February 12, 2007

“The Real Test Will Come In This New Cycle”

Some housing bubble news from Wall Street and Bloomberg. “It was bound to happen sooner or later, an out-of-the-blue reminder that the froth or the boom or the disconnect between prices and fundamentals in the housing market would have a financial after-shock. HSBC Holdings dropped a small bomb last week. Yes, Virginia, subprime mortgages do carry some risk after all.”

“Isolated examples? Probably not. Confined to the subprime market? Doubtful. ‘There is no way the conditions that existed in the subprime market between borrowers and lenders weren’t a multiple of what went wrong,’ said Michael Aronstein, chief investment strategist at Oscar Gruss & Co. ‘The incentives are perverse. You’re paid for volume, not for being a schoolmarm.’”

“In its January survey on bank lending practices, the Fed said that a net 15 percent of domestic banks reported tightening credit standards on residential mortgage loans over the past three months, the biggest net increase since the early 1990s. That was the last time banks were saddled with, guess what?, bad real-estate loans.”

“The ripple effects of the housing slowdown aren’t confined to the financial sector, according to economist Asha Bangalore. ‘Housing and housing-related employment made up a little over 40 percent of all payroll employment from November 2001 to April 2005,’ she says. ‘Employment in residential construction declined in nine out of the 10 months ended January 2007,’ according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

“Only three years ago, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said homeowners could have saved a heck of a lot of money had they opted for adjustable-rate mortgages during the past decade.”

“‘American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed- rate mortgage,’ Greenspan said in a speech to the Credit Union National Association in Washington.”

“Lenders took his advice. Borrowers jumped at the opportunity. Everyone may suffer the consequences.”

“Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O’Neal was willing to lose $230 million to catch Bear Stearns Cos. and the shakeout is just beginning. That’s because Merrill is determined to capture a dominant share of trading in bonds backed by home loans.”

“‘You’ve got to remember’ that Bear Stearns, the perennial leader in mortgage bonds, ‘got into this business at the height of the boom, when you could not lose,’ Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide Financial Corp.’s CEO, said. ‘The real test will come for these new players in how they do in this new cycle,’ Mozilo said. ‘A couple may do fine and a couple won’t do fine. Just because it’s Wall Street and they’ve got into the origination business doesn’t mean they automatically win.’”

“‘We still have way too much capacity,’ said David Olson, the former director of market research at Freddie Mac. ‘That means a lot more firms have to go out of business.’”

“With more than 8,500 financial institutions competing for mortgages, many began extending them to borrowers who might not have qualified previously. ‘Too many firms got involved in making loans probably motivated in part by fees,’ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President William Poole told reporters after a speech last week. ‘They thought they could lay off the credit risk by securitizing and selling these off in the market.’”

“Bear Stearns reduced its purchases of subprime loans by half last year because of concerns over the decline in credit quality, President Warren Spector said on a conference call. That’s not to say Bear Stearns is backing away. Last week, it completed the $26 million purchase of Encore Credit Corp., the subprime home-lending unit of Irvine, California-based ECC Capital Corp.”

“ECC Capital Corporation today announced the closing of the sale of its mortgage banking business to Bear Stearns. A significant portion of ECC Capital’s portfolio of loans held for sale, totaling approximately $1.2 billion, was included in the Loan Sale that also closed on February 9, 2007.”

“Certain of the loans included in the Loan Sale were sold at substantial discounts due to early, curable payment defaults and documentation and related defects that may be resolved so as to increase or decrease the purchase price to be paid by Bear Stearns.”

“ECC Capital closed the sale of certain residual interests in a securitization on February 9, 2007 at a price that resulted in a $10 million loss.”

“Home builders are confronting their own problems, as shown in Toll’s results, which showed that orders sank 33 percent in the first quarter while revenue from home construction dropped 19 percent.”

“Falling prices for land are also weighing on the industry. The five largest U.S. builders, Horton, Pulte, Lennar, Centex and Toll, recorded a total of $1.47 billion in related costs for the fourth quarter.”

“There may be more bad news to come as well. The National Association of Realtors said last week that sales of new homes would decline until the fourth quarter because too many had been built.”

“U.S. profits increased at the slowest pace in more than four years last quarter because of a record loss at Ford Motor Co. and earnings declines at Occidental Petroleum Corp. and Pulte Homes Inc. The biggest slump in home sales in 15 years battered homebuilders including Pulte.”

“‘Despite what people might say in terms of the bottoming in the housing market, if we are at the bottom, we’re not going to get off this bottom for at least a year or two,’ said Ernie Ankrim, chief investment strategist at Russell Investment Group.”

“The consolidation wave sweeping through the mortgage sector showed no signs of abating. Lenders Direct Capital Corp. stopped taking applications from mortgage brokers as of Friday, the company’s chief executive officer, told MortgageDaily.com.”

“The lack of ‘investor demand in subprime industry is such that we felt it was prudent to do it at this time,’ he said. ‘The liquidity of subprime loans seems to be in a state of flux.’”




RSS feed | Trackback URI

120 Comments »

Comment by arlingtonva
2007-02-12 08:22:44

Why don’t the bigger banking companies let the smaller companies die at the vine? Maybe the bigger companies have something to lose if the smaller banks go under.

Comment by CincyDad
2007-02-12 09:16:29

I was thinking the same thing. What exposure do the bigger banks have that they feel they must lose money buying the smaller ones?

Comment by Bad Andy
2007-02-12 10:03:25

If it ever hits the fan, these larger banks will be exposed for what they’ve done over the past 4 years. They’ve knowingly given loans to people who can’t afford to pay it back. It’s all about keeping it under the rug.

