Some of the jobs that have disappeared through this recession are gone forever, it seems. Even when the market turns, and even gains momentum, we could be stuck with a fairly weak employment market for a while. The recovery will take longer than we'd like, putting more distance between now and the top of the next market run. We've lost 7.2 million jobs since December 2007, and the predictions of some economists that we'll get them back by 2014 may actually seem optimistic.

Unemployment is at 9.8%, and it's expected to clear 10% early next year. Then, we have the specter of a jobless recovery with which to contend. "Full employment" is often considered to be an unemployment rate of 4% to 5%, but it could be a while before we get there. The last downturn, following the dotcom bust, resulted in a peak unemployment rate of 6.3% in 2003 ... and we're already well past that.

Why is the recovery going to be such a grind? Check out the four major reasons after the jump.

This morning, Citgroup (NYSE: C) announced a new initiative that it expects will help the recently unemployed mortgage customers that have fallen behind in their payments. The goal is to keep these customers in their homes by reducing their monthly mortgage payment for three months.

Who is eligible for this program? Borrowers with first mortgages whose loans are owned and serviced by CitiMortage. The borrowers also have to meet other guidelines to be eligible for program participation.

According to Citigroup, the required monthly payment for most qualifying customers will be roughly $500 per month.

Subprime mortgage defaults peaked and will slowly begin to slide during the next two years.

But don't get excited -- option ARMs and ALT-A mortgages are now beginning to rise at a very rapid rate. According to analysts I follow, notably Ivy Zelman, the next tsunami will be larger than the one we just went through.

And the banks are not currently valuing these mortgages as if they will default at this rate.

Be sure to read all 7 reasons the stock market isn't going up any time soon.

Michael Shulman is a contributor to OptionsZone.com.

Banking analyst Meredith Whitney is credited with questioning assets on bank balance sheets given the collapse in the real estate market.

Taking advantage of a complete lack of information, Ms. Whitney triggered a massive collapse of trust in an industry by claiming that mortgage-backed securities were worth far less than what the market had perceived.

While she may have had a basis for her claims, her assessment was more sensational than factual. Mortgage-backed securities are quite complex instruments whereby loans are sliced, diced and packaged for sale to a global market.

With maturities extending 30 years into the future, it is unreasonable and unfair to assume that paybacks, even with high default rates will amount to what is currently priced into the market.

The lack of understanding of the underlying security or loans at the individual level has created uncertainty that has yet to be resolved.

For fans of the original "Star Wars" movie, think of the weakness in terms of attacking the Death Star. That one hole was exploited (we can debate the merits of doing so later) by Ms. Whitney and those like her.

With credit markets remaining under stress, and with uncertainty growing regarding the status of megabank Citigroup (NYSE: C), the U.S. Congress may have to take more action to maintain financial system stability and prevent the U.S. economy from spiraling into a deeper recession, so says economist David H. Wang.

"The U.S. Congress may have to approve a 'TARP 2,'" Wang told BloggingStocks Friday. "Whether Congress does it as part of a fiscal stimulus package, or separately, it is clear we will need more money to purchase toxic assets, improve bank capitalization and allocate funds for home mortgage refinance programs, and other financial stabilization measures. At this stage of the crisis, the $700 billion TARP is not going to be enough, in my interpretation."

Bank sector stress remains

Wang said that if Citigroup, whose CEO Vikram Pandit said has adequate capital, for some reason cannot, when needed, find additional capital in the private sector, then "the Fed and or U.S. Treasury will step in, and take necessary measures to stabilize the bank," Wang said. If the U.S. Treasury is the primary funder, "that action, and other forthcoming, planned actions by the Treasury may use up a considerable amount of TARP funds, requiring a TARP 2."

Washington Post Business Columnist Steven Pearlstein does not 'hold it all in,' as they say, regarding who he thinks is most to blame for the financial crisis.

Pearlstein cites the ineptitude of Wall Street and the nation's financial regulators. The crisis would have occurred whether Lehman Brothers was saved or not, because bad debt had overwhelmed the global financial system. A government intervention was inevitable, essential, and an act of leadership, in Pearlstein's view.

