Subscribe: RSS Feed | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Home | Contact Us

Posts Tagged ‘housing’

Banks Are Forestalling Rather Than Foreclosing

Posted by Larry Doyle on September 3rd, 2009 12:22 PM |

What happens when a bank forecloses on a home? It has to book a loss. How are banks dealing with the rapidly increasing rates of delinquencies and subsequent foreclosures? They are forestalling the losses by allowing homeowners to remain in the home for a protracted period. Are they doing this out of generosity? Don’t be that naive. The banks are utilizing the ‘hope’ hedge. That is, they ‘hope’ the economy and housing market will rebound so the values of these homes increase and the loss is mitigated.

Over many years of trading and investing, the ‘hope’ hedge is a recipe for further losses. Why? Please refer to my Rule #1 from yesterday’s “LD’s Rules of Trading”:  The Market Goes in the Direction Which Hurts the Most People.

Homes that would otherwise be in foreclosure create a massive overhang of supply in the shadow housing inventory. Do banks believe that buyers do not appreciate this? That would be even more naive. The excess supply will keep a lid on home prices and consumer wealth which directly impacts retail sales.

High five to MC for sharing a recent report from American Banker addressing this phenomena. Kate Berry writes Postponing the Day of Reckoning, which I am able to access from Bank Investment Consultant. Ms. Berry shares some very sobering insights:

“The goal is to hold off on foreclosures and take losses as slowly as possible to keep balance sheets up,” said Deborah Voelz, the chief financial officer of National Asset Direct Inc., a New York buyer and servicer of distressed loans. “Everyone is looking at what the ultimate loss is going to be and whether it makes sense to hold off another year or two and mitigate the results.”

The foreclosure process — and it is a process — now takes, on average, 18 months to two years, up from 15 months a year ago, according to Amherst Securities Group LP. Backlogs in county courts and at servicing companies, along with local government moratoriums, have contributed to the delays. But plenty of signs indicate that the mortgage companies themselves are in no hurry to seize their collateral.

Rick Sharga, a senior vice president at RealtyTrac Inc., an Irvine, Calif., company that monitors foreclosure filings, said banks often start proceedings but then decide “they don’t want the property” and suspend the process indefinitely.

Of the 2.3 million homes that received foreclosure notices last year, one-third had been repossessed by yearend, according to RealtyTrac.

Banks also “are allowing borrowers to be delinquent for longer and longer periods of time before initiating foreclosures,” Sharga said.

These perspectives are totally consistent with those of John Lounsbury, my guest this past Sunday on NQR’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle. John pointedly detailed that only 10% of homes being sold currently entail ‘willing sellers.’

What are the implications for this forestalling?

>> Continued pressure on housing overall.

>> Continued pressure on bank earnings from these mortgages.

>> Continued underwhelming trends in retail sales by consumers.

>> Prospective home buyers, especially in the higher price ranges, can remain patient.

Regardless of what bank analysts or others may want to say, these forestalled homes are not going away.

LD

Uncle Sam’s Continuation of the Housing Bubble

Posted by Larry Doyle on September 2nd, 2009 8:57 AM |

With housing prices down 30+% on average over the last few years, is Uncle Sam blowing fresh air into the housing balloon and actually creating another housing bubble? I believe that’s exactly what is happening.

If you are scratching your head and think I am off base with my assertion, please navigate this path along our economic landscape with me.

What drove the housing bubble? Cheap rates and undisciplined lending from the private sector. What added to the bubble? The internal ‘hedge fund’ portfolios of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

What is perpetuating the housing bubble if not creating another mini-bubble of sorts? Cheap rates and undisciplined lending directly from Uncle Sam or supported by Uncle Sam. What is adding to this bubble? Those same internal portfolios at Freddie and Fannie.

What entities within Uncle Sam’s domain are providing the cheap rates and undisciplined lending?

1. The Federal Housing Administration ( FHA-insured loans are packaged into GNMA securities, which have the explicit backing of Uncle Sam)

2. The Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program in which it has purchased hundreds of billions in mortgage-backed securities with authority to purchase a total of $1 trillion+ in MBS is also blowing fresh air into the balloon.

