Today Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) will grill the SEC on why it missed the $50 billion Madoff Securities Ponzi scheme. After all, over the last 16 years, the SEC investigated Madoff eight times and each of those times, it failed to discover the scam. This -- and so much more -- means it's time for a change in the way Washington regulates Wall Street.

And Frank is sure to use today's stage to talk. Last Monday, I appeared on a TV program in Boston "with" Frank. I put "with" in quotes because when Frank arrived at the TV studio, he made sure that me and any other guests who were to appear got thrown out of the green room so he could have it to himself. And while I was on the set with Frank -- I was scheduled to go on the show right after him -- he never even looked at me -- by contrast, every other person I have appeared with was happy to introduce themselves.

Frank likes to talk -- he used 25 of the 30 minutes (he was supposed to take up about 15 minutes). (And in the four minutes Frank left me, I gave out a few Bernie awards for the worst financial foibles of 2008.) So when he chairs hearings today, Frank will no doubt do quite a bit of talking. And he'll probably ask why the SEC officials failed to discover the Madoff scandal after receiving emails from a New York hedge fund that described his business practices as "highly unusual." As I posted, I think Frank should focus on the village that enabled Madoff.

Let's hope things get better this year.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College. His eighth book is You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing.

A cardinal rule of Washington is don't tick-off anyone chairing a committee essential to your operations.

Well, it looks like this U.S. Treasury Department has done just that.

U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd and U.S. Rep. Barney Frank have just about had it with the U.S. Treasury Department and its implementation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Dodd, D-Connecticut and Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Frank, D-Massachusetts and Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said this administration's Treasury department may not get the second half of the $700 billion TARP financial rescue fund, as they are upset at how the program is being run, Bloomberg News reported.

"I would be a very hard person to convince that this crowd deserves...the next $350 billion," Sen. Dodd told Bloomberg News.

Further, Rep. Frank said Treasury has ignored "clear Congressional intent," and that at the very least he wants to see that some of the new money was going to used for home mortgage foreclosure relief, Bloomberg News reported.

By almost all accounts, the defeat of the bailout / rescue bill stunned those both inside the beltway, on Wall Street, and across the nation.

Many political analysts projected that the bill would be approved by the U.S. House of Representatives by about a 80-100 vote margin. The reality: bill defeated, 228-205 and the stock market plunged a big seven zero zero and more.

Public policy analysts, professional and otherwise, will spend ample time investigating the reasons why the bill failed, but in a crisis such as this one, congressional leaders, save for reviewing their mistakes, do not have time for the stuff of graduate seminars in public policy: they need to get a rescue bill passed.

Now what?

Well first, don't panic. As George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) said during the bank run on the the Bailey Building & Loan in the movie, It's A Wonderful Life, "Now just remember that this thing isn't as black as it appears. Now, we can get through this thing all right. But we've, we've got to stick together."

If a vote were held Thursday or Friday, the U.S. Treasury's $700 billion bailout bill would probably pass both chambers of the U.S. Congress, but by narrow margins and with a) an equity stake for U.S. taxpayers for every company that receives assistance, b) a cap on executive compensation, and c) oversight provisions.

Once the bailout work is done, should the U.S. Congress also pass a homeowners assistance bill to help more homeowners with at-risk / burdensome mortgages refinance to secure a lower interest rate?

As BloggingStocks' Jon Berr pointed out Monday, while lawmakers (and no doubt taxpayers) do not want to reward housing speculators, there's a large pool of borrowers who will be able to pay their mortgages if they can get out of high interest rate notes, and other burdensome adjustable rate mortgages, and refinance at a low, 30-year fixed rate.

While it's true the U.S. Government and taxpayers would end up subsidizing refinanced mortgages if the government receives interest that's less than it could by investing the money elsewhere, the costs of foreclosure - leading to bond defaults - leading to banking institution stress / systemic stress will undoubtedly be far greater, so says economist David H. Wang.

The U.S. Treasury's $700 billion bailout bill is winding its way through the Congress.

To say the situation is dynamic and fluid would be the understatement of the year. The Congress, led by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is likely to propose and obtain substantial changes in the legislation, changes it believes will better protect the U.S. taxpayer and more efficiently deploy the. funds allocated.

The American people, if public opinion polls are an accurate gauge, are skeptical of the plan at best, and at worst view it as rewarding large financial institutions and other companies whose flawed practices both perpetuated and magnified the crisis.

In addition, with an election up ahead in about a month, Congress (particularly the 435 representatives and 35 senators up for re-election) will be especially sensitive to public opinion, with many not wanting to go against it for fear of being voted out of office.

Is the bailout bill a solution?

With the above as a backdrop, BloggingStocks Wednesday asked three economists, David H. Wang, Richard Felson, and Peter Dawson, for their policy recommendation.

