Information Security & US & Life & Love & Fashion & Hacking & Passion

Back in June 2007, Elevation Partners placed a huge wager on smartphone maker Palm (PALM). In its biggest investment ever, the Silicon Valley private equity firm pumped $325 million into the company. The bet now looks like a bomb. On Dec. 1, Palm preannounced a nightmarish quarter, with revenues likely to come in nearly 50% below Wall Street's expectations. On Dec. 10, Palm's stock closed at 1.69, nearly 80% below the price Elevation paid for its shares last year.

Palm isn't the only problem for Elevation, a high-profile Menlo Park (Calif.) firm whose founding partners include financier Roger McNamee, former Apple finance chief Fred Anderson, and U2 frontman Bono. Elevation has done just six deals since it was created four years ago. It owns a stake in the parent company of Realtor.com, which is struggling through the housing meltdown, and it also owns around 40% of Forbes, which like many magazines faces a difficult media advertising environment. "They're in a tough spot," says an investment banker familiar with the firm. "It's hard to see where they go from here."

Few telecom experts think the Palm investment is leading anywhere good. The Sunnyvale (Calif.) company pioneered the smartphone market in the U.S. with its Treo line of products but has fallen far behind rivals such as Research In Motion (RIMM), Nokia (NOK), and Apple (AAPL). Palm's share of the U.S. market has dropped from 23% to 8% in the past two years, according to research firm IDC. "There's no room for treading water and product delays in this market," says IDC analyst Ryan Reith.

Elevation is in better shape than some others in private equity. It never made aggressive use of debt. It was able to sell one investment, a video game company, to giant Electronic Arts (ERTS) for a solid return. And it still has roughly half of the $1.9 billion that it raised for future deals. But unless Palm recovers, Elevation will struggle to deliver decent returns to its limited partners. That in turn could hurt its ability to raise money for investment funds in the future.

Elevation's partners insist Palm is poised for a comeback, and they point to an engineering effort being overseen by former Apple hardware czar Jon Rubinstein. He joined Palm last year as executive chairman, as part of Elevation's investment in the company. With the help of Dan Walker, Apple's former chief recruiter, Palm has brought in dozens of veteran techies interested in working on breakthrough gizmos. "I'm very confident about our plan," says Rubinstein.

NEW PRODUCT GAMBLE

The moment of truth will come at the Consumer Electronics Show in January. Sources say Palm will finally unveil an oft-delayed new operating system, as well as the first in a new family of smartphones. The company won't discuss details, but McNamee says the products will be different from anything on the market. While RIM's BlackBerrys excel at e-mail and iPhones are tops for entertainment, he says Palm will create devices that help consumers easily meld work and play.

Palm doesn't have to vanquish RIM or Apple to succeed. With smartphones expected to balloon from 10% to 50% of the overall 1 billion-unit cell-phone market, Palm could triple its revenues by winning just a single point of the aggregate market. Indeed, McNamee and Rubinstein say they're modeling their plan on the resurrection of Apple, in which marquee products led to financial success. "We hold Apple up as the example of how to do this," says McNamee.

This may be Palm's last chance to get it right. The company says it will burn through about $33 million in cash this quarter. At that rate, its remaining $215 million will last a bit more than six quarters.

With the country spiraling deeper into recession, the Federal Reserve is ready to slash its key interest rate -- perhaps to an all-time low-- in hopes of cushioning some of the economic fallout felt by many struggling Americans.

To battle the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues already have ratcheted down their main lever for influencing the economy -- the federal funds rate -- to 1 percent, a level seen only once before in the last half-century.

The Fed opens a two-day meeting Monday to assess to economy and decide its next move on rates. Another reduction to the funds rate, the interest banks charge each other on overnight loans, is all but certain to be announced Tuesday.

Many economists predict the Fed will cut its rate in half -- to just 0.50 percent. A few think the Fed could opt for an even more forceful action -- lowering rates by a whopping three-quarters percentage point or more. If that larger cut occurs, it would be the lowest on records that track the monthly average of the targeted funds rate going back to 1954.

Even an aggressive rate reduction won't turn the economy around, analysts said.

"It is not so much going to give the economy a big push forward. It's more a case of trying to help the economy from being pushed further backward by all these negative events," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group.

However deeply the Fed decides to cut rates, the prime rate -- now at 4 percent -- for many consumer and small-business loans would drop by a corresponding amount. The prime lending rate is used to peg rates on home equity loans, certain credit cards and other consumer loans. Cheaper rates could give pinched borrowers a dose of relief.

The goal of lower borrowing costs is to entice people and businesses to spend more, which would revive the flat-lined economy. So far, though, the Fed's aggressive rate reductions have failed to lift the country out of a recession that started last December.

