Lew Ranieri: Housing Recovery Is Years Away
Posted by Larry Doyle on April 29th, 2010 3:34 PM |
Despite all reports to the contrary, markets in general and housing in particular are ultimately a function of supply and demand. On that note, why isn’t the housing market poised to truly do better anytime soon? The overhang of housing supply due to ongoing strategic mortgage defaults is increasing. These strategic mortgage defaults are much more a factor in the prime-Jumbo market segment than the conforming or sub-prime mortgage market. (more…)
Uncle Sam’s New Mousetrap to Stem Foreclosures
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 13th, 2009 2:40 PM |
Despite hundreds of billions of dollars in support of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the Federal Housing Association, and mortgage modifications, our housing market continues to be swamped with an ever increasing wave of foreclosures. The shadow supply of homes overhanging the market is estimated to be in the realm of 15 month’s worth. Last week, I wrote that Washington needed to address this issue in my post “Washington Needs a New Housing Model.”
Thanks to our friends at 12th Street Capital, we learn today that Treasury will release a new plan next week to stem the wave of foreclosures. How might this work? Let’s navigate a release which came from the Mortgage Banker’s Association convention currently ongoing in San Diego. Housing Wire reports, Treasury to Announce New Program to Avoid Foreclosure:
The United States Department of the Treasury is launching, with an official announcement expected next week, a new program to help ailing borrowers escape foreclosure.
The Chief of the Homeowner Preservation Office at the Treasury, Laurie Maggiano, released information on the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) while speaking at the MBA’s 96th Annual Convention going on in San Diego. The official launch is expected in the next week or so.
HAFA already holds the support of Fannie, according to a VP at the agency, Eric Schuppenhauer, who believes the new program allows borrowers in imminent default to “make a graceful exit” from their home. HAFA will keep the stigma associated with foreclosure away from the borrowers, he added, and help keep communities intact.
Maggiano adds that HAFA will offer financial incentives to both servicers and borrowers, and associated secondary investors, in order to facilitate a short sale or deed in lieu of the property.
Borrowers will need to be Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)-eligible and Maggiano released some stats for the crowd’s consumption. 2,484,783 homeowners have requested information on HAMP. 757,955 HAMP plans were offered. 487,081 trials are underway.
Other additional [1] incentives to the short sale industry are nearly developed. The IRS will soon offer a 4506EZ form that will enable servicers to pre-fill out the information so that it only requires a borrower’s signature. It also will include softer language so as not put potential participants off.
For those unaware, a “short sale” entails a home being sold for less than the balance of the mortgage. The homeowner is not held responsible or liable for making up the difference between the proceeds generated by the sale and the mortgage balance. That difference is eaten by whomever ‘owns’ or is holding the mortgage. The owner or holder could be the originator if that entity never sold the mortgage. The owner or holder could be a trust on behalf of investors if the loan had been securitized.
What is the motivation to promote short sales rather than allowing the foreclosure process to run its course? Short sales may be short in terms of proceeds although they are not necessarily short in terms of time. That said, short sales typically do expedite the sale of a home. Short sales have typically occurred at a 10-20% discount to the market. Why? The homes have not been prepared for sale, meaning ‘dressed up.’
The monetary incentive provided to mortgage servicers to promote short sales will likely have a similar impact as the monetary incentive provided to modify mortgages. What has that impact been? Not much.
While many of Uncle Sam’s programs have been designed to buy time and allow the market and economy to recover, that approach has proven not to work so far in housing. Will this short sale program work to support housing? I doubt it.
I think what this program will look to achieve is to actually lessen the negative stigma associated with the term foreclosure. If Uncle Sam can say foreclosures are declining, he can then wave the flag as making progress on housing. What he will be doing, however, is merely ‘redefining’ foreclosure or in other words, ‘putting perfume on a pig.’
This program theoretically will negatively impact bank capital as banks will be forced to take a loss sooner rather than later on those mortgages they hold which are involved in short sales.
Aside from that development, real integrity in this process would include:
>> Add short sales to foreclosures as a more robust measure of housing supply stemming from delinquent mortgages.
>> Assess home prices along with rental rates to measure overall cost of housing.
LD
Banks Cooking a Second Course
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 4th, 2009 2:15 PM |
I am of the strong opinion that the relaxation of the FASB’s mark-to-market accounting standard is nothing short of an allowance for banks to “cook their books.” Well, it now appears that the banking chefs are whipping up a “second course.” The Wall Street Journal opens the door to the kitchen and reports, Banks Try to Stiff-Arm New Rule:
The financial-services industry is taking steps to delay an accounting rule that would force banks and others to bring some of their off-balance-sheet vehicles back onto their books next year, which could force some to raise additional capital.
A group that includes the Chamber of Commerce, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the American Council of Life Insurers and others sent a letter on June 1 to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, regarding the off-balance-sheet accounting-rule change, saying it should be adopted “cautiously and seek to minimize any chilling effect on our frozen credit markets.”
The letter was signed by 16 industry associations, many of which were part of a group known as the “Fair Value Coalition,” which was formed earlier this year with the goal of changing mark-to-market accounting rules. Mark-to-market accounting rules set guidelines for banks on when they are required to reflect market prices in the values they assign to hard-to-value securities and other assets.
