News Channel Mortgage

A guest post from Frank Shump. Frank is a veteran from the financial services industry, and currently authors a blog called Thefinancecastle.com, which documents his thoughts on money matters and his adventures in self employment.

Even with bargain hunters starting to come out of the wood work and credit just barely starting to thaw out, things are still fairly bleak in the real estate market. Home prices saw a record decline in the third quarter, with foreclosures doing the most damage. Bailout money has been plentiful, from the $350 billion spent so far to help struggling financial institutions to Freddie Mac eating such huge losses that it had to tap taxpayer money already. What about struggling mortgage owners, though? The government has clearly stated that they aim to help out the homeowners too, but how will Uncle Sam decide who will get the helping hand? That answer may not come easy.

The Bush administration recently announced a new foreclosure prevention program that aims to help troubled borrowers and keep them in their homes. The plan, spearheaded by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has worked with a coalition of lenders, servicers, investors and community groups called Hope Now to target the “most-at-risk” homeowners. Who does that mean specifically?

At present, Fannie and Freddie are looking to extend aid to homeowners that are more than three months past due on their loans so that the most troubled borrowers get the most immediate attention. You’ll have to jump through a few hoops, of course, including having to write a “hardship letter” to explain why you fell behind on your payments for a “good reason.” Good reasons could or could not include job loss, divorce, and medical bills. Borrowers will also have precious little equity in their homes, and if you exceed the mortgage balance by more than 10%, you’re too “well off” to get help. Other homeowners are so far deep underwater that there’s no way to pull them out. If you were already up to your eyeballs in debt and then lost your job for example, you’re out of luck there, too. Prepare for bankruptcy and giving up your home.

Lenders participating in the program will be sending out letters to those who qualify and requesting information like pay stubs and bills and the aforementioned hardship letters. If you’re busting your ass to keep your mortgage current, don’t expect anything but a hefty tax bill somewhere down the line.

Share This

A guest post from Frank Shump. Frank is a veteran from the financial services industry, and currently authors a blog called Thefinancecastle.com, which documents his thoughts on money matters and his adventures in self employment.

Thus far, all indications seem to lead us to believe that the Federal Reserve can solve economic problems by throwing massive amounts of money at it. From lowering interest rates from 1 percent from 4.25 percent this year, to putting billions of dollars into the commercial paper markets in order to stimulating lending, to the $700 billion financial bailout that’s constantly shifted from a package aimed squarely at aiding struggling financial institutions to helping out consumer debt firms as well. With all of this money being tossed around and historic, unprecedented actions taken place, is there anything at all left that the Federal Reserve can do to stop us from going into a recession? According to Kansas City Federal Reserve President Thomas Hoenig, no, no there is not.

“The Fed has done about as much as it can do, we might put it out there, but banks are not able to, given their own capital constraints, able to lend as aggressively.” If Hoenig is right on the mark with that statement, and the recession continues to worsen, then there isn’t much more that the Fed can do to help us out of it. If and when it comes to it, we’re just going to have to suck it up and continue to tighten the belt.

Unfortunately that certainly isn’t the answer that automakers in the U.S. want to hear. Talks between congressional Democrats and the Bush administration seemed to be bottoming out recently. Democrats in the Senate insisted that they’ll try and allocate a portion of the bailout to pay for loans to the industry, but talks have been ground out to a stalemate, and they don’t have the votes to do so without that support. Republicans, for their part, believe that the $25 billion loan should actually come from a loan program previously approved to help them develop more fuel-efficient vehicles.

That could change when Obama takes office, however. The Bush administration recently told top lawmakers that half of the $700 billion bailout fund will not go anywhere before Obama takes office. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will leave $350 billion left over for when Obama takes office and his administration will be able to decide how the rest of it should be spent. You can be sure that this could change the state of negotiations to have that portion of the bailout.

With the second largest economy in the world heading into an official recession as well, it’s probably best to start preparing yourself now. If things continue to get worse, there won’t be much that the Fed, or anyone, will be able to do to stop it from running it’s course.