Clobbered by the financial crisis, worried banks have hoarded their cash and been extremely reluctant to lend money to customers. Fearful consumers, watching jobs vanish and their investments tank, have sharply cut back their spending, including big-ticket purchases like homes and cars that typically involve financing.

The negative forces have fed off each other, creating a vicious cycle that Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have been desperately trying to break.

To unlock lending and get financial markets to operate more normally, the U.S. has resorted to a string of radical actions, including a $700 billion financial bailout where the government is making cash injections in banks in return for partial ownership stakes.

In terms of rate cuts, the Fed is getting ever closer to running out of ammunition.

It can lower the funds rate only so far -- to zero. Even if that were to happen -- a point of debate among economists -- the prime rate would fall to 3 percent but no lower.

Against that backdrop, Bernanke says the central bank is exploring other ways to stimulate the economy.

The Fed could buy longer-term Treasury or agency securities on the open market in substantial quantities, Bernanke says. This might lower rates on these securities and help spur buying appetites.

Another option the Fed has mulled: issuing its own debt, which would give the central bank cash and more flexibility to battle the financial crisis. To do that, however, the Fed would need new powers from Congress.

"The Fed wants to show that it has tools and options and is not out of tricks because interest rates are very low," said Michael Feroli, economist at JPMorgan Economics. "The problems holding back the economy are fairly long lived in nature."

To combat the financial crisis, the Fed already has created first-of-its-kind programs, such as getting cash directly to companies by buying up mounds of "commercial paper," the short-term debt firms use to pay everyday expenses such as payroll and supplies.

It also recently launched massive programs to boost the availability of consumer credit, including that for cars, student loans, homes and credit cards. The Fed also is making loans to banks, is providing a financial backstop to the mutual fund industry, and has injected billions of dollars in financial markets here and abroad.

The Fed could opt to expand programs by enlarging loans it's now making, providing loans to other types of companies, or buying more and different types of debt. The Fed's balance sheet has ballooned to $2.2 trillion, from close to $900 billion in September, reflecting some of those other activities to get credit flowing again.

Even with all the bold moves, the economy continues to sink deeper into despair.

Skittish employers axed 533,000 jobs in November alone. That drove the unemployment rate up to 6.7 percent, a 15-year high.

Since the start of the recession, the economy has shed nearly 2 million jobs. Analysts predict another 3 million more will be lost between now and the spring of 2010.

Last week alone, Bank of America Corp., tool maker Stanley Works and Sara Lee Corp., known for food brands such as Jimmy Dean and Hillshire Farm, announced job cuts.

General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Co., meanwhile, are fighting for their survival. GM and Chrysler have said they're in danger of running out of money within weeks. The White House is exploring new ways to help Detroit after rescue efforts collapsed in Congress.

With the employment market eroding and consumers retrenching, the economy could stagger backward at a shocking 6 percent rate in the current October-December quarter, analysts predict. It shrank at a 0.5 percent pace in the third quarter.

President-elect Barack Obama is advocating an economic recovery plan that includes spending on big public works projects to bolster jobs. His plan also includes tax cuts to spur consumers to spend more and businesses to step up investment and hiring.

Americans are sorely feeling the toll of the housing, credit and financial crises.

Households' net worth fell 4.7 percent in the third quarter to $56.5 trillion as people watched the value of their homes and investments tank. It marked the fourth straight quarterly decline, the Fed said.

Many small community banks are growing frustrated about their inability to access the government's $700 billion financial rescue fund, nearly two months after large banks began tapping the fund for much-needed capital.

Trade groups representing the banks complain that the delay is putting smaller institutions at a competitive disadvantage to publicly traded banks, more than 50 of which have received capital injections.

"They took care of Wall Street first, and it seems like Main Street got left behind," said Cynthia Blankenship, vice chairwoman of Bank of the West in Irving, Texas, which has $250 million in assets. Blankenship is also chairwoman of the Independent Community Bankers of America.

Some small banks, especially in areas such as California and Florida where the housing slump hit hardest, carry troubled real estate loans and likely would benefit from the government cash, Blankenship said.

Publicly traded banks have been eligible since the Treasury Department began the $250 billion capital injection program Oct. 14. The department opened it on Nov. 17 to about 3,800 small, privately held banks. A few publicly traded community banks already have received government money.

But the department has yet to issue the necessary guidelines for about 3,000 additional private banks. Most of them are set up as partnerships, with no more than 100 shareholders. They aren't able to issue preferred shares to the government in exchange for capital injections, as other banks can.

The Treasury Department has come under fire from members of Congress for not ensuring that the capital injections lead to more lending. The ICBA also argues that healthy smaller banks are more likely to use government money to make loans than are big banks that need to shore up their capital after writing down billions in mortgage-related losses.

