Analyst Michael Molnar of Goldman Sachs took a harsh tone on the solar sector today, slashing his opinion to Sell on both First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR) and SunPower Corp. (NASDAQ: SPWRA). Specifically, First Solar was slashed to Conviction Sell from Buy, while SunPower was dropped from Buy to Sell. In a note to clients, Molnar explained, "We strongly believe that SunPower and First Solar are two of the best solar companies in the world and that both will be part of the growing solar industry for years to come. However, in our view, even these companies will face headwinds in a market that is oversupplied with modules."

Specifically, "the risk of oversupply in the solar market will soon become a reality as considerably less generous demand subsidies take hold just as a wave of supply and tight financing hit the market," said Molnar. He added, "We believe that liberal subsidies of the past in markets like Germany and Spain are unlikely to be replicated in the future, given fears of their ultimate cost in a bad world economy."

As a whole, Goldman maintains a "cautious" view of the solar sector -- and the brokerage firm isn't alone. Piper Jaffray also weighed in on solar firms today, with a warning that higher credit costs could reduce average selling prices by an additional 6%. "The renewables industry depends on access to credit, and for the moment, the credit market remains closed," Piper stated. "We believe the cost of capital on renewable projects will increase due to higher bank financed interest rates, larger spreads, and more upfront fees." For 2009, Piper Jaffray predicts that companies' average selling prices will fall by 15% to 21%.

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 State of New York has proposed to start regulating credit default swaps owned by investors trying to protect bonds they own, Bloomberg News reported.

The plan won't apply to credit default swaps purchased by speculators, i.e. swap owners who are trying to profit from an increase/decrease in a borrower's creditworthiness, New York Governor David Paterson told Bloomberg News. Paterson also urged the federal government to follow New York's lead and regulate the rest of the credit default swap market.

Credit default swaps are contracts designed to protect against or speculate on default. CDSs pay the buyer face value if a company fails to adhere to its debt. Hedgers typically use them to guard against bond losses. However, speculators use them as an active investing/trading tool in an attempt to profit from a company's / issuer's credit worthiness.

Economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks there's an upside and a downside to increased regulation of the $62 trillion CDS market.

"On the one hand, we do need a central regulator in the United States to verify that those selling credit default swaps can in fact pay the swap holder if there is a default claim," Wang said. "The system for swaps was jeopardized when AIG could not pay all claims, and could have resulted in contagion, which prompted the federal government's loan."

Just call it an endorsement of a collective security policy where 'you go first.'

That was how one economist characterized the G-7 group of finance ministers' stance toward the U.S. Treasury Department's proposed $700 billion intervention to stabilize the financial system.

In a conference call statement, the G-7 - - Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Italy, Canada, along with the U.S. - - said, "We strongly welcome the extraordinary actions taken by the United States to enhance the stability of financial markets and address credit concerns, especially through its plan to implement a program to remove illiquid assets that are destabilizing financial institutions," The Wall Street Journal reported Monday(subscription required.)

However, none of the other six G-7 members will adopt a program similar to the U.S.'s, German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck told reporters in Berlin after the call, Bloomberg News reported Monday.

Economist Peter Dawson told BloggingStocks Monday the G-7's stance is half-hearted, in his interpretation. "In its general statement, the G-7 is on-board with the [U.S] Treasury's program but [German Finance Minister Peer] Steinbrueck's comments are disappointing. Steinbrueck, or another G-7 representative should have followed up with 'and we stand ready to assist the United States and other nations with fiscal measures to support the above goals, if needed, etc.,' " Dawson said. "Right now, the G-7's tone is 'go forth U.S., but we're not getting in the pool right now, the water's too cold.' Given the G-7's complicity in causing the problem and their systemic interest, a more-engaged statement should have been issued regarding fiscal policy options."

Cites AIG's 'interconnectedness'

For example, Dawson said the G-7's corporate involvement in American International Group's (NYSE: AIG) is evidence item 'A' for stronger G-7 involvement. "G-7 companies, banks, and institutional investors benefited from AIG's credit default swaps and related products, and would be hurt by a systemic failure. Since they are parties to the problem, they should also bear some of the costs of the reforms and bailout," Dawson said. "But right now their stance is 'Go ahead U.S. We back your spending your money, but not ours.' That's an inadequate response from our G-7 associates."

Oil surged back over $100 Friday after traders sensed the U.S. Treasury / U.S. Federal Reserve's plan to stabilize the financial markets by buying-up distressed / bad mortgage debt could very well boost inflation, increasing the attractiveness of oil as an inflation hedge.

Oil rocketed up $4.91 to $102.79 per barrel Friday morning. The other major energy commodities also jumped Friday. Unleaded gasoline rose 9 cents to $2.57 per gallon, heating oil climbed about 10 cents to $2.88 per gallon, and natural gas gained 11 cents to $7.72 per million BTUs.

