter.

In 2008, the average stock on the S&P 500 lost 38.5%. John Paulson, no relation to the former Treasury Secretary who is famous for making billions shorting sub prime mortgages in 2007, made almost exactly the same percentage increase as the S&P 500 lost. So in some sense, if you're wondering what happened to your money, ask John. He's got it.

Exactly how well did Paulson do and how did he do it? Paulson Advantage Plus, his largest fund with $7 billion in assets, returned 37.6% net of fees for 2008 -- this means that his pre-fee returns probably topped 40%. Paulson again bet right about the collapse of financial institutions. In early 2008, Paulson shorted Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) -- betting that they'd become insolvent or need to raise additional capital that would dilute shareholders.

Over the past few years, the mortgage business has been virtually dead -- that is, until recently.

Why? The key driver, of course, is the plunge in interest rates (keep in mind that the Federal Reserve plans to buy up $500 billion in mortgages). In fact, you can get a fixed-rate mortgage loan for less than 5%. You'd have to go back to the 1950s to see those levels.

But there's a caveat: the mortgage growth is not for purchasing houses; instead, we are seeing a surge of refinancing activities. But, hey, this is a start, right?

In the first week of 2009, we saw the biggest jump in mortgage applications since 2003 (this is according to a report from the Mortgage Bankers Association). There was a 15.8% jump in the index.

Interestingly enough, it's still fairly difficult to secure a mortgage, especially as underwriting standards have increased. Basically, a large number of consumers have minimal levels of home equity as well as damaged credit.

Now, Fannie Mae is in the process of implementing new programs for troubled borrowers, which should help. What's more, Congress may introduce some new programs.

However, it is critical that housing prices increase again, which means the U.S. economy will need to once again get back on track.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook and The Streetsmart Guide to Short Selling: Techniques the Pros Use to Profit in Any Market. He is also the founder of BizEquity, a valuation website.

The dismantling of the financial stocks is mind-boggling but not entirely unexpected. Last year, we discussed the need for culpability to extend throughout the societal spectrum, from borrowers who over-extended on their credit to the institutions that financially engineered risk to policy makers who were compliant by acceptance.

The fact that many of these names are going to Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) is perhaps the healthiest possible scenario through the lens of "taking medicine as a function of time and price." It is, however, massively unfortunate for the employees who simply followed marching orders.

We're talking livelihoods lost here. Life savings evaporated. Careers ruined.

Therein lies the "other side" of the aforementioned "healthy" scenario: societal and structural implications. We've talked about the former ad naseum so I don't think we need to beat that horse. On the structural side -- and something to keep in mind for those calling for the heads of financial professionals -- is the fact that if there isn't incentive for people to fix the system, it simply won't get fixed.

Incentive on Wall Street equals money. The industry will be austere and ripe with humility, mind you, but we must find our way to a healthy supply-demand and a balanced give-and-take. For if we don't crack the code in short order, we risk that our capital market structure will cease to exist altogether.

This situation is called being "upside down," which means that you owe more than the house is worth. Selling your home when you are "upside down" is called a "short sale."

This is not a new practice. It has been used before but never without a buyer. Most deals fell through because the paper work took too long or because lenders, servicing firms and mortgage guarantors rejected the sales price. For these reasons, "short sales" have a bad reputation among real estate agents.

Last Friday the Fed announced a $200 billion dollar program for buying toxic assets from banks to help them stay afloat. Yesterday the New York Federal Reserve Bank started a new $500 billion dollar program for buying toxic securities from Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) and Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM)

Since Friday the yield on 30 year agency mortgage securities dropped from 208 basis points over Treasuries down to 190 basis points. This has had the effect of lowering mortgage rates. The rate on a 30 year fixed mortgage has dropped to 5.3% from 6% last November.

The Fed is using four firms to conduct these transactions. They are: BlackRock (NYSE: BLK), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Pimco and Wellington Management.

As was stated previously, the Fed has not disclosed the details of any of these repurchase programs. They are saying that they will be doing this "as the need arises."

A dramatic effect of this new Fed action is the sharp drop in US Treasuries, which today are down another 217 basis points on the 30 year March futures contract. Since last Wednesday the March 30 year bond futures contract has dropped from 141 down to 133 for a drop of about 800 basis points or $8,000.

I guess we can assume from all of this that Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the banks are in much deeper trouble than the Fed led us to believe last November. The Fed is not calling these bailouts any longer. They are just going ahead with these massive programs, programs that, by and large, investors and the public are not aware of.

What are your thoughts on these programs?