Hundreds of the banks have applied for government money, the ICBA said in a letter Tuesday, as a precautionary step. But they can't access the money.

As a result, the government needs to figure out what it can receive in exchange for capital. Treasury officials say they are working on it but that the task is technically difficult.

"I have not seen a good answer yet," Neel Kashkari, director of Treasury's Office of Financial Stability, said Monday at a housing conference.

The vast majority of small banks are financially healthy, the ICBA says. Most did not get caught up in the housing meltdown that has so damaged Wall Street banks. But groups such as the ICBA say the rescue fund is supposed to be available to all healthy banks.

Banks that aren't eligible may lose out to other lenders that have received government money, the American Bankers Association added in a letter Dec. 5 to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

"They can only watch while many of their competitors, strengthened by capital injections from the government, seize opportunities to meet credit needs of their communities," the ABA letter said.

Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat, urged Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in a letter Dec. 5 to open the program to the remaining small banks by the end of December.

Bert Ely, a banking consultant, said one possible solution would be for the government to receive some type of debt instrument rather than equity.

The Treasury Department is still struggling to hire enough staff to operate the capital-injection program, the Government Accountability Office, an auditing agency, said in a report earlier this month.

The department has handed out more than $155 billion to 77 banks. Of that sum, $115 billion has gone to the eight largest, including Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Some smaller banks that haven't yet been able to access the federal money are particularly irked by the efforts of nonbank financial institutions, such as life insurers and credit card companies, to get a slice of the money. At least four life insurers, including Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. and Genworth Financial Inc., are seeking to buy small thrifts to become eligible for the capital injections.

"The law was passed to help banks, and now companies are trying to get in front by becoming a bank," said Paul Merski, chief economist for the ICBA, which has about 5,000 members. "It's a little bit frustrating."

The banks that aren't eligible control just a small slice of the nation's banking assets. They make up about one-third of community banks, which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. defines as banks with less than $1 billion in assets.

Overall, community banks hold 11 percent of the industry's total assets, according to Sheila Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Still, they play a vital role in small business and agriculture lending.

Community banks provide 29 percent of small commercial and industrial loans, 40 percent of small commercial real estate loans and 77 percent of small agricultural production loans, Bair said in congressional testimony last month. The FDIC doesn't have more precise data for the type of banks that aren't eligible for capital injections.

The delay in accessing the rescue money is just one aspect of the program that has frustrated small community banks and their directors.

The government has said the $250 billion it set aside for capital injections is intended for healthy banks. Yet the money has been widely referred to in press reports as a "bailout." As a result, many well-capitalized banks worry that if they take money from Treasury, their customers might see them as weak, Blankenship said.

Conversely, if they don't receive any funds, customers might wonder if they were turned down, she said. Treasury lists banks that have received money. But it won't say which banks have applied.

Finally, the ICBA has raised concerns about a measure governing the capital injections that would let the Treasury Department "unilaterally amend" the program. For example, Congress could require banks that have received government money to do more lending, Merski said.

"That's a bit concerning," said Dan Blanton, chief executive of Georgia Bank & Trust, based in Augusta, Ga. "If they decide they want to change the rules after you've taken the money ... you have to live with it."

Still, Blanton said his bank has applied for federal funds, though he hasn't decided yet whether to take the money if his bank is approved.

Federal agencies and trade groups have encouraged banks of all kinds -- including those not yet technically eligible -- to apply for the capital, to preserve the option. More than 1,000 community financial institutions have applied, Bair said in her testimony last month.

But some small banks that are eligible are saying no. Financial services firm Keefe, Bruyette & Woods said in a recent report that at least 82 banks have publicly said they won't seek funds.

Evergreen Federal Bank, based in Grants Pass, Ore., for example, has a link on its home page that reads, "We Don't Need a Bailout."

Steep discounts on clothes, toys and electronics enticed shoppers to stores this weekend but they still are making fewer purchases leading into the final stretch of the holiday shopping season.

Based on early reports from analysts and malls, sales results were generally mixed to moderately down even as store traffic appeared strong this past weekend, the second-to-last of the season that can make or break many retailers.

Stores offered big discounts to shoppers who have been pulling back their spending, concerned about the recession and job stability. Shoppers came to stores for these discounts but largely stuck to their shopping lists and basic items like clothing, analysts say.

Traffic levels at stores were comparable to last year, said Marshal Cohen, chief industry analyst at market research group NPD Group. People were looking for deals but not as willing to spend their money as last year.

"The number of consumers actually making purchases were down and when they did purchase they purchased less," Cohen said.

Results were mixed across the country, with electronics still doing well and stores like warehouse-club operator Costco Wholesale Corp., he said, were mobbed.

