But we’re not living in normal times, says Dan Denning in The Daily Reckoning Australia. What we’re experiencing is a financial quagmire caused by the loud popping of an unprecedented credit bubble.

The collapse of IndyMac (IMB) has been overshadowed by the threat of insolvency at Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE). The rescue plan for the twin mortgage giants is nothing more than backdoor nationalization, says Dan. Expect runaway inflation as a result of the government’s meddling…

First, let’s report what Paulson said, in case you missed it. Paulson denied last week any support for a shareholder bailout of the two companies. But it’s not the shareholders he’s worried about. It’s the bondholders. You can tell that from how Paulson began his statement.

He pointed out the importance of the GSEs to keeping the American housing market going. This, of course, is true. While non-bank lenders collapse and other banks tighten up, Congress expanded GSE lending powers earlier this year to keep the mortgage market from going into deep freeze. The result is that GSEs wrote 80% of the loans originated in the first half of this year. If they cease operating, the American mortgage market ceases to function. Imagine what that would do for house prices?

Scary as this, it is not even the biggest concern. Here is what Paulson said early in his statement: “GSE debt is held by financial institutions around the world. Its continued strength is important to maintaining confidence and stability in our financial system and our financial markets.”

There is some US$7 trillion in GSE debt sloshing around the world’s financial system. Non-American investors own about US$1.5 trillion of it. The Treasury Department desperately wants to assure investors that Fannie and Freddie will not default on that debt. But it does not want to explicitly “guarantee” the debt. Instead, it has taken three steps, with the Fed taking a fourth.

First, the Treasury Department will increase the line of credit the GSEs have with it. Currently, that line of credit is a pretty miniscule US$2.5 billion. If the financial markets know the Treasury is willing to loan billions more to the GSEs, it might calm things down a bit. Or not.

Second, the Treasury Department will ask the U.S. Congress for permission to purchase equity in the GSEs. You can be sure it will not be common stock, but some kind of preferred shares that give the Treasury and the U.S. Taxpayer some special benefits. Both this and the first measure are designed to be temporary and not last more than 18 months.

Third, the Treasury will ask the Congress to craft legislation that gives, “the Federal Reserve a consultative role in the new GSE regulator’s process for setting capital requirements and other prudential standards.”

The Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors also met this weekend and agreed to give the New York Fed “temporary authority” to lend to the GSE’s “should any such lending prove necessary.”

That’s the policy response crafted to comfort markets ahead of a week of trading. Now, shall we translate it for you?

The Treasury gives the GSEs a new line of credit. But will it matter? Freddie Mac is set to auction a relatively modest US$3 billion in bonds this week. It’s short-term debt, 3-6 months. If yields blow out at the auction, we’ll know the market is treating the GSEs like lepers.

And besides, the GSEs may have credit with the Treasury, but the real question now is how much longer the Treasury has credit with the rest of the world. Watch gold and oil. They will tell you exactly what the market thinks.

As for the equity stake, this is pretty intriguing. It’s going to be nearly impossible for the GSEs to raise capital in the private sector. And don’t count on a Sovereign Wealth Fund to save the day. These companies have massive liabilities. The U.S. government doesn’t want to explicitly guarantee GSE obligations, though.

Instead, what we see is a back-door capital raising through a rights issue. That is, the Feds hope that talking is enough to stabilise things. But if it doesn’t turn out that way, we see the GSEs taking on the Feds as preferred shareholders and then doing a rights issue, offering the American taxpayer a large stake in the companies in exchange for billions in capital to shore up the balance sheet.

Call it what you’d like, but it’s a backdoor nationalisation. If it’s done cleverly, the Feds hope it will prevent a run on the dollar and run away oil and gold prices. If it’s done clumsily, it will still result in run-away inflation without solving the solvency problem for the GSEs.

Source: Aussie Banks Lift Rates

With main indices down significantly since Jan. 1, a slew of companies – including many financial firms – recently (and gladly) offered to share how much they pocketed from their stake in Visa’s IPO:

• Bank of Hawaii Corp. (BOH) said its net income would jump by $7 million to $9 million in the first quarter, much of which will come from a mandatory redemption of its Visa stock, the Star Bulletin reported.

• National City Corp. (NCC) said it would post a $450 million cash gain from selling about one third of its stake in Visa, BusinessWeek reported.

• West Virginia’s City Holding Co. (CHCO) banked $2.3 million from a partial redemption of its Visa holdings.

• Overseas, federally owned Banco de Brasil took in $207 million from selling a portion of its Visa stakes. Its private sector rival Banco Bradesco (BBD) made $201 million from Visa’s IPO. Both figures are before tax, Business News Americas reported.

• South African bank FirstRand said last week that it received a pre-tax gain of $123 million from its shareholding in Visa, iAfrica reported. Of that, $69 million was from the sale of its Visa’s shares and $54 million is the value of the remaining shares. FirstRand is locked into holding those remaining shares for three years.

• Melbourne-based Australia and New Zealand Banking (ANZBY) reported that it expects to pocket $350 million pre-tax from 50% to 60% of its shares in Visa. Follow Aussie banks National Australia Bank and Westpac are expected to turn a $200 million and $100 million profit, respectively, The Age reported.

• And in China, China Life Insurance (LFC) sunk $300 million into Visa’s IPO. Assuming it bought its shares at Visa’s opening price of $44 a share, that investment is now worth more than $439.5 million at Friday’s $64.46 closing price. Also, China Investment Corp. – the country’s $200 billion sovereign wealth fund – made an undisclosed investment in Visa’s IPO, Today’s Financial News reported.

“It’s not standard practice to say it, but typically big institutions do if they are part of the IPO process and receive allocation,” said Money Morning Investment Director Keith Fitz-Gerald.

Still a Buy?

For its March 19 IPO, Visa’s 406 million shares were originally priced at $44 each – well above the expected price range of $37 to $42 a share. The $17.86 billion proceeds it took in made it the biggest U.S. public offering, shattering the $10.6 billion AT&T Wireless raised in its April 2000 IPO.

Globally, only one deal was larger: The October 2006 IPO of the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, or ICBC, which raised $19.1 billion – or nearly $22 billion when the over-allotment provisions were fulfilled.

However, $44 was the price underwriters and large-scale investors got in at.

Visa’s shares opened at $59.50 on the New York Stock Exchange (NYX), and traded as high as $65, before closing at $56.50, up $12.50 a share, or 28.41%. The following day, shares jumped another 13.89%.

The initial run-up and continued growth gives the San Francisco-based Visa a market value of more than $52 billion.

And shareholders are still piling on – despite companies publicly declaring they are cashing out – because of Visa’s dominant market position and the growing shift into electronic payments.

“Visa’s CEO has got it together,” Fitz-Gerald said. “He’s targeting Chinese growth and that should go right to the bottom line.”

As far investing in the company, Fitz-Gerald suggests buying in increments to capture safest gains.

“I wouldn’t jump all in now, but there is long term value.”