Energy Trader Jim Dietz told BloggingStocks Friday slowing global economic growth that's likely to slow the increase in global oil demand is the oil market's long-term concern, but short-term the focus is on inflation.

"I haven't seen the details of the [U.S.] Government's plan yet but there's three ways we can pay for it. We can increase government spending, print money, or sell government bonds," Dietz said. "The first two can increase inflation quickly, the last one, not as quick, but either way, there will be some increase in inflation, which is why traders are buying oil. Inflation now will jockey with global growth concerns to determine the direction of oil's price."

Cautious optimism. A step forward. A ray of light.

That was the stance currency traders took earlier Friday toward the U.S. Treasury's and U.S. Federal Reserve's plan, The New York Times reported, to move distressed/bad assets from the balance sheets of American financial institutions into a new government institution in order to check a U.S. credit crunch that by most all accounts was expanding into a global financial crisis.

"It's likely to mean higher inflation and certainly higher taxes in the United States and a further decline in the dollar, at least over the next six months, so the plan has its risks. But considering the freeze that was likely to grip the capital markets it's probably the best of a poor choice set," currency trader Andrew Resnick said.

Dollars rises on proposed government initiative

The dollar rose sharply across the board on word of the U.S. Government plan, which has the tentative consent of the U.S. Congress, following a special meeting Thursday night on Capitol Hill; Congress is expected to debate legislation for the program next week, Bloomberg News reported Friday. The dollar rose about 1 cent to $1.4213 and $1.8060 versus the euro and British pound, respectively, and about 2 yen to 107.50 versus Japan's yen.

Resnick said that in addition to the removal, over time, of distressed/bad debt -- much of it mortgage-related -- the Treasury's/Fed's plan to use $50 billion from the U.S. Government's Exchange Stabilization Fund to insure money market funds for a year is maintaining liquidity in credit markets and "will reduce the fear that's sort of come to take on a life of its own."

"First we had the attack on Lehman [Brothers], which many people feel could have survived if people continued to do business with them. Then there was the massive decline in the shares of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, two solid firms. When it started to spread to money market funds, with people pulling their money out on rumors and innuendo, everybody on the trading desks said, 'This is absurd and totally irrational. Something has to be done to stop this [expletive] nonsense,' " Resnick said. "Well, the federal government did something."

Investors and readers are no doubt aware of the benefits of the free enterprise system as practiced in the United States: entrepreneurship, innovation, ingenuity, dynamism, risk taking, wealth building, and commerce are chief among these benefits.

But readers also know that corporate capitalism has its drawbacks, including (but not exclusively) financial crises that have resulted in devastating economic and social upheavals.

1893, 1929, 1987, 20??

Moreover, despite technological change, productivity increases, and massive increases in wealth, it's remarkable how similar both the crises and the public policy responses have been over the hundred-plus year period: excesses occur, bad debts mount, some regulatory changes are implemented by the U.S. Government (and sometimes by state governments), and then corporate capitalism resumes.

Further, whether it's due to America's culture, its vast natural resources, something innate in Americans, human nature in general, or some other factor, or a combination, every time a crisis occurs, the American people, by and large, reach the same conclusion regarding what caused the crisis or problem: bad decisions or incorrect decisions. Basically, that people, mainly executives and other business leaders (sometimes federal/state regulators), made mistakes or bad decisions.

Right now, the United States is dealing with the effects of storms -- financial and otherwise.

That was how one economist characterized this week's unemployment report, in which U.S. jobless claims jumped 10,000 to 455,000 for the week ended September 13, the U.S. Labor Department announced Thursday. Claims for the previous week were unrevised at 445,000.

However, the Labor Department cautioned that this week's report was skewed higher by claims filed by residents of Louisiana who were laid-off following Hurricane Gustav.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected this week's initial jobless claims to total 440,000.

Also, the 4-week moving average increased 5,000 to 445,000. Economists view the 4-week average as a better indicator of unemployment conditions, as it smooths-out anomalies for strikes, holidays, or other idiosyncratic events.

Economist Peter Dawson said "job loss statistics continue to reveal a U.S. economy that's on the verge of recession or already in one."

"Given, the recent corporate bankruptcies and banking mergers, unemployment levels are expected to rise, both directly from job lay-offs from these firms, and from the decreased business their partners and clients will experience," Dawson said. "Also, with companies becoming more conservative with operations, it's going to become increasing difficult for these workers to find comparable employment in a normal period of time, something public policy leaders need to keep sight of."

The dollar was lower early Thursday against most of the world's other major currencies, but traders underscored that the expected decline was orderly, not frenetic nor frenzied.

"We are seeing an orderly decline in the dollar, which was expected given the increased U.S. Government borrowing and spending associated with the AIG bailout and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rescues," Currency Trader Andrew Resnick said. "Banks are still hoarding cash and are reluctant to lend to one another but we're not seeing a large fall in the dollar, which is a moral victory of sorts."

