Banks could face another mortgage crisis, according to Barron's, if they are forced to buy back subprime, Alt-A and options adjusted home mortgage securities they've sold prior to the financial crisis, mostly as mortgage-backed securities. Already some buyers, like Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC), have enjoyed some success returning defective mortgages. And this could be just the beginning.

The banks, of course, are fighting vigorously to fend off these demands. As usual, the courts will have to settle the matter. The focus of the debate seems to be founded on the issue of representations and warranties that may or may not have been violated.

There are no surprises among the 11 banks mentioned. It is the conspicuous absence of names you might expect to find that is.

The only question is -- how soon can the Congress get this deal done?

The potential 'deal' being $30 billion in new capital for community banks, who would then use it as a base to increase lending to small-sized/medium-sized businesses by up to $300 billion -- credit that's urgently needed and may prove to be a pivotal factor concerning the U.S. economic expansion's sustainability.

"If we can help the big banks, then we should certainly be able to help small-business lending," President Barack Obama said June 30, Bloomberg News reported. The Senate may consider the bill as early as this week; the program, called the Small Business Lending Fund, passed the U.S. House last month

Over the past couple of years, one of the most troubling aspects of the economy has been the ailing housing market, and in particular the large volumes of homes that have fallen victim to the foreclosure crisis. Finally we get some evidence that things may be moving in the right direction again.

While no one will argue that we are out of the woods just yet, it does appear as things are at least starting to recovery slightly.

The political climate in Washington is hardly conducive to a joint resolution by the Democrats and Republicans honoring Moms on Mother's Day, let alone high-stakes banking issues, but one reality is clear: if banks don't starting providing more credit to small and medium-sized businesses, Congress will have to create agents -- or new institutions -- that do.

The issue is too important for the long-term health of the economy: small and medium-sized businesses account for the bulk of America's jobs and new hiring.

Presently, demand is growing incrementally, but as it increases, if business credit lines don't as well, the recovery could stall, necessitating Congressional action.

This is bizarre at best but its true. In Latvia there lives a man named Viktor Mirosiichenko who heads a company called Kontora Loan Company. Who is this man and what is so unusual about him? He will make a loan to you if you sign an "agreement" and pledge "your immortal soul" as collateral.

Mr. Mirosiichenko's company employs no debt collectors for those who refuse to pay back the loan, nor will he employ violence against those who don't pay back. Signatures on the agreements show only the first name and do not show any documents.

What is TALF? Term Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) is a new $200 billion dollar lending program created by the Federal Reserve.

What does it do? Under the program, the Fed would offer low-cost loans to any U.S. company investing in securitized loans. The asset-backed securities include pools of credit card receivables, automobile loans, and student loans.

Who can participate? Any U.S. company can participate, including hedge funds but excluding offshore funds.

Why did the Fed do this? There are two main reasons behind the Fed's decision. First, even with all the money the Fed has been funneling to the banks by buying government securities, it still is not enough to get things moving. Bank balance sheets are still too constrained. Second, banks have frozen most of their lending except for low-risk customers, and even then the rates on these loans are too high.

What is the benefit of the program? Through this program the Fed hopes to get more loans written at lower rates and bring down the cost of borrowing.

The Fed has now created a new role for itself, that of loan broker, a new and heretofore untried strategy.

The dollar fell, then firmed, against most of the world's other major currencies Tuesday at mid-day, on word of yet another U.S. government intervention to ease the financial crisis. (For full currency data, click here.)

Still, the more important theme, many economists and analysts agree, is how well the dollar has fared given the remarkable increase in debt by the United States and the supply of dollars globally.

The dollar weakened about one cent to $1.3040 versus the euro and about half a cent to $1.5160 versus the British pound on Tuesday at mid-day, after the U.S. Federal Reserve announced it would buy up to $600 billion in mortgage and mortgage servicer-related debt and up to $200 billion in consumer and small business-backed loans, to free up credit in these sectors. The dollar also fell about one cent to 95.53 versus Japan's yen, and about half a cent to $1.1881 versus the Swiss franc.

Under the new programs announced Tuesday, the U.S. Treasury will provide about $20 billion in credit protection to the U.S. Federal Reserve, using money from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP).