3. Freddie and Fannie are also supporting the bubble by providing fresh capital via their portfolios.

People may say that Uncle Sam had to provide this capital because the private sector would not. In fact, The Wall Street Journal makes that very assertion this morning in writing, Industry Seeks Fannie, Freddie Overhaul:

Together with the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie and Freddie now purchase or guarantee nearly nine in 10 new mortgages, since private buyers of such loans have been absent amid the housing bust.

I categorically do not accept this assertion. There is more than enough private capital in the system to purchase these mortgages. The issue is that the private capital will only purchase these mortgages at appropriate risk adjusted prices. Freddie, Fannie, the FHA, and the Federal Reserve are stepping ‘through the market’ and subsidizing mortgage rates by at least 50 basis points and, in turn, crowding out private buyers. The WSJ continues:

Fannie and Freddie have taken nearly $96 billion of capital infusions from the U.S. Treasury since last November. The companies have received nearly 10 times that amount in additional support through purchases of debt and mortgage-backed securities by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

[Picking up the Slack chart]

Who is benefiting from these subsidized rates? New homeowners. Do not think for a second, however, that risks are properly aligned in this current mortgage dynamic.

The continued mispricing of risk will mean our housing market will experience more protracted levels of delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures than if mortgage rates were higher and real discipline were instituted into the lending process.

In fact, unless our country accepts a fully socialized mortgage finance system, mortgage rates will have to move higher to reflect private sector pricing. Risks and returns will then be properly aligned and the bubble will deflate.

LD

Related Sense on Cents Commentary:
“Uncle Sam Guaranteeing Sub-Prime Loans” (May 4, 2009)

Let’s Look at Housing

Posted by Larry Doyle on August 21st, 2009 12:16 PM |

The National Association of Realtors just announced that existing home sales rose to the highest level in the last two years. This is obviously a good sign. What drove the increase and what is going on within the housing market broadly speaking? Can we assign a clean bill of health to the entire housing market based upon this report? Let’s dig deeper.

Bloomberg looks into this morning’s report and highlights the following in writing Existing Home Sales in U.S. Jump to Two Year High:

> Foreclosure-driven declines in prices, government credits for first-time buyers and near-record-low borrowing costs may keep stoking demand, helping the economy recover from the worst recession since the 1930s. Ongoing job losses are a reminder that more Americans will probably lose their homes, indicating a rebound will be slow to take hold.

Sense on Cents commentary: as I attested on August 11th in writing the “U.S. Mortgage/Housing Market has a Split Personality,” the economy has a decidedly different dynamic at work between lower priced homes which can be financed with conforming mortgages (ultimately purchased by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) and higher priced homes needing to be financed with Jumbo mortgages (not readily available by our friendly banks!!).

>Purchases of existing homes increased 5 percent compared with a year earlier. The median price dropped to $178,400 from the $210,100 in July 2008.

Sense on Cents commentary: do not look for price appreciation anytime soon. In fact, while home prices on the lower end may begin to stabilize on a relative basis, higher priced homes (those needing Jumbo financing) will remain under pressure.

> The number of previously-owned unsold homes on the market jumped 7.3 percent to 4.09 million in July, a “notable” increase, according to Lawrence Yun, the Realtors’ chief economist. At the current sales pace, it would take 9.4 months to sell those houses, the same as in June.

>About $3.4 trillion worth of houses are at risk of default because the owners owe more than the property is worth, Santa Ana, California-based First American CoreLogic said last week. By putting more homes on the market, foreclosures are keeping inventory higher than levels consistent with stable prices.

Sense on Cents commentary: the increase in unsold homes will keep prices under pressure which will help promote sales activity but will also serve to keep pressure on retail sales as consumers feel a negative wealth effect. Additionally, the supply of homes does not fully address the shadow inventory of homes held by banks but not yet put on the market. This shadow supply will likely increase given what is in the delinquency and foreclosure pipeline. (more…)

Home Foreclosures Continue to Surge. What Does It All Mean?