Share This

A guest post from Frank Shump. Frank is a veteran from the financial services industry, and currently authors a blog called Thefinancecastle.com, which documents his thoughts on money matters and his adventures in self employment.

I guess it’s not all that surprising given the increasing number of foreclosures across the nation over the past few months, but the FDIC officially came out with detailed plans as to how the government will come to the rescue of delinquent borrowers. The announcement was made earlier today by FDIC Chairwoman Shella Bair, and caught a number of experts off guard.

Apparently, the proposal is built upon 2 crucial points. The first is that housing payments on delinquent borrowers two months or more late would be reduced to 31% of gross monthly income. How do they intend to do that? By setting mortgage rates lower for awhile…possibly as low as 3% for five years. Loan terms are also likely to be extended to as long as 40 years (so you’ll be dead before you actually own your home…?). In addition, the FDIC will “encourage” servicers to participate as well, as the government would share 50% of the losses if the borrower they help still doesn’t pay up and ends up defaulting anyhow.. is this really what it’s come to? The FDIC will also start paying servicers who process mortgages $1,000 for reworking loan terms to keep homeowners in their homes and to prevent additional foreclosures. The cost? An estimated $24.4 billion, which will come from the $700 billion bailout program that Congress approved in the previous month. The FDIC also released a statement Friday stressing the importance of reducing foreclosures: “It is imperative to provide incentives to achieve a sufficient scale in loan modifications to stem the reductions in housing prices and rising foreclosures.”

So..if delinquent homeowners are getting a piece of the bailout, what about everyone who happens to pay their mortgage on time and live within their means? Will they get a check in the mail to say hey thanks for doing a good job with your finances..sorry you have to eat trillions of dollars in debt over the coming years? The bailout’s focus has been constantly expanding, and there’s been no shortage of people and organizations lining up for their “share.” The mayors of Philadelphia, Phoenix, and San Jose among others have already requested that cities be added to the bailout list as well.

So that means for the bailout candidates list we have banks, delinquent home owners, credit car companies, failing U.S. Automakers, insurance companies, and cities (I’m sure I missed some).

Everyone except the average taxpayer.

Share This

A guest post from Constantine von Hoffman, veteran business journalist and author of the blog CollateralDamage.biz, a humorous look at marketing, business and his dog.

In a time of economic crisis, where every moment brings more bad/alarming news, what does it mean that we are essentially in a holding pattern for the next two months?

Many people are concerned this will mean a continuation of the Paulson strategy of throwing good money after bad. (“Am I the only one worried that by the time Obama is sworn in on January 20th, the Paulson Treasury will have run through almost a trillion dollars to little or no effect?) Currently there are attempts to qualify GM as a bank so it can get a cut of the bailout money (LOL!!!). A similar request by GE makes more sense to me because GE is a well-run company. Several large cities are also making requests for funds. Personally, I’d give funds to Wasilla before I’d hand a dime to GM.

Still others think that Paulson and the Congress will take this moment to do nothing — and that’s a good thing. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe thinks this is such a good thing that he wants to legislate a freeze on the remaining bailout cash. (Inhofe’s willingness to rip Paulson a new one is a great indicator of how the Bushies are closer to dead-duck instead of merely being lame: Senator Inhofe suggests Paulson “may have given the [bailout] money to his friends.”)

The last major outbreak of government stasis — when Gingrich et al. shut down the government and kept passing level-funding resolutions for all departments — certainly resulted in a lot of good things. It got us our long-departed budget surplus. It got us the truly amusing Monica-gate (remember when we thought that stuff was important? Ahh, the good old days.) And it showed us exactly what a wiener Gingrich was. A bipartisan win! Of course times were different then. We weren’t in two wars and a “recession”. Tax revenues were rolling in and not spending them meant putting money in the bank.

This time it is difficult to see maintaining the status quo as a good thing. Despite swearing that he wouldn’t reat this money as a blank check and just spend it on whatever he wanted to, Mr. Paulson has done just that. Even so, doing nothing is probably a bigger risk. Taking minimal action was how we wound up with the Great Depression, after all.