In September, the Fed's balance sheet totaled $924 billion, when the first wave of the financial crisis began to freeze credit markets and decimate stock markets around the world. However, if all loan guarantees are accessed, and if all of the remaining $780 billion debt is added to the Fed's balance sheet, that balance sheet would increase to about $3 trillion.

In a rare indication that there may be some reasonably intelligent executives running things at America's top banks, Wachovia Corp. (NYSE: WB) has decided that it will stop offering a mortgage that allows customers to pay less each month than the bank charges in interest.

Hold on. What? The "Pick-a-Payment" mortgages allowed borrowers to choose one of four payment options each month -- as in, "Do you want to pay off your mortgage or do you want to buy a new television and every season of Golden Girls on DVD?"

You can probably guess which option many people chose. The problem was that paying less than the interest each month led to negative amortization -- owing progressively more on the house each month. Recently it's been discovered that home values are not contractually obligated to go up every year and the result is that many people could end up owing more than the home is worth, trapping them in it -- and leaving the bank with a hefty loss in the event of foreclosure.

Wachovia has hired Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) to evaluate its loan portfolio and suggest alternatives. I wonder how much they're paying. I could have told them that letting borrowers decide whether they want to pay the interest on their mortgages was a bad idea.

As the saying goes, what if you invited everyone to a party and no one showed up?

That's a little like how the U.S. Federal Reserve feels right now. The Fed has lowered benchmark, short-term interest rates substantially - - including 125 basis points of reduction in January 2008 alone - - but so far, banks, stung by subprime losses, have been reluctant to ramp-up lending, CNBC.com reported Monday.

Patience advised

Still, economist David H. Wang took issue with those arguing that the Fed's rate cuts and ongoing term auction facility that haven't worked or weren't needed.

Concerning rate cuts, Wang told BloggingStocks Monday that the banking sector had to work through "a period of loan fright" - - an irrational fear of risk - - that is, in his view, the additive inverse of "the total neglect of risk" that characterized the earlier housing boom.

"Banks need some time to improve their balance sheets. Some may accomplish this through job cuts and by operational cut-back. Many will accomplish this through curtailed lending and tighter lending standards, at least for a short period of time," Wang said. "But in time, lending to businesses and individuals will resume its normal pace."

'Gradualism' vs. shock therapy

Second, the Fed's term auction facility - - which U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said will remain in operation "for as long as necessary" - - is working. "The term auction facility is doing exactly what it's supposed to do... it's providing short-term loans to banks who need it, who don't want to borrow from the discount window and who can't get the money from other banks who are afraid to lend," Wang said. "And in the process, bank operations are maintained, even as they slowly and gradually digest subprime defaults and related asset write-offs."

And that last point may be the key to understanding the outlook for a resumption of normal lending conditions, he said. Given the size of likely, problematic subprime loans - - some have put the figure at $500 billion - - and the preference for gradualism, it may be two quarters or more before normal lending conditions resume. Further, the correct place to look for the start of increased lending is not the stock market's level, but commercial activity: orders for new equipment, business expansion plans, and job growth / new hiring announcements.

And while some economists argue that it would be better if the financial services sector wrote-off problem loans quicker - - i.e. 'the sooner the better for economy,' Wang does not agree.

"Shock therapy may have worked in Poland's transition from a communist centrally-planned economy to a free-market economy but we're dealing with a magnitude difference in money here," Wang said with chuckle. "The Fed's goal here is to enable banks to gradually work the bad loans out the system, while maintaining the conditions for sustainable economic growth and not causing runaway inflation. And so far, that strategy is working, in my interpretation."

The fallout from the subprime crisis has gone from merely scandalous to the downright ridiculous.

American Home Mortgage has files for 490,000 loans sitting in a warehouse (at a cost of $45,000 per month), and it can't even figure out who owns the loans because they've been bought and sold so many times since they were issued sometime after September of 2005.

So American Home Mortgage has a brilliant idea for what to do with them: Burn them!

Not so fast, say Wall Street investors who claim that the files can help them prove that they are their rightful owners.