Posted by Larry Doyle on August 13th, 2009 8:22 AM |

Can we truly expect our economy to return to LONG-TERM health if the housing market remains under severe pressure? I think not. While Wall Street rebounds, Main Street continues to lose value. How so? Home foreclosures continue to run at breakneck speed.

Bloomberg reports, U.S. Foreclosure Filings Set Third Record-High in Five Months:

Foreclosure filings in the U.S. climbed to a record for the third time in five months in July as falling home prices and the recession left more homeowners unable to keep up payments or refinance.

A total of 360,149 properties received a default or auction notice or were seized last month, according to data seller RealtyTrac Inc. One in 355 households got a filing, the highest monthly rate in RealtyTrac records dating to January 2005, the Irvine, California-based company said in a statement.

“We’re in a deep hole,” Diane Swonk, chief economist at Chicago-based Mesirow Financial Inc., said in an interview. “There is a whole new wave of foreclosures tied to the cyclical dynamics of the economy.”

What is this ongoing foreclosure activity doing to home prices? It’s not good.

The median price of an existing single-family house dropped 15.6 percent to $174,100 in the second quarter, the most in records dating to 1979, the National Association of Realtors said yesterday. Almost one-quarter of U.S. mortgage holders are underwater, property data firm Zillow.com said Aug. 11.

What about the mortgage modification programs which were designed to stem this tide of foreclosures? In speaking with our friends at 12th Street Capital, who have canvassed a number of the large mortgage servicing operations, we have learned that successful mortgage modifications are typically only occurring with mortgages that are delinquent 30 days or less. After that, homeowners are increasingly inclined to ‘walk away’ from homes which are further underwater (mortgage balance exceeds home value).  In fact, Bloomberg highlights:

“It has been more profitable to put a home in foreclosure than restructure the loan,” Swonk said. “The only thing that helps is forgiveness of principal, and there is little willingness to do that.”

The greatest surge in foreclosure activity remains in those states which have already experienced enormous problems. The top 5 being Nevada, California, Arizona, Florida, and Utah. That said, our entire economy is intricately linked and these markets (especially California) cover a large percentage of our population.

What are the implications for this ongoing foreclosure activity? (more…)

U.S. Mortgage/Housing Market Has Split Personality

Posted by Larry Doyle on August 11th, 2009 11:52 AM |

To speak of the United States housing market in singular terms would be a huge mistake. The different regions of the country have their own housing dynamics. The strengths and weaknesses within the local economies have a huge impact on the strength or weakness of housing.

All this said, there is no doubt that the number 417 has the greatest impact on housing in the United States. Why and how?  417k is the cutoff for individuals looking to receive a conforming mortgage. Above that level, individuals enter the realm of the Jumbo market where rates are appreciably higher and credit standards are significantly tighter. Additionally, Jumbo product is not typically eligible to be underwritten or purchased by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. That restriction was waived and Freddie and Fannie have purchased some Jumbo product, but it has had no meaningful impact on the dynamics within the Jumbo space. Overall, the 417k level remains an enormous line of demarcation.

That line of demarcation is further defined by the ability to modify loans. Loan modifications for Jumbo mortgages are significantly more challenging to accomplish. On top of that, mortgage servicers are now under ENORMOUS pressure by Uncle Sam to produce increased numbers of mortgage modifications. Where is Uncle Sam targeting? Conforming mortgages.

While market analysts may believe housing is turning, they are not looking at the total picture. The Jumbo market remains under real pressure while the conforming market is showing signs of stability. Under the heading of ‘a picture speaks a thousand words,’ high five to our friends at 12th St. Capital (the leading mortgage broker-dealer on Wall Street) for providing an overview of the housing market in Los Angeles. One can see the ‘split personality’ based on sales volumes between the downtown neighborhoods and those in the upper incomes. Please click on the map to view year over year sales volumes in respective Los Angeles neighborhoods. A few miles makes a world of difference.

Would welcome insights and perspectives from people in other regions of the country on the split personality of their local housing markets as well.

