The New York Times reports that Federal National Mortgage (NYSE: FNM) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage (NYSE: FRE) have a tiny sliver of capital to support a mountain of mortgages. To put it in perspective, their level of borrowing is almost twice that of the enormously over-leveraged investment banking and hedge fund industries. With the collapse of the housing market, Freddie and Fannie are in trouble. And when you get to the scale of these two, so is America.

As I posted last month, it could cost $1 trillion to bail out Fannie and Freddie. These hybrid organizations are a key cog in the mortgage industrial complex (MIC) that has gotten the world into its current capital crisis. Fannie and Freddie buy "conforming" mortgages from their originators and then package and sell the mortgages as securities. But these two have a mere $83 billion in capital to support $5 trillion worth of debt and other commitments.

This 60-to-1 ratio is almost twice the 32-to-1 ratio of the highly leverage investment banks and hedge funds. And like any company with hard-to-value assets, Fannie and Freddie have unrealized losses. In their case, those total $20 billion -- they've already taken $9 billion worth so far this year. By 2007 they had guaranteed or invested in $717 billion of subprime and Alt-A loans, up from almost none in 2000. And many of those are not worth that much.

AP reports that home sales dropped to levels not seen since the George H. W. Bush housing recession in 1991. And home prices are plummeting faster than they have since 1970.

Here are the details: new homes dropped by 8.5% in March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 526,000 units, the slowest sales pace since October 1991. And the median price of a home sold in March dropped by 13.3% compared to March 2007, the biggest annual price decline since a 14.6% plunge in July 1970.

What the current Bush housing collapse and the earlier one share is the after math of too much capital flowing in to the housing market. Under Bush the elder, the capital flowed in due to the deregulation of the Savings & Loan industry -- resulting in a $250 billion bailout. Under Bush II, the problem was the $1.3 trillion subprime mortgage market which made capital available to people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgage -- after all, 47% of those loans required no documentation of borrower's income.

AFXNews reports that Thornburg Mortgage Inc. (NYSE: TMA) has defaulted on a credit agreement with one of its banks. That's because it could not come up with $28 million it owed JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM). Specifically, Thornburg needed to pay JPMorgan -- to whom it owes $320 million -- the $28 million for a margin call.

According to The Associated Press, the notice of default from JPMorgan triggered cross-defaults "under all of the company's other reverse repurchase agreements and its secured loan agreements." According to MarketWatch, Thornburg has been facing margin calls due to a 15% drop in the value of mortgage-related securities in early February.

Margin calls are a common response from investors when securities purchased with loans rapidly lose value. If they fall too far too fast, they may hit triggers that require the issuing company to either shore up their position or sell off additional assets.

The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] adds a new wrinkle to the story of efforts by subprime mortgage lender Ameriquest to use campaign cash to curry favor with the government. Ameriquest's parent, ACC Capital Holdings, has paid $325 million to settle regulators' claims that it charged excessively high mortgage rates and didn't adequately disclose loan risks. The Journal's story today highlights the $20.5 million Ameriquest spent at the state and federal government levels to block legislation that would have limited its predatory lending practices.

But as I posted in August, Ameriquest's cash helped boost the fortunes of president Bush. Bush, who used home ownership politics to get re-elected, received $7.8 million from Ameriquest for his 2004 reelection campaign, his inauguration and for Laura Bush's library foundation.

Ameriquest's most interesting pay-to-play technique was to give Rolling Stones tickets and cash to state legislators. For instance, according to the Journal, "Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaigns received at least $1.4 million, along with stacks of tickets to a Rolling Stones concert that were used to lure big donors." And Ameriquest also handed out Rolling Stones tickets to state legislators in Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and California.

What did Ameriquest get for all its giving?

Yesterday afternoon, Hillary Clinton was on CNBC with Maria Bartiromo, discussing her plan for protecting some homeowners who are in danger of losing their houses due to resetting subprime mortgages. It was supposed to be an interview, but it was more of a spat, and showed the deep pro-Wall Street bias that is typical of much of the financial media.

Clinton claimed that Wall Street played a major role in creating the subprime mess and was looking for support from the Street for the plan to freeze mortgage rates for some borrowers. Bartiromo couldn't hide her strong disagreement with this argument. Her basic point was: What about personal responsibility? Why are people who entered into contracts being bailed out? And she all but shouted, You liberal! Violating the sanctity of contracts! Interfering with the blessed Free Market!

The dollar has once again set a new record low against the euro today, with the euro moving as high as $1.4966 earlier in the day. In Asia, the dollar also fell sharply, falling to below 108 yen, marking a two and a half year low against the yen.

The dollar has definitely been in trouble lately. The current slide really gained steam back in August as the market started to realize the effect the subprime mortgage crisis was going to to have on the economy. The dollar has been in a literal free fall ever since.

The dollar is not only reacting to the mortgage concerns, but recent interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve are also adding to the dollar's weakness. So far this year, the Fed has already cut rates twice, and as Wall Street continues to gauge the impact of the mortgage crisis on the overall economy, analysts now expect to see at least one more rate cut in the near future.

