The New York Times reports that Federal National Mortgage (NYSE: FNM) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage (NYSE: FRE) have a tiny sliver of capital to support a mountain of mortgages. To put it in perspective, their level of borrowing is almost twice that of the enormously over-leveraged investment banking and hedge fund industries. With the collapse of the housing market, Freddie and Fannie are in trouble. And when you get to the scale of these two, so is America.

As I posted last month, it could cost $1 trillion to bail out Fannie and Freddie. These hybrid organizations are a key cog in the mortgage industrial complex (MIC) that has gotten the world into its current capital crisis. Fannie and Freddie buy "conforming" mortgages from their originators and then package and sell the mortgages as securities. But these two have a mere $83 billion in capital to support $5 trillion worth of debt and other commitments.

This 60-to-1 ratio is almost twice the 32-to-1 ratio of the highly leverage investment banks and hedge funds. And like any company with hard-to-value assets, Fannie and Freddie have unrealized losses. In their case, those total $20 billion -- they've already taken $9 billion worth so far this year. By 2007 they had guaranteed or invested in $717 billion of subprime and Alt-A loans, up from almost none in 2000. And many of those are not worth that much.

AP reports that home sales dropped to levels not seen since the George H. W. Bush housing recession in 1991. And home prices are plummeting faster than they have since 1970.

Here are the details: new homes dropped by 8.5% in March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 526,000 units, the slowest sales pace since October 1991. And the median price of a home sold in March dropped by 13.3% compared to March 2007, the biggest annual price decline since a 14.6% plunge in July 1970.

What the current Bush housing collapse and the earlier one share is the after math of too much capital flowing in to the housing market. Under Bush the elder, the capital flowed in due to the deregulation of the Savings & Loan industry -- resulting in a $250 billion bailout. Under Bush II, the problem was the $1.3 trillion subprime mortgage market which made capital available to people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgage -- after all, 47% of those loans required no documentation of borrower's income.

AFXNews reports that Thornburg Mortgage Inc. (NYSE: TMA) has defaulted on a credit agreement with one of its banks. That's because it could not come up with $28 million it owed JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM). Specifically, Thornburg needed to pay JPMorgan -- to whom it owes $320 million -- the $28 million for a margin call.

According to The Associated Press, the notice of default from JPMorgan triggered cross-defaults "under all of the company's other reverse repurchase agreements and its secured loan agreements." According to MarketWatch, Thornburg has been facing margin calls due to a 15% drop in the value of mortgage-related securities in early February.

Margin calls are a common response from investors when securities purchased with loans rapidly lose value. If they fall too far too fast, they may hit triggers that require the issuing company to either shore up their position or sell off additional assets.

In a development likely to be warmly-received by international finance and stock markets, Russia announced Thursday it will buy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds through its sovereign wealth funds, Russia's Finance Ministry said and Bloomberg News reported.

Russia will invest money from its Reserve Fund and National Wellbeing Fund into 15 government bond funds in Europe and the United States, including those in Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE). Russia will also purchase government bonds in the U.K., Germany, France, Austria, Canada, and the Netherlands, Bloomberg News reported.

Both Fannie, down 56 cents $29.27, and Freddie, down 80 cents to $27.94, moved lower Thursday afternoon; however it should be noted that the declines occurred during a broad market sell-off, with the Dow down 159 points to 12,267.

December's disappointing 18,000 jobs-created statistic has not only increased concerns that the U.S. economy is at very sluggish growth levels -- if it hasn't already fallen into a recession -- it's also raised questions regarding the U.S. Federal Reserve's response.

Economist Steve Affinito told BloggingStocks that debate and questions regarding the Ben Bernanke-led Fed's monetary policy are legitimate and warranted.

"In light of recent data, it's perfectly reasonable to ask 'Has the Fed faltered?' and there's considerable debate in econ circles I travel in on that theme. With all of the contractionary forces acting on the U.S. economy, one can legitimately question the incremental response of the Fed," Affinito said. "So far, the evidence appears to be building that the Fed's interest rate response has not been enough."

The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] adds a new wrinkle to the story of efforts by subprime mortgage lender Ameriquest to use campaign cash to curry favor with the government. Ameriquest's parent, ACC Capital Holdings, has paid $325 million to settle regulators' claims that it charged excessively high mortgage rates and didn't adequately disclose loan risks. The Journal's story today highlights the $20.5 million Ameriquest spent at the state and federal government levels to block legislation that would have limited its predatory lending practices.

