Just yesterday I wrote a post about how the IMF is predicting that toxic debt will increase to nearly $4 trillion worldwide. Now, a recent report released by the Congressional Oversight Panel - those in charge of overseeing the TARP - indicates that $700 billion may be just the beginning in the U.S. (see ABC News article). To date, the TARP, Fed, and FDIC have set aside, lent, or spend more than $4 trillion.

There is an interesting article by Andrew Ross Sorkin over at the Dealbook blog (see article here), discussing how the FDIC is justifying its participation in the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP). In effect, the FDIC is insuring the PPIP in the name of mitigating systemic risk. While the FDIC is not suppose to guarantee obligations of more than $30 billion, for the PPIP it is not considering total obligations, but contingent liabilities, or what it expects to lose - which conveniently, they project to be nothing. This form of logic essentially allows them to lend an unlimited amount of money. Yet under the PPIP plan, the public-private pool will be financed at a ratio of 6-to-1 public-to-private money, with half of the "1" coming from the private buyer, and the other half coming from the Treasury. With this debt being non-recourse and guaranteed by the government, the risk to the government (i.e., tax payers) would be significant and fully felt. In some ways, it appears that the program will either work wonderfully, or end horribly. Maybe I am missing something, but this sounds like as risky a leveraged bet as I have ever heard. Regrettably, this appears to be just another example of solving a problem caused by taking on too much debt and risk by, you guessed it, taking on too much debt and risk. Why does the term "double down" come to mind? I don't know about you, but I am hoping we hit 21. Otherwise, it may be a long bus ride home.

The Treasury and FDIC are considering a plan to guarantee about $500 billion of bad mortgages in an attempt to reduce the total number of foreclosures, with an estimated cost of about $50 billion to be paid by the bailout package - i.e., you, Joe and Jane taxpayer (see Bloomberg article). The plan would allow banks to restructure as many as 3 million loans into ones that homeowners would actually be able to afford (imagine that). In other words, the mortgages would be restructured based on a borrower's ability to repay, and not their ability to afford the home. If homeowners also took out a home equity line of credit, no problem. The plan being considered would also cover these second mortgages as well. I guess that will teach those of you that recently bought a home within the last year or two and actually put down the "required" 20% down payment. If you live in Florida, California, or Nevada, that 20% is probably gone. Your neighbor, who put nothing down, will now end up paying back what you have left on your loan, which is about 80% of the original value, or 100% of the current value. Their repayment amount could possibly be even less than you if their ability to repay is still not sufficient. I hoped you learned your lesson. Next time buy a bigger house. And of course, don't forget to remodel the kitchen and bathroom while you are at it.

Fortunately, the plan is still being discussed, so hopefully some steps will be put in place to reduce moral hazard, such as having rates and payments increase as the borrower becomes better able to make payments, or allowing taxpayers to recover some or all of the lost and forgiven loan principal once prices recover and loan to equity values become more favorable. Otherwise, no matter how good the intentions are, or how necessary the plan is, the unintended consequences of rewarding bad behavior and poor decision making will cause confidence in the banks and the housing market to take much longer to recover.

Berkshire Hathaway is apparently telling one of its subsidiaries, Kansas Bankers Surety Co., to stop insuring bank deposits above the amount guaranteed by the federal government (see WSJ article). The move will prevent banks from offering "bank deposit guaranty bonds," often used as a way to attract the business of wealthy customers. The decision stems from the fact that when banks are acquired, the company purchasing the bank may not take on the larger deposits beyond what is insured by the government, causing potential losses for those companies that have insured these extra deposits. The current move would help Berkshire reduce future losses that may occur as more banks fail or are purchased. Unfortunately, the move also signals worry by Buffett and Berkshire that more bank failures and consolidation could be expected in the future. This is certainly not the news the markets need right now.