3rd Inning of MBS crisis..Hussman

RockOn

Full time employment: Posting here.
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
798
Here is what Hussman thinks, anyone see any problem with this analysis?


Quote from Hussman:
Which “inning” of the mortgage crisis are we in?
One of the fascinating aspects of Wall Street is the ability of analysts to provide opinions without the faintest backing from evidence. Among the latest topics of opinion is how far the mortgage crisis has to go. Evidently, the idea is that the recession that these analysts didn't forecast is already over, so it is time to “look across the valley” on the belief that most of the writedowns are behind us.
A good way to estimate where we are in the process of writedowns and foreclosures is to revisit the schedule of resets for adjustable rate mortgages.
wmc080414a.jpg

Source: Bank of America
The chart doesn't extend out to 2010, where another spike in resets will occur in the third quarter of that year, but it is enough to recognize that resets are only now entering the heavy period. To understand the implications of this schedule, it is important to recognize the foreclosure timeline. Once a reset occurs, it takes up to 30 days for the first payment to be missed. After 90 days of attempts to catch up on missed payments, the homeowner is served with a “Notice of Default.” It then takes another 90 days with the homeowner in default for a “Notice of Trustee Sale” to be delivered, shortly after which the property is sold in a foreclosure. In short, there is generally a span of about 6 months from reset to foreclosure, which means that we have to lag the data to get the profile of anticipated loan losses.
Fortunately, only a portion of the mortgages that reset will actually go into default, but we estimate which “inning” we are currently in by calculating the cumulative amount of mortgages that will have reset at each point in time (i.e. integrating the curve), and lagging it by 6 months (roughly the span between reset and foreclosure). That produces the following profile for the cumulative losses that can be expected:
wmc080414b.gif

Clearly, as we enter April 2008, we appear to be quite early in the mortgage crisis, with only about a quarter of the cumulative resets having occurred. That places us near the start of the third inning, where we can expect each of the nine “innings” to be about three months in duration. Unfortunately, the next three innings (quarters) are when the heavy hitters on the opposing team will come up to the plate, as the cumulative amount of resets will surge. With that surge, loan losses and foreclosures will also predictably spike higher.
Moreover, because of the bundling, securitization*, and slicing and dicing of mortgage obligations, financial companies have little ability to take the required writedowns in advance, because they don't know yet which ones will go into default. To opine that we are in some late “inning” of the mortgage problem, without reference to the reset data, is just naïve. If anything, the probable rate of foreclosure on later resets will be higher, not lower, than the earlier resets, because those later resets represent the mortgages initiated at the peak of home prices and the trough of lending standards.
 
I've seen similar data elsewhere and have to agree with you that the game has only begun. In terms of the writedowns this will likely snowball as the foreclosures lower prices creating more upside down mortgages and the cycle continues...

DD
 
One way I can see this coming to a "non-meltdown" end is if mortgage rates would come back down allowing everyone to refi again into low fixed rates. With tight moeny low rates seem to be a ways off. So far, as the Fed cuts rates, mortgage rates have hardly budged, not good.

Even if this would happen, is it really a solution or a bandaide?
 
I don't think lower rates will do anything. Most of the problem loans don't have the equity or credit scores to be refinanced. If they did, current rates are low enough to make the loans workable. The long term rates are only a point or so off of their lows anyway.

The big issue is that these loans were made with stupid low teaser rates that can't be duplicated no matter how cheap money gets.


One way I can see this coming to a "non-meltdown" end is if mortgage rates would come back down allowing everyone to refi again into low fixed rates. With tight moeny low rates seem to be a ways off. So far, as the Fed cuts rates, mortgage rates have hardly budged, not good.

Even if this would happen, is it really a solution or a bandaide?
 
I guess that I would look at it from the bright side....that all of the foreclosures wont happen all at once...;)
 
libor is around 2.75% which means the loan resets will be around 5% to 5.5% which is a lot better than 7.5% with last year's fed funds rate

those charts are old news. the big question is how many people will refi, how many will keep their loans and how long will the fed be able to keep rates this low
 
libor is around 2.75% which means the loan resets will be around 5% to 5.5% which is a lot better than 7.5% with last year's fed funds rate

those charts are old news. the big question is how many people will refi, how many will keep their loans and how long will the fed be able to keep rates this low

Wow, the blind squirrel finally stumbled across an acorn.