According to the Wall Street Journal(subscription required), "The Melville, N.Y., mortgage lender, which is liquidating its assets in bankruptcy proceeding, made the offer to counter opposition from former backers who said American Home's plan to destroy the files endangered their rights to enforce the loans."

The fact that it's hard to tell who owns the loans is an interesting symbol of how crazy the real estate market became: people were signing off on loans and it wasn't even clear who the ultimate lender of the money was.

This moral hazard was probably a prime contributor to rampant mortgage fraud.

People have been wondering when, and if, the Federal Reserve would take stronger action to protect borrowers hit hard by the housing and credit crisis. The Associated Press expects new rules to be released Tuesday that would apply to all types of lenders, including banks and brokers. You may wonder what gives the Fed the right to issue these new regulations. While the Fed primarily focuses on the health of financial institutions, it also plays a lead role in two key consumer protections -- the Credit Protection Act (which includes Truth in Lending Disclosures) and the Consumer Leasing Act. In recent years it's been a wild, wild west out there as money flowed freely and a lot of loans were made that helped brokers make money more than they helped consumers find good financing options.

Rules expected to be proposed Tuesday include:

• Barring lenders from penalizing subprime borrowers who pay off loans early. Often there is a $12,000 or more penalty for early repayment on subprime loans. I know people who could qualify for prime loans with lower rates but who are stuck with subprime loans because of a particular loan program that sounded good initially but is now beyond what they can afford. Yes they made a mistake, but paying $12,000 in penalties seems steep to me if someone wants to refinance to get out of a loan their broker steered them to.

The ever-prescient Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, an economist, raises, and to some degree answers, a question that no-doubt has been on the minds of U.S. investors, readers, as well as Europeans: Why does banking generate such turmoil?

Or, as Wolf put it another way: why is banking an accident waiting to happen, with the crisis in securitized lending the latest example?

The answer - - or fault, to paraphrase Shakespeare - - lies within ourselves, Wolf argues, due to the very things nations have established to protect depositors - - namely, depositors' insurance and government guarantees, which prompts banks to take high risks.

The latest victim of the current mortgage meltdown in America is Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC). The bank announced late last night it is was going to be losing about $1.4 billion during its fourth quarter resulting from home loans that are not getting repaid.

Despite last night's announcement, the stock is actually trading higher in today's premarket, up 0.6% (last night, traders had initially pushed the stock down about 5%). The main reason why the stock is holding up so well is the impression on Wall Street that Wells Fargo still remains in much better shape than its peers.

Luckily for Wells Fargo, the company had the foresight to sell off the majority of the $2 trillion in loans it made starting back in 2001, so it was able to avoid falling too deeply into the mortgage fiasco that has been claiming bank after bank this year.

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman offers an explanation for the cause of the mortgage meltdown. While I think he comes close to the mark, he misses an important point: bankers will respond to incentives.

I would love to have the talent that warrants the platform Krugman has -- to opine on economic and political matters on the pages of the New York Times. Krugman uses that platform to suggest that the reason for the bad mortgage loans is that bankers "haven't been forced to give back any of the huge paychecks they received before the folly of their decisions became apparent."

My view differs from Krugman's. There is no way bankers will give back their paychecks after they've negotiated their contracts just because Krugman wants them to. In my view, the real issue is that bankers are like any other person and they will respond to incentives. If their pay was linked to both the costs and benefits of the loans they made, then they would care about the risk that the loan might not be repaid.

My husband and I don't yet have children, don't know if we want any, but I am sure of one thing: college funds for these hypothetical offspring need to be opened immediately.

The College Board said this week that the yearly cost of in-state tuition for a four-year public college jumped 6.6% from the 2006-2007 school year hitting $6,185. This follows a 5.7% increase last year from the 2005-2006 period. Private universities saw the annual tally for tuition and fees rise 5.5% to $16,640. The most affordable education can still be found at public two-year institutions, where costs rose just 4.2% from last year to $2,351 per year.

And that's just tuition and various fees. For students who live on campus (40% at public schools; 64% at private), the cost of room and board jumped 5.9% at public schools to $13,589. To live, eat, and learn on a private-school campus, it will cost $32,307 per year, also a 5.9% increase from last year.