US Government Now Largest Operating Subprime Lender

How’s that for a heart-warming headline? The sad reality is that its true. The FHA is now underwriting billions in mortgage for borrowers that cannot qualify for conventional mortgages. Back in 2005, the FHA only insured 2% of mortgage underwritten by banks. Now it, or should I say the tax payer, is backing 25% of mortgages underwritten.

To illustrate the disaster that is potentially pending, 34% of the loans guaranteed by the FHA in 2007, have already gone into default only two years later.

Does anyone see a problem here?

Lets review the ingredients to what is sure to be a double-dip recession:

  1. Unemployment is still rising
  2. The banks are sitting on thousands of foreclosures with thousands more homeowners predicted to go into default in the next few years
  3. Gov’t bailouts are piling on debt faster than you can say “Uncle Sam is on Crack”

The variable in all this that remains out of our collective control is the politics. If this were a “normal” market, I’d say that hell was about to break loose any day. However, its most definitely not “normal” and FHA first time buyers are having a feeding frenzy…for now.

Like other stimulus programs, this one too has its long term consequences and one day, the tax payer is going to have to pay the piper. To see what I mean, read this.

Your comments are always welcome,
TRD

Subprime Uncle Sam

The FHA makes Countrywide Financial look prudent.

The Treasury has announced new “capital cushion” requirements for financial institutions to reduce excessive risk and prevent taxpayer bailouts. Seems sensible enough. Perhaps the Administration will even impose those safety and soundness standards on federal agencies.

One place to start is the Federal Housing Administration, the nation’s insurer of nearly $750 billion in outstanding mortgages. The agency acknowledged this month that a new but still undisclosed HUD audit has found that FHA’s cash reserve fund is rapidly depleting and may drop below its Congressionally mandated 2% of insurance liabilities by the end of the year.

[1fha]

At a 50 to 1 leverage ratio, the FHA will soon have a smaller capital cushion than did investment bank Bear Stearns on the eve of its crash. (See nearby table.) Its loan delinquency rate (more than 30 days late in payments) is now above 14%, or from two to three times higher than on conventional mortgages. Its cash reserve ratio has fallen by more than two-thirds in three years.

The reason for this financial deterioration is that FHA is underwriting record numbers of high-risk mortgages. Between 2006 and the end of next year, FHA’s insurance portfolio will have expanded to $1 trillion from $410 billion. Today nearly one in four new mortgages carries an FHA guarantee, up from one in 50 in 2006. Through FHA, the Veterans Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers now guarantee repayment on more than 80% of all U.S. mortgages. Sources familiar with a new draft HUD report on FHA’s worsening balance sheet tell us that the default rates have risen most rapidly on the most recent loans, i.e., those initiated or refinanced in 2008 and 2009.

All of this means the FHA is making a trillion-dollar housing gamble with taxpayer money as the table stakes. If housing values recover (fingers crossed), default rates will fall and the agency could even make money on its aggressive underwriting. But if housing prices continue their slide in states like Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada—where many FHA borrowers already have negative equity in their homes—taxpayers could face losses of $100 billion or more.

So far Congress has pretended that these liabilities don’t exist because they are technically “off budget.” They stay invisible until they move on-budget when a Fannie Mae-type cash bailout is needed. The Obama Administration is at least finally catching on to these perils and last week proposed some modest reforms. These include appointing a “chief risk officer” at FHA, tightening home appraisals, requiring that FHA lenders have audited financial statements, and increasing the capital requirement of FHA lenders to $1 million up from $250,000. The scandal is that these basic standards weren’t in place years ago.

Unfortunately, Washington won’t touch more significant reforms for fear of angering the powerful nexus of Realtors, mortgage bankers and home builders. As we’ve written for years, the FHA’s main lending problem is that it requires neither lenders nor borrowers to have a sufficient financial stake in mortgage repayment. The FHA’s absurdly low 3.5% down payment policy, in combination with other policies to reduce up-front costs for new homebuyers, means that homebuyers can move into their government-insured home with an equity stake as low as 2.5%. The government’s own housing data prove that low down payments are the single largest predictor of defaults.

Private banks know this. Burned on subprime mortgages, they are back to requiring 10% or even 20% down payments. Congress should at least require a 5% down payment on loans that carry a taxpayer guarantee. If borrowers can’t put at least 5% down, they can’t afford the house.

As for rooting out fraud that contributes to high loss rates, the obvious solution is to drop the 100% guarantee on FHA mortgages. Why not hold banks liable for the first 10% of losses on the housing loans they originate, a reform that has been recommended since as far back as the early Reagan years? No other mortgage insurer insures 100% loan repayment. Alas, while offering its minireforms, the Obama Administration reassured its real-estate pals that FHA insurance will continue to carry “no risk to homeowners or bondholders.”

Which means all the risk is on taxpayers. David Stevens, the FHA commissioner, nonetheless declared this month: “There will be no taxpayer bailout.” That’s also what Barney Frank said about Fannie and Freddie.

