RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeHousing’s Catch-22
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 12th, 2009 9:28 AM |
What is the optimal policy to deal with our ongoing housing crisis? Should Uncle Sam continue to throw more money at mortgage modifications? Should banks be compelled to implement a principal reduction program? Should Uncle Sam step in and subsidize the principal writedown involved in a principal reduction program? Would that be the mother of all socialized housing programs? Let’s navigate and address these topics knowing full well that none of these questions have any easy answers.
I witness further evidence again this morning of a continued increase in home foreclosures amidst the prime mortgage space. The Wall Street Journal highlights this ongoing development in writing, Foreclosures Grow in Housing Market’s Top Tiers:
The report shows that foreclosures, after declining earlier this year, began to accelerate in the late spring and that more expensive homes have more recently accounted for a growing share of all foreclosures. “The slope of that curve in recent months is much sharper than it was recently,” said Stan Humphries, chief economist for Zillow. Rising foreclosures among more-expensive homes could create added pressure for a housing market that has shown signs of stabilizing in recent months as sales of lower-priced homes pick up.
Foreclosures are rising in more expensive markets as home values in those areas fall, leaving more homeowners with mortgages that exceed the value of their properties. Prime loans accounted for 58% of foreclosure starts in the second quarter, up from 44% last year, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Subprime mortgages accounted for one-third of foreclosure starts, down from one-half last year.
The prime category includes so-called exotic mortgages that were increasingly used to buy more expensive homes, including interest-only mortgages that allowed borrowers to defer principal payments during an initial period. Borrowers often aren’t able to refinance out of these products because the drop in home values has left them with little equity in their homes.
Default rates are particularly high and expected to rise on option adjustable-rate mortgages, which allow borrowers to make minimum payments that may not cover the interest due. Monthly payments can increase to sharply higher levels after five years or when the outstanding balance reaches a certain level. A study by Fitch Ratings found that 46% of option ARMs were 30 days past due last month, even though just 12% of such loans have reset to higher monthly payments.
Zillow estimated that nearly one in four homes with mortgages was worth less than the value of the property at the end of June. Mr. Humphries said he didn’t expect to see foreclosure volumes level off until later in 2010. (LD’s emphasis)
![[Moving Up chart]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BB100_TOPTIE_NS_20091011211658.gif)
With the waves of foreclosures not abating, Uncle Sam’s plans to merely modify mortgages is proving largely insignificant in supporting the overall housing market. Homeowners are clearly showing a strong inclination to default on their mortgages when they are ‘underwater.’ Thus, how does Uncle Sam help people get ‘above water?’ Compel banks to reduce the principal balance of the mortgage. Will they do it? Not quickly, as a principal reduction would imply an immediate hit to the banks’ capital. (more…)
October 10, 2009: Month to Date Market Review
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 10th, 2009 10:12 AM |
We are reaching a point in our new “Uncle Sam” economy where rhetoric from Wall Street, Washington, and global financial centers seems to be having greater impact than true market and economic fundamentals. Why? Our financial and political ‘wizards’ are working overtime to reconnect the great ‘disconnect’ between Wall Street and Main Street. While we receive glimmers of hope in certain economic statistics, the dark clouds in employment and housing remain daunting.
Are the ‘Washington wizards’ (Bernanke, Geithner, Summers) providing hints of support for our greenback while truly hoping for a manageable decline? I believe they are, and I believe this financial engineering is a very dangerous game.
I thank you for reading my work, and now let’s collectively ‘navigate the economic landscape,’ the mission of Sense on Cents.
ECONOMIC DATA
> Non-manufacturing Institute of Supply Management: this report rose above 50 (an indication of growth) with a positive development in new orders (this is clearly good), but with no signs of improvement in employment and pricing power by manufacturers.
> Redbook: indications of slight improvement in same store sales although next week’s Retail Sales report will likely look exceptionally weak as it incorporates an end to the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program. Overall signs point to what is expected to be a weak holiday retail season.
> Jobless Claims: overall claims declined, which presents a sign of stability within employment. That said, it is hard to be optimistic on the employment front on the heels of the employment report released on October 2nd (embedded within the Equity section of this commentary).
