Look, I apologize for the snark, but what you're saying is just plain rubbish. Warren Buffet has spent a lifetime studying thousands upon thousands of companies, trying to find that one company out of the thousands available where he believes he sees something other investors haven't seen yet. And even then, he's made numerous mistakes. He's the first to admit that. But through hard work, patience, and lots and lots of study, he's been right somewhat more than he's been wrong.

But where do you get the bizarre notion that looking at the stock price is looking in the wrong place? The stock price times the number of shares outstanding IS the value of the company. What you're talking about is the "potential" somewhere down the road of a company. What is your house worth? It's worth exactly what someone will pay you for it today, not what you think its worth, or what it may be worth in the future.

Please don't tell me you believe that when you look at your 401k statement, and it shows it's down 25% that it's not a "real" loss, but only a "paper" loss.

Do you?

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) preserves and promotes public confidence in the U.S. financial system by insuring deposits in banks and thrift institutions for at least $250,000; by identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to the deposit insurance funds; and by limiting the effect on the economy and the financial system when a bank or thrift institution fails.

An independent agency of the federal government, the FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s. Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, no depositor has lost a single cent of insured funds as a result of a failure.

The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations - it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. With an insurance fund totaling more than $45 billion, the FDIC insures more than $5 trillion of deposits in U.S. banks and thrifts - deposits in virtually every bank and thrift in the country.

Savings, checking and other deposit accounts, when combined, are generally insured to $250,000 per depositor in each bank or thrift the FDIC insures. (On October 3, 2008, FDIC deposit insurance temporarily increased from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor through December 31, 2009.) Deposits held in different categories of ownership - such as single or joint accounts - may be separately insured. Also, the FDIC generally provides separate coverage for retirement accounts, such as individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and Keoghs, insured up to $250,000. The FDIC's Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator can help you determine if you have adequate deposit insurance for your accounts.

The FDIC insures deposits only. It does not insure securities, mutual funds or similar types of investments that banks and thrift institutions may offer. (Insured and Uninsured Investments distinguishes between what is and is not protected by FDIC insurance.)

The FDIC directly examines and supervises about 5,160 banks and savings banks, more than half of the institutions in the banking system. Banks can be chartered by the states or by the federal government. Banks chartered by states also have the choice of whether to join the Federal Reserve System. The FDIC is the primary federal regulator of banks that are chartered by the states that do not join the Federal Reserve System. In addition, the FDIC is the back-up supervisor for the remaining insured banks and thrift institutions.

To protect insured depositors, the FDIC responds immediately when a bank or thrift institution fails. Institutions generally are closed by their chartering authority - the state regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The FDIC has several options for resolving institution failures, but the one most used is to sell deposits and loans of the failed institution to another institution. Customers of the failed institution automatically become customers of the assuming institution. Most of the time, the transition is seamless from the customer's point of view.
The FDIC employs about 5,000 people. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C., but conducts much of its business in six regional offices and in field offices around the country.

The FDIC is managed by a five-person Board of Directors, all of whom are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with no more than three being from the same political party.

25% interest always was considered usury until the last 8 years.

Now 32% interest is normal, and that is not counting late fees etc.

The banks' assets must be examined and tested, and if necessary, the common stockholders need to be wiped out and the preferred holders mostly wiped out.  I, however, am very cautious about having the government sticking it to the bondholders by fiat, not least because of the unforseen consequences of such a move.

As an alternative, see this Brad DeLong post:

...So, will the highest level of government be receptive to the bank-nationalization idea? "I think it will," Mr. Roubini says, unhesitatingly. "People like Graham and Greenspan have already given their explicit blessing. This gives Obama cover." And how long will it be before the administration goes in formally for nationalization? "I think that we're going to see the policy adopted in the next few months . . . in six months or so."

That long? I ask. "Six months from now," he replies, "even firms that today look solvent are going to look insolvent. Most of the major banks -- almost all of them -- are going to look insolvent. In which case, if you take them all over all at once, you cause less damage than if you would if you took over a couple now, and created so much confusion and panic and nervousness.

"Between guarantees, liquidity support, and capitalization, the government has provided between $7 trillion to $9 trillion of help to the financial system. De facto, the government is already controlling a good chunk of the banking system. The question is: Do you want to move to the de jure step."

Yet another reason why bank nationalization is a good idea, Mr. Roubini continues, is that "we started with banks that were too big to fail, but what has happened, in the process, is that these banks have become even-bigger-to-fail. J.P. Morgan took over Bear Stearns and WaMu. BofA took over Countrywide and then Merrill. Wells Fargo took over Wachovia. It doesn't work! You can't take two zombie banks, put them together, and make a strong bank. It's like having two drunks trying to keep each other standing.

"So if you took over a big bank, and you split the assets in three or four pieces, maybe you create three or four regional or national banks, and they're stronger! Nationalization -- or 'temporary receivership,' if you like, if the N-word is a political liability -- is an occasion to undo the sort of consolidation that has created an even bigger systemic problem. And the only way to do it is by essentially taking them over and breaking them up."  (My emphasis)