I totally agree with your assessment. The rate reset will be a non-event since the Fed has whacked rates. The more troubling problem is that the drop in house prices makes it more challenging for leveraged Merkins to refinance, but creative legislators, reglators, etc. seem to be working out solutions to the problem.
 
One aspect not mentioned is that the large write downs that have been done are based upon estimated value of the bond/loan - not after a loan is offically in default.
So if you have 1 billion in bonds and you estimate that 3% of the dollar value will not be collected over the life of the bond you write it down as an asset by that amount.

This is a basic principle of accounting and similar to what credit card companies do - they have a bad debt reseve (which is a different kind of write down) They establish a reserve for bad debt based upon historical defaults.

Also companies would want to do the write down of all the affected bonds now instead of over an extended period of time - it gets the bad news behind them and eliminated the question from future earnings reports.

So the information above should have been taken into account.

The issue is - did they write it down enough or too much?
So to determine where we are in the crisis is the rate of default - is it higher or lower than the percent of write down used. That is the important question.

I'm not impressed with H's analysis here or in other things posted from him.
 
Last edited:
Wow, the blind squirrel finally stumbled across an acorn.

I totally agree with your assessment. The rate reset will be a non-event since the Fed has whacked rates. The more troubling problem is that the drop in house prices makes it more challenging for leveraged Merkins to refinance, but creative legislators, reglators, etc. seem to be working out solutions to the problem.

home prices are still way to expensive

i remember in 2003 when i got married along with a friend of my wife i was talking to her husband who works in finance. back then an OK home in the NYC area outside manhattan and a few other trendy neighborhoods cost around $380,000. we both agreed it was way too much. it's still too much today i think.

michael milken of 1980's fame has found God and charity after jail and cancer. runs a non-profit think tank now.

few years back he did a study on home prices vs income. found that it fluctuated between 20% and around 40% to 45%. hit the peak twice in the last 60 years. 1981 and 2004, the last year of the study. i think no matter what the government is going to try to do we'll get a reversion to the mean which has been around 30%
 
home prices are still way to expensive

i remember in 2003 when i got married along with a friend of my wife i was talking to her husband who works in finance. back then an OK home in the NYC area outside manhattan and a few other trendy neighborhoods cost around $380,000. we both agreed it was way too much. it's still too much today i think.

michael milken of 1980's fame has found God and charity after jail and cancer. runs a non-profit think tank now.

few years back he did a study on home prices vs income. found that it fluctuated between 20% and around 40% to 45%. hit the peak twice in the last 60 years. 1981 and 2004, the last year of the study. i think no matter what the government is going to try to do we'll get a reversion to the mean which has been around 30%

Please, keep up the rambling stream of [-]nonsense[/-] consciousness, I love it.
 
One aspect not mentioned is that the large write downs that have been done are based upon estimated value of the bond/loan - not after a loan is offically in default.
So if you have 1 billion in bonds and you estimate that 3% of the dollar value will not be collected over the life of the bond you write it down as an asset by that amount.

This is a basic principle of accounting and similar to what credit card companies do - they have a bad debt reseve (which is a different kind of write down) They establish a reserve for bad debt based upon historical defaults.

Also companies would want to do the write down of all the affected bonds now instead of over an extended period of time - it gets the bad news behind them and eliminated the question from future earnings reports.

So the information above should have been taken into account.

The issue is - did they write it down enough or too much?
So to determine where we are in the crisis is the rate of default - is it higher or lower than the percent of write down used. That is the important question.

I'm not impressed with H's analysis here or in other things posted from him.


Give that man (person) a CIGAR!! Must have worked in public accounting.
 
Dex 1, Hussman 0.

Hussman's logic is flawed for the MBS market (and for CDOs derived from them), although its reasonable as far as the housing market itself is concerned. Banks can get this behind them once they get the model inputs right. (assuming they have the capital!) But the housing market will keep heading south as long as that inventory of foreclosures keeps increasing faster than buyers.
 
brewer, what's up.. why are you so nasty to al? Maybe you are analyzing tree by tree without looking at the forest as al is doing? Or maybe there is some history I'm not aware of.

