RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeHave Mortgage Delinquencies Peaked?
Posted by Larry Doyle on December 8th, 2009 9:43 AM |
This past May, I designated mortgage delinquencies as “The Most Critical Economic Statistic.” I wrote then and continue to believe now:
Which economic statistic is the most important? Unemployment? Housing starts? Trade deficit? Inflation? Retail sales?
Well, they are all important . . . but as I review the many statistics, the economic data that I believe most significant are loan delinquencies.
While assorted analysts and economists have called the bottom in housing numerous times, rest assured a true bottom will not be established until we see a meaningful decline in mortgage delinquencies. Why? There is a strong correlation between delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures. Until delinquencies decline, the supply of homes coming onto the market through the foreclosure process will not abate.
While analysts and economists have been wrong in their calls to this point, I keep my eyes and ears open when another entity calls a peak in the rate of delinquencies. I witnessed another one again this morning. (more…)
Elizabeth Warren Highlights Washington’s Losing Battle on Housing
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 9th, 2009 9:21 AM |
Who in Washington will give you a straight answer? Elizabeth Warren.
Who is Elizabeth Warren? Her Wikipedia bio reads:
Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren (born 1949) is the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where she teaches contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law. In the wake of the 2008-9 financial crisis, she has also become the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the U.S. banking bailout, formally known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program. In 2007, she first developed the idea to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which President Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, and Barney Frank are now advocating as part of their financial regulatory reform proposals.
In May 2009, Warren was named one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World.
Ms. Warren consistently takes no prisoners or provides no pandering in making honest assessments of the interaction between Washington and Wall Street. She has called the banks on the carpet. She has called Secretary Geithner on the carpet. She has called Congress on the carpet. Why? A general lack of honesty, integrity, and transparency in dealing with the American public.
When she speaks, I listen.
What did she have to say this morning? In commenting on a recently released report on the effectiveness of government programs to support housing, Warren questioned the scalability and the permanence of the impact of the TARP funding. Bloomberg provides further color in writing TARP Oversight Group Says Treasury Mortgage Plan Not Effective. The report highlights:
“Rising unemployment, generally flat or even falling home prices and impending mortgage-rate resets threaten to cast millions more out of their homes,” the report said. “The panel urges Treasury to reconsider the scope, scalability and permanence of the programs designed to minimize the economic impact of foreclosures and consider whether new programs or program enhancements could be adopted.”
New programs or program enhancements? Yesterday I opined “Washington Needs a New Housing Model” and wrote:
While the administration swims upstream on this issue, bank policy of tight credit and restrictive lending only further exacerbates the housing market. Make no mistake, though, banks are taking that approach to tight credit at the behest of regulators who know the level of losses in the banking system and are trying to preserve the industry as a whole.
I like a rallying equity market as much as anybody, but I wouldn’t spend any paper gains just yet. Why? The new housing model is displaying that:
“As defaults become more common, the social stigma attached with defaulting will likely be reduced, especially if there continues to be few repercussions for people who walk away from their loans,” concluded Sapienza. “This has an adverse effect on homeowners who do pay their mortgages, and the after-effects of more defaults and more price collapse could be economic catastrophe.”
This model needs some quick-dry crazy glue, which could only be applied in the form of a serious principal reduction program. Banks would take immediate and massive hits to capital which they clearly won’t accept.
So how can we generate some support for housing?
Aside from a principal reduction program, the penalty for those who would strategically default on their mortgage needs to be far more onerous.
The principal reduction would negatively impact bank earnings. Too bad. The banks are currently feeding at the taxpayer trough and would not be here without the bailouts. The individuals who are capable of making their payments need to accept the moral responsibility that is embedded in a contract.
Given the massive violation of moral hazards and breaking of contracts by Uncle Sam, that old man does not have a lot of credibility on that front.
What do we really learn here? Ultimately, the market is the market and efforts to manipulate or support a falling market will only be temporary. The market needs to find the clearing level where private money will purchase properties. That private money will wait while Uncle Sam continues to try to prop the market.
In the meantime, do not expect any meaningful support for housing.
LD
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 29th, 2009 10:47 AM |
This video clip with graphs provided by the Financial Times addresses the surging rate of delinquencies, foreclosures, mortgage rates, and Treasury rates.
The historical view provided by these graphs gives us reason to pause and question the potential for a near term real economic recovery.
LD
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
Mortgage Magic or Mortgage Mayhem?
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 5th, 2009 7:02 AM |
Are the largest banks in the land ready to defy the rule of law and self-deal with Uncle Sam’s blessing in the name of providing mortgage relief to homeowners currently strapped by first and second mortgages? The WSJ reports How Big Banks Want To Game The Mortgage Mess.
Is this another game of chance in which Uncle Sam wants to prime the pump in hopes of luring private capital into the economy? No, anything but. In fact, this is no game at all. Uncle Sam is proposing legislation which would protect mortgage servicers from being sued for not performing their duty to protect the property rights of mortgage investors (including pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies). What does all this mean?
Investors in mortgage securities backed by first mortgages are entitled and expect protection of their capital by the performance of mortgage servicers handling the monthly payment of mortgage principal and interest. In fact, if the mortgage servicers do not perform the investors will and should sue.
The investors or holders of second mortgages will only receive a return if and when the first mortgage is current on its payment.
Will Congress pass legislation which would unintentionally incentivize large banks, which also happen to be large mortgage servicers, to game the mortgage modification process for their own benefit but at the expense of investors holding the first mortgages? The WSJ highlights:
Given the current housing crisis, there is wide support for measures to make it easier for homeowners to modify their mortgages. That is understandable. Nobody likes seeing the wave of foreclosures. Plus, mortgage modifications may help stabilize home values.
But in the rush to do something, Congress is showing a regrettable willingness to adopt constitutionally suspect legislation that runs roughshod over the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation. (more…)