Conversely, Wall Street's top executives have shown little leadership, if any, he said. Their silence and invisibility throughout the crisis "attests to their moral and political bankruptcy," Pearlstein said, a perfect match for the financial bankruptcy they caused for investors, creditors, and customers.

Further, Pearlstein is particularly angered by Wall Street's top executives unwillingness to commit to a plan to enable borrowers to refinance mortgages into government guaranteed mortgages set at 85% of current market value of the property, and at the executives' utter lack of comment before the cameras, particularly regarding credit lines to businesses.

Political & Economic Analysis: Columnist Pearlstein clearly lays the blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Wall Street's top officials. Still, the mortgage process -- and the failure of a substantial portion of the subprime/Alt-A mortgage market -- involved many players: bank executives/lenders, mortgage brokers, appraisers, securitization specialists, ratings agencies, and borrowers.

IndyMac Bancorp.'s failure, along with the failure of seven other banks this year, has erased 17% from an FDIC insurance fund, and will likely propel an increase in insurance fund premiums, Bloomberg News reported Monday.

IndyMac may cost the fund $4-8 billion, in addition to $1.16 billion in earlier bank foreclosure costs, Bloomberg News reported Monday. Premiums for the deposit insurance fund are likely to rise, an FDIC official said.

Economist Peter Dawson said Monday a premium increase would represent the most prudent course for the FDIC.

"Needless to say, given the bank failures, this doesn't come as a surprise or a shock. The FDIC could have explored other funding options, but given the scope of the insurance funds claims, a premium increase would make the most sense at this time," Dawson said.

The FDIC is required to replenish the fund when the reserve ratio, or the balance divided by insured deposits, slips below 1.15%, Dawson said.

Those investors/readers who are of the persuasion that the U.S. stock market is about turn the corner should heed the words of caution from legendary banker Bill Seidman.

"There's always a chance of a large bank failure," Seidman told Newsweek. Seidman chaired the Resolution Trust Corporation, the federally-created liquidator for the last banking crisis in the 1980s.

Keep an eye on the big banks

A large bank failure would quickly extinguish what little momentum the market has established from mid July to early August, during which the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen from about 10,850 to 11,734. Economist David H. Wang said he will not attach a more-positive descriptive to the 884-point move, because he "doesn't want to create unreasonable, and unjustified, expectations."

"First, our technical analyst friends would say the recent move up is still well within the range of a bear market correction," Wang said. "Second, from a fundamental standpoint, we still have major headwinds."

Most Americans realize that every new U.S. president, upon taking the oath of office, faces his/her share of economic problems, none of which originated on his watch.

President John F. Kennedy spoke to this when he said (and someone said it before him), "It's true. Life is not fair. Some men go to war, and others remain at home. Among those who go to war, some men are sent to the front lines, while others stay behind. It's true. Life is not fair."

Still, although each age has seen its share of formidable economic problems, the scope, seriousness, and systemic impact of economic problems facing the new president, be it Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, may represent the biggest economic decisions since those President Franklin D. Roosevelt confronted upon taking office in the depths of the Great Depression in 1933.

What's one issue likely to give the president more gray hair? The kinds of systemic reforms to lobby for, on the heels of the federal housing bailout of Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) following the collapse of the housing market and rise in mortgage defaults, said economist David H. Wang. The housing bailout will further increase the U.S Government's annual budget deficit, which is expected to reach $490 billion in Fiscal 2009, Wang said.

The U.S. Federal Reserve will issue new rules next week aimed at protecting future homebuyers from questionable lending practices.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke provided a preview of the Fed's new rules during a speech Tuesday at the FDIC Forum on Mortgage Lending for Low/Moderate Income Households in Arlington, Va. Under the Fed's authorities, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, the rules -- which will apply to all lenders, not just banks -- are expected to, among other reforms:

• Restrict lenders from penalizing high-risk borrowers who pay off loans early.
• Bar lenders from making loans without proof of a borrower's income.
• Require lenders to make sure that borrowers set aside money to pay for taxes and insurance.