LD

Be Careful of Fraud with Reverse Mortgages

Posted by Larry Doyle on August 10th, 2009 12:35 PM |

Given the current state of our economy, opportunities to access credit are diminishing. Where are more and more people going to gain credit? Their homes. What? With home values down so much and banks tightening credit standards, how are people utilizing their homes to get money? Welcome to the arcane world of reverse mortgages. In this world, people need to be EXTREMELY careful to avoid being taken. Let’s navigate.

From the website of The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, we learn the Top Ten Things to Know if You’re Interested in a Reverse Mortgage. I will provide an overview and point out potential pitfalls where fraudulent activity may develop. That said, for anybody interested in a reverse mortgage, I strongly encourage you to fully review all of the details provided at the HUD site and work with a highly qualified and recommended lender. Additionally, a further resource can be found via Reverse Mortgage Alert. Let’s continue.

1. Definition: “A reverse mortgage is a special type of home loan that lets you convert a portion of the equity in your home into cash. The equity that built up over years of home mortgage payments can be paid to you. But unlike a traditional home equity loan or second mortgage, no repayment is required until the borrower(s) no longer use the home as their principal residence.”

2. Qualifications: “To be eligible for a FHA HECM (Home Equity Conversion Mortgage otherwise known as a reverse mortgage), the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) requires that you be a homeowner 62 years of age or older, own your home outright, or have a low mortgage balance that can be paid off at closing with proceeds from the reverse loan, and you must live in the home.”

3. Eligibility: “your home must be a single family home or a 1-4 unit home with one unit occupied by the borrower. HUD-approved condominiums and manufactured homes that meet FHA requirements are also eligible.”

4. Difference between a Reverse Mortgage and Home Equity Loan: “With a traditional second mortgage, or a home equity line of credit, you must have sufficient income versus debt ratio to qualify for the loan, and you are required to make monthly mortgage payments. The reverse mortgage is different in that it pays you, and is available regardless of your current income. The amount you can borrow depends on your age, the current interest rate, and the appraised value of your home or FHA’s mortgage limits for your area, whichever is less. Generally, the more valuable your home is, the older you are, the lower the interest, the more you can borrow.”

Sense on Cents RED FLAG: within these details lie the potential for true abusive, if not fraudulent, lending practices. How do you keep a mortgage lender honest? How do you make sure he is quoting competitive terms across all these variables (age, the effective interest rate of the reverse mortgage, the home appraisal, FHA-limits)? Never make a deal without getting a few competitive proposals. From there, check with a HUD-approved mortgage counselor. How? Contact the Housing Counseling Clearinghouse.

Other important information regarding the life of the loan, impact on your estate, total mortgage proceeds, and how to receive payments are also available at the HUD site.

Rest assured, there are plenty of quality mortgage brokers willing to help you with reverse mortgages. There are also plenty of unscrupulous mortgage brokers. Like who? The crowd at Taylor, Bean, and Whitaker.

Be careful and good luck!!

LD

Related Sense on Cents Commentary:
Fair and Fraudulent Mortgage Lending (August 5, 2009)

What’s Next for Freddie and Fannie?

Posted by Larry Doyle on August 6th, 2009 8:51 AM |

When losses get so large something ultimately must be done.

In that vein, I am not surprised to see news developing about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae’s future. The Washington Post is reporting Administration Considers Splitting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac:

The Obama administration launched a broad government effort this week to overhaul mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is considering splitting the companies and putting their troubled assets in a new federally backed corporation, administration officials said.

Troubled assets is a misnomer. ALL of their assets are troubled. Some are more troubled than others. How so? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae absorb all of the credit risk on loans which they guarantee. Given the current state of our domestic housing market, the risk or troubled nature of every mortgage in our country, let alone in Freddie and Fannie’s portfolio, has increased. As loans continue to default at ever increasing rates Freddie and Fannie just bleed money. More troubled assets encompass a variety of commercial mortgages, Alt-A, and sub-prime mortgages.