"It wasn't as good as last year but it wasn't as doom and gloom as everyone was expecting," he said.

This Saturday was the strongest yet this season, said Karen MacDonald, a spokeswoman at mall operator Taubman Centers Inc. Traffic was up at stores throughout the country, but in terms of sales, business overall ranged from slightly above, to flat, to slightly below last year's levels, she said. Apparel was a top seller while high-end jewelry and home furnishings were weak.

Figures released Sunday by SpendingPulse pointed to more signs that shoppers are continuing their frugal ways, despite a decent Black Friday spending surge. SpendingPluse is a data service provided by MasterCard Advisors that estimates U.S. retail sales across all payment forms, including cash and checks.

From Nov. 28, the day after Thanksgiving known as "Black Friday," through Dec. 6, luxury sales dropped 34.5 percent compared to the same period last year, while overall apparel sales fell 22.9 percent. Electronic sales fell 22.3 percent.

Michael McNamara, vice president at SpendingPulse, said consumers are resisting big-ticket items priced $1,000 or more.

"Spending has obviously contracted, but the key question is will it contract even further," he said.

Online sales last week fell 1 percent to $3.81 billion from the same week last year, according to research company comScore Inc., which called the drop 'marginal.'

From Cyber Monday on Dec. 1, which marked the kickoff to the online holiday shopping season, through Friday, sales were up 3 percent to $8.26 billion from last year, the firm said Sunday. Tuesday last week marked the heaviest online spending day on record with $887 million in sales, the firm said, adding that it expects online retailers to continue offering discounts on products and expedited shipping to spur sales. It noted apparel and accessories sales were up 21 percent in the first 12 days of December, while books and magazine sales rose 18 percent.

But not all shoppers are easily parting with their money.

John Collins, an event planner who lives in Brooklyn, was at Crate & Barrel in Manhattan looking at table lamps and a fondue set. But he wasn't sure if he was going to buy anything. He said he wasn't feeling inspired to buy considering everything that's going on.

"It's not the time to spend money on lavish presents," he said. "It's time to get back to smaller, thoughtful presents, especially with an uncertain year coming up. No one I know wants to spend a fortune right now."

This season could shape up to be the worst in decades as the economy spins into recession and consumers worry about their slumping investments, rising prices and job stability.

Same-store sales are expected to be down as much as 1 percent in November and December, according to Michael P. Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers.

If that holds true it would mark the weakest season since at least 1969 when the index began. The only holiday period that was almost as weak was 2002, when same-store sales rose by only 0.5 percent, Niemira said. Same-store sales are sales at stores opened at least a year and are considered a key indicator of a retailer's health.

Slumping sales are weighing on retailers. Last week they forced retailer KB Toys to file for bankruptcy protection for the second time in four years. The 86-year-old company plans to begin going-out-of business sales at its stores immediately.

With spending expected down, stores have been stepping up their discounts to try to capture whatever money consumers decide to part with.

At The Mall at Short Hills, N.J. the storefronts featured bold discount signs to lure consumers in. Chico's FAS Inc. offered shoppers up to 65 percent off, while Cole Haan offered $50 off purchases of $250 or more. Ann Taylor Stores Corp.'s Loft division slashed its clearance merchandise an additional 40 percent, making items like colorful suede shoes, originally priced at $79, now marked down to $12.88. Saks Fifth Avenue reduced its sale prices by half, for a total of up to 70 percent off.

Consumers had said all along they were going to cut their spending, stick to basics and look for deals, and they've kept their word, said C. Britt Beemer, chairman of America's Research Group. Retailers got them to come out to stores with discounts of 50, 60 even 70 percent off, but this weekend discounts didn't translate into sales.

"The malls had traffic but the stores didn't seem to be so swamped," he said.

Apparel seemed to be a big item this weekend, he said, especially for children. Many parents skipped out on back-to-school shopping this fall and are now looking for clothing deals as Christmas gifts. They'd rather cut spending on themselves before cutting spending on their kids, he said.

Toys R Us Chief Executive Jerry Storch said people still want to buy toys for their kids, and traffic was strong this weekend.

"What we've heard from the customers is that the last thing they're going to cut from their budget is a toy for their child and that's held up consistently," he said.

Michelle Acton was looking for deals when she took her children, 5 and 1, to Target in Brentwood, Tenn., near Nashville, to pick out Christmas gifts using money sent from relatives. She spent $80 on action figures and a set including a stroller and play pen for a baby doll.

Acton, a nurse, is looking for deals and spending less on gifts this year because her husband was laid off from his job in the drywall industry in February. She said the family has been pinching pennies ever since.

Lisa Cumbey, 49, of Richmond, Va., said that with her big circle of friends and large family, she's cut her spending this year. People are moving away from the need to buy things, she said at Mongrel, a gift shop in Carytown, a trendy stretch of boutiques near downtown Richmond, Va.