But as I posted in August, Ameriquest's cash helped boost the fortunes of president Bush. Bush, who used home ownership politics to get re-elected, received $7.8 million from Ameriquest for his 2004 reelection campaign, his inauguration and for Laura Bush's library foundation.

Ameriquest's most interesting pay-to-play technique was to give Rolling Stones tickets and cash to state legislators. For instance, according to the Journal, "Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaigns received at least $1.4 million, along with stacks of tickets to a Rolling Stones concert that were used to lure big donors." And Ameriquest also handed out Rolling Stones tickets to state legislators in Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and California.

What did Ameriquest get for all its giving?

Almost on cue, the European Central Bank took a page out of U.S. Federal Reserve's playbook Wednesday.

In a widely-expected statement, ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet warned that the euro-zone's inflation surge was likely to last longer than expected, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.

The comments came one day after the ECB made $500 billion in short-term loans available to banks to avert a year-end liquidity crunch. The $500 billion move was part of a coordinated effort among the world's major central banks to increase liquidity in the international finance system to head-off a potential credit crunch stemming from subprime mortgage and related asset defaults. Many economists and analysts expect the major central banks -- the ECB, the Fed, the Bank of England, the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Canada -- to continue to sequentially add liquidity to the system through at least Q1 2008, and probably longer.

On Wednesday, Trichet said the euro-zone "faces a 'more protracted' period of elevated inflation than previously expected, indicating no imminent plan to reduce interest rates."

In an essay/column in this week's issue of The New Yorker magazine ("Paulson's Plan," December 17, 2007) writer James Surowiecki offers a more-somber analysis of the subprime mortgage default issue than, say, Financial Times' columnist Martin Wolf.

In Surowiecki's analysis, (which, readers should note, was researched and published before the European Central Banks' infusion of $500 billion Tuesday to ensure year-end liquidity for banks), the current problem is one unlike any other that Wall Street has faced. The problem is not liquidity, as Martin Wolf argued, but 1) high-risk home owners who spent way too much n overpriced houses, and 2) a deep mistrust of the financial system because of the way the system rates and values assets like mortgages.

At issue: Wall Street?

Hence, the Bush Administrations' proposed assistance plan to the mortgage sector and some homeowners, even if it becomes more-encompassing, would not solve the problem: the financial system - - and presumably Wall Street - - simply does not rate and value assets correctly, and the government package doesn't speak to that dimension.

Once again, the ever-incisive Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, an economist, identifies with laser-accuracy what ills the current market. The problem, Wolf argues, is not a lack of solvency but a lack of liquidity (i.e. 'panic').

Wolf does not deny that there have been bad loans (there have been) or that no companies will go out of business (some will). But the circumstance that froze credit markets, that caused quality corporate bonds to fail to price, and that leads to 100-point spreads between the LIBOR rate (what banks charge each other) and the ECB's benchmark interest rate, is rooted more in a lack of confidence, than a lack of sound economic fundamentals or a lack of resources.

A lack of liquidity

And a lack of liquidity or 'panic' is something that central bankers can address. With the above in mind, the U.S. Federal Reserve's plan, in consultation with the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Swiss National Bank, and the Bank of Canada, to inject $40 billion via auctions into the financial system is appropriate and prudent. (Further, in addition to reciprocal currency arrangements, the companion central banks will take related actions, including the Bank of England's decision to accept a wider range of collateral on 3-month loans).

Yesterday afternoon, Hillary Clinton was on CNBC with Maria Bartiromo, discussing her plan for protecting some homeowners who are in danger of losing their houses due to resetting subprime mortgages. It was supposed to be an interview, but it was more of a spat, and showed the deep pro-Wall Street bias that is typical of much of the financial media.

Clinton claimed that Wall Street played a major role in creating the subprime mess and was looking for support from the Street for the plan to freeze mortgage rates for some borrowers. Bartiromo couldn't hide her strong disagreement with this argument. Her basic point was: What about personal responsibility? Why are people who entered into contracts being bailed out? And she all but shouted, You liberal! Violating the sanctity of contracts! Interfering with the blessed Free Market!

The dollar has once again set a new record low against the euro today, with the euro moving as high as $1.4966 earlier in the day. In Asia, the dollar also fell sharply, falling to below 108 yen, marking a two and a half year low against the yen.

The dollar has definitely been in trouble lately. The current slide really gained steam back in August as the market started to realize the effect the subprime mortgage crisis was going to to have on the economy. The dollar has been in a literal free fall ever since.

The dollar is not only reacting to the mortgage concerns, but recent interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve are also adding to the dollar's weakness. So far this year, the Fed has already cut rates twice, and as Wall Street continues to gauge the impact of the mortgage crisis on the overall economy, analysts now expect to see at least one more rate cut in the near future.