Please recall that the massive leverage within the banking industry was largely housed within these off-balance sheet vehicles (SPVs, special purpose vehicles). The lack of transparency of these vehicles allowed banks to leverage their assets to greater than a 30:1 ratio. Regulators and rating agencies were totally remiss in fully exposing these vehicles and protecting investors. We have all paid for it.
The banks and Washington jointly conspired to pressure FASB to relax the mark-to-market accounting rule so the industry could alleviate the pressure of raising capital. I detailed that “course” just yesterday in writing Wall Street-Washington: “Pay to Play.”
We hardly had time to digest that “inedible” piece of meat and now understand our chefs are working to continue the lack of transparency within the industry. Regrettably, our Congressional watchdogs have been more than happy to accept perfunctory campaign contributions and lobbying dollars to facilitate this charade.
The WSJ takes a whiff of what is simmering and reports:
Some accounting experts say they aren’t surprised by the banking industry’s latest effort. “Here we go again. They will get out their checkbooks and go to the Hill,” says Lynn Turner, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s former chief accountant.
At what point do the patrons get some representation, drop these meals in the garbage, fire the chefs and staff, and hang out the “Condemned: Department of Health” sign?
LD
Sense on Cents Economic Review: Red Light, Green Light
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 28th, 2009 11:09 AM |
We had some very interesting economic reports released this morning. The data and its interpretation provide serious “grist for the mill.” On that note, let’s sharpen the stone and get to work.
1. Durable Goods: rose 1.9% versus a consensus expectation of a rise of .5%. Much of the increase was due to strong orders in the automotive and defense industries. Green light, green shoot, call it what you want. This report is much stronger than expected, so get back in there and BUY, BUY, BUY. Actually, hold on . . .
Do we expect to see growth in the automotive industry going forward? This industry is and will continue to be downsized. Do we think Barack is looking to grow our defense budget? Most assuredly not.
As much as market analysts, media mavens, and government officials are spinning this report in a very positive fashion, let’s dig deeper.
Last month’s Durable Goods Orders were revised lower from an initial reading of -.8% to -2.1%. Red light!! Additionally, given the volatile nature of orders in the transportation sector, economists look at Durable Goods excluding transportation. How did that do?
Wow!! Another green light. Durable Goods excluding transportation orders rose .8% versus an expectation of -.3%. Much stronger than expected. How about revisions to last month’s numbers? Uh-oh!! Last month this report reflected a decline of -.6% and this was revised to a -2.7%!!! Red light!!
So for those who think we’re making progress on this front, put it in the context of “take three steps back and two steps forward!!” (more…)
Senate Approves Safe Harbor Mortgage Modification; Property Rights? What’s That?
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 6th, 2009 3:55 PM |
The assault on property rights continues as the Senate just passed the Safe Harbor Mortgage Modification legislation. Recall how I wrote the other day in Mortgage Magic or Mortgage Mayhem that this legislation would protect mortgage servicers from suit by mortgage investors.
Why would investors sue servicers? Servicers are charged with processing monthly principal and interest payments of mortgages and distributing the cash flow to investors. If they do not perform, then to this point they would and should be sued. Investors have the right to those payments for which they committed their funds.
The Safe Harbor Mortgage Modification legislation will protect servicers from lawsuits in the cases where mortgages have been modified and investors’ interests supposedly remain protected. One would think that covers all the bases. As I highlighted, however, the legislation may very well promote self-dealing amongst a number of the larger banks which both service mortgages and hold second mortgages.
From Bloomberg’s article, Senate Defeats TARP Measures To Move Safe-Harbor Bill:
The Mortgage Bankers Association and consumer advocates have endorsed the safe-harbor provision to protect mortgage servicing companies from being sued by mortgage-bond investors if they modify loans in accordance with President Barack Obama’s Making Home Affordable anti-foreclosure program.
“Safe harbor is something that you want as a servicer,” said Ajay Rajadhyaksha, the head of fixed-income strategy at Barclays Capital in New York. “Without the safe harbor, you’re far more skittish about doing anything.”
Corker said in a speech on the floor that the measure is a boon to larger servicers including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America Corp. An amendment Corker sponsored that would have required borrowers to seek other forms of aid before their loans could be modified failed.
Mortgage bond buyers including Clayton DeGiacinto of Tower Research Capital in New York said allowing the safe harbor provisions removes any accountability servicers have to minimize investor losses and may make the process more susceptible to political pressure and more costly for borrowers.
“It ultimately makes bond investors skeptical and adds an additional layer of risk that will need to be priced into the securities,” said DeGiacinto, who manages a distressed mortgage fund.
I am all for credible and equitable legislation which promotes decreasing foreclosures. In the process, however, the legislation should be airtight in making sure there is no self-dealing and conflicts of interest. That question regarding this legislation remains outstanding.
While this legislation may help limit foreclosures in the near term, the real cost may be borne in the years ahead in the form of higher mortgage rates. Why might that happen? If banks which service mortgages are influenced and incentivized not to protect the investors’ property rights and thus don’t, the investors will sell their holdings, and take their bat and ball to another field.
LD