"Our families all agreed not to do presents, our co-workers all agreed not to do presents, so I'd say we've cut it by 80 percent," Cumbey said. "Nothing extravagant."

Don't expect Wall Street's turmoil to ebb in the year's last full week of trading as investors face questions about an auto bailout, the banking crisis, and the Federal Reserve's final rate-setting meeting of 2008.

The market, still hovering at decade lows, has yet to show any sign of a traditional year-end rally. And the next few days it will face a number of tests that could determine if investors are able to get past all the negative economic news to end the year on a bright note.

The fate of Detroit's three biggest automakers continues to be in question this week after the Senate failed to pass a $14 billion bailout for the Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. Ford Motor Co. has said in the past that it does not need government money to survive.

The White House this week is expected to unveil ways to provide emergency aid to the automakers, which have said they could run out of cash within weeks without government help. Many expect that the Bush administration will use money from the $700 billion financial bailout fund to provide loans to the carmakers.

"If the administration had some notion that this was a house of cards, that this was going to bring the entire economy down, then they have the authority to write checks out of the already passed bailout program," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank in Chicago.

On Sunday evening, major stock indexes were modestly higher in futures trading. Dow Jones industrial average futures rose 49 points, or 0.56 percent, to 8,738. Standard & Poor's 500 index futures added 5.00, or 0.56 percent, to 891.00; while Nasdaq-100 futures rose 7.25, or 0.60 percent, to 1,220.75.

That might add to Wall Street's resilient performance on Friday after it rebounded from an early sell-off to end higher after the government said it would assist troubled U.S. automakers. The Dow rose 0.75 percent, and ended the week with a loss of just 0.07 percent.

The S&P 500 rose 0.42 percent last week, while the Nasdaq advanced 2.08 percent. For the year, the Dow is down 34.9 percent, the S&P 500 is down 40.1 percent and the Nasdaq is off 41.9 percent.

"The market's been pretty resilient," said Matt King, chief investment officer of Bell Investment Advisors. "The bad news keeps coming out ... but the market's been holding firm and making some good gains. So to us that's a good sign."

Along with uncertainty about the auto sector, the Fed's policy meeting on Monday and Tuesday will also remain in focus. The central bank is expected to lower its benchmark fed funds rate by a half-percentage point to 0.5 percent.

But, with rates so low, that means the Fed will soon run out of room to lower interest rates further to stimulate the economy.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, the two biggest U.S. investment banks, will report results this week.

Analysts expect Goldman on Tuesday will report its first loss since becoming a public company in 1999. Morgan Stanley is also expected to report a loss during the fourth quarter.

Investors will also pore over economic reports, including Tuesday's release of the government's Consumer Price Index for November and housing starts.

Matthew Hollister

What's the best way to stabilize plunging home prices? Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his staff are considering plans to push mortgage rates down to 4.5% in hopes of bringing buyers back into the moribund market. But many Democrats—in Congress and on President-elect Barack Obama's team—seem more set on pressing lenders to renegotiate troubled mortgages. That tack, championed by Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. head Sheila Bair, is aimed at trimming foreclosures and ending fire sales.

The differing approaches have led to a standoff. The government transition also makes it less likely that much will happen before Obama takes over in late January. That's worrisome: Without reducing foreclosures and ending the slide in home prices, it will be nearly impossible to stabilize banks and lessen the depth of the recession. And sharply rising unemployment has added new urgency: Last spring, Rod Dubitsky, Credit Suisse's (CS) head of research for asset-backed securities, projected 6.5 million foreclosures. With unemployment set to top 8% in 2009, he says up to 10 million families may lose their homes.

Still, policymakers remain split on the best approach. Bair repeatedly has been ahead of Paulson in calling for a stronger policy response, but when she first suggested pushing lenders harder to modify iffy mortgages last spring, it was dismissed. Since then she has instituted many of her ideas at IndyMac, the failed thrift the FDIC took over in July.

Bair's plan offers a guarantee to lenders that modify a mortgage so payments are trimmed to 31% of a homeowner's gross income. If they cut interest rates or stretch out the life of a loan, Washington would cover part of the lender's losses should a homeowner redefault. Bair says the plan would save 1.5 million homeowners at a cost of $24.4 billion. But skeptics say conflicting investor interests make it legally tough to modify securitized loans. And new statistics suggest that more than half of loans modified early this year are already at least 30 days past due—though Bair notes many early modifications did little to lower homeowners' monthly costs.

Paulson argues that Bair's plan is inappropriate for the Treasury's $700 billion rescue, because it would be an expenditure rather than an investment that would earn a return. The proposal also would reward banks for failed modifications instead of successful ones, since lenders would get subsidies only on loans that redefault.