I am very interested to see how a good bank/bad bank model would be structured. The fact is to wipe the slate clean, Uncle Sam would literally have to move ALL of Freddie’s and Fannie’s current assets. At that point, Freddie and Fannie should simply guarantee future mortgages without actually purchasing them (meaning let the mortgage securities be purchased by private entities in the marketplace) with proper risk based pricing applied. Short of that, a restructured Freddie and Fannie will likely only replicate a version of past errors.

Do our regulators have the courage to push for this initiative? We will hear that they will work toward this structure ‘down the road.’ How long is the road? This situation will be very interesting. Will it be transparent?

Such an approach would keep the government on the hook for losses into the indeterminate future but would also clear the way for the revamped companies to play a critical role of financing home loans throughout the country.

This statement is nothing short of an acceptance of a ‘socialized housing program’ to absorb current and future losses but also to underwrite future loans at what will effectively be below market rates. The fact is losses will be perpetuated simply because Freddie and Fannie will continue to subsidize mortgages via lower mortgage rates. In the process, risk is being mispriced under the guise of supporting our housing market. Increased risk will ultimately mean increased losses.   (more…)

Uncle Sam’s Dirty Little Secret Is Revealed

Posted by Larry Doyle on July 23rd, 2009 11:15 AM |

Uncle Sam may think he can keep losses of tens of billions of dollars somewhat secretive, but when those losses cross into the hundreds of billions the dirt is much harder to keep under the rug.

What is the nature and size of this dirt? The losses assocated with those dastardly large twins, Fannie and Freddie. I lifted the rug on this dirt on June 18th in writing, Uncle Sam’s Dirty Little Secret.

Fannie and Freddie hold 50% of the mortgages in our country. These entities are most likely sitting on hundreds of billions in embedded losses currently with limited prospects to generate real revenue. They have no viable business model at this point in time.

CNN reports today, Fannie and Freddie: The Most Expensive Bailout

When Congress was debating the bailout of Fannie and Freddie last July, the official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office was that a bailout would most likely cost taxpayers $25 billion, with only a 5% chance of the price tag reaching $100 billion between them.

In addition, both Fannie and Freddie are likely to need billions of dollars more after they report second quarter results in the coming weeks. Experts believe the cost will only continue to rise in the next year.

“We’re assuming they each will cross the $100 billion mark fairly soon. They could be hitting the $200 billion barrier by the end of next year,” said Bose George, mortgage analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, an investment bank specializing in financial services firms.

The fact remains that these two wards of the state are no longer for profit entities but rather vehicles for promoting Obama’s housing plans and redistribution of wealth.

The losses within Fannie and Freddie will accrue as long as housing delinquencies and defaults increase. No credible analyst can truly predict when those statistics may peak. They can guess but given the runup in home prices along with the growth in housing, that is all they can do.

In fact, the argument can be made that the very policies being utilized to forestall delinquencies and defaults will ultimately exacerbate and extend the pressure on the housing market, and in turn, Fannie’s and Freddie’s losses.

Will the American taxpayer ever see a return on the funds being pumped into Fannie and Freddie? Don’t hold your breath. 

CNN continues,

Neither firm has given an estimate as to how high losses will reach. But the original limit of $100 billion in losses set in place when the government put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship, essentially a form of bankruptcy, last September was quickly raised early this year to $200 billion each because of concerns about looming losses.

In return for pumping taxpayer dollars into the two firms, Treasury received preferred stock, which is designed to give the government a healthy 10% to 12% dividend. But few expect that Fannie or Freddie will be able to pay that dividend, let alone return the money handed to the firms to cover their losses..

Even James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government body that has overseen the two firms since they were placed into conservatorship, said it will be a challenge for Fannie and Freddie to make their scheduled payments.

Let’s be honest, Fannie and Freddie have become financial intermediaries used to promote a form of socialized housing.

With Uncle Sam’s dirty little secret now revealed, break out the industrial strength vacuums!

LD

Related Commentary

Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Deja Vu? ; May 28, 2009
If you think Fannie and Freddie are alone amidst this dirt, they have sizable company in the form of the Federal Home Loan Bank system.