What’s that I see? It’s a rug that’s got a lot under it. Can’t hide it much longer.

Comment by pb_2_au
2007-02-12 10:31:11

Could it be finally time to short the big Wall St names which have been raking it in and since the 2002 lows are up like 4-800%, GS MER BSC? Takes guts, but perhaps a good hedge against buyouts of any bearish positions in sub-prime, esp those w/ high short %

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by DanR
2007-02-12 12:48:31

Instead of shorting, do an option spread on the LEAPS options. Buy a LEAP put option with a strike price at the market and sell a LEAP put option with a lower strike price that expires at the same time as the one you bought.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Marc Authier
2007-02-12 20:11:17

The illusion that everything is just going fine and it’s business as usual. Bankers are conmen. I rate them at the same level as mafiosis. It’s the same thing in my book.

 
 
Comment by OB_Tom
2007-02-12 08:24:31

I saw some kind of ceremony on the news last night. Greeenspan received an excellence lifetime achievement award or something? I changed channel before I puked. It was some bimbo presenting it to him, maybe Miss Realtor 2007?

Comment by Jas Jain
2007-02-12 09:47:23


The award was from CNBC! And the bimbo was one of their reportorettes.

Jas

Comment by Marc Authier
2007-02-12 20:20:05

On the plate of the award it’s written. “Infinite mastery in bubble making” Next month he will certainly receive a nobel prize in bullshiiiiit economics for his outstanding work in hypnotism on stupid financial analyst. Mesmer of Central Banking. ” And now only my voice counts. Look at my thick glasses. And now you see a big big bubble going way way up in the sky. “

Comment by Auntie Christina
2007-02-13 01:03:54

Have you all seen the final director’s cut of this movie? The second half will tell you all about the giant con game known as the Fed:
AMERICA: Freedom to Fascism

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by lainvestorgirl
2007-02-12 08:24:48

So does this mean no more $550,000 houses in Compton??

Comment by GH
2007-02-12 08:58:36

There will continue to be many $550K homes in Compton. There just won’t be any sales.

Comment by Ben Jones
2007-02-12 09:17:35

Picking up a discussion from previous threads; one poster wondered why houses in New Jersey would cost $500,000. And yesterday one wrote about seeing new 1800 sq ft houses ’starting in the $300k’s’ in Williams, Arizona. Also in yesterdays paper I saw a mobile home for sale in Flagstaff, Arizona, for $350,000!

I think we have become numb to these outrageous amounts. As the one said about New Jersey, ‘I know it’s close to New York, but.’ That’s it; Arizona was ‘close’ to California. North Carolina was ‘close’ to Florida, which was going to be the ‘new California.’

I wonder if you could go back ten years ago if one single person in Williams would have imagined starter homes going for these amounts.

Comment by optionedunarmed
2007-02-12 11:46:46

Most people have no concept of what $300,000 is, or what $500,000 is. Once numbers go beyond a certain point, they enter a certain conceptual abyss for most people. A dedicated saver, on the other hand (whether a homeowner or renter) has a much better grasp on these types of numbers.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by tj & the bear
2007-02-12 13:09:07

I mentioned this here a year ago, but back in 2000 or so a sales rep for a new Burbank development once told us that the area would never support million-dollar home prices.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by James
2007-02-12 14:09:47

Saving 20% down on 500K house means you have 150K household income and save for 6 years or so.

NJ has some expensive neighboorhoods and very nice areas.

Its not all Newark/Camden… Just like LA has Rancho Palos Verdes and lovely South Central and Crenshaw.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by We Rent!
2007-02-12 19:33:32

“Saving 20% down on 500K house means you have 150K household income and save for 6 years or so.”

WHAT!?

Maybe if you have a mortgage and two kids in college, or something. My household takes in just over 105k (I’m a lowly teacher), yet we keep pace to save 100k (20% of 500) somewhere between 20-24 months - without considering investment gains.

Maybe it helps that… We Rent!

 
Comment by sleepless_in_seattle
2007-02-12 21:12:16

WE Rent!

I think you are full of it. let’s assume $50K/year or $100K/24 months. Based on the 105K salaries, I don’t think so. how much is your rent? utilities? food? taxes?

 
 
 
Comment by lainvestorgirl
2007-02-12 09:50:33

It’s hard to say what is changing first, faster: the psychology of the market, or the availability of easy credit. It seems like the two are feeding off each other to put pressure on prices.

 
 
 
Comment by turnoutthelights
2007-02-12 08:26:48

Ben, this is the best of what you do. A great compilation of financial news concerning the housing industry. Reading this round-up, kinda makes a person wonder what the boys at Merrill-Lynch see that nobody else does. Is this the greatest falling knife catch of all time?

Comment by mjh
2007-02-12 10:07:51

I share TOTL’s questions on ML’s purchase of BS. I doesn’t seem to make business sense. Could it be that they acquire the counter-parties to derivatives trades and, if so, what happens to the contract then? Does it decrease the total risk to the marketplace and erase the derivative from existence?

Does it seem to anyone else like recent activities have been the meltdown we’ve been waiting for, but that it is being “managed” in such a way as to gradually unwind, rather than collapse?

It feels similar to when Morgan stepped in during the big crash and attempted to save the market…

 
 
Comment by david cee
2007-02-12 08:28:26

Despite what people might say in terms of the bottoming in the housing market, if we are at the bottom, we’re not going to get off this bottom for at least a year or two,’ said Ernie Ankrim, chief investment strategist at Russell Investment Group

It just drives me up the wall when a high priced, well educated, cheif investment strategist gives me “this bottom for a year or two”
If you are the chief economist, I would expect guidance based on 1 year projections. Everybody on Wall Street looks for earnings estimates for the next quarter and the next year, NOT 1 year or two. What is your projection for the next year, so we can really find out how good or bad you really are. What kind of CEO would make his investment decisions on a researcher who gives him “one year or two” as a possibility. Don’t let these clowns off with this wiggle room “one year or two”

Comment by aladinsane
2007-02-12 08:31:38

Honestly…

In this rushed up world we’ve allowed ourselves to be part and party of:

Can anybody think more than a few months out?

