Some frightening financial terms are floating around, from Wall Street to Washington, D.C.

Sure, recession, depression, foreclosure and failure are old standbys; long part off the lexicon and terms we are familiar with, even if we aren’t too fond of them.

Now we are learning the meaning of stress test beyond the cardiologist’s office. The phrase zombie bank has been tossed around so much it feels as if the whole industry just attended a George Romero film festival.

Scariest of all for the industry, though, is the N-word: Nationalization. It certainly has alarmed stock traders.

What seems to be most frightening about it is that nobody knows exactly what it means, but everyone has an opinion on whether it’s good, bad or awful – a bold action in difficult times or unabashed corporate socialism.

Nationalization means the government takes charge of banks – from controlling public shares to selecting board members and more. And there is a legitimate debate right now as to whether that is happening.

Many argue that we are in the process of nationalizing the banking system with the rescue of Citigroup, Inc. and the investment of federal funds into many of the country’s largest banks – including solvent institutions such as Northern Trust Corp.

Perhaps the government has taken an intermediate step toward nationalization as it has been described in the financial media. But of course to some it’s a matter of intent.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told American lawmakers the government is not nationalizing banks. But Sen. Bob Corker, R-TN, had a very valid response:

"That to me is nationalization," he said after listening to Bernanke. "I'd like for you to give me a term to use as I leave here as to what we would call that."

Bernanke’s equally valid reply was that the government does not plan to take banks over in their entirety. But what is the magic number? Has a bank been nationalized when the government owns 50 percent plus one share, or only at the point when it’s 100 percent owned?

Of course what we call it is far less important than the results. A bank failure, by any name, would cost the taxpayers the same.

That is a far bigger question that will come down to numbers, not semantics.

-- Anthony Burke Boylan