At 10:20 a.m. EDT the dollar was mixed across the board - - down about one-half cent to $1.4383 versus euro and one-third cent to $1.8204 versus the British pound, but up about one-half yen to 105.24 versus Japan's yen.

Overnight lending rates drop

Resnick said he does not expect the U.S. Federal Reserve's effort, in conjunction with the European Central Bank, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, Swiss National Bank, and Bank of Canada, to auction $247 billion "to solve the financial crisis in a day or a week or month, but it is having its intended effect."

"It is easing money market pressures because overnight money market rates dropped about 120 basis points to 3.80%," Resnick said. "But more importantly it's sending a signal to the cash hoarders and those who may want to make a bet on the opposite of the central banks that 'You had better be careful trying to speculate against us because the likelihood of a series of cash interventions is high.' Over time, this will help maintain liquidity and keep the currency markets orderly."

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.

What will be impact of the Fed's takeover of AIG on the dollar?

Check back in a few days or even a week, according to currency traders.

"There are too many unknown variables to say with any authority right now where the dollar will head from here," currency Trader Andrew Resnick said Wendesday at mid-day. "We'll need at least a few days, maybe a week or so to sort out who the winners are and who the losers will be." Resnick added that he is presently flat (obviously), with no open currency trading positions.

At mid-day the dollar was slightly lower, down about 0.5% against the euro, British pound, and yen. But in the broader context of things, "the dollar's move so far has been small, and statistically insignificant and inconclusive," Resnick said.

"Right now, we're just reworking our statistical models. The problem is, the variables keep changing, so it makes the previous projections less accurate," Resnick said.

At mid-day the dollar was at $1.4136 versus the euro, $1.7921 versus the British pound and at 104.63 versus Japan's yen.

Two scenarios for dollar

As the United States' financial crisis continues, a chorus (or cacophony) of voices will rise about appropriate reforms.
Moreover, given the upcoming U.S. Presidential and Congress election on November 4, the American people will have considerable say regarding what shape that reform should take.

Here are three things that yours truly believes should be on their list. These are three realities that must be corrected if the nation expects its capital markets to function normally again. And admittedly, right now, 'normal' may seem like a far-off goal. But it is achievable.

• Trust: The nation must improve and increase federal regulations to restore investor trust. The nation must pass regulations that require financial institutions to be truthful -- with balance sheets, assets, and loan risk. The new financial order must be transparent and accurate. And there must be costly federal penalties and punishment for financial institutions that fail to do so. Without the above, capital markets cannot function.

The U.S. Federal Reserve and the major central banks around the world took action again Tuesday to keep the financial markets liquid, amid a credit crunch that threatens to slow global growth to a crawl.

The Fed added $50 billion in liquidity to the financial markets through overnight repurchase agreements. In addition, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan each announced previously unscheduled actions to add liquidity to the financial markets, Marketwatch.com reported Tuesday.

The Fed's action came after overnight rates soared 333 basis points to 6.44%, as private banks pulled back credit and became reluctant lend to one another.

Economist Peter Dawson told BloggingStocks Tuesday the aim of the world's major central banks is clear: maintain market liquidity to enable transactions between solvent parties.

"The Fed and other central banks may have drawn a line in the sand regarding not saving insolvent institutions, but their stance regarding functioning banks is clear: they're going to prevent solvent institutions from freezing up for lack of liquidity," Dawson said. "The private banks may not choose to use that liquidity, due to a reluctance to conduct business, but the funds will be there."

Bloomberg News reports that since the credit crunch began to push global markets down from their October 2007 peak, investors have lost $17.5 trillion in value. That's almost three times the $6 trillion in lost value following the collapse of the dot-com bubble in 2000.

Bloomberg developed its calculation by measuring the drop in the MSCI World index. It writes, "More than $17 trillion in global equity value has been wiped out since October. All 10 industries in the MSCI World retreated in 2008 as a drop in lending magnified the global economic slowdown."

To that lost $17 trillion I have added the $500 billion of writedowns and losses at global banks, a writedown figure expected to hit $2 trillion according to Nouriel Roubini.

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

Could the U.S. economy tolerate, and, equally significant, will the American people push the nation's chief executive, the president, in the direction of more government intervention?

The view from here is: probably not. Everything in the American ethos and culture speaks against it.

Unlike in France, where the French Government is simply, "France," Americans, for the most part, view their government -- save defense spending -- usually as part of the problem, not the solution. 'Government is best which governs least' is a longstanding Americanism. And most investors/readers know about candidates who say they want to "get the Washington bureaucrats off the backs of the American people" and "clean up the mess in Washington!"

Americans are anti-central government, and they are anti-state (they generally dislike the limited federal government that exists). In the United States, it is always private first, public second.