Comment by Marc Authier
2007-02-12 20:23:34

Months? That’s too long. Let’s say 25 minutes.

 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 23:01:18

In the long run you’re dead. What subprime lender wants to contemplate their own death?

 
 
Comment by Sobay
2007-02-12 09:13:11

“if we are at the bottom, we’re not going to get off this bottom for at least a year or two,”

LOL.

Comment by jerry from richardson
2007-02-12 09:54:25

That year or two of flat or declining prices will destroy most of the subprimes.

Comment by blofeld42
2007-02-12 18:05:18

It certainly looks like the subprime sector is going to be tightened up a lot. Which leads to lower demand.

So we have a lot of loans resetting over the next couple years, and little prospect of lower interest rates during that reset period. The owners can’t re-fi, can’t sell, and can’t stay where they are. And demand is dropping.

Lots of local real estate ads now with “seller motivated”, “or best offer”, and “huge price cut”. The local high end subdivision completed a couple years ago, with 350 homes in the $800K-$1.2M range, has about half a dozen homes in default right now.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by athena
2007-02-12 10:56:07

It just drives me up the wall when a high priced, well educated, cheif investment strategist gives me “this bottom for a year or two”

Makes you wonder if they were absent for the semesters when they should have been learning economic history.

 
 
Comment by Uncle Festus
2007-02-12 08:37:03

This commentary was posted on the WSJ website today under “Breaking Views.” Aside from the keen sense of the obvious, the commentary suffers from a puzzling smugness. If the writing was so clearly on the wall as a result of the deteriorating credit standards, why take HSBC to task anymore than the complacent financial press (i.e. the WSJ)?

Subprime

When American housing prices kept climbing, it was easy enough for homeowners to pay existing loans by refinancing. But across most of the U.S., home prices are now falling. That’s causing a headache for lenders to the lowest-rated mortgage borrowers. Though these account for just 14% of home loans outstanding, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, problems in this area may foreshadow a more general credit crunch.

New Century Financial and HSBC Holdings, respectively the second- and third-largest providers of so-called subprime loans, both misread how their borrowers would respond to the housing downturn. It’s easy to blame the credit-scoring models they use, which failed to forecast the jump in delinquencies. HSBC also picked up suspect loans from third-party originators, some of which have now gone belly up.

But the real problem lies with the general decline in lending standards that occurred during the housing boom. That was a result of intense competition among mortgage lenders. Loans to subprime borrowers as a percentage of total mortgages have increased fivefold since 2002. Underwriting standards have also been cut elsewhere. Witness the rapid growth of interest-only loans, option-ARMs, second-lien (”piggy-back”) and negative amortization loans in recent years. These “nontraditional” mortgages account for around a third of home loans outstanding, according to Loan Performance, a research firm.

Mortgage lenders, having behaved rashly when times were great, are now in danger of becoming overly cautious. New Century is cutting production this year by 20%. Banking regulators introduced more-restrictive rules on nontraditional loans in September. That has already had an effect. The U.S. Federal Reserve’s latest survey finds that the majority of mortgage lenders are now tightening their lending standards. Politicians in Washington are demanding a further clampdown on risky mortgage products, according to research firm ISI Group.

A mortgage credit crunch would have a severe economic impact. Economists at HSBC have been warning for months that the slowing housing market would lead to less consumer borrowing and hurt the economy. It seems that nobody in the global bank’s mortgage unit bothered to read these gloomy reports.

Comment by GH
2007-02-12 09:02:21

When American housing prices kept climbing, it was easy enough for homeowners to pay existing loans by refinancing.

There you have it. BTW credit scoring models are a bunch of crock focussing on late payments etc as a punitive measure instead of examining life factors determining a persons willingness to get in over their heads debt to income and stability in their particular job market. By the time lates show up the horse has left the stables…

Comment by Mike_in_Fl
2007-02-12 09:43:54

I think the real problem with the “modelling” is that it is likely based on traditional delinquency patterns and drivers — namely that losses rise when you have high/rising levels of unemployment, and/or economic recession, and/or rising interest rates. Right now, the unemployment rate is low (4.6%) and the economy is growing at a decent rate (3.5% in Q4). Meanwhile, long-term mortgage rates have barely budged despite 17 Fed rate hikes. By historical standards, and given these conditions, the housing market “shouldn’t” be tanking and mortgage loans “shouldn’t” be going bad at these astounding rates.

But things ARE different this time — I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say we have experienced the biggest housing bubble in U.S. history accompanied by the biggest expansion of high-risk lending in U.S. history. Common sense tells you the risk of loss on the downside/flipside of that would be severe. But modelling might not anticipate that because the traditional default drivers aren’t going crazy. Ergo, you have lenders and MBS holders shocked … SHOCKED … to see so many mortgage loans imploding. That’s my two cents, anyway.

http://interestrateroundup.blogspot.com

Comment by gsinbe
2007-02-12 09:58:05

…”namely that losses rise when you have high/rising levels of unemployment, and/or economic recession, and/or rising interest rates. Right now, the unemployment rate is low (4.6%) and the economy is growing at a decent rate (3.5% in Q4).”

Which also brings up the interesting question of whether the traditional econometric measures are now so distorted (underestimating true inflation & unemployment and overstating GDP) that they are making the modelling less effective..

