Fitch Projects More RMBS Re-Defaults as HAMP Disappoints

Servicers of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) continue to increase loss mitigation resolutions, including a significant push in the number of loan modifications, according to a report from Fitch Ratings.

As of September 2009, roughly 10% of all RMBS loans and 25% of all subprime loans received at least one modification. A year ago, servicers modified only 3% of all loans, and 7% of subprime loans, according to the report.

Fitch estimated a “conservative” projection of 65% to 75% of subprime delinquencies of 60 days or more that will re-default after 12 months post-modification.

“As in prior statements, market pressures to allow more aggressive [modifications], continued home price declines, and the economy’s effect on job losses factor into this projection,” according to Fitch analysts.

The projection includes re-defaults on loans that received a second and third modification after the first one failed. Roughly 11% of all modified RMBS loans received a second modification, and of the modifications done in Q308, 17% were re-modified, according to the report.

The monthly modification volume dropped from the peak in the middle of 2009, because loan modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) are not considered complete until a three-month trial finishes.

Through HAMP, the US Treasury Department allocates capped incentives to servicers for the modification of loans on the verge of foreclosure.

HAMP’s first modifications did not begin to complete the trial period until early July and are not included in the January through June 2009 results, according to the report. But cumulative modifications increased during the first half of 2009 as servicers continued non-HAMP modifications.

“Initial indications suggest the conversion from trial mod under HAMP to actual finalized
modification status has been disappointing,” according to Fitch analysts.

Through September 2009, there has been no “pick-up” in modification activity stemming from the completion of HAMP trial modifications.

According to[1] a report from the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), which reviews actions taken by the Treasury, only 1,711 of the 360,000 trial modifications started passed out of the HAMP trial period and into permanence as of September 1.

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.

A Snow Ball’s Chance in Hell

In my last post, I shared with my readers some soon-to-be-released research on the FDIC and its upcoming challenges. If you haven’t read it, you should.

In tonight’s reading I came across another significant fact worth sharing: According to the New York Times account, ” Fannie (Mae) and Freddie (Mac) now buy or guarantee almost two-thirds of all new mortgages. The Federal Housing Administration guarantees another 25 percent.”

Put another way, the Gov’t is financing 9 out of 10 new mortgages in the United States.

Hmmmm…….

With the S&P500 over 55% off its lows, one could say that the stock market has priced in a V-shaped economic recovery. Damn the torpedoes, baby!

But wait! How could this be? Is the recession really over?

Not so fast, partner!!

  1. We’ve got banks going broke, with more to come, and no money to lend in the meantime.
  2. The only reason that houses are selling at all is because the Gov’t is lending the money, plus giving 1st time buyers a free $8,000 for buying a house. (how else could houses sell with unemployment as high as it is?)
  3. And heck, if you bought a new car recently, you’d have received another $4500 as part of the cash for clunkers trade in program, also courtesy of Uncle Sam.
  4. Delinquency rates are home loans are still extremely high
  5. Oh, and did I mention there’s no jobs?

Seems to me that without all the Gov’t stimulus, GDP would be so far into the toilet, we’d be seeing the D-word instead of “The Great Recession”.

Despite this, the stock market is going no where but up. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see ANY part of this picture that says “sustainable economic recovery”.

What’s the point of this rant?

Do you honestly believe that decades of excess, speculation, and outright fiscal lunacy can honestly be undone in a year or two?

I don’t know about you, but I don’t buy it. If I was a betting man, I’d say how about a “snowball’s chance in hell?”

So what should you do if you are an investor? Same advice as yesterday:

  1. cut your living expenses to the bone
  2. raise as much cash as possible
  3. do as many seller financed purchases as possible (as seller financed deals are also the easiest to renegotiate if needed)
  4. focus on flipping short sales, as opposed to fixing & flipping REOs, because it can be done without the need to tie up any capital

Your comments are always welcome,
TRD

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

A Peferct Foreclosure Storm

I came across the following quote in my morning reading this morning, and, as I believe it to be absolutely true, thought I’d be remiss if I didn’t pass it along.

Oh, and one other item I thought I’d share was some points that were covered in a conversation I had recently with a Realtor in San Diego who does a lot of business in Rancho Santa Fe (where are the very, very expensive homes are). He told me that he is starting to see more and more million-dollar-plus price drops in that market as well as more and more of these “wealthy” owners are coming to him asking how much they could get if they sold their house in today’s market.

In other words, the super-rich appear to be starting to feel the pinch just like everybody else.

——

“If the economy is improving, do we really have millions more
foreclosures coming? According to the U.S. Treasury, the answer is
yes. In written testimony to Congress, Assistant Secretary for
Financial Institutions, Michael Barr said that, regardless of the
success of mortgage modification efforts, we should still expect
millions more foreclosures.

Mr. Barr’s testimony is certainly not welcome news for those
anticipating a significant recovery in the housing market. In fact, it
is an indication that significant recovery is still years away.

And there are other factors that confirm the fragile state of both the
economy and the housing market. Recent reports have indicated that
there are almost 3 million active, interest-only loans with a total
value of almost $1 trillion, with loans of about $500 billion set to
reset within the next 30 months. Then we have a large group of Option
Arm mortgages set to recast during the next 2 years. These loans have
a combined value of more than $125 billion.

The rising number of bankruptcies, up 36% in the second quarter over
last year, with wealthy families filing at double that rate, creates a
“perfect storm” of disastrous consequences for the housing market.
With the likely prospect of millions more foreclosures coming, home
prices and home sales will remain depressed until the market can
achieve stabilization. And achieving stabilization will be a slow and
painful process.”

—–

Your comments are always welcome,
TRD

Housing Production Dips in July as Tax Credit Expires, CBIA Announces

The story below, I believe, is further evidence that a housing recovery is yet further out than many believe.

Consider the following facts:

  1. unemployment is still very high
  2. consumer confidence is still very low
  3. the state is essentially broke
  4. last quarter’s GDP numbers were really just TARP spending
  5. Most of today’s first time buyers will be under water in 3 – 6 months as inventories inevitably rise (all those foreclosures have to be put up for sale at some point)
  6. used houses can be purchased for FAR below their replacement costs

The low end of the real estate market is on fire, to be sure; however, the only things driving it are low interest rates and an “artificial” lack of inventory. I can’t help but wonder how much longer that will last. Can you?

Your comments are always welcome,

TRD

August 24, 2009

SACRAMENTO – California homebuilders pulled back on new-home production in July as homebuyers retreated from housing markets around the state following the discontinuation of the successful homebuyer tax credit early in the month, the California Building Industry Association announced today.

“Our homebuilders reported a significant drop in traffic last month, largely due to the state closing the window on the homebuyer tax credit,” said Robert Rivinius, CBIA’s President and CEO, who noted that the Franchise Tax Board stopped taking applications for the $10,000 new-home credit at the beginning of July. “Activity stopped as quickly as it started, which is bad news for housing and the broader economy.”

more…

Switch to our mobile site