Fortunately, the Bushies and the GOP are against bailing out the auto industry. Also, I am not particularly worried about the proposed bailout of the auto industry in this rump session. If Congress even manages to pass the clearly needed extension on unemployment, it will be nothing short of a miracle. Sadly, my hopes diminish with the next congress.

What is clear is that it is time to shorten the time from the end of an election to when the new regime takes over. We’ve done it before. Originally inauguration day was March 4th. It clearly needs to be moved up to at least Jan. 1.

Share This

I’m afraid many of the New World Order conspiracy theories will have to be laid to rest after this weekend’s G20 meeting. Worldwide coordination of anything other than a rate cut here and there will never fly. Not even the power of the dark side is sufficient to get substantive agreement among the G20. So, what came out of this weekend’s meeting? Pretty much nothing But, you ask, no new world currency, no new North American currency, no revaluation of the price of gold, no renegotiation of trade agreements, no dropping the US$ as the world’s reserve currency? Nope, nothing. However, based on their recent track record, this was probably the best outcome.

Telling It Like It Is

Last week I said the economy was going through deflation. That was just a trial balloon and an attempt at being PC. We’re entering into a depression. Things are a lot worse than underwater mortgages and SUVs losing trade-in value.

“The economy faces a slump deeper than the Great Depression and a growing deficit threatens the credit of the United States itself,” former Goldman Sachs chairman John Whitehead, 86, said at the Reuters Global Finance Summit on Wednesday. “I think it would be worse than the depression,” Whitehead said. “We’re talking about reducing the credit of the United States of America, which is the backbone of the economic system.” When you’re 86 years old and Social Security and Medicare’s got your back, why mince words.

Here’s what another senior citizen, George Soros, has to say, “Our greatest economic depression is ahead of us.”

One more retiree, Warren Buffet, in September said, “This is an economic Pearl Harbor. There’s no plan B for this . . . we were at the brink of something that would have made anything that happened in financial history pale.” (Pale by comparison . . . finish your sentences Warren).

Former Fed chairman Paul Volker, a downright New Age positive thinker by the standards of this group, says, “There’s a 75% chance of financial collapse within the next five years.”

From academia: “The United States is bankrupt. Our economic situation is worse than Brazil, worse than Argentina, worse than any nation in the world,” according to Professor Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University. I never heard of this guy before, but he’s got a way with words. And from government service: “When we look back 10 years from now, we will see 2008 as a fundamental financial rupture,” says Peer Steinbruck, Financial Minister of Germany.

Associated Press on Friday reported that the mayors of Philadelphia, Atlanta, San Jose, and Phoenix are requesting bailouts. They’ll have to get in line behind the entire state of California, NYC, Chicago, Detroit, and LA.

There are a few bright spots, though; gun sales are one of them. The FBI reports that gun sales increased 13% in October and had a huge 49% spike in the first six days following the election. Hurry and get yours before supplies run out.

It’s time to prepare for hard times. There are a number of lists of “100 Things that Disappear First.” Google one that addresses your lifestyle and climate. Many of these items, like manual can openers, make good stocking stuffers. By the way, no Gift Cards this year. Gift cards are not yet guaranteed by the FDIC. If the store goes out of business, that’s the end of the gift card. Same thing with product maintenance contracts.

Share This

One of the terms that veterans of the stock market often use to describe buying patterns is ‘smart money.’ Smart money refers to buyers who are informed, intuitive, and quick enough to anticipate market trends before they actually occur. Conversely, the term ‘dumb’ money is the money from buyers who rush in after the boom occurs, and get stuck holding assets that are worth less than they paid for them in the first place. The relationship between smart money and dumb money is a natural part of any speculative market, and is as old as time. Ironically, a smart investor can easily become dumb money when the market turns against him.