The U.S. Government's decision Friday to put in place a sweeping program to buy distressed/bad debt to stabilize the financial markets will likely represent the biggest intervention of the federal government into the private sector since The Great Depression of the 1930s. But not everyone is convinced the action is destined to add hundreds of billions to the taxpayer's bill.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, is chairman of one committee that will review the U.S. Treasury's/U.S. Federal Reserve's plan, the House Financial Services Committee. He believes the plan will cost taxpayers "ultimately not a great deal. The Treasury will buy selectively," Bloomberg News reported Friday.

Frank added that the bad debt will cost "maybe double-figure billions over a few years. The government will sell the assets back," he said, Bloomberg News reported.

Frank's forecast realistic or optimistic?

Is U.S. Rep. Frank's cost estimate realistic or very optimistic? Economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks Friday that depends on several factors.

"On the one hand, if we have a two-year period of economic stagnation, the government could end up with hundreds of billions of dollars of extremely-low-grade bonds, bonds that they may only be able to recoup the equivalent of 20 cents or 10 cents on the dollar," Wang said. "Some bonds would be written-off, others reconfigured and perhaps grouped with other investments, with the housing that backs them perhaps converted to other uses."

"On the other hand, if the government intervention broadens the conforming loan category of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as the legislation is expected to do, this will enable more 'somewhat-risky' mortgage bonds to be purchased, providing even more liquidity," Wang said. "And if the FHA [Federal Housing Administration] also receives more money to refinance mortgages at a lower rate, this will help check the high level of foreclosures."

"Under the latter scenario, net government outlays would be considerably less," Wang said. "Essentially, the issue is this: can the government maintain financial market liquidity, ease risky bonds out of the system, and reduce foreclosures with this plan? Not a simple task, but it is possible, over years."

The head of the Senate Banking Committee has indicated that the U.S. Federal Reserve has the authority to create a new 'debt fund' to buy, warehouse and dispose of distressed / bad debt resulting from the subprime mortgage crisis.

"The Fed has the authority to move in this area," U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut and chairman of the committee, told Bloomberg News.

Many economists and analysts argue that a step integral to stemming the cycle of foreclosure / housing price decline / bad bonds / stock run / collateral call / bankruptcy is for a special agency to buy up and strategically restructure, then sell, distressed / bad assets. Economist Peter Dawson is one of those economists who favors the tool.

"Ideally, you'd like to have a private-sector consortium of banks or other financial institutions to coordinate the effort, but right now there aren't exactly a lot of banks stepping up to the plate to take a swing," Dawson told BloggingStocks Thursday. "There's a considerable amount of fear in the market, frankly, and banks are hoarding cash. If this remains the case then we'll need a public sector effort to put this new institution in place."

A friend and colleague of yours truly, economist David H. Wang, frequently speaks with family and friends from his native China. One of the observations he's been hearing recently goes like this: "Strange, new form of pure capitalism you have in the United States that bails-out every company."

Well, as Wang pointed out, it's not every company, and in point of actual fact, the United States is a mixed capitalist system -- private sector-based, but with a social welfare safety net.

Still, the reality is that had the U.S. Federal Reserve not offered an $85 billion loan to American International Group (NYSE: AIG), given AIG's counterparty, pension, investment fund and related relationships, "the global financial system would have frozen-up," or "experienced a level of stress we haven't seen since the stock market crash of 1929," Wang said.

The Fed's action was the 'Greenspan Doctrine squared:' AIG was not only 'too big to fail,' it was 'too interconnected to fail.' So one can see why Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put in motion another 'loan of epic size' for a private company.

MAJOR PAPERS:

• The Wall Street Journal's "Fund Track" reported that some banks struggling to raise capital may sell their money management units. National City Corporation (NYSE: NCC) is selling its Allegiant Funds, Fifth Third Bancorp (NASDAQ: FITB) is considering selling its Fifth Third Asset Management, and KeyCorp (NYSE: KEY) will possibly sell its Victory Capital Management unit.
• The Wall Street Journal also reported that Andrew Cuomo, the New York state Attorney General, is preparing to file civil securities-fraud charges against UBS AG (NYSE: UBS), possibly as early as this week. Sources said the lawsuit may include allegations of malfeasance by senior UBS executives.

WEB SITES:

• Bloomberg reported that money manager John Paulson, the owner of Paulson & Co., is launching a hedge fund that will provide capital to financial firms which have been damaged by the housing crisis. Paulson, who wants to open the fund by December, used bets against the U.S. housing market to help him earn $3.7B in 2007.
• After U.S. lawmakers reached a deal on legislation to alleviate the housing recession, the House of Representatives will today vote on a rescue plan for Fannie Mae -- Federal National Mortgage Association (NYSE: FNM) -- and Freddie Mac -- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (NYSE: FRE). Representative Barney Frank said that the package, which increases the likelihood Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will get the authority to inject capital into the two, is "fully acceptable," Bloomberg reported.
• Oil trading losses forced SemGroup LP, which used to be America's 12th largest private company, to declare bankruptcy yesterday. Reuters noted that SemGroup LP's parent company is SemGroup Energy Partners LP (NASDAQ: SGLP).