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by garcap
2007-02-12 10:50:44

I think that’s right, Mike. The problem is that the models are always looking out the back window and not forward. No one in the subprime mortgage origination business cared about credit risk until maybe a week ago because the models kept telling them that the assets would cover the loans. Oops!

By the way, rumors are floating around (from very good sources) that BearSt is sitting on a massive piece of subprime index paper as a trading position (ie, one trader, one desk). Apparently they have already lost $200 million on it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 11:02:59

“… always looking out the back window and not forward.”

So far as I know, nobody has figured out since Isaac Newton’s day how to predict the chaotic, endogenous feedback effects between private asset market participants and those who draw and enforce the rules.

“I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.”

– Sir Isaac Newton –

http://www.stock-market-crash.net/southsea.htm

 
Comment by santacruzsux
2007-02-12 12:50:34

Can a brother spare some hedonic deflators? How about some molded inflation expectations? Can ya pass me some confidence for the time being?

You can’t predict the future, but you sure as hell can TRY to mold it to your liking.

 
Comment by Auger-Inn
2007-02-12 14:14:58

How about applying some common sense for christ’s sake? Everyone on this blog called this train wreck two years ago and some of us a lot longer than that. These motherf*ckers are getting PAID for this BS and now its a big friggin surprise that it all blew up? They didn’t need any “models” to tell them it was a bad idea to lend outrageous amounts of money to folks with a poor credit history using low interest rates that would reset a dozen months out or so! Holy shit, is this not obvious to even the dolts that do this for a living?????? Fu*k the whole lot of them, I’m tired of hearing the excuses for this and we’ve only just STARTED down this collapse.
And further more, how can anyone use the language that has been used in the media today to describe what is coming down the pike? Why is the magnitude of this disaster being downplayed? I can’t even say it is some sort of conspiracy since the players being interviewed are so minor in the scheme of things. They are so obviously underqualified to even have a job in the financial sector it is a wonder how they got the job. What a country.

 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 23:03:47

“Why is the magnitude of this disaster being downplayed?”

I think I see a piece of a pattern here…

 
Comment by Auntie Christina
2007-02-13 01:50:51

It may be true for some states that the defaults are the result of lending to people with poor credit histories. But that was not the case here in Massachusetts. Although the median salary in this state is high relative to most other states (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2005-11-29-wage_x.htm), home prices here are also much higher than the national median. Here, the reason for most of the defaults was that buyers had high debt relative to income.

 
 
Comment by mrktMaven FL
2007-02-12 12:21:02

In addition to assuming the decision model itself accurately reflects or models reality, one of the underlying assumption in decision science modeling is accurate data elements. What if the data elements in these models are false, fixed, or simply an innacurate representation of reality? It is sometimes worth the additional cost to sample a population in house than to rely on easily available low cost data elements. At a minimum, verify the quality of each data element.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by jag
2007-02-12 13:08:26

Mike I think you are absolutely right. The models were likely constructed using data developed with much of the normal 20% down payment loans and the recent data on variable rate repayment which has likely been pretty favorable given that rates have (generally) been declining for fifteen or more years.
I’ll bet those numbers would generate a “reasonable” risk ratio. But, as other’s have noted, those numbers likely never included anything like the “products” that have been used recently (liar loans, 80/20 and 100% financing). Those are totally different beasts and combined with a rapidly escalating price bubble, they are about as likely to represent current variable rate loan reality as ……well its probably as good a concept of reality as Anna Nicole had over her entire life.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Premature Curmudgeon
2007-02-12 09:46:51

Amazing how many times these articles “cross reference” each other. Only a few days ago one of the articles on this site had a person saying: “Hey, if the valuations don’t go up, how can I refi when my mortgage rate changes?”

 
 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 10:55:45

It is very hard for a long-time participant on this blog to wrap his brain around the industry’s failure to recognize a looming trainwreck as a consequence of abandoning lending standards developed over centuries, if not milleniums. Can anyone inside the lending industry offer comment? Did you miss the glaring headlights of the train that was coming straight at you while your car was crossing the tracks?

Comment by athena
2007-02-12 11:03:36

They weren’t paying attention to the actual lights of the train. Too busy trying to navigate around the barrier and flashing lights warning them to stay back, a train was coming. But as only the truly arrogant can do, they figured the train didn’t apply to them.

Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 12:04:23

Nicely stated. I figured it must have had something to do with crossing the tracks despite the flashing lights warning them not to do so.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Mail Guru
2007-02-12 21:43:57

It’s a bit like a weatherman looking out the window, noting a rain storm, and commenting that the models have predicted a sunny day ergo the weather is non-conforming.

The bank wanks don’t get paid to be correct - they get paid to follow the herd. The upside for them is a large bonus. The downside is ‘well, the consensus view was that…..blah, blah, blah.’

 
 
Comment by az_lender
2007-02-12 11:31:38

I find it annoying that they persist in referring to the loan-origination scam as a “lending industry”. Yours truly is one of the few real mortgage lenders in existence. The rest of you posters are “real” lenders if you own bonds of any kind. The so-called lenders who are in trouble now had, of course, no intention at all of being lenders. They became lenders unintentionally when repurchases of sour notes were forced. Abandonment of old-time lending standards were an obvious consequence of the paper-shuffling involved in the new so-called lending business. My standards (and my rates) have changed very little in 14 years.

Comment by mrktMaven FL
2007-02-12 12:29:32

I’ve said it before and will say it again: It is a circular ponzi scheme that starts with lenders lending savers’ money and ends with savers sadly losing said money. The lending industry is getting a free ride on your dime.

