Small Business owners who were once comforted by a booming housing market now see their biggest asset losing it value on a weekly basis. The extent to which this effects their perception of their commercial operations has in some cases been stark.

The period where house prices were rising at between one to five percent each month and small businesses had an ever growing source of finance through the increasing equity value of their homes is a distant memory.

In addition to providing any needed capital injection, a residential property whose value was steadily increasing by the buoyant housing market delivered the ultimate comfort to businesses; it made them feel good about themselves and the prospects for further overall profit.

Saddled with falling prices and an economy tinkering on recession, the double blow has been a staggering reminder of the long forgotten vulnerabilities faced by when market conditions change rapidly.

With house prices continuing to fall across the UK and the stagnating sales and purchase sectors, a lot of entrepreneurs are feeling claustrophobic; a tightening of options against a backdrop that things will get worse before they start improving.

Costs both across the business and the household are being reduced with redundancies and other cutbacks now commonplace as revenues fall.

On it own, the effects and responses to the housing market declines in recent periods on business start-ups was generally measured. “We have been here before” was the common sentiment and prices are bound to pick up once the Government lowers interest rates.

The virtual collapse of global banking has exacerbated the situation ten-fold, attacking the very business revenues which were the only source after continual solid gains in property prices.

First time buyers are non-existent; they have run so far from property and have distanced from any inclination of rescuing the housing market that it would take a private investigator to find a willing participant.

The result is that any householder thinking of starting a business would firstly, have to wait for the economic situation to return to some degree of normality and secondly, for the housing market to increase once more.

Most commentators forecast that the former will take at least two to three years to come around, after which property can start producing some financial gain and begin restoring the much needed confidence in business, so that owners are will to invest in their futures.

The calls by mostly US Democrats for greater regulation for Wall Street will be supported by most UK small businesses. Although most UK companies, sole traders and partnerships will not have direct investment in the United States financial markets, the effect of the financial crash is felt globally.

Make no mistake; the events on Wall Street will affect companies and people starting a business all over the UK. Customers will feel less confident about their finances and the economic situation and will restrict buying to the necessities.

This in turn will lead to businesses purchasing fewer items from other commercial entities and the knock-on effect continues towards an increasingly downwards spiral fuelled by recession and employment worries in an ever shrinking buying circle.

Because generally fewer people will consider starting a business in a recession, the future business taxes which the Government relies on for the sustainment of public finances will diminish. Both new and existing businesses will sell less and therefore the VAT, corporation and income tax generated will be less.

The stark reality of the power that Wall Street, the fund managers and banks posses has been burned in to the conscience minds of Governments, regulators and the public who are crying out for answers.

Against a background of democracy, the realisation that none of the people who control and influence the economic and financial well-being of everyone on the planet has been elected must move the world to a more socialist leaning.

The arguments for capitalism, free markets and small Government have taken a battering in the same way that Communism did after Russia ran out of money in the 80’s.

The kind of regulatory structures which are likely to be invoked following the global collapse of financial centres are likely to impose stricter controls on bank liquidity ratios, ensuring that their lending is supported by adequate deposits.

As always, some of the regulatory and reporting duties will fall on Accountants by way of new standards and disclosures which assess the exposure of a particular business to potential drastic falls in the stock market share prices.

Whatever the specifics of the proposals to regulate Wall Street, one thing is certain; if a Democratic President is elected on November 4th 2008, the changes will be sweeping and almost designed to be a form of punishment to the class of perpetrators on the current crisis.

The spate of new laws and regulatory provisions which will be brought in are likely to be culture changing in their nature, designed to create a solid economic basis on which all stakeholders can build and make future plans.

The effects could affect the ability of everyone to register a company in certain financial industries which might well in turn dampen the global entrepreneurial spirit to an extent. But as we have, and indeed are still witnessing to results of rampant disregard for people lives when Wall Street is left to be completely free, the needs of the many must now outweigh the greed of the few.

In the face of the second nationalisation of a UK financial institution in recent times it seems that the motivation for corporate directors to be prudent with their customer’s money has all but been abandoned.

In order to avert a tremendous public outcry from the millions who would lose their savings, pensions and investments, the UK Government will, to a lesser outcry, bankroll failed Bradford and Bingley.

The tax paying public ultimately pay twice when the nationalisation option is used; first their money is injected in the organisation in staggering amounts to improve its liquidity. Secondly, if and when Bradford and Bingley manage to become profitable again and begin to look like an attractive investment, the public again will be asked to buy its shares.

The really scandal here is not the money, after all when talking in billions the figures become abstract and that most people can not comprehend. The truly dark moment in this whole scandalous affair will be the lack to accountability the directors are forced to bear.

It is unlikely that they will be shortlisted for the next position on the Bank of England monetary committee but they will none the less be charged in any criminal or civil court.

We do hear of stories occasionally of court proceedings for litter bugs, none payment of parking fines and so on, but no high profile company director gas ever (to my knowledge) spent time behind bars for negligent mismanagement of a prominent financial institution.

Corporate Governance will hardly get a mention in the news headlines as the collapse of Bradford and Bingley is sensationalised and the Labour Government are charged with re-enacting the failed economy policies of the 60s.

I will probably be the only one to say it, but thank you labour for saving the thousands of customers who needed your assistance after  someone else messed up.