Staying in the Shadows for Years to Come

On September 2nd the current foreclosure moratorium was to be lifted, according to my friend at the Bank of America.  Interestingly enough, the BofA was already exempt from the moratorium, and despite that, they’ve been loathed to add to their REO inventory, much less sell any of it.

In the circles I swim in, the conventional wisdom is that the shadow inventory (houses that are now REO but not yet for sale on the MLS) has to be released to the market at some point, and, when that happens, prices are going to continue to decline at least another 10%. A basic understanding of economics would suggest that 10% is not unreasonable, give the sheer (rumored) amount of the shadow inventory.

I have to admit though, that I’m now starting to think “at some point” will never happen, and that the banks are going to continue to parcel out the REO inventory in dribs and drabs for years to come.

Why?

There are a number of reasons that I’m starting to change my view on this.

Leading the charge is the fact that bank CEOs like to keep their banks in business, and to do that, they need to have money to lend. If they start selling REOs in volume, prices must decline and the net result of that will be that the bank’s assets will take a huge hit. As banks capital requirements are set by the regulators, a drop in assets will mean that more reserve capital must be set aside and that will, in turn, reduce the amount of capital available for lending.

With nothing to lend, a bank is essentially out of business, and a CEO is out of a job.

Next on my list is the fact that it is probably cheaper to let a family stay in a house they aren’t making payments on, than it is to hire lawyers, go through the foreclosure process, and then be saddled with all the costs associated with insuring and maintaining an empty house. Essentially, the delinquent homeowner is a caretaker that doesn’t charge the bank anything to look after the house.

In other words, why foreclose on a ton of houses all at once, and then be saddled with massive costs, when you can just let John and Mary live there (even if they aren’t making payments), until such time as you are ready to foreclose and sell in an orderly fashion?

Given the number of REOs on the banks books now, plus the number of borrowers that go into default on a daily basis, it could take years and years to slowly bleed off all that inventory.

The net result of a controlled redistribution of these assets is that they don’t get sold at fire sale prices and the underlying market for 1st time buyers remains very healthy – even if it is artificially so. Stability, be it contrived or real, has the same net effect, increased consumer confidence – a much needed ingredient if there is to be an end to the recession.

Your comments are always welcome,
TRD

10 big banks get OK to repay $68 billion in bailout money

JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are among the banks able to return the taxpayer funds. But it’s unclear if all 10 can do so now.

By Jim Puzzanghera

9:28 AM PDT, June 9, 2009

Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration today announced it has given approval to 10 of the nation’s largest banks to repay $68 billion in government bailout money they have received to stabilize the financial system.


FOR THE RECORD: An earlier version of the headline on this article indicated that Bank of America and Wells Fargo were among the 10 banks given approval to repay government bailout money. Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. have submitted acceptable capital-raising plans, according to the Federal Reserve, but they are not among the 10 that received approval to repay bailout money.


“These repayments are an encouraging sign of financial repair, but we still have work to do,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said.

The Treasury Department, which administers the $700 billion bailout fund, did not name the banks. And it was unclear whether all the banks that have received approval to repay the money will actually do so.

But all 10 made their own announcements after Geithner’s statement.

Banks that received permission to repay the government capital are American Express Co., BB&T Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Capital One Financial Corp., Goldman Sachs Group, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Northern Trust Corp., State Street Corp. and U.S. Bancorp.

Several large financial institutions, including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, have been pushing to repay the bailout money, which many of them said they were forced to take last fall by then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Large banks have chafed at executive compensation restrictions and other strings attached to the bailout money.

More than 600 banks have received about $199 billion from the bailout fund, which was initially called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. The Obama administration has changed the name to the Capital Purchase Program. The government received preferred stock in the institutions and warrants to purchase additional stock as part of the investments. The banks also were required to pay dividends on the preferred stock, and so far the government has received $4.5 billion in such payments.

Several smaller banks already have been allowed to repay their bailout money, totaling about $1.9 billion so far. But the Obama administration has been concerned about the implications of some of the nation’s largest banks repaying their bailout money, fearing that a rush to return the money could prevent the banks from having enough capital to continue lending.

The Treasury Department, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve and other bank regulators, conducted stress tests of the 19 largest banks this spring to see if they had enough capital to withstand worse-than-expected economic conditions. Nine of the banks passed the test, but 10 others were required to raise a total of $75 billion in capital as a cushion against potential future losses on bad mortgage loans and other investments if the recession worsened.

Those banks have been working on plans to raise the money in recent weeks and faced a Monday deadline to submit those plans to the government. The Federal Reserve said Monday that the 10 banks, including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., had submitted acceptable capital-raising plans.

The Treasury Department said today that banks that repay their bailout money will have the right to repurchase the government warrants “at fair market value.”

The Financial Services Roundtable, which represents large banks, said the announcement by Geithner today showed the industry is strong.

“The financial services industry is well-capitalized,” said Steve Bartlett, the group’s president. “This is a positive sign for the industry and the economy.”

Switch to our mobile site