 
 
 
Comment by salinasron
2007-02-12 08:40:51

‘Too many firms got involved in making loans probably motivated in part by fees,’
Aren’t all those involved motivated by fees (extortion money)?

 
Comment by david cee
2007-02-12 08:59:15

By! By! Stated Income Loans
This month, Wells Fargo increased the minimum down payment by 5 percentage points on borrowers in 150 riskier counties, including Goliad, Victoria, Calhoun and Cameron counties in Texas.

Now, many lenders have reacted like NovaStar Mortgage Inc. In January, the Kansas City, Mo.-based mortgage bank raised its minimum credit score to 620 for San Antonio borrowers who want to finance 100 percent of a home’s value, according to NovaStar account executive Terry Burge. That was the second 20-point increase in five months and prevented borrowers in the lowest credit tier from qualifying for 100 percent loans.

NovaStar recently began scoring borrowers based on the amount of time in their current job, length of time at their current residence and debt-to-income ratio to weed out those most likely to default.

“We anticipate somewhere between 12 percent and 15 percent of our loans will be affected,” Burge said. “But we feel that’s the right loans to lose if they won’t be with us a year from now anyway.”

As a result of the new scoring, Burge said, NovaStar was able to drop its minimum credit score to 600 on a 100 percent mortgage this month.

Other lenders have added new hoops for first-time borrowers. That’s because borrowers are most likely to default during the first three to five years of a loan term, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

For instance, New Century Mortgage Corp. is requiring first-time buyers to have three active credit lines or utility accounts in good standing — and rental payments don’t count.

“I used to be able to count rental payments as a trade line, but we have cut that out,” said Marcia Messer, San Antonio account executive for the Irvine, Calif.-based subprime lender. “We’ve really cracked down on first-time home buyers.”

Now the only way rental payments to landlords can be used is to verify housing payments — and then only if the borrower presents a canceled check for each payment, she said.

Most lenders also are requiring commissioned workers, such as car sales staff and real estate agents, to show greater proof of cash flow via bank records before approving mortgages with limited income documentation, called alternative A, no-documentation or stated-income loans.

Comment by BM
2007-02-12 09:53:44

Excellent! Excellent, Smithers!

Crush these fools! Wash them from the marketplace, those posing as legitimate homebuyers. I eagerly await the day I can bid in a market where I do not compete against them.

 
Comment by jerry from richardson
2007-02-12 10:31:11

They should require a 10% down payment for all loans on both coasts. That is where the SHWTF in the next few years. It will be like Poltergeist when the family is trying to escape from the house in horror.

 
Comment by paladin
2007-02-12 10:33:05

NovaStar….”“But we feel that’s the right loans to lose if they won’t be with us a year from now anyway.”

Of course, if they are not “with” us after 13 months, we don’t really care, since their is no recourse back to us if they default after 12 months!!

 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 10:57:57

“…borrowers in 150 riskier counties…”

It’s not the loans nor the borrowers who are risky, but the counties where the money is loaned?

Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 11:07:11

P.S. I thought redlining was illegal? Or does Wells Fargo have an exemption from the law?

Comment by Chip
2007-02-12 18:39:08

GS — good catch.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by OCBear
2007-02-12 12:28:36

“As a result of the new scoring, Burge said, NovaStar was able to drop its minimum credit score to 600 on a 100 percent mortgage this month.”

Is it just me or does this statement not seem like tightening at all. 600??? WOW!!! just WOW!!!…..we have a ways to go.

 
 
Comment by CA Guy
2007-02-12 09:01:55

We’ve been discussing all these issues here for a long time now, and the “experts” are only just beginning to admit that the ship could sink. I know its naive, but I’m still shocked by how much the public is mislead by these sleaze balls. This subprime implosion is going to be magnificent in its scope. Will people ever learn???

Comment by nnvmtgbrkr
2007-02-12 09:18:21

And it’s not just sub-prime, they’re just the first domino to fall. Being the most vunerable, the were bound to be first. Now watch the ripples spread across the pond that is the entire lending institution.

 
Comment by sfbayqt
2007-02-12 11:12:08

CA Guy…I responded to your post in yesterday’s California topic.

BayQT~

Comment by CA Guy
2007-02-12 13:35:01

BayQT:
Cool, I’ll go back and check it out! Sorry, after posting that comment life obligations called and I wasn’t able to get back to the blog. I really hate it when that happens.

Comment by sfbayqt
2007-02-12 13:48:47

No problem. The same thing happens to me. :-)

BayQT~

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by CA Guy
2007-02-12 14:11:04

BayQT: read your post. Thanks for your thoughts! Wow. Elan at the BART station. What can I say? My wife is no doubt sick of hearing me bitch and moan over that thing! I also have trouble keeping a straight face when visiting sales offices, but I was there last April and July. In July the lowest priced unit they had was $509K for a 1br/1ba, 950 sf. This was $20K lower than it had been in April for the exact same unit (I too keep price sheets!). I noticed the $400K banner as well and just shook my head. It needs to go alot lower. They seemed to really slow down early this winter and now are cranking again. That garage is HUGE! Speaking of BART, I had to go to SF for work last week and took BART. Elan advertising is all over that station, as well as a couple other builders. Yep, no bubble here. My main confusion revolves around market absorption. Elan has I don’t know how many units, and then combine it with the approximately 900-1000 units Toll Brothers has under construction in Dublin Ranch. Who is going to buy all of these units?? That is an enormous number of homes to be releasing in a relatively narrow window of time! Assuming 2 people per home, that is 20K more residents, or almost one half of the current population! That’s impossible, IMO. I just cannot imagine how the supply and demand equation can equal out here in Dublin. Two of Toll’s buildings (a couple hundred total units) have been sitting basically untouched since the fall, with no Tyvex, no plaster, just bare OSB. That cannot be good for the integrity of that wood. I think this project is named “The Villas.” If they had willing and able buyers, wouldn’t they be trying to finish ASAP? What is going on there? Anyways, it will be interesting to see what these builders do to avoid having hundreds of unsold units. Honestly, who wants to pay $500K or more to look at BART???