'Front end' / 'back end' ratios deemed key

Economist Peter Dawson told BloggingStocks he's taking "a wait-and-see approach" regarding the Fed's mortgage regulation revisions. "This set of revised regulations could be, arguably, the most important federal regulation change, in financial terms, since the last plan to maintain the solvency of the Social Security trust fund," Dawson said.

The ever-incisive FT columnist Martin Wolf offers prudent and timely advice concerning the reforms needed to ease credit market doldrums and right the global financial state of things.

One key practice Wolf would like to see addressed is bank / mortgage lender selling of mortgages they originate.

Designers of the practice had good intentions: It was designed to free-up capital so banks / mortgage lenders could have more money available for future homebuyers. A noble intention.

Unfortunately, as tradition reminds us, the road to perdition (and record housing sector slumps) is paved with good intentions. The problem, Wolf notes, is that the originate-and-distribute model encouraged banks / mortgage lenders to originate (in many cases for handsome fees) high-risk, very-poor-credit-quality mortgages with reckless abandon, because originators knew that the loan would be sold, and its status as a performing asset would be entirely someone else's problem. Save the best (mortgages), get rid of the rest.

It's not surprising, Wolf notes, that the originate-and-distribute model became laden with sloppy, irresponsible and even fraudulent loans. Wolf's reform: originators must be required to retain a portion of the equity of securitized loans. Hence, if / when they go bad, the originator loses money too.

Economic Analysis: Wolf's proposed financial / bond market reform is on the mark. If every party, including the originator, has a stake in a mortgage's repayment status, that will lead to higher-quality loans, while at the same time retaining the secondary market's benefit of freeing-up capital for new mortgages.

Merrill Lynch and Co., Inc. (NYSE: MER) CEO John Thain said today that the risk in the housing market is "much lower" than it has been recently as the credit crisis in the U.S. is "getting better." Leave it to the leader of a company which has written off over $30 billion in mortgage lending investment to make this claim. But the thing is, could he be right?

Although Thain said "economic pressure" will remain high over the next year, he expressed confidence that the end of the housing bubble, which is still popping in many parts of the country, is now in sight. Thain also indicated that food prices and shortages as well as higher unemployment will continue to have an impact on the U.S. economy. Of course Merrill has had three quarters of disastrous results like other large investment banks, and the company is still toiling with the idiocy of incredibly risky investments that have left it weakened financially.

Even if Thain had been hired by Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C) last year, he'd be in the same mess in the same industry. I'm not sure what "much lower" risk in the housing market means, although he's probably talking about his company's reduced exposure to those SIVs and other vehicles from the Flintstone era that start off fast before the wheels fall off.

I hope Thain is correct in his assessments, and Merrill Shareholders are probably wanting the same thing, just much more badly than myself.

The perceptive and common sense-rooted Ben Stein, in a business column in The New York Times, has weighed-in on the credit crisis, and for market absolutists, it's an argument they probably don't want to hear.

Stein, like many of us, has pondered how the massively well-paid men and women of Wall Street could create such a catastrophe. How did some of the smartest, talented executives, Stein ruminates, generate such immense losses that "they made banks clam up on lending -- at great risk to the economy?"

Compelling questions

Stein asks: Where were the fail-safe devices? The government watchdogs? The ratings agencies? A speech by Greenlight Capital hedge fund manager David Einhorn at a Grant's Interest Rate Observer event, provided the answers -- the unfortunate truths of the recent housing/credit boom -- which Stein summarized:

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.

The $150 billion fiscal stimulus package that's winding its way through the U.S. Congress will not represent a panacea for the U.S.'s economic ills, an economist argued, but it will represent modest good news for one segment -- the beleaguered housing sector.

The fiscal stimulus bill currently under discussion in the U.S. Senate calls for raising Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conforming loan limit to $729,750 through 2008 from the current $417,000.

Conforming loans are conventional, fixed-rate mortgages for good credit borrowers that banks make that are eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE). When Freddie and Fannie purchase these loans from banks, it "frees-up" money that the banks can use to grant mortgages to future borrowers, thus expanding the pool of funds available for mortgages.

Economist Steve Affinito told BloggingStocks Thursday that while it's important to underscore that the higher conforming loan ceiling will not eliminate the U.S. housing sector's recession, it is "a critical, essential step in the right direction," in his interpretation.