> Trade Deficit: this deficit surprisingly narrowed, with a slight increase in exports combined with a slight decrease in imports. All other things being equal, this report would be positive for our dollar but the noise surrounding our currency is overwhelming the focus within this one month reading.
I would typically lead my review with focus on the equity and bond markets, but those sectors are actually following developments in the currency and commodity markets so let’s shift our focus accordingly.
How did the markets handle the Fed-speak, the data, and technical flows? Let’s continue navigating. The figures I provide are the weekly close and the month-to-date returns on a percentage basis.
U.S. DOLLAR
$/Yen: 89.78 vs. 89.68
Euro/Dollar: 1.4709 vs. 1.4635
U.S. Dollar Index: 76.35 vs. 76.72
Commentary: the overall U.S. Dollar Index has declined by approximately .5% this month, but the volatility and focus on movements in this space have been tremendous. Precipitated by an increase in rates by the Australian Central Bank midweek, the U.S. Dollar Index plunged below 76 which represents multi-year lows. The dollar weakness led to a move higher in global equities as traders, investors, and speculators were emboldened to enter into more ‘positive dollar carry trades.’
While I think Washington is not disappointed in a relatively weak dollar, although they should be (“Dollar Devaluation Is a Dangerous Game”), other countries are not overly keen about further dollar weakness. Why? A weak dollar puts those countries in a marginally less competitive position in international trade. ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet voiced his concerns on this topic. Rest assured, the Asian nations feel the same way although they are careful in their comments. Adding further fuel to dollar weakness was speculation that the trading of oil and a basket of other commodities, which are currently transacted in U.S. dollars, would shift trading away from being dollar-based. On that note, let’s review the action in commodities.
COMMODITIES
Oil: $72.29/barrel vs. $70.39
Gold: $1050.1/oz. vs. $1008.2 !!!! THE BIG WINNER !!!!
DJ-UBS Commodity Index: 129.177 vs. 127.683
Commentary: I view this segment of the market to be the STRONGEST indicator of the global economic pulse. Additionally, the price action in commodities is likely a strong indication of the ‘positive carry’ trade put on by hedge funds and other traders.
The overall commodity index has moved higher by approximately 1.2% on the month, but the movements within specific commodities is gaining the real focus. Gold specifically has soared by over 4% this month. Why? Market speculation about a potential further slide in the greenback would be inflationary. Oil and other commodities also benefited from the story I referenced above. The conundrum I find in this space revolves around overall levels of international trade. Are these commodities moving higher truly because of an increase in demand or merely because of speculative investing and trading? Where do we go to get a pulse on that? The Baltic Dry Index. How is our friendly indicator of global shipping activity doing?
The Baltic Dry Index continues to move marginally lower. Can global equities in general and commodities specifically increase in value if the major indicator of global trade, that being the BDI (Baltic Dry Index), is in a downtrend? I think not for the long haul, but for a period of time a cheap funding vehicle, that is the U.S. dollar, can override market fundamentals.
I read these commodity tea leaves as sign of inflationary expectations in these ‘inputs’ while we encounter deflationary pressures in wages and real estate. What a world.
EQUITIES
DJIA: 9865, +1.6%
Nasdaq: 2139, +0.8%
S&P 500: 1071, +1.3%
MSCI Emerging Mkt Index: 946, +3.6%
DJ Global ex U.S.: 197.6, +1.5%
Commentary: equities regained momentum after last week’s selloff. Recall how just one week ago, we faced a remarkably weak and disappointing Unemployment Report which culminated a week in which equities had given up approximately 2%. Well, we not only recaptured that decline but rallied further by another 1-2%. This past week accounted for the strongest advancement in equities since early July. Are we poised for a breakout past 10,000 on the Dow? Well, we need to remain focused on what is driving the market . . . and that is the weak greenback.
Indications of economic strength in Australia compelled the Australian Central Bank to raise rates which drove the Aussie higher and the dollar to new lows. In the process, the ‘dollar carry trade’ gained momentum propelling global equities higher.
