Coming Soon: More Foreclosures

More than 1.7 million homeowners were verging on foreclosure this fall, making it likely that these houses will soon end up on the market one way or the other, driving down overall housing values.

“We’re going to be dealing with high levels of distressed (sales) in the marketplace for at least a couple of years,” says Mark Fleming, chief economist of researcher First American CoreLogic, which has been studying the problem.

Some real estate practitioners say they fear that this onslaught is coming.

“We’ve been in recovery mode for most of the year. How many foreclosures do they have to dump on the market to affect that? I don’t know,” says Deborah Farmer, owner of StarLight Realty in Tampa, Fla. “Any house priced under $225,000 will be affected by a large increase in foreclosures in this market.”

Source: Associated Press, Alan Zibel (12/17/2009)

What Would Happen if the Dollar Had a Strong Surge in Value?

For the last few months, I’ve been a regular reader of John Mauldin’s Weekly E-Letter and each week, John’s writing gets me thinking about important financial topics. This week is not different.

In this week’s letter, John wrote about some of the potential effects of a sustained low interest rate environment. As most folks are well aware, rates have been low for some time now, and when that happens, combined with the Fed’s stated desire to keep them low for some time yet, speculation can rum rampant.

For example, for many years investors have borrowed money in Japan and invested in the US. In Japan, where rates are low, they can borrow cheaply and then invest that money is risk assets (stocks, bonds, real estate securities) here in the US.

The net effect of this transaction, which is called a “carry trade” is that risk assets in the US rally strongly on the back of all the cheaply borrowed money. (A currency carry trade is a strategy in which an investor sells a certain currency with a relatively low interest rate and uses the funds to purchase a different currency yielding a higher interest rate. A trader using this strategy attempts to capture the difference between the rates, which can often be substantial, depending on the amount of leverage used.)

The key aspect of a carry trade to understand is that when the currency of the country from which you’ve borrowed goes up, your profits, due to extensive use of leverage, can vaporize in a heartbeat. This is what happened in when the world hit the credit crisis last year. There was a huge demand for (safe) dollars, so all the money that was borrowed in yen was paid back and the yen was driven higher.

The same situation is now afoot in the US. It would appear that investors and funds are borrowing cheap dollars (see chart below) on a short-term basis and investing in all sorts of risk assets. Not only have stock markets risen, but so have high-yield bonds, commodities, and so on.

rate_chart-1

Look at this story from Bloomberg:

“Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) — The decline of the dollar and decisions in the U.S. not to raise interest rates have caused “huge” speculation in foreign exchange trading and seriously affected global asset prices, said Liu Mingkang, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission.”

“The continuous depreciation in the dollar, and the U.S. government’s indication, that in order to resume growth and maintain public confidence, it basically won’t raise interest rates for the coming 12 to 18 months, has led to massive dollar arbitrage speculation,” he told reporters in Beijing today at the International Finance Forum.

“Liu said this has ‘seriously affected global asset prices, fuelled speculation in stock and property markets, and created new, real and insurmountable risks to the recovery of the global economy, especially emerging-market economies.’

“His view echoes that of Donald Tsang, the chief executive of Hong Kong, who said the Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping interest rates near zero is fueling a wave of speculative capital that may cause the next global crisis.”

“‘I’m scared and leaders should look out,’ Tsang said in Singapore Nov. 13. ‘America is doing exactly what Japan did last time,’ he said, adding that Japan’s zero interest rate policy contributed to the 1997 Asian financial crisis and U.S. mortgage meltdown.”

What this all boils down to is this: If world trade picks up, as it appears to be doing, demand for dollars will increase. This could result in a very strong dollar rally, which would take equity markets down worldwide, along with other risk assets. Why? Because when the currency you are borrowing in goes rocketing up, the cost to repay your loan also goes rocketing up. This is what we call a short squeeze and it is usually very painful for those being squeezed.

For a more detailed analysis, I would suggest that you read the entire newsletter.

Broken Ankles, Holidays, and Family Visits

Those who read regularly know that on Sept 5th, I had the misfortune to break both of my ankles while riding, or should I say falling off of, my dirt bike. I’m happy to report that I’m now walking again and making steady progress with my physical therapy; albeit not as fast as I’d like. Your well-wishes have been much appreciated!

This week kicks off what I consider to be the end of the year holiday season and as such, I’ve been having friends and family come down to visit me from Canada. This week and old friend came down for some time as Disneyland and Universal studios. Setting aside the challenge of walking that far in a day with sore ankles, a great time was had. My dad and brother are coming for Christmas in a month, and as we haven’t seen each other since last year, we are all looking forward to that. Hopefully, you, dear reader, will have the same good fortune!

Your comments are always welcome,
TRD

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

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

Switch to our mobile site