Nowhere was this more evident than in the housing market. The problem with the housing market is that while it was a speculative market for many, a large amount of buyers simply regarded it in the same way that they would regard a car. The mindset of these buyers was that housing, like food and clothing, was a fundamental need. As a result, many of these people assumed that whatever price they were able to negotiate and afford for their house must have been a reasonable one. They planned on living in their houses for an extended period of time, perhaps even the life of the loan. Sure, they might occasionally withdraw equity from the house, but only in cases of need and importance: things like college tuition, home improvement, or paying down other debt. All of these seemed reasonable, since home values would always go up in the long run, right?

But even though the paradigm of rising home values is still intact over the long-term, no one had considered the possibility of a severe short-term decline in home values. Unfortunately, that is precisely what has happened over the last year and a half. Suddenly, a huge swath of people suddenly seemed like dumb money. What separates dumb money from smart money, of course, is the ability to react constructively and profitably to a negative situation.

So I spoke with a veteran real estate agent (of 30 years, no less!) last week, to get her opinion on what be smart money might be doing in these market conditions. In no uncertain terms, she said both herself and her colleagues believe that the market is not anywhere near its trough. A true rebound, she said, would only occur when prices dropped far enough that credit-worthy first-time buyers would feel comfortable making purchases. These would be the buyers who fit into the profile I mentioned above, who regard housing first as a necessity, and second as a long-term investment.

These people weren’t quite the same as the smart money I had in mind, so I clarified my line of questioning.

“The people with money to spend, who know how to spend it…what are they doing right now? Are they just waiting on the sidelines, or have they started to brave the waters again?”

With that definition, she immediately knew who I was referring to. She pointed me to a few recent statistics, conveniently located on a website she frequents.

“You’ll see that it shows a [5.5%] rise in existing-home sales, but an 11.5% drop in new-home sales,” she commented. “Now think about it…does that seem rational?”

Of course, those numbers, indicating a huge spread, do not seem reasonable in the least. I told her so.

She explained the discrepancy by saying that “What it means is you have banks who are just beyond desperate to get rid of these, and are willing to do so in any way they can.”

As she said this, I realized that I had my answer. “So smart money could be hedging the values on their own properties by swooping in on foreclosures and short sales.” Yes, I said it more as a statement than as a question.

She responded with a characteristically Midwestern aphorism (she is originally from Nebraska, I discovered). “I can’t say for sure, but I’m pretty sure. So take that and two dollars, and buy yourself a cup of coffee.” I took her advice, and took a walk to my neighborhood Starbucks that evening.

The next day I discovered during a meeting at my office that my manager was considering making a hedge play on her own real estate property. She lives in a three-bedroom condo about twenty minutes from Los Angeles (by my estimation, probably worth around $600,000), but shared with us that she was strongly considering buying either a house or a condo in San Diego.

Sometimes the difference between smart money and dumb money can simply be the ability to sense opportunity. As I said above, the long-term paradigm for home-ownership has not changed. Unlike tulips and tech-stocks, people will always need homes, and it logically follows that home values will always appreciate over the life of a mortgage. So when banks start accepting short-sales (as in low-ball) offers on homes, smart money sees a potential profit at a very low risk. It’s worth noting that these are not the flippers, who so famously created artificial levels of demand in the housing market that contributed to the bust we are all suffering through. These are shrewd individuals with high credit scores, who see a significant opportunity to improve their net worth over a long period of time.

It doesn’t mean that we’re in for a quick recovery. But that is logic you can’t argue with.

Share This

There was an eruption across news networks and websites earlier this week as Henry Paulson announced that the Federal bailout package, dubbed the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) would no longer function as a program to purchase troubled assets. Sparing no time to allow the irony of this to sink in, Paulson proceeded to outline what many of us have been suspecting all along. The first portion of the bailout money, approximately $260 billion, has been set aside to purchase stock in banks.This has been fittingly dubbed the Capital Purchase Program (CPP).

There are a few different ways to look at this, but it would seem that the Treasury believes that their primary goal is to ensure that survival of the American banking system, and that the best way to do this is to provide them with excess capital and allow banks to meet the demand for loans. It also would seem that the Treasury is making it up as they go along, but that’s another discussion for another day.