Obama has said little about his plans, but many in Washington believe Bair's proposals will underpin his foreclosure strategy. And many in both parties (Republicans are especially annoyed) see her efforts to publicize the plan as a bid for a bigger job with Obama.

TREASURY'S OPTIONS

Will the incoming Treasury team clash with Bair, too? According to a recent Bloomberg story, Timothy F. Geithner, the head of the New York Fed and Obama's nominated Treasury Secretary, is also unhappy with Bair and wants her out before her term ends in 2011. An FDIC spokesman dismisses the idea of an ulterior motive as ridiculous, noting that Bair has championed foreclosure mitigation for years. The New York Fed and the Obama transition team declined to comment.

Treasury says it's studying several options, including the plan to subsidize low rates. Proponents say that by bringing new buyers to the market, the move could help end the pricing slide. "That will be far more important than any amount of loan modifications," says Ken Griffin, CEO of hedge fund giant Citadel Investment Group. Problem is, low rates would do little for those now facing foreclosure or trapped in homes worth less than their mortgages. And with just six weeks left, the Bush Administration is unlikely to launch a new program unless Obama's team signals that it backs the idea, says Howard Glaser, a mortgage industry consultant.

On Dec. 4, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke proposed a variation on Bair's plan that also draws on the Treasury idea. Instead of guaranteeing losses, he said, Uncle Sam could subsidize reduced interest rates on modified loans. While more complex than the FDIC plan, it would "increase the incentive of [mortgage] servicers to be aggressive in reducing monthly payments," he said. With Geithner and Bernanke having worked closely throughout the crisis, the idea could gain traction as Obama's plans become clearer.

The White House and Treasury Dept. said they are likely to help U.S. automakers avert bankruptcy after Republican senators defeated a bill late Thursday, Dec. 11, that would have provided $14 billion in taxpayer loans to the companies.

Members of Congress and auto executives were meeting all day Friday with White House officials to determine how much money will be released to General Motors (GM) and Chrysler, and on what timetable. Also, the Treasury, sources said, was also working out what oversight rules will be needed as part of the rescue package, and the other conditions the automakers and the auto-workers' union will have to meet. GM and Chrysler are known to be close to reaching their minimum levels of cash needed to sustain their operations.

For weeks, Democratic senators have called on the White House to use some of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund to make loans to GM and Chrysler, and to provide a line of credit to Ford (F), which is not in as dire financial shape as its two rivals. But the White House told Congress the fund was not created for industries outside of banks and financial-services companies.

After the auto-rescue bill died in the Senate following weeks of data indicating rising unemployment, however, the White House changed course. Another factor was the further decline in stock prices Friday morning, which analysts attributed to the likely bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler.

"Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry," said Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin.

The Treasury Dept. has about $15 billion of uncommitted funds left from the first $350 billion round of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, authorized by Congress. That means it could cover the immediate needs of the auto companies without having to go to Congress. GM has said it needs $4 billion this month to keep paying its bills, and $12 billion total to get through to March.

A Breakdown over Wages?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Thursday night on the Senate floor that negotiations broke down over the United Auto Workers' unwillingness to agree to a date for certain active workers' wages and benefits to be cut to match those of workers at non-union auto factories in the U.S., such as those of Toyota (TM) and Honda (HMC).

Senator Corker, who acted as a broker between the Republican caucus and the UAW and automakers, said Friday: "I feel a sense of surrealness today that we came so close to what would have been a landmark agreement."

Corker said he had asked the UAW to agree to language that would have made labor costs "competitive" with foreign-owned plants, and the definition would have been certified by the next Labor Secretary. Democratic senators would not have supported the language unless the UAW agreed to it.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger on Friday took issue with the characterization that the talks broke down because of wages. "The wages discussions were about politics in the Republican caucus," said the union leader. Gettelfinger said he didn't want to get pinned down to specific language in the bill over "parity" or "competitiveness" because comparisons between Detroit and foreign automakers are complicated by the benefits held by the vast pool of union retirees.

Even if the union gave in, Corker may not have been able to get the deal passed. There may have been too much opposition no matter what the union was willing to do. "Corker couldn't deliver the Senate even if the UAW agreed," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.)

Negotiation Successes

The union, in negotiations with Corker on Thursday, agreed to take half of $21 billion of future health-care and benefit payments owed to it by the automakers in stock rather than cash. And they agreed to negotiate wage "competitiveness" over the next three months. Big investors and banks that hold automakers' bonds also agreed to accept a 70% writedown on the face value of their investments, and to take half of the rest in stock.