It looks like people in power are getting beyond the point of denying that subprime is a problem. And now they're onto the next stage of trying to decide just how big a problem it is. I have seen estimates ranging from as high as $4 trillion to as little as $104 billion. (This is one area where the son will beat the father. Bush I's Savings & Loan crisis cost $240 billion but Bush II's looks likely to be far more costly.)

While each estimate covers different aspects of the cost, the big questions that need to be answered are:

• What caused the problem?
• What can and should be done to minimize the damage? and
• What changes can be made to keep it from happening again?

I don't have real answers to these questions but I think a look at the different estimates of the subprime mortgage meltdown's damage can shed some light on the problem. Here's my take on the three estimates:

I've been talking about the Super SIV bailout plan since the plans for the fund first became public October 14. Today The Wall Street Journal is questioning whether the Super SIV bailout fund can be funded in time [subscription required] to help struggling SIVs who need to find investors for $100 billion in debt coming due in the next six to nine months. The Journal reports some of the biggest SIV operators already are selling their assets, including Citigroup (NYSE: C), the Super SIV champion and the operator of the largest chunk of SIVs, and Rabobank of the Netherlands. Moody's Investor services continues to downgrade the types of assets held by the SIVs, especially assets based on subprime mortgages in the U.S.

Why should you care? You may be holding a money market fund or mutual fund that holds debt from these SIVs in trouble. If the bailout doesn't arrive in time, SIVs will have to restructure their debt, wind down, or in the worst-case scenario become unable to pay their debt investors. When the Journal first started talking about this mess, it reported SIVs held $400 billion in assets globally. Today, because of the write-downs and sale of assets, the Journal is estimating the total value of SIV assets at $350 billion.

It's a bit more than 20 years since the Dow fell 508 points, or 22.6%, in a single day. With Asian and European markets down a mere 1% to 4% today, it does not look like we'll have a repeat of that 23% decline today. What's happening in world markets? According to the New York Times, Hong Kong fell 3.3%, Japan tumbled 2.2%. South Korea was down 3.25%. In Europe the early news was not as bad -- London's FTSE 100 was down 1.4%, the German DAX dropped 1.3%, and Paris slid 1.8%.

Twenty years ago, the CEO of the company I worked for sent one of my colleagues to figure out good stocks to buy -- considering the market plunge an opportunity to buy good stocks at a discount. It turned out that he was right. The cause of the crash was found to be related to simultaneous computer driven-selling that somehow took the rationality out of stock valuations.

But will today's potential plunge also turn out to be a buying opportunity? The answer depends on your time frame and which stocks you buy. It's never clear to me why markets go up and down although "explanations" get printed every day. But it could be that the big reason for the selling in global markets is fear. In particular, investors fear that the U.S. has unleashed a subprime mortgage-backed securities (MBS) financial virus that is sucking an unknown -- but enormous -- quantity of credit out of the global financial system.

Hank Paulson's floundering effort to rescue the world from this MBS viral epidemic is not inspiring confidence. So I would not be eager to rush out and buy stocks in this market. Unlike the computer-driven selling of 1987, the economic costs of MBS's financial "innovation" are still too difficult to count.

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

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doesn't see himself as Wall Street's sugar daddy. That point is abundantly clear from a speech he made Monday in New York.

Although the Federal Reserve can seek to provide a more stable economic background that will benefit both investors and non-investors, the truth is that it can hardly insulate investors from risk, even if it wished to do so. Developments over the past few months reinforce this point. Those who made bad investment decisions lost money. In particular, investors in subprime mortgages have sustained significant losses, and many of the mortgage companies that made those loans have failed. Moreover, market participants are learning and adjusting--for example, by insisting on better mortgage underwriting and by performing better due diligence on structured credit products. Rather than becoming more crisis-prone, the financial system is likely to emerge from this episode healthier and more stable than before.

That sound like tough love, doesn't it? Bernanke certainly seems to be sympathetic to the plight of average people and said the Fed will take action "as needed." There may not been a need for the Fed to do anything at its upcoming meeting. September retail sales were pretty strong and data indicates that consumers are weathering the economic uncertainty.

Bernanke doesn't mince words. He said "further contraction in housing is likely to be a significant drag on growth in the current quarter and through early next year." But does that mean that more interest rate cuts are coming? I am not sure.

People shouldn't expect Bernanke to deliver them a rose garden of continued interest rate cuts which he clearly has no interest in promising.