So what to do with all those bad, ugly subprime loans that they were going to purchase? Is there some way to make them, well, not so bad? Ah, yes, by rewriting them! The Federal Housing Finance Agency, in an almost simultaneous announcement, outlined a plan to restructure delinquent and troubled mortgages held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Homeowners would have the terms of their loan adjusted as follows: payments could not exceed 38% of their household income, the maturity date of the loan could be extended to 40, rather than 30 years, and a portion of the loan principle could be deferred.

I won’t bother to elaborate on the philosophical quandaries presented by this proposal, but rather I will focus on the issues of practicality. First, the fact is that only 20% of the subprime mortgages in America are owned by Fannie and Freddie. Second, of that 20%, only a fraction are actually the whole loans. Since loans have been chopped up, bundled, and sold in fractional shares to investors, any one of those investors could stop the loan modification from going through.

But then why would those investors want to block the restructuring? After all, doesn’t that help them retain the value of their investment? Well, yes and no. Most of those investors are not individual retail investors, but rather are institutional investors, such as banks, investment banks, trusts, hedge funds, etc. That means that in addition to holding the mortgage backed security, they also own the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) tied to that security, and more likely than not have also probably issued a CDO or two (or several) on that security. So whereas with a traditional investment in a security, you have a winning bet and a losing bet, with mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, you could have one winning bet, but multiple losing bets. Michael Lewis, the celebrated author of the Wall Street classic “Liar’s Poker,” describes the situation succinctly in this article.

Let’s not forget that additionally, from the perspectives of homeowners, it would exacerbate the plunge in home values across the country, and could potentially encourage non-delinquent homeowners to stop paying their mortgage in hopes of a loan modification.

Is it any wonder that we’re in this mess?

Share This

A guest post from Frank Shump. Frank is a veteran from the financial services industry, and currently authors a blog called Thefinancecastle.com, which documents his thoughts on money matters and his adventures in self employment.

From its inception, the primary focus of the $700 billion bailout package was on businesses or, more importantly, banks and financial institutions. The plan was aimed at providing financial support to a system that had ceased to function properly, with credit markets freezing up and firms gasping for the additional capital they needed with no one willing to give it to them. Of course once the government gave them that capital it’s been having a hard time persuading them to lend it out again. Still, it appears that the Treasury is ready to broaden the bailout’s goals and provide assistance to an entirely new demographic: Consumer debt.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came out today to let us know that Uncle Sam would not only be bailing out banks and other troubled lenders, but is going to (attempt) some rescuing of consumer debt firms as well. This “second stage” of the bailout, as it’s being called, officials are hoping to bring in some private money as well, which would give the bailout efforts more weight. In a surprising change in focus, Paulson said that the government will no longer be planning to buy troubled mortgage assets, which was its original intention, but will continue to examine ways to help homeowners so that they can somehow stem the tsunami of foreclosures that’s appeared in recent months to be gaining momentum.

Paulson noted that “Although the financial system has stabilized, both banks and non-banks may well need more capital given their troubled asset holdings, projections for continued high rates of foreclosures and stagnant U.S. and world economic conditions, “Second, the important markets for securitizing credit outside of the banking system also need support,” he said. “Approximately 40 percent of U.S. consumer credit is provided through securitization of credit card receivables, auto loans and student loans and similar products. This market, which is vital for lending and growth, has for all practical purposes ground to a halt.”

What this means is that the Treasury will not be aiming efforts at loosening up another important aspect of our economy: consumer spending. These consumer finance companies that he mentioned are the ones who provide us with car loans, student loans, and credit cards. Much like investors don’t want securities that are backed by mortgages anymore, they’ve lumped investments backed by other loans into that pack as well, and so firms like American Express are having some trouble getting the funding they desperately need.

The thinking is that by providing them with capital, they’ll once again begin lending out to consumers, which should get us to spend more and help support the economy. Then again that was the idea when they bailed out the banks, too, and getting them to start lending again has been much akin to pulling teeth. As a result there’s been a good amount of criticism that these banks are using the money for their own purposes rather than helping struggling homeowners and the overall economy. What’s stopping consumer lending firms from doing the same?