Is Barack Becoming a Landlord?

Posted by Larry Doyle on July 15th, 2009 6:36 AM |

Is Barack Obama about to move into the rental market and become the largest single landlord in the process?

Hat tip to AK for pointing out this developing story.  Reuters reports, Obama Mulls Rental Option for Some Homeowners:

U.S. government officials are weighing a plan that would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes instead, sources familiar with the administration’s thinking said on Tuesday.

First things first, I fully empathize with all those whom are struggling at this time. However, from the standpoint of economics and capitalism, would this program actually serve as an incentive for some homeowners to stop making their mortgage payments? Would it cause other perverse, unintended consequences as well? Would it redefine the American dream?

Under one idea being discussed, delinquent homeowners would surrender ownership of their homes but would continue to live in the property for several years, the sources told Reuters.

Surrender ownership to whom? The bank holding the mortgage? The mortgage servicer? Uncle Sam? How is a rental payment determined? If based on percentage of income, does this program actually serve as a disincentive for individuals to increase income, if only to lose this benefit?

Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans, tapping an unused portion of a $50 billion housing aid kitty.

That $50 billion housing aid kitty is money still in the TARP. Not that the rule of law means much anymore, but does anyone want to check if we actually need to write new legislation on the disbursement of funds under the TARP for a program such as this? What happens when the $50 billion is exhausted?

As part of this plan, jobless borrowers might receive a housing stipend along with regular unemployment benefits, the sources said.

How much and for how long? Who would oversee the program? Think there is the potential for massive fraud?

A few other questions and comments.

1. The mere fact that this idea is being floated would seem to me to be an admission that the housing market is a long way from bottoming.

2. How would this program impact the principle of property rights? If Uncle Sam is effectively dictating how an owner of a property, be it a bank or otherwise, can utilize that property, does this become precedent for other assets as well?

3. Would Uncle Sam consider establishing incentives for the banks and the homeowners to develop a program such as this through the private market? A tax incentive of some sort for the bank? Do we care to try to embrace free market principles?

4. Do we even try to determine the long term impact of this program on our economy in general and housing in particular?

Little doubt this type of program would be a sharp turn left on our economic landscape. I guess this woman wasn’t too far off in her prophetic statement last Fall:

Thoughts, comments, questions are all appreciated.

LD

How Does Goldman Sachs Operate?

Posted by Larry Doyle on July 6th, 2009 6:37 PM |

Goldman Sachs is widely regarded as the top Wall Street bank. What makes Goldman so special? Is everything on the up and up? Is it one massive conspiracy? At the request of a number of readers, allow me to share my perspectives on Goldman Sachs, in general, and my thoughts on Matt Taibbi’s article in Rolling Stone magazine, “The Great American Bubble Machine.”

Goldman Sachs has always had a tremendous investment banking franchise along with outstanding risk management capabilities within its trading operation. That said, in the ’80s and ’90s Goldman was certainly one of the best shops on the street but it had plenty of company. In my opinion, Goldman separated itself from the Wall Street crowd after the repeal of Glass-Stegall which had previously separated commercial and investment banking operations.

With the repeal of Glass-Stegall, most investment banks looked to grow origination capabilities in order to compete with the large commercial banks. At the same time, most commercial banks looked to grow their investment banking and trading operations.

Goldman stood out by taking an entirely different tact. Goldman decided to utilize its capital and balance sheet less so for origination capabilities and much more for principal trading (that is, making bets and taking positions with its own capital). Effectively, Goldman decided to operate much more like a large multi-strategy hedge fund. Goldman took enormous risks both in their proprietary books but also in their trading activity with customers. Goldman made a concerted decision to dominate the markets in which they chose to play.

While Mr. Taibbi paints Goldman as one large conspiratorial machine, I beg to differ.  In fact, the reason why I initially only skimmed the Rolling Stone article is because it oversimplifies the Goldman business model and paints the entire firm and all its employees with a broad brush. (more…)






Recent Posts


ECONOMIC ALL-STARS


Archives