It looks like people in power are getting beyond the point of denying that subprime is a problem. And now they're onto the next stage of trying to decide just how big a problem it is. I have seen estimates ranging from as high as $4 trillion to as little as $104 billion. (This is one area where the son will beat the father. Bush I's Savings & Loan crisis cost $240 billion but Bush II's looks likely to be far more costly.)

While each estimate covers different aspects of the cost, the big questions that need to be answered are:

• What caused the problem?
• What can and should be done to minimize the damage? and
• What changes can be made to keep it from happening again?

I don't have real answers to these questions but I think a look at the different estimates of the subprime mortgage meltdown's damage can shed some light on the problem. Here's my take on the three estimates:

I've been talking about the Super SIV bailout plan since the plans for the fund first became public October 14. Today The Wall Street Journal is questioning whether the Super SIV bailout fund can be funded in time [subscription required] to help struggling SIVs who need to find investors for $100 billion in debt coming due in the next six to nine months. The Journal reports some of the biggest SIV operators already are selling their assets, including Citigroup (NYSE: C), the Super SIV champion and the operator of the largest chunk of SIVs, and Rabobank of the Netherlands. Moody's Investor services continues to downgrade the types of assets held by the SIVs, especially assets based on subprime mortgages in the U.S.

Why should you care? You may be holding a money market fund or mutual fund that holds debt from these SIVs in trouble. If the bailout doesn't arrive in time, SIVs will have to restructure their debt, wind down, or in the worst-case scenario become unable to pay their debt investors. When the Journal first started talking about this mess, it reported SIVs held $400 billion in assets globally. Today, because of the write-downs and sale of assets, the Journal is estimating the total value of SIV assets at $350 billion.

It's a bit more than 20 years since the Dow fell 508 points, or 22.6%, in a single day. With Asian and European markets down a mere 1% to 4% today, it does not look like we'll have a repeat of that 23% decline today. What's happening in world markets? According to the New York Times, Hong Kong fell 3.3%, Japan tumbled 2.2%. South Korea was down 3.25%. In Europe the early news was not as bad -- London's FTSE 100 was down 1.4%, the German DAX dropped 1.3%, and Paris slid 1.8%.

Twenty years ago, the CEO of the company I worked for sent one of my colleagues to figure out good stocks to buy -- considering the market plunge an opportunity to buy good stocks at a discount. It turned out that he was right. The cause of the crash was found to be related to simultaneous computer driven-selling that somehow took the rationality out of stock valuations.

But will today's potential plunge also turn out to be a buying opportunity? The answer depends on your time frame and which stocks you buy. It's never clear to me why markets go up and down although "explanations" get printed every day. But it could be that the big reason for the selling in global markets is fear. In particular, investors fear that the U.S. has unleashed a subprime mortgage-backed securities (MBS) financial virus that is sucking an unknown -- but enormous -- quantity of credit out of the global financial system.

Hank Paulson's floundering effort to rescue the world from this MBS viral epidemic is not inspiring confidence. So I would not be eager to rush out and buy stocks in this market. Unlike the computer-driven selling of 1987, the economic costs of MBS's financial "innovation" are still too difficult to count.

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

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doesn't see himself as Wall Street's sugar daddy. That point is abundantly clear from a speech he made Monday in New York.

Although the Federal Reserve can seek to provide a more stable economic background that will benefit both investors and non-investors, the truth is that it can hardly insulate investors from risk, even if it wished to do so. Developments over the past few months reinforce this point. Those who made bad investment decisions lost money. In particular, investors in subprime mortgages have sustained significant losses, and many of the mortgage companies that made those loans have failed. Moreover, market participants are learning and adjusting--for example, by insisting on better mortgage underwriting and by performing better due diligence on structured credit products. Rather than becoming more crisis-prone, the financial system is likely to emerge from this episode healthier and more stable than before.

That sound like tough love, doesn't it? Bernanke certainly seems to be sympathetic to the plight of average people and said the Fed will take action "as needed." There may not been a need for the Fed to do anything at its upcoming meeting. September retail sales were pretty strong and data indicates that consumers are weathering the economic uncertainty.

Bernanke doesn't mince words. He said "further contraction in housing is likely to be a significant drag on growth in the current quarter and through early next year." But does that mean that more interest rate cuts are coming? I am not sure.

People shouldn't expect Bernanke to deliver them a rose garden of continued interest rate cuts which he clearly has no interest in promising.

While all investors should be painfully aware of incredible risks in subprime exposure in the current market, the ramifications of this sector's blow-up for other mortgage markets remains rather unknown.

An insightful New York Times piece that ran today broke the story which many investors, including myself, didn't truly understand -- the growing costs of borrowing money for large home purchases. As a result of much greater difficulty in re-selling private mortgage securities (basically a basket of mortgages grouped together and sold to a buyer), even low-risk borrowers are having trouble borrowing capital at reasonable rates of return because there is much less demand for these mortgage-backed securities.

