In trying to be all things financial to all people, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) lost track of what it was, a successful bank. Now, the word success is a term that can only be used in a mocking fashion as corporate leadership allowed the company to be marginalized, with the stock sinking 97% in a two year period (chart below).

The popular television show American Idol, is in its eighth season, but before they even narrow down the list of hopefuls to the 12 finalists Citigroup has already picked out its idol -- that would be Uncle Sam!

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a speech in London today on the current credit crisis. He detailed the nature of the current financial situation and the steps that the Fed has taken to stabilize the situation.

He clearly laid out that the credit markets are not working properly, and the Federal Reserve is now assuming the role of lender of last report to alleviate the problem. This has taken multiple forms thus far:

• Extension of credits to banks
• Extension of credit through commercial paper purchases
• Planned purchases of other short-term assets
• Purchases of high-quality long-term assets
  

He acknowledged that the Fed has not only become the lender of last report but, in fact, the lender of only resort.

In essence, Chairman Bernanke said that he will do anything necessary to repair the credit situation. However, this appears to be something that monetary policy alone cannot accomplish. He acknowledged that confidence is the key to repairing credit and lending.

Jan. 22: Dow 11,971 (down 128 points); trading range, 658 points

The specter of continuing the ugliness seen overnight in the global equity markets and a 95% decline in fourth-quarter (2007) net income at Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) combined to shake up those in charge of U.S. monetary policy.

So, facing the possibility of a 500-point drop in the Dow following the long holiday weekend, the Fed sprang into action early to shore up the markets.

The move was a 75-basis-point pre-market intermeeting cut just eight days before the Fed's regularly scheduled meeting to drop the fed funds rate to 3.5% and the discount rate to 4%. The Fed made this move "in view of a weakening of the economic outlook and increasing downside risks to growth," adding, "appreciable downside risks to growth remain."

The Dow battled all day to recover from an early session drop of 459 points to close down only 128 by the closing bell.

Greg Tucker is the executive editor of OptionsZone.com.

The Federal Reserve just announced a bigger-than-expected rate cut. And with that, it has used up its short-term rate cutting ammunition for the first time in history.

The sad part is that even though the Fed has been cutting rates -- from 5.25% last summer to today -- the economy has not responded.

The specifics of today's rate cut are historic. The Fed lowered its target for the overnight federal funds rate to a range of between 0% and 0.25% -- a record low. Even though it's a historic low, today's announcement was ratifying the market reality -- demand for interbank loans has been so low that the actual Fed funds rate has been at 0.1% in the last several days.

The problem is that even though we are in a financial meltdown caused by too much borrowing, the Fed has decided that the best way to solve the problem is to get people to borrow more. But they don't want to lend the money that the Fed is giving away. Meanwhile, prices dropped in November by 1.7% -- more than ever in recorded history -- due largely to a rapid decline in energy prices.

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.