 
 
 
Comment by spike66
2007-02-12 09:04:52

” Among the planned changes, HSBC U.S. Group Executive Brendan McDonagh will take a bigger role at the finance company, HSBC Finance Corp., Geoghegan said today.
HSBC will also seek to make loans to immigrant communities from Asia and Eastern Europe in Texas and Florida, Geoghegan said. HSBC management made the mistake of “going for volume” and selling second lien, or second charge mortgages, he said. ”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aPB3Ict11jwc

Well, that’s a plan, but isn’t that illegal? Targeting specific ethnic or racial groups while ignoring others–so thumbs up for Eastern Europeans and Asians, but hit the road for Latinos? Does this bank have any interest in whether folks are legal or illegal, documented or non?

Comment by SeattleMoose
2007-02-12 10:59:53

When your bottom line is JUST money/volume….well you can answer your own question.

 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 12:17:06

“Targeting specific ethnic or racial groups while ignoring others–so thumbs up for Eastern Europeans and Asians, but hit the road for Latinos?”

If all the banks suddenly adopt redlining strategies, will that make it legitimate?

 
Comment by mrktMaven FL
2007-02-12 12:44:21

Segmenting and targeting disparate groups of consumers is done all the time. Denying someone credit based ’solely’ on race, gender, and so on is simply wrong.

Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 23:00:12

Excluding some counties from the list of where you lend sounds like redlining to me. Or do they use a different color pen than red these days?

 
 
 
Comment by PS
2007-02-12 09:08:52

“There may be more bad news to come as well. The National Association of Realtors said last week that sales of new homes would decline until the fourth quarter because too many had been built.”

Can someone explain the logic of this statement? I don’t see any economic rationale for more product leading to less sales.

OK, I’m feigning naivete here. The statement is obviously BS. The reason for few sales is fewer customers not too many houses.

Comment by WT Economist
2007-02-12 09:12:45

Speaking of the NAR, 4Q stats by metro should be out any time now.

 
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2007-02-12 09:40:41

Oh, so that’s why Ford’s car sales and market share are down. They built too many of them. LOL.

 
Comment by P'cola Popper
2007-02-12 10:09:06

First signs of the Diamond-Water Paradox as applied to housing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond-water_paradox

 
 
Comment by Groundhogday
2007-02-12 09:09:48

“The National Association of Realtors said last week that sales of new homes would decline until the fourth quarter because too many had been built.”

Just replace the “because” with an “and” to fix this sentence. Perverse understanding of causality.

 
Comment by WT Economist
2007-02-12 09:11:38

Take the equity and run —

http://biz.yahoo.com/brn/070208/21029.html?.v=1&.pf=real-estate

Some dumb ideas there, along with one good one. The difference in housing prices between different places can only get so wide before people — and jobs — flee.

Comment by SeattleMoose
2007-02-12 11:23:18

Zeroth law of thermodynamics

“If two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.”

When two systems are put in contact with each other, there will be a net exchange of energy between them unless or until they are in thermal equilibrium.

Now lets borrow this law or physics and apply it to RE.

When the affordability of RE in two states has a significant differential, there will be a net exchange of people between them until they are in equilibrium (relative to affordability).

Bottom line…you don’t want to be living in a place which is an affordability “tent pole” relative to more affordable areas…or else…exodus.

This is what spawned the dreaded CA Equity Locust.

Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 12:24:44

Nice thoughts! Physical scientists typically do very well in economics, due to their understanding of equilibrium phenomena.

I would suggest a revision to one sentence, however:

‘you don’t want to be living owning in a place which is an affordability “tent pole”’

Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 12:26:17

One more:

“until they are in equilibrium (relative to affordability and quality of life differentials).”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Housing Wizard
2007-02-12 09:18:03

Adjustable loans use to perform very well in prior lending cycles ,but the borrowers still had to qualify and put down payments .

Wonder who got the bright idea that you could give a sub-prime borrowers a low down stated income loan? The secondary market didn’t have foreclosures during boom times to tell them these were risky loans . Apparently nobody considered just how much the sub-prime lending would inflate the appraisals and create a short term speculation driven market.

2006 will be looked back on as the year of the cash-back and bogus incentives ” crooks market “.
There aren’t any appraisals that can be trusted as being market vlaue anymore .Desperate bagholders are the ones to watch now .

Comment by mrktMaven FL
2007-02-12 12:54:45

“Desperate bagholders are the ones to watch now.”

An accountant buddy of mine walked off his job last week b/c his FB boss wanted him to ‘fix’ the books at his businss so he could get a credit extension to finish his McMansion.

 
 
Comment by Brad
2007-02-12 09:46:43

‘The incentives are perverse. You’re paid for volume, not for being a schoolmarm.’”
———————————————————–
it’s all about INCENTIVES. If the incentive structure is wrong, the behavior will be wrong. Picture a Brinks truck wrecked on the freeway with $100 bills blowing in the wind. Everyone is gonna stop and grab as many as they can, even though they know it’s wrong.

Comment by albrt
2007-02-12 10:49:27

If grabbing $100 bills is wrong I don’t wanna be right.

 
Comment by tcm_guy
2007-02-12 11:07:44

“it’s all about INCENTIVES. If the incentive structure is wrong, the behavior will be wrong.”