The initial earnings reports released continue to show no real signs of improvement in top line revenue generated by increased sales while the bottom lines have improved given ongoing cost cutting progams. If a company cuts ALL its costs, will its stock still go higher? Rising stock values ultimately need to be driven by ‘growth.’
BONDS/INTEREST RATES
2yr Treasury: .97%, an increase of 2 basis points or .01%
10yr Treasury: 3.39%, an increase of 9 basis points
The yield curve steepened (longer maturities underperformed shorter maturities) under the weight of another Treasury refunding (3yr, 10yr, and 30yr). The 30yr auction on Thursday was disappointing which precipitated the selloff. The bond market has been trading in sync with equities for the last few months. That price action is an anomaly as typically bonds will trade in an inverse relationship with equities. Comments by Bernanke in the latter part of the week about an eventual and timely increase in rates by the Fed did take the wind out of the bond market’s sails.
COY (High Yield ETF): 6.64, +3.8%
FMY (Mortgage ETF): 17.85, +0.3%
ITE (Government ETF): 57.77, -0.3%
NXR (Municipal ETF): 14.46, +0.1%
Commentary: while interest rates did move marginally higher over the week, overall they remain at remarkably low levels. The high-yield market remains on fire as that sector is benefiting from a lot of hedge funds allocating capital via the ‘dollar carry trade’ referenced previously.
Summary/Conclusion
The game continues. The disconnect between the overall domestic economy and the price action in the markets presents what one noted investor described as ‘the greatest experiment’ in modern finance. To the extent that people are putting money to work, I would focus on buying quality and utilizing ‘dollar cost averaging’ techniques.
Thanks for your support. If you like what you see here, please subscribe via e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, or an RSS feed.
Thoughts, comments, questions always appreciated.
Have a great day and weekend.
LD
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
Cash Strapped Seniors Beware!!
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 6th, 2009 2:53 PM |
Tapping home equity was a prime driver in leading us into our current economic crisis. The same dynamic with an added twist may very well be setting the table for another round of fraud and accompanying problems.
I refer to the housing finance product known as a reverse mortgage. This product is targeted primarily at our senior citizens who are cash strapped. Rest assured many a mortgage banker who is currently hard pressed to generate fees and earnings will attempt to take Grandma and Grandpa ‘to the hoop’ with this product.
While many quality professionals within the mortgage industry will work to highlight the potential pitfalls with reverse mortgages, do not think for a second that those messages will make their way to every customer.
Bloomberg highlights that our legal profession is starting to take notice of this ‘racket’ and writes, Reverse Mortgages May Be ‘Subprime Revisited’:
Reverse mortgages may be the next subprime crisis, according to the National Consumer Law Center.
Some of the same U.S. lenders that helped drive the real estate boom with loans to home buyers who couldn’t afford the payments are now targeting seniors, the center said. Brokers, who are given financial incentives to sell the loans, may be making misleading claims to potential customers, according to a report released today by the Boston-based NCLC.
“This market is designed to serve seniors, so when we find abuses cropping up and migrating from the subprime market to the senior market, that sounds an especially loud warning bell,” said Rick Jurgens, an advocate at the National Consumer Law Center, who contributed to the report.
Reverse mortgages enable people aged 62 and over who are looking for extra cash to use the equity in their homes and receive lump-sum payments, periodic checks, a line of credit, or a combination of the three. Lenders are repaid from the sale of the home when the borrowers die or move.
The former maximum payout for reverse mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration was $417,000. That limit was increased temporarily to $625,500 in February. Origination fees are capped at $6,000. In 2008, more than 100,000 seniors used reverse mortgages to tap over $17 billion in home equity, according to the Housing and Urban Development Department.
I implore anybody who reads this commentary to fully explore the implied mortgage rate and home appraisal values utilized with reverse mortgages.
Any questions, please do not hesitate to ask or to utilize the mortgage primers (in the left sidebar) here at Sense on Cents to learn more about this product.