Share This

A guest post from Frank Shump. Frank is a veteran from the financial services industry, and currently authors a blog called Thefinancecastle.com, which documents his thoughts on money matters and his adventures in self employment.

From its inception, the primary focus of the $700 billion bailout package was on businesses or, more importantly, banks and financial institutions. The plan was aimed at providing financial support to a system that had ceased to function properly, with credit markets freezing up and firms gasping for the additional capital they needed with no one willing to give it to them. Of course once the government gave them that capital it’s been having a hard time persuading them to lend it out again. Still, it appears that the Treasury is ready to broaden the bailout’s goals and provide assistance to an entirely new demographic: Consumer debt.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came out today to let us know that Uncle Sam would not only be bailing out banks and other troubled lenders, but is going to (attempt) some rescuing of consumer debt firms as well. This “second stage” of the bailout, as it’s being called, officials are hoping to bring in some private money as well, which would give the bailout efforts more weight. In a surprising change in focus, Paulson said that the government will no longer be planning to buy troubled mortgage assets, which was its original intention, but will continue to examine ways to help homeowners so that they can somehow stem the tsunami of foreclosures that’s appeared in recent months to be gaining momentum.

Paulson noted that “Although the financial system has stabilized, both banks and non-banks may well need more capital given their troubled asset holdings, projections for continued high rates of foreclosures and stagnant U.S. and world economic conditions, “Second, the important markets for securitizing credit outside of the banking system also need support,” he said. “Approximately 40 percent of U.S. consumer credit is provided through securitization of credit card receivables, auto loans and student loans and similar products. This market, which is vital for lending and growth, has for all practical purposes ground to a halt.”

What this means is that the Treasury will not be aiming efforts at loosening up another important aspect of our economy: consumer spending. These consumer finance companies that he mentioned are the ones who provide us with car loans, student loans, and credit cards. Much like investors don’t want securities that are backed by mortgages anymore, they’ve lumped investments backed by other loans into that pack as well, and so firms like American Express are having some trouble getting the funding they desperately need.

The thinking is that by providing them with capital, they’ll once again begin lending out to consumers, which should get us to spend more and help support the economy. Then again that was the idea when they bailed out the banks, too, and getting them to start lending again has been much akin to pulling teeth. As a result there’s been a good amount of criticism that these banks are using the money for their own purposes rather than helping struggling homeowners and the overall economy. What’s stopping consumer lending firms from doing the same?

Share This

A guest post from Constantine von Hoffman, veteran business journalist and author of the blog CollateralDamage.biz, a humorous look at marketing, business and his dog.

At this point in the economic down-turn there’s really only one question on most of our minds: How can I become a commercial bank or an automaker?

My old friend Helen Kennedy put it succinctly in The New York Daily News: “Two more pillars of the American economy are coming to Washington hat in hand: American Express and Detroit’s Big Three. The struggling New York-based credit giant reportedly wants a $3.5 billion bailout. American Express got permission to become a bank holding company this week, making it eligible for a piece of the $700 billion bailout.”

The Federal Reserve gets to make the decision about who gets to be a bank. Since the Fed has already decided to leave us all holding the bag for bank companies, it seems only fitting that we should also get a chance at being a bank holding company as well.

Use the following checklist to see if you qualify:

• Do you need to cut borrowing costs?
• Are your main sources of funding in danger of going away?
• Do you need access to government money?
• Has your inability to get credit endangered your fiscal health?
• Would the ability to issue government-backed bonds keep you solvent?
• Are you willing to take deposits from both consumers and companies?
• Is your current role in the financial system mostly watching your investments lose money?

If you answered yes to all these questions then CONGRATULATIONS!!! You clearly meet all the essential qualifications needed to be a bank holding company.

Not sure of all that it takes to become an American car company but I do know I can fulfill one of the basic obligations: I guarantee no one will want to buy a car I build.

Share This

« Previous entries