This kindas reminds me when I used to work for a now defunct outfit that used to be listed on the NYSE. They had their field service personel selling maintenance contracts and collecting a small commission. So when they would respond to a service call, they would tell the owner that if they buy a maintenance contract then the repair will be paid for by the contract.

This and other stupid reasons is why this outfit no longer exists. (I am glad to have witnessed from the inside this outfit’s demise, I learned alot.)

Comment by Sunsetbeachguy
2007-02-12 21:32:27

Sounds like York. They were NYSE and bought by JCI.

Worked for both of ‘em. The bastards at JCI stiffed me on my commissions.

 
 
 
Comment by polarbare
2007-02-12 09:48:22

Long time lurker here - So for all of us waiting on the sidelines building up our cash, what banks are people using. I still have mine in a Wells Fargo account, but now getting nervous given they are at the top of the list in number of subprime loans on the implodometer page. Even tho its insured by FDIC, I’m a bit wary of how quickly that money would get “replaced”.

Comment by aladinsane
2007-02-12 10:03:42

Start your very own run on the bank…

Pull out your moolah before it becomes obvious to everybody else~

 
Comment by jerry from richardson
2007-02-12 10:07:41

You can always go for a credit union. Most of them are very strict with loans. Chase also doesn’t seem to be as involved as some of the others. Bank of America wasn’t too involved in the subprimes either and they should easily weather the coming housing implosion.

Comment by Paul
2007-02-16 17:00:48

Many Credit Unions place their deposits with banks…Ummmm.

 
 
Comment by clearview
2007-02-12 10:15:20

You to? I have my accounts with Washington Mutual. For the past month I’ve thought about how much money I want to keep in the bank. If I’m thinking this way, and you’re thinking this way, how many people are getting ready to pull their dough and stuff it in a mattress? And how many bank execs read this site and get it?

 
Comment by climber
2007-02-12 10:28:24

There are online bank rating compnaines (bauer financial is one). I try to keep my money out of banks rated at less than 4 out of 5 (stars or whatever). I also have a number of banks, I don’t trust just one.

 
Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2007-02-12 10:49:03

Is there a way to determine how much a particular bank holds in RE loans or MBS?

 
Comment by SunsetBeachGuy
2007-02-12 10:56:06

Bankrate.com has bank strength ratings for free.

I had accounts with WAMU and pulled them for a local regional bank that makes very few RE loans.

If you are in So Cal (Long Beach and Orange County), try http://www.fmb.com

 
Comment by tcm_guy
2007-02-12 11:18:40

About a year ago I simply walked into my bank asking for an interest only mortgage. They told me the only kindas mortgages they do are the traditional fixed. So now I know this is a safe bank. :-)

I also have a Federal (short term bond) Money Market with a very low expense ratio (about 0.26%) that is now paying about 5%. American Century, Fidelity, Vanguard, these (and others) r purdy good.

 
Comment by Chip
2007-02-12 18:50:35

I’m in Bank of America and two state banks that profess to have low mortgage-loan exposure. If things pucker up too much, I’ll move the small-bank money to B of A and SunTrust (a large Florida bank, very solid AFAIK) and maybe a credit union or two.

As I understand it, you are covered for at least $200K if you’re married and have the money in the bank in a joint account. There is some hocus-pocus about even broader coverage, but then you run into your original question of how quickly that money would be replaced.

 
 
Comment by WT Economist
2007-02-12 09:55:58

“We anticipate somewhere between 12 percent and 15 percent of our loans will be affected. But we feel that’s the right loans to lose if they won’t be with us a year from now anyway.”

I guess they aren’t planning to collect the fee and sell the loan anymore.

At this point no one in their right mind would buy these 20s fronting 80s with subprime borrowers and ARMs using their own money. But what about using my money? What about using pension fund money? Everyone raised their expected annual return and cut their contributions, so they have to find something to invest in that can promise that higher rate of return. Not deliver, mind you, just promise long enough for the decisionmaker to retire themself and get out clean.

Comment by jerry from richardson
2007-02-12 10:13:38

That’s why you shouldn’t depend on pensions. They are the worst retirement vehicle. You have absolutely no control over your pension. Many pension funds are now investing in highly leveraged hedge funds.

Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 10:50:15

“…now investing in…”

Not to mention toxic MBS…

 
Comment by tcm_guy
2007-02-12 11:23:18

This is part of the reason that I switched from W2 to Cap Gains. By opting out of pensions and social security you gain more control of your own destiny.

Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 12:11:20

You also opt out of the target source of wealth transfers from Main Street to Wall Street.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Chip
2007-02-12 18:55:29

“Not deliver, mind you, just promise long enough for the decisionmaker to retire themself and get out clean.”

I saw that personally when a family member’s neighbor retired from his S&L on a super-healthy pension, just before the Savings and Loan bust. In effect, he’s still living well on those savers’ lost savings.

 
 
Comment by Jenny
2007-02-12 10:00:21

Where not to buy for the next year or so. This is on cnn.

http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/biz2/newrules_wherenot/6.html

Comment by flatffplan
2007-02-12 10:05:12

ever been to bridgeport ct ?
= dead honkey

 
Comment by paladin
2007-02-12 10:43:47

Yee haw. Top 8 in Northern California, plus Reno & LV.

 
Comment by Auntie Christina
2007-02-13 02:11:13

For the bubble-proof markets, the CNN site listed Boston as fourth most bubble-proof out of only five cities, citing this reason:
“Boston had the strongest wage growth of these cities through the tech bust and jobless recovery. Over the next five years, it will have the highest per capita income, next to San Francisco.”