There are any number of graphs tracking housing prices; this is just one set chosen at random. Ignore the discussion of one market vs. another; just look at the red lines versus the green lines.
How the Bay Area caused home prices to go up nationally… [Burbed.com]
The further away green gets from red, the more situation = bad, which you kind of acknowledge. But, no fear...

creative legislators, reglators, etc. seem to be working out solutions
The more 'creative' these people get, the more likely they could actually make things worse. There is only one SOLUTION to houses that cost too much, and that is for prices to fall. You can't legislate away the price difference unless the gov. starts buying up homes/mortgages outright. Giving $15k downpayments and other nonsense only prolongs the pain, it would seem to me. Taking an aspirin will lower the fever, but you still have to fight off the infection. Is the economy strong enough to absorb the declines? Are wages going to magically go up and start closing the red/green gap so these homes can actually get paid off? Is unemployment going down or up? Are retail stores opening or closing? Are companies hiring or laying off? Do people have savings to tide them over and keep payments up when they're between jobs? I think elsewhere you said you found prices to be unrealistic. 5-7 million people per year have been buying into, and continue to buy into.. what you call unrealistic prices; how do we make that go away?

Seeing that these assets and the loans against them are a huge part of the economy, there's no way this can't be bad news and it will get worse. That is just my humble opinion. Look at how unstable things are now.. with the decline not yet near the bottom.

As for banks "getting this behind them".. why do I still hear of "pick a payment" loans, interest-only loans, etc.? The kind of legislation that would impress me would be making interest-only loans illegal... anyone see a downside to that?
 
Last edited:
he's just sore i was right about the banks last year while he was hyping them
 
Ah, ladelfina, finally joining the Tinfoil Brigade?

House prices will fall for the next year no matter what is done. What I was referring to was actions being taken to unclog the machinery of the credit markets and not have a huge flood of foreclosed homes all hit the market at once. Part of the solution is for lenders to take some losses and restructure loans without going through the time consuming, expensive, and economically destructive process of foreclosure. But I think most of the losses have been recognized in the securitization market, based on prices for the securities and the write-downs that have been taken. Portfolio lenders (i.e. traditional banks that make and hold loans) will show increased loss provisioning for a while, but for most of them this will amount to a modest decrease in earnings that will likely be offset by other factors (drop in rates, fatter spreads, etc.) and not be a threat to capital or solvency.
 
Yes! I'm not thinking "hats".. no one wears hats. I'm more studying a tin-foil dress line to debut in Milan this spring!

images


Although depending on commodities prices I might have to substitute materials.

katiederhamPA_450x420.jpg


Portfolio lenders (i.e. traditional banks that make and hold loans) will show increased loss provisioning for a while, but for most of them this will amount to a modest decrease in earnings that will likely be offset by other factors (drop in rates, fatter spreads, etc.) and not be a threat to capital or solvency.

It's just hard for me to see this. 'Fatter spread' implies there's somewhere better to put the money to work.. is there? As for capital I don't know if it was WaMu or Wachovia that just sold shares for $7 billion or something. Sounds like banks still need more and more and more capital. Third-hand reporting on a comment thread elsewhere saying "this is great for W*** stock, since now they have more capital!!" Argh.
 
It's just hard for me to see this. 'Fatter spread' implies there's somewhere better to put the money to work.. is there? As for capital I don't know if it was WaMu or Wachovia that just sold shares for $7 billion or something. Sounds like banks still need more and more and more capital. Third-hand reporting on a comment thread elsewhere saying "this is great for W*** stock, since now they have more capital!!" Argh.

Fatter spread means that the banks can charge a higher rate over treasuries for almost any kind of loan. And spreads are fatter than they have been in years, even on the squeakiest clean stuff. Want a jumbo mortgage and have 35% down? 7% for a 30 year amortizing mortgage. Ain't been that high in a loooong time.

The drop in rates by the Fed adds fuel to the fire for these guys. So they can take that 7% mortgage and finance it with 3% deposits. Most any bank would be thriled to have a 4% net interest spread on an asset with very limited risk, and they can lever it 10+X.

So the picture is kind of muddy. Take Wachovia, for example. They just raised $7 billion in fresh capital. Did they need that much to deal with the problems they already have? I don't know for sure, but if you had asked my to guess at how much they might need I would have likely offered a number half that amount. If that is the true number, then Wachovia raised enough capital to deal with their problems and also to take advantage of the many opportunities they see out there. Or maybe they really do have $7 billion worth of problems. Or maybe they have $15 billion worth, and will be coming back to the well in the future.