Market absolutists' complaints notwithstanding, the U.S. Treasury's plan to shore-up Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) will stabilize the bond and credit markets, but it's unlikely to sidetrack a mortgage system revision by the U.S. Congress, in one economist's interpretation.

"[U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson has acted, now is the time for [U.S. Rep.] Barney Frank to react," economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks Monday.

At issue: who pays for mortgage risk?

At issue is what constitutes acceptable mortgage risk by banks and mortgage lenders whose loans or asset-backed securities are insured by the U.S. Government or government service enterprises, Wang said.

"The way the system was configured, if banks and mortgage lenders made high-risk loans and won, they collected huge profits. If they made high-risk loans and lost, the government, or the taxpayer, bore the cost," Wang said. "This system is untenable."

What's one likely revision? Wang said he believes a "two-tier mortgage system will emerge." The first group will include loans/mortgages offered by banks "for specialized clients/situations." This batch of mortgages and assets tied to them would not be backed by the government or by GSE insurance, he said.

My Ph.D. adviser David E. RePass, professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, used to frequently recite an axiom about the U.S. Congress that rings true, regardless of era, or circumstance.

"Congress does not react, unless not reacting will result in the wrath of the American voter."

Well, concerning housing, it looks like Congress sees the wrath of the American voter ahead because the legislative body is starting to react.

Two measures working their way through Congress may ease the housing crisis. The first, a bipartisan Senate measure, is a modest step to address the rise in home foreclosures, The New York Times reported Friday.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Thursday introduced legislation to enable the Federal Housing Administration to insure and guarantee mortgages that have been written down banks and other mortgage holders, Rep. Frank announced in a statement.

Rep. Frank's proposal would permit the FHA to provide up to $300 billion in loan guarantees which could potentially result in the refinance of 1-2 million at-risk mortgages, preventing foreclosures, "protecting neighborhoods and help stabilize the housing market."

With home foreclosures expected to increase in 2008 as the second wave of variable interest rate mortgages reset, an influential member of Congress is expected to introduce legislation that would enable the Federal Housing Administration to buy at-risk loans, enabling them to be refinanced and preventing homeowners from being foreclosed upon, The Financial Times reported Wednesday.

U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is floating a $15 billion initiative that would authorize the FHA to buy as many as 1 million at-risk mortgages, The FT reported. Some loans, such as those for investment properties and vacation homes, would not be eligible for the program.

The overlooked FHA

Overlooked during the "Roaring 1990s" economic expansion and this decade's housing boom, the Federal Housing Administration is a Depression-era agency that insures loans made to borrowers with poor credit.

Democratic congressional leaders do not think the Fed's new mortgage rules go far enough and have indicated that they are considering taking power away from the Fed when it comes to protecting consumers, according to a story in today's Wall Street Journal. Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and one of the key leaders on this issue, told the Journal that the Fed's moves are a "clear signal that legislation is necessary to help protect homeowners from abusive and predatory lending practices." He also indicated that he is considering reexamining legislation he introduced last week to take power away from the central bank when it comes to consumer protection.

Rep. Barney Frank, who is chairman of the House Banking Committee, wasn't any happier with what he heard form the Fed. He told the Journal, "We now have confirmation of two facts we have known for some time. One, the Federal Reserve System is not a strong advocate for consumers, and two, there is no Santa Claus. People who are surprised by the one are presumably surprised by the other."

Bankers, seeing the writing on the wall and hoping that the Fed's changes will pacify critics, primarily supported the new rules. According to the Journal, the American Financial Services Association called the Fed's rules "measured" and the Independent Community Bankers of America said it was "an important step." But, the powerful American Bankers Association still hopes it can sway the Fed to ease the rules. It said some parts of the proposal were too rigid and "could make it harder for bankers to tailor products for their customers."

There's a disturbing trend among home lenders, and it may gain the exposure that it deserves in the wake of the subprime fiasco. Minorities are more likely to hold these so-called toxic mortgages, even when comparing neighborhoods with similar housing prices. According to The New York Times:

Consider two neighborhoods in the Detroit area. One, located in the working-class suburb of Plymouth, is 97 percent white with a median income of $51,000 in 2000. To the east, a census tract in Detroit just inside Eight Mile Road has a very similar median income, $49,000, but the population there is 97 percent black.

Last year, about 70 percent of the loans made in the Detroit neighborhood carried a high interest rate -- defined as 3 percentage points more than the yield on a comparable Treasury note -- while in Plymouth just 17 percent did.

It's hard to attribute that to luck of the draw. It appears that, at least in some areas, minorities are being systematically denied access to mortgages, and that's unforgivable in this country. There are a variety of explanations for this phenomenon: traditional banks are less likely to have branches in areas with large numbers of minorities, and thus borrowers in those areas may gravitate to the subprime lenders that set up shop there.

In any case, this is definitely something that merits congressional investigation. Congressman Barney Frank has been taking a hard look at subprime, and hopefully he will add this issue to the stack of questions he plans to ask industry leaders.