I hope that doesn’t hold true for the rest of our state, because Boston’s already high prices are a bargain compared to some of our towns farther inland. Even thirty miles inland, we have median home prices approaching $500,000 in many of our towns. Of course the medians in some towns are much higher than that, but most of our towns’ medians fall between $300,000 and $500,000. Farther west, they fall below $300,000.

Since our home prices are so unbearably high here, I wonder why there aren’t more visitors to this site from Mass.

 
 
Comment by tweedle-dee (not dumb...)
2007-02-12 10:25:13

Its so funny to see these companies fail now and the media pick up on it. Like you first figured this out this week ? Man, you could see this coming from miles away. All the signs were there ! Its worse than people buying pets.com for $100 a share and expecting it to go to $200 !

But nobody it talking about the KEY thing yet… when the end buyers of MBSes refuse to buy them at any price ! I don’t understand who is buying this worthless paper ! Don’t they read ? How does one buy a bond that has a 12% default rate ? How can that have any value at all ? Its worse than a junk bond !

There is another level of fallout yet to happen on the mortgage side of this story.

Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 10:49:07

“How does one buy a bond that has a 12% default rate ?”

Normally with a yield that prices in a 12% risk premium.

 
Comment by ed in texas
2007-02-12 10:55:39

A lot of people are in MBS’s that don’t know it. I was checking through my 401k last month, doing the details. Money I’d set in govt bonds (Federated Government Bond Fund) had changed it’s load formula; No bonds at all, just MBS’s. I sold it all…I’ll take cash.

 
Comment by tcm_guy
2007-02-12 11:28:47

“All the signs were there !”

Signs Signs
Everywhere there’s signs
Blocking up the scenery
Breaking my mind
Do this, don’t do that
Can’t you read the sign?

 
 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 10:47:30

“It was bound to happen sooner or later, an out-of-the-blue reminder that the froth or the boom or the disconnect between prices and fundamentals in the housing market would have a financial after-shock.”

To all members of the REIC who have repeatedly assured us all that the housing market problems were minor, a soft landing is on the way, the rest of the economy will be unaffected, and a recovery will happen in the next few months, I TOLD YOU SO! 8)

Comment by lalaland
2007-02-12 11:41:04

Yes, and I’ll add a “neener neener neener” to that “I told you so.”

Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 12:07:35

Is there a blog smiley that shows an outstretched tongue and waving fingers aside of thumbs inserted into both ears?

 
 
 
Comment by Boltar
2007-02-12 10:51:45

Not to beat a dead horse…well, why not?!
I’m also waiting for the MSM to report on the status of expected HELOC volume for 2007. The cookie jar that that kept j6p consumer humming along after dot.com is having it’s lid put back on. There was a big drop in 06′ from 05′ and I can only imagine this year will be much much worse.
Just on that basis alone, isn’t Mr. Economy in for a fuggly 07′?

 
Comment by SeattleMoose
2007-02-12 10:53:48

Continual bubbles, like continual wars, create opportunity.

And if you are the one creating the opportunity via your puppet (Greenspan), you profit.

Meanwhile you herd the cattle to the slaughter via the media, which you also control.

Oh. And somebody has to be the loser. That would be us.

Simple.

 
Comment by Mike_in_Fl
2007-02-12 11:14:30

Incidentally, the latest monthly RealtyTrac foreclosure report just came out for January. FCs up 19% month-on-month from December to 130,511. That’s the bigget MOM gain since August 2006. That said, the year-over-year increase was down to +25.1% from +34.9%. The biggest YOY increase in any given month was November 2006 (+68.1%)

 
Comment by emcee
2007-02-12 11:18:03

Here’s a topic : how will the virtual negam income phenomenon play out? Lenders record the amount added to the principal as income. It would seem these are the most likely loans to default.

Which lenders/MBS holders/CDS issuers are most exposed to negam loans?

Comment by P'cola Popper
2007-02-12 11:37:34

Downey (DSL) is pretty big in negam loans.

Someone posted up a medium size Florida bank late last summer that was HUGE into negam loans. Made Downey look like a boy scout. If anyone recalls the bank’s name please post it up!

 
Comment by Boltar
2007-02-12 11:46:01

FED is big in CA.
“The bulk of FirstFed’s income is derived from noncash earnings, largely from the deferred principal on its option ARMs. That so-called negative amortization constituted $223.9 million, or 68.4%, of the bank’s income before taxes in 2006, compared with 1.3% in 2004.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_07/b4021072.htm?campaign_id=yhoo

 
Comment by Fiver
2007-02-12 12:06:12

I’m curious about this, too. If all these lenders are heavily relying on the neg-am game to pump themselves up, then it’s precisely those boasting about the highest earnings who are really just the farthest up in this rotten tree’s branches. For them, the gap between real value and hypothetical value will be largest, and they will have farthest to fall.

I have a feeling a lot of financial geniuses are going to be surprised to learn that “The worse our borrowers perform, the more money we book!” doesn’t hold water in the long run.

Come to think of it, doesn’t every financial mania top out with a similar, vertigo-inducing contradiction with reality? People tell themselves that “Up is the new Down!” until they hit the apogee and gravity takes over.

 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 12:18:41

“how will the virtual negam income phenomenon play out?”

My hunch (just a hunch! — no data…): About as well as the Enron off-balance-sheet account phenomenon played out.

 
 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 22:53:18

‘Too many firms got involved in making loans probably motivated in part by fees,

That is an awkward explanation for an awkward situation. (How awkward of me to use awkward twice in the same sentence!)

 
Comment by GetStucco
2007-02-12 22:55:02

“Only three years ago, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said homeowners could have saved a heck of a lot of money had they opted for adjustable-rate mortgages during the past decade.”

He was right, regarding the past decade. But this decade is different.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post