LD
Increasing Vacancy Rates Will Pressure Both the Rental Market and Home Values
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 6th, 2009 11:42 AM |
You do not need to take Economics 101 to understand that an increase in supply of any asset will almost always lead to a decline in prices. This ‘tremendous grasp of the obvious’ in regard to housing runs right in the face of assertions put forth by many real estate brokers and housing experts.
High five to our friends at 12th Street Capital for bringing attention to The Wall Street Journal‘s writing, Apartment Glut Expands:
Signs advertise apartments for rent in San Francisco in July. Rents declined during the third quarter, usually a strong period for rentals. (Getty Images)
Apartment vacancies hit their highest point since 1986, surging in cities from Raleigh, N.C., to Tacoma, Wash., as rising unemployment continued to chip away at demand during the traditionally strong summer rental months.
The U.S. vacancy rate reached 7.8%, a 23-year high, according to Reis Inc., a New York real-estate research firm that tracks vacancies and rents in the top 79 U.S. markets. The rate is expected to climb further in the fall and winter, when rental demand is weaker, pushing vacancies to the highest levels since Reis began its count in 1980.
(more…)
FHA and FDIC Getting Ready to Ask Uncle Sam for a Bigger Allowance
Posted by Larry Doyle on September 18th, 2009 12:27 PM |
It was only a matter of time before both the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) would walk over to the U.S. Treasury and ask for a ‘bigger allowance.’ That time has come, despite what some officials may say. High five to MC for bringing the FHA story to my attention.
The Wall Street Journal highlights the FHA’s predicament in writing, FHA Tightens Credit Standards, Sees No Bailout:
The Federal Housing Administration said Friday its cash cushion will dip below mandated levels for the first time, but officials insist it won’t need a taxpayer rescue.
The agency, a growing source of funds for first-time home buyers, faces mounting concerns that it will soon need a taxpayer bailout. As of this summer, about 17% of FHA borrowers were at least one payment behind or in foreclosure, compared with 13% for all loans, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Rising defaults mean the FHA’s reserves may sink below the 2% mark required by federal law. The FHA says a study being sent to Congress in November is expected to show that ratio dipping below required levels for the first time.
Please recall that FHA-insured loans require only a 3% down payment. In writing a previous blog post focused on the FHA, a well informed reader shared with us that builders will often offer rebates which effectively cover that down payment. What is the result? Homeowners purchasing properties with no money down, otherwise known as ‘no skin in the game.’ This practice was prevalent throughout the irresponsible stage of sub-prime lending. Make no mistake, plenty of this is continuing today with the support and backstop of Uncle Sam . . . all in hopes of filling that growing hole in the housing dike.
The FHA will certainly need more capital unless and until mortgage delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures stabilize and decline. None other than Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf shared the other day that he does not see a slowing on those fronts.
In regards to the FDIC, the insurance fund has exhausted the bulk of the initial $50 billion which it had prior to bank failures starting in 2008. The costs of these failures have far exceeded that $50 billion figure. How so? Some very large profile failures were brokered to stronger hands with FDIC support but without the FDIC having to make an initial outlay of funds.
The WSJ highlights the current dire straits of the FDIC in writing, FDIC Mulls Borrowing from Treasury:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said Friday her agency may tap its $500 billion credit line with the U.S. Treasury to replenish its deposit insurance fund, though she appeared cautious about doing so.
“We are carefully considering all options” including borrowing from the Treasury, Ms. Bair said Friday after a speech in Washington.
Ms. Bair has already warned banks that they may face an assessment increase to bolster the fund. Friday, she said there are also other little-known options available to the agency, including requiring banks to prepay assessments. The FDIC board of directors will meet at the end of this month to consider how to replenish the fund, she said.
Individually, the FHA and FDIC stories are both significant. However, in the midst of bailouts of other institutions (large banks, Freddie and Fannie, AIG, GM, and Chrysler), the funds likely to be injected into these entities are treated as merely adding another leaf to Mom’s dining room table for Thanksgiving dinner.
Is the American public grateful for the undisciplined and greedy lending practices that have crippled the FHA and FDIC? Perhaps I should rephrase that question: are these institutions grateful for the American public putting their taxpayer dollars on the line?
LD