This information is devastating for homebuilders in high-priced markets. Understandably, the already out-of-demand expensive homes are going to become even less in-demand as a result of potential buyers no longer being able to borrow the money needed to complete the purchase at reasonable rates. Due to this factor, among others, pricing is probably going to continue its decline.

Refinancing will also become much more difficult for very similar reasons. Because second-market mortgage buyers have been devastated by the subprime implosion, they won't have the ability to purchase nearly the same amount of refinanced mortgages that they once had.

In today's day and age it seems like everything is intricately connected to one another due to derivatives, leverage, and so on. Gone are the days when simple cause-and-effect analysis could be used to understand a piece of breaking news.

You would have to have been hiding out in a cave over the past few days not to know that subprime fears have turned into mass panic on Wall Street. The newest company adding to the growing fears is Countrywide Financial Corp. (NYSE: CFC), the biggest mortgage lender in the U.S.

The company says it's now facing "unprecedented disruptions" that may very well impact the company's future profits. This will only give Wall Street's bears more reason to come out and drive down prices, fearing that the subprime effects are going to spread into additional areas of the market.

Shares of Countrywide are getting pounded in European trading, and you can be sure that the same will be true once New York traders get down to business this morning. As of 7:20 AM EDT the stock is down 16% in premarket trading. Yes... it's going to be an ugly one out there today for this stock (and probably the whole market, truth be told).

Dealbook reports that the subprime meltdown does not just hurt the poor. It also hurts those who profit from helping put the poor into debt over their heads. Take the case of John Devaney.

Devaney's sour bets on subprime have forced him to put his second home and his yacht -- Positive Carry (a reference to an arbitrage-like trading technique) -- on the market.

Devaney's remarks on subprime remind me of the adage "Be careful what you wish for..." Here's what he had to say back in January: "I personally hate subprime and I'm kind of hoping the whole thing explodes.''

Meanwhile, Dealbook suggested these possible names for the new owner of Devaney's yacht:

• Margin Call
• Sinking Ship
• No Doc Dinghy
• Sub-Merged
• Not so FICO

Feel free to comment with a better one.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Investment ideas were aplenty, following up on our Ira W. Sohn Investment Research Conference blog earlier. Some ideas worth noting are:

• Bill Miller, despite being wrong on this investment since 1999, believes Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: EK) will turnaround and is worth $45 per. As we have blogged in the past, the new CEO is very close to getting this business model to work, meaning this company could turn into a free cash flow machine.
• Steve Mandel, formerly of Tiger Management and now running a fund at Lone Pine Capital, likes EMC Corporation (NYSE: EMC), which was up big last week. In addition, he likes other large cap stocks such as General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc (NYSE: GS). He also has has postive comments on Google Inc (NASDAQ: GOOG).
• Wilbur Ross is still pushing his commodities turnaround plays, in particular International Coal Group Inc (NYSE: ICO). Ross's thinking is as follows: Coal pricing should reach healthy levels as excess inventory is burned off. Coal will account for 57% of U.S. electricity generation, up from 50% today, in the next twenty five years. Appalachian coal, in which ICO is rich, has considerable pricing power since East Coast supply is limited and demand is strong.

The ideas were aplenty with some negative views on MBIA Incorporated (NYSE: MBI), betting against subprime mortgage exposure, and The St. Joe Company (NYSE: JOE), the northwestern Florida real estate company, which is running into some difficulty as the housing market slowdown continues.

After the recent pounding that the subprime mortgage sector has been taking, you're probably not thinking about its investment opportunities. But that's what I'll be talking about on CNBC at 11 a.m. with Becky Quick and Tom Gardner of Motley Fool.

There are two reasons for thinking there might be opportunities here:

• Investment banking put - Investment banks are putting a floor under the stock price of many subprime lenders. For example, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LEH) and Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. (NYSE: BSC) have all said they may commit more funds to subprime. Yesterday, Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. (NYSE: LEND) added $3.39, or 56%, to $9.43, helped by apparent takeover speculation in the wake of its statement Tuesday that it would explore "strategic options." On the pink sheets, New Century Financial rose 68 cents to $1.35, more than doubling its share price from a day earlier. NovaStar Financial Inc. (NYSE: NFI) is also up 50% since it bottomed out at $3.43 on Tuesday.
• Picking the long term survivors - Not every industry participant will be wiped out. For example, Countrywide Financial Corp. (NYSE: CFC) -- which only has 7% of its loans in subprime -- added $376 million in cash for a total of $1.4 billion in 2006. Nevertheless, it is far from being out of the woods: it recently reported a rise in bad loans across the board -- i.e., payments were 30 days late at the end of 2006 on 2.9% of prime home-equity loans serviced by CFC, up from 1.6% a year earlier and payments were late on 19% of subprime mortgage loans [subscription required], up from 15.2% at the end of 2005. If it reports worse than expected damage in future quarters, CFC will drop further, which could represent buying opportunities that lower an investor's cost basis. Despite the medium term pain of such a strategy, if CFC survives until the next housing upturn, investors will profit.