Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Exotic Loan Problems 'Inevitable': WSJ

The Wall Street Journal reports on the 'exotic' loan business. "Oil prices are rising, economic growth slowing, housing sales faltering, consumers weakening and earnings outlooks dimming. So stock investors have, naturally, become more optimistic. Faith burns strongly that the Federal Reserve will manage the economy perfectly. Investors seem to believe that the power of the Fed resides in the title of 'chairman,' and that infallibility is passed to the holder, papal-like." "It's possible to see this whole phenomenon in the sunny climes of southern California, home to a modest bank called FirstFed Financial Corp., a Santa Monica bank with a $1 billion stock-market value. Its main business is option adjustable-rate mortgages. Option ARMs let customers choose how much to pay each month, including a small minimum. It's just like a credit card, with the same catch: The unpaid interest is tacked onto the mortgage and the balance grows larger." "The earnings that result from such loans are squishy. Even when a customer makes only the minimum payment, a bank books the full monthly payment into earnings. But these are noncash earnings. At FirstFed, such earnings are surging. Last week, it reported that the amount of interest that customers are rolling into their mortgage balances, known as 'negative amortization', rose $25 million in the fourth quarter to $63 million for the year, up from $6 million a year earlier." "Fully 51% of FirstFed's pretax income and 41% of its net interest income was from negative amortization in the fourth quarter. Investors are blithely ignoring the inevitable problems these banks will endure with their option-ARM customers. Just yesterday, mortgage giant Countrywide Financial Corp., another seller of option ARMs, reported rising delinquencies." "The banks all say that their losses on option-ARM mortgages long have been minimal. That's true. But the California housing market hasn't gone through a boom like it just went through." "Unlike Golden West, which is famously disciplined about its lending, FirstFed doesn't use its own housing appraisers. That should be a red flag to investors. Over 80% of FirstFed's recent loans have been 'low documentation' loans, meaning they required less confirmation about whether the customer was a good risk. Through the first nine months of last year, over 13% of its mortgages were NINAs, 'no income, no assets.'" "Analyst Fred Cannon notes that the number of customers who are prepaying their loans is rising. That is good for earnings in the short-term because the penalty fees from prepayments are high. But he figures that means savvy customers who are good credit risks are prepaying now rather than face higher rates in the future. He worries those who remain are doing so because they can't afford to do otherwise, making only the low-minimum payments." "That means that, just as earnings are starting to rise, these banks are likely to need to set aside more and more for mortgages that go bad."

8 comments:

  1. Thanks to the reader who sent in the link. I'm a little surprised at the WSJ. I don't think any of these firms are banks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (Gotta add that one to the short list I am compiling)

    just added it to my marketocracy fund.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Albert 321-321, Glendale, Burbank, and LaCanada are different. Didn't you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Millionaires, luv that 401(k)

    we'll see. they seemed to have made some good decisions, but it seems they just bought a new big huge house. their mortgage is $4,000/month. I don't think they'll reach their $2 million mark as soon as they expect.

    "In 2004, with the housing market hot, they finally decided to trade up. They sold the 2200 square foot house for $680,000, more than twice what they paid for it, and bought a 4,000 square foot, six bedroom home for nearly $1 million also in McLean."

    "Over the next ten years, through a combination of continued 401(k) investment, paying off the house and stock market appreciation Han-Lin expects to double the family's assets to over $2 million."

    so sad that this bubble seems to have sent so many wrong signals and so much false hope.

    ReplyDelete
  5. mrincomestream

    I have news for you...World Savings has tightened up some lately....but they were the kings of Option-ARMs ther for quite a while.

    There were doing them down to 575 FICO there for little while. I think they are back at 600 or above....but for a while there, they were taking a TON of 'my' business. They were dipping into 'subprime' borrowers with their option ARMs. I didn't have a product to get payments that low.

    World Savings was known for getting "anything" done.

    I don't know their guidelines right now...but for a while there months ago, they were all the rage.

    SoCalMtgGuy

    Another F@CKED Borrower

    ReplyDelete
  6. As an aside... Imagine if the trillions of dollars being poured into housing had instead been poured into education, research, development, and other capital investments.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Optimistic and Albert 321-321...

    You're posts suck because they are pure anecdote...they cite no source...are neither proveable nor disproveable...and, in any event, are limited to particular neighborhoods.

    When you cite examples like... a "$1,300,000-no pool-on the market yesterday (3100 sq. ft)-no view-in escrow today. After ONE DAY"

    ...you say nothing.

    Why? Any number of reasons...
    (1) It's an unsupported assertion of fact. Blog readers know people make shit up all the time. That's why people provide links that allow independent verification.
    (2) One, two or even ten examples do not represent data that is statistically relevant to a large city, much less a the state of California.
    (3) We don't know the intrinsic value of the house to begin with. If you put a 10 million dollar house on the market for one million dollars, it'll sell in an hour. So what?

    ReplyDelete
  8. mr. d said:

    "Cutting marginal tax rates was done to stimulate supply, and it worked.

    Do you actually think our economy would be stronger if President Reagan left tax rates at 70%?

    If so, there's 25 years of evidence to the contrary.

    As for Greenspan and President Bush, they both believe growth should be our number one economic priority.

    I agree they carry on President Reagan's legacy and belief that low tax rates and low inflation are the best way to achieve that growth. And, for 25 years they've been right and the pessimists have been wrong.

    I will concede we are now totally dependent on growth at all costs. But, my point is, cutting tax rates raised revenue, so I ask, where is the cost?

    As for low rates, and excess liquidity as a means to promote growth, the cost is obvious in the rolling asset bubbles we've experienced.

    Therefore, it's clear that tax cuts are a better way to promote growth."

    *********

    Once again - let's hear it for mr. d.!

    *He* was certainly paying attention during economics 101!

    ReplyDelete