Therein lies the game: these are large, complex entities and it is hard even for long term observers to say for sure what the story really is. For some people, the answer has just been to buy banks that don't have these problems and still have capital to clean up in teh market right now (PBCT, HCBK, et al. come to mind), and you can see it in the prices being paid for these stocks. Others have simply thrown up their hands and walked away.
 
well, there brewer, you're kind of helping me make my point, at least in terms of stock valuations. Why should any entity that YOU and "long term observers" can't figure out (I think I recall that you are in some kind of finance job) have ANY serious market value at all? Why shouldn't it be treated as some kind of penny stock?

If IN THEORY they make money, but IN PRACTICE no one knows and the picture is "murky".. why shouldn't that deserve a justified "run".. run awaaaaaayyyy. When you and many in the media talk about BSC and a 'run'.. it makes it sound like some unfair panic based solely on rumors.

"banks that don't have these problems".. no one seemed to think the other banks had problems until all of a sudden they did. What analysis/metric do you use to decide what is a 'good' bank?

Jim Cramer?
People's United Financials (PBCT): 'Second-best, after Hudson City Bancorp … Very well-run, very conservative, but I do like HCBK better.'
Jim Cramer's Mad Money Lightning Round, 2/12/08: Metalico Rocks - Seeking Alpha

Bullish calls:
Wachovia (WB): 'The yield is safe ... [Wachovia, Citigroup and Bank of America are] the trio I want you to own.'
Citigroup (C)
Jim Cramer's Mad Money Lightning Round Picks, 9/10/07 - Seeking Alpha

(Sorry, not implying you invest by following Cramer, just couldn't resist since I came across this when looking into PBCT.)

Then as far as spreads are concerned.. I'm wondering (not challenging, necessarily, but wondering) where are the customers for the 7% loans when people were having trouble paying off for or qualifying for the 5%-6% ones? Fewer customers, fewer originations, maybe.. and higher rates (but on lower loan amounts).. could be a wash?

I think I'm officially throwing up my hands!!
 
think I'm officially throwing up my hands!!

Great. Stay in Europe and stick with index funds. And if you ignore the pathetically clueless media on this subjesct, you will sleep better, too.

Anything else I can help with?
 
Yeah! When is the dollar going to rise, dear? >:D

Versus the Euro? When the ECB starts cutting interest rates. Since there must be a lot of pain among the manufacturing base in Europe, I imagine this will start by the end of the year.
 
Hmm.. maybe, maybe not. The ECB is basically the Germans and I think they are constitutionally resistant to doing that. Also wasn't the recent G7 hugger-mugger all about the state of the dollar, with little sympathy forthcoming.. instead more of a taking-to-the-woodshed?

"We are not fools," Nout Wellink, head of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, told Reuters on Sunday. "We do realize there are better moments to introduce substantial increases in capital requirements."

While banks may resist calls to raise regulatory capital requirements, banking regulators "will go further in certain respects whether they like it or not," Wellink said.

"You vill take zis meddsin!"

"la la la la la I can't hear you!"

"The 100-day deadline is a mirage which will quietly disappear the closer we get to that date," said Mirko Mikelic, a portfolio manager at Fifth Third Asset Management in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Mikelic said the Federal Reserve will step up and provide liquidity if necessary for the U.S. system as well as be the backstop for any collapse of any major U.S. financial institution.
ANALYSIS-G7 banking proposals get lukewarm reception | Reuters

FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - The German government is against any intervention to prop up the US dollar, according to Der Spiegel magazine, citing an internal finance ministry document prepared ahead of the weekend G7 meeting of finance ministers and central bank presidents in Washington....
It said another possible instrument to support the weak dollar is for the European Central Bank to cut euro zone interest rates but that the German government views such a move with scepticism even though it will narrow the interest rate differential between the euro and the dollar.

The paper noted too that a rate cut by the ECB is 'extremely unlikely' right now given the high inflation rate, Der Spiegel said.

XE.com - German govt against intervention to prop up dollar - report - XE Forex News

boh :confused:
 
Last edited:
