The U.S. housing slump is creating another negative ripple effect, this one by extension, or by association, if you will, as in condo/co-op association.

Owners in condo associations are having to chip-in to pay for unexpected association maintenance, tax, and related fees when other residents enter foreclosure or are substantially behind in payments, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The Times cited the case of condo owners in a 43-story Miami, Florida condo having to ante up more money after 1 in 6 residents battled foreclosure. The additional charge: an additional $1,000 assessment and $50 more a month for cable and internet fees, on top of the regular $450 monthly maintenance.

Connecticut-based appraiser Lawrence Schmidt, not a realtor but a former 15-year condominium owner with extensive knowledge of the sector, told BloggingStocks Thursday prospective buyers need to fully-research a condo association's membership status, including record of tax payments of individual members, in addition to the standard evaluation of the condo association's maintenance fees, contractor services, and quality-of-life issues, etc. Co-op buyers must do even more research on the co-op's balance sheet, monthly budget, cash flow, outstanding mortgage, and other related financials, he said.

Financial eras, like social periods, are often defined by moments or epiphanies when decision makers and/or citizens realized that a serious flaw/mistake/problem was occurring through time, and across space, and needed to be corrected.

The ever-incisive FT columnist and economist Martin Wolf describes one contemporary concern that's likely to be addressed: the failure to align the interests of managers with those of investors.

My BloggingStocks colleagues Peter Cohan and Zac Bissonnette have also written on the subject on several occasions in this space, and now the FT's Wolf has assembled additional data that may very well lead to public policy changes, both in Wolf's United Kingdom and in the United States.

I'm actually finding the cries of anguish coming from eBay sellers a bit amusing these days. Yes, in my opinion they're getting what they deserve over on eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY).

Why do I say that with a cold-hearted grin you may ask? It's because I did my part so long ago. Yes, we had a seller's strike once before, and it was a pretty damn good one. It didn't work then either, or at least it didn't change any eBay corporate minds in reference to anything that matters.

So now eBay has raised fees again. I don't need to say I told you so, but I did. This time though there's a significant additional angle to the rift. Due to pending changes to eBay's feedback system, sellers could be left defenseless in the face of potential deadbeat buyers, four of which have struck my wife's eBay selling account in the last week. It's great service to eBay's vision and it's easy logic to grasp and accept if you have insight into eBay's plans.

Here's a novel idea: Pay someone only if they are providing better performance than no one -- not anyone, no one -- could provide.

Well according (subscription required) to The Wall Street Journal, the California Public Employees Retirement System (Calpers) is contemplating doing just that with the money managers it hires: "Calpers' investment staff plans to present to the board a system in which the pension fund's global stock managers would receive a fee only if they outperformed certain benchmark indexes. Managers whose returns failed to beat the index would be paid nothing for that period."

This makes perfect logical sense. Why pay a management fee to someone who's doing worse than an index fund? But the possible risk is that paying strictly for performance would induce managers to take bigger risks -- possibly increasing the incidence of blow-ups and rogue traders.

But these kinks could probably be worked out with careful monitoring of risk, and tailoring the bonuses to the level of risk a manager assumed. But it's time for money managers to be paid for performance. Too often, it seems they are paid just for having a pulse.

Peter Gossels, a 77-year old retired lawyer was furious over a 4% fee charged to him on the deposit of a large check drawn on A German bank. Fleet Bank didn't bother posting its exchange rates and then charged Gossels the difference between the retail exchange rate and the interbank "spot rate" for foreign currency -- 4%.

The fee came out to $10,000, and Gossels believed it should have been about $30. After failing to get anywhere with complaints and pleas to consumer reporters, he sued the bank.

According to The Boston Globe, "Last month, eight years after he went to the bank, a three-judge panel on the Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed, saying Fleet (now owned by Bank of America Corp.) had failed to properly disclose the differential in the rates."

Good for Mr. Gossels! Bank fees have gotten completely out of hand. While there's nothing wrong with banks charging outrageous fees, consumers have a right to be informed of them so they can make a decision:

As Gossels said, "This is the only way banks will learn not to cheat its customers."

I hope I have the courage and vivacity to take on a major corporation when I'm his age.

Salon's Andrew Leonard takes a look at Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC) recent decision to boost the surcharge non BofA customers will need to pay to use the bank's ATM machines: Instead of paying $2, we -- non BofA customers -- will now have to pay $3 if we choose to use them.

Mr. Leonard makes it clear that he isn't a big fan of these charges: "Let's hear it for Iowa, Connecticut, San Francisco and Santa Monica, Calif. Earlier this century, these four states and municipalities attempted to ban ATM surcharges. Sure, you can call that unwarranted interference into the workings of the free market, if you like."

Yeah. That's exactly what I would call it. Why should states interfere with people who want to, out of sheer stupidity, pay $3 to use an ATM machine, when they can get cash back by paying for a 25 cent pack of gum with a debit card at the grocery store?

Of course BofA is greedy. I wrote about its deceptive "Keep The Change" program and, all things considered, I would rather eat glass than bank with them. I think the ATM fees are ridiculous, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do: I'm not going to use Bank of America's ATMs. Simple!

And if enough people do that, maybe the bank will reconsider the fees. Or not. But since $3 is a complete rip-off, I'm well-served by avoiding BofA's ATMs either way. But if people are dumb enough to pay $3-4, why should we stop them?

I must admit that I was truly shocked when I read last fall about Securities and Exchange Commission probes into mutual fund firms for accepting kickbacks from the companies hired to provide services to them. The individual shareholder is the one who pays these fees to the service companies and should be receiving all of the benefits, not the mutual fund managers!

It reminded me of when I first started on Wall Street. I worked at an investment banking firm that was considered to be in the "Bulge Bracket" category, reserved for only an elite few and not known for discounting its fees. A mentor of mine let me know that the firm's policy on fees and expenses was simply, "First class business done in a first class manner for a first class price."

However, this gentleman also taught me to remember that we were working for the client, not the other way around. He said that in fee negotiations, "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours." It is not "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is half mine with the other half up for negotiation."

An article in Sunday's London Times reveals first hand how some unscrupulous sellers on eBay (NASDAQ:EBAY) are defrauding honest customers out of their hard-earned cash. A reporter, posing as a well-to-do individual looking to sell high value antiquities, easily talked one of eBay UK's largest sellers into admitting that, oftentimes, the practice of shill bidding was used to assure adequate value for items sold on eBay.

In explaining how the process of shill bidding to inflate prices is accomplished, the subject of the interview stated:

"I've got some of my big clients who buy big items off me, I look after them. So I can get on the phone to America and say: Mr XXXX . . . you're a multi-millionaire. You buy a hundred grand's worth off me a year. Do me a favour would you. Just put - yeah. Exactly."

In response to the investigation, eBay claims that its new practice of hiding user ID's from view during the course of bidding has helped to address the shill bidding problem. I and many of my fellow sellers fail to see the connection. In times past it was fairly simple to formulate and chart patterns regarding systematic bid manipulation by specific seller groups, and we had success in shutting some of them down. Now however, there has been a iron wall placed between the identities of bidders and the balance of the eBay populace. This means that eBay itself is solely responsible for scouting its site for bidding violations, and I feel eBay's actions have made it abundantly clear that while the company will try to help, it's really not eBay's responsibility to protect you or your money.

I want to know: how does reducing transparency within the eBay auction venue result in greater safety for eBay buyers? It's problematic that eBay is only set to gain from high prices; if fraudulent sales practices do drive up final value fees, eBay's bottom line is given a boost. Obviously shill bidding is not an accepted practice; but why would eBay create the appearance of trying to hide it?