The bill language gave authority to a government-appointed "car czar," who would have had to certify the financial "viability" of the automakers by Mar. 31, including wage competitiveness. But Republican senators wanted specific language in the bill to address labor. Gettelfinger said that tactic was designed to "pierce the heart of organized labor."

Corker, despite his freshman status in the Senate, emerged as a major player in negotiations during the past three weeks as he came to favor a government-facilitated restructuring of the automakers instead of having them reorganize under Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Corker encouraged Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to adopt as much of the framework of the Senate bill as possible in granting the automakers some of the Wall Street bailout funds. "What we put forth in the bill, and nearly got a deal on, were loan covenants that the Treasury Secretary could adopt by fiat," said the senator.

Details of how Treasury may help the automakers are expected to emerge over the next few days.

If you're one of those fortunate workers who still enjoys company-supplied Internet access—or, if you've been laid off and just have lots of time on your hands—you've no doubt noticed the wave of bailout-inspired humor that's flooded blogs, YouTube, and Facebook pages. Much of it is, sad to say, subprime. But there are some gems out there (precious as a zero-percent T-Bill). We've thoughtfully collected some of the best.

First, the professionals. And by that I mean, of course, The Onion. For production values alone, it's hard to beat the video "Should the Government Stop Dumping Money into a Giant Hole?" Here the level of debate is actually higher than what you'll get on typical network TV coverage of the financial crisis. Then there's my personal favorite, from Jon Methven at the McSweeney's site, "The Economic Crisis Hits the Markson Family Monopoly Board." We may all be living on Baltic Avenue when this is over.

Alright, let's move on to the poetry. It's tough fitting Motown into meter, but the auto companies' pleadings have summoned up much car-crash imagery. Let's give it up for Kaneix, who bolted together "Small is Suddenly Beautiful."And Vanessa Giacoppo, who Twittered over this haiku (even the auto poetry is going Japanese!):

As U.S. jobs disappear at a rapid clip, the official unemployment figure seems understated. While November's 6.7% rate is a full 2% higher than the same time last year, the rate remains well below the 10.8% postwar peak, reached in November 1982. One issue is that the official unemployment number captures only a slice of the total joblessness in the U.S. To be counted as unemployed in this statistic, a worker must not have a job, be currently available for work, and have actively sought employment within the last four weeks. In other words, a lot of the jobless are left out of the government's tally.

Rajeev Dhawan, director of Georgia State University's Robinson College of Business, says the official unemployment rate is "not a good measure of what is happening in the economy. It's drawn from a sample too small and filled with too many assumptions. Absolute job losses and retail sales give a better idea of what's really happening in the economy."

Fortunately, digging deeper into the labyrinth of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Web site can offer a more complete, if imperfect, picture of joblessness. Since 1993, the BLS has tracked a category of unemployed called U-6, which captures the total unemployed, plus what the agency calls "marginally attached" workers and those employed part-time "for economic reasons." For November 2008, that rate was 12.5%, nearly double the official unemployment rate and the highest since the government started tracking this category.

Outside Looking In

Marginally attached workers are those with no job and who aren't hunting for one but who are interested in working—people who have left the workforce because the employment situation seems so bleak that they've stopped trying. This measure covers anyone who has looked for work in the past 12 months, not just the past four weeks. In November, 1.9 million workers were marginally attached, up 637,000 from a month prior. This category includes long-term unemployed, such as factory workers who can't find a job paying close to what they'd been earning before. Unemployment rates in construction and extraction jobs such as mining hit 12.1% in November, followed by 9.4% in production jobs. That means the ranks of the marginally attached will increase.

Those employed part-time for economic reasons, who are counted as employed in the official statistic, want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. As of November, the number of workers in this category rose by 621,000. There are now 7.3 million involuntary part-time workers, up 2.8 million over the past 12 months.

Contract workers, sometimes known as freelancers or independent contractors, face a special set of problems when it comes to being counted by the government. First, employers aren't required to report layoffs of contract workers to the government, so when companies say they're cutting their contractor workforce—as Google (GOOG) did in October—no one knows by how much. These job cuts are also not recorded in the official job-cut statistics tracked by the government. In other words, the 533,000 jobs lost in the November count don't include any of the tens of thousands of contract workers being slashed from company payrolls as the recession deepens.

Falling Between the Cracks

Some self-employed workers are incorporated into other BLS statistics, but not all of them are counted. Those traditionally considered self-employed, such as independent real estate agents or accountants, are included in the government's household survey of the unemployed. But those working as long-term freelancers for one particular company without the benefits of being staff members—often dubbed "permalancers"—are not. That means a good portion of this group, which the Government Accountability Office says makes up 10% of the workforce, isn't properly tracked. "We really don't know what is happening with the [contractor employment] numbers," says Sara Horowitz, founder of the Freelancers Union, a 93,000-member organization of contract workers. Horowitz says the government should develop better measures of contract workers, perhaps by identifying the number of contractor tax filings with the IRS each year. "An increasing part of the economy is driven by this new workforce, but government agencies haven't updated their methods for counting them," she says.

The BLS does capture other pieces of the unemployment puzzle. It breaks out such demographic categories as education levels. As of November the unemployment rate for college graduates increased less than a percentage point, to 3.1%, while the unemployment rate for high school dropouts rose from 7.6% to 10.5%. The BLS also tracks such categories as age and ethnicity; the unemployment rate in November was 32% for black teenagers, for example. Other data offer state-by-state comparisons of unemployment rates. In the most recent data, which cover the first 10 months of 2008, Rhode Island and Michigan were tied with the highest unemployment rate, at 9.3%, with California next at 8.2%. Though not officially a state, Puerto Rico's rate stands at 12%.

Still, calls for improving the BLS metrics continue. While Horowitz presses for better accounting of contract workers, Georgia State's Dhawan says the surveys need to account for population growth. "Fifty years ago, the [official unemployment] number had some validity," he says. "Now I have little faith in it."

For years, Bernie Madoff, all-around nice guy, pulled billions of dollars of foreign and domestic money into his investment fund. His lure? He promised the implausible combination of good returns and low risk—and people believed him.

Painfully, the allegations of fraud surrounding the Madoff affair are also exposing the fundamental fallacy of the global economy. Like Madoff's trusting investors, the rest of the world was willing to assume that the U.S. economy as a whole was a low-risk, good-return investment. This belief drove the entire structure of global trade and finance for the past 10 years. And when the subprime crisis showed this assumption of low risk to be false, the financial crisis resulted.

Consider this: Since the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, the rest of the world has been willing to lend money to finance the U.S.'s huge and growing trade deficit. Not just small amounts of cash either: over the past decade, the U.S. borrowed a cumulative total of $5 trillion from foreigners at relatively low interest rates.

Why were foreigners so generous?

Without this flow of easy money into the U.S., globalization in its current form would not have been possible. The U.S. was the consumer of last resort, absorbing cars from Germany and Japan, electronics from Taiwan and Korea, and clothes and furniture from China. The earth was flat, and why not? Pluck a laptop from Taiwan and pay for it with a home equity loan, which—if you trace back the connections—was at least partly funded with foreign money, too.

The big unanswered question, for years, was why this money flow persisted. Why the heck were foreign investors willing to lend the U.S. such large amounts of money on such good terms? Economists and journalists spun out hypothesis after hypothesis (we'll see more below), but there was no agreement on why.

Now we see what happened. Wall Street firms—big operators like Lehman and relatively small fish like Madoff—told foreign investors they could put their money into the U.S.—the world's safest economy—and still make decent returns. Madoff, of course, appears to have lied. He allegedly ran an investment scam that has resulted in billions of dollars of losses reported around the world, including $4 billion in Switzerland and $3 billion in Spain.

exporting 'low risk' Derivatives

But it wasn't simply Madoff. The Wall Street boom of recent years was built, as far as I can figure out, on selling the low-risk story to foreign investors. In fact, most of the financial innovations of recent years were about making investments in the U.S. 'safer' for foreign investors. The enormous growth of foreign exchange derivatives enabled those abroad to protect their U.S. investments from exchange-rate fluctuations. The sudden increase in credit default swaps could be used to protect foreign bond investors from problems with individual countries. And collateralized debt obligations, which could be divided into high-risk and low-risk pieces, increased the supply of low-risk investments to be sold outside the U.S.

This low-risk, good-return story attracted investors from around the world. One example: Lehman sold $2 billion in 'mini-bonds' to Hong Kong investors, including many retirees.

However, the low-risk, good-return story simply wasn't true, for two key reasons: First, the U.S. economy was supposed to be on the cutting edge of innovation. Innovation through technological change, by nature, is a very risky activity. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. If the investment in innovation pays off, the economy booms, as it did during the second half of the 1990s.

U.S. Regulation Failed

But innovation has fallen short in recent years. Biotech and nanotech still have not come to fruition, and alternative energy is moving slowly. As a result, the U.S. economy has fallen short of expectations. The income isn't there, and the debt just piles up.

The second reason why the low-risk, good-return story wasn't true: the breakdown of regulation. And that's where we come back to the alleged Madoff scam. His was no complicated global securitization, based on black-box rocket science. Instead, it appears to be a good old-fashioned Ponzi scheme, enabled by a lack of government supervision.

What comes next? The fallacy is punctured. Globalization will be seen as what it is—a game with risks that can't be wished away. And U.S. prosperity will depend on the success or failure of its ability to innovate—not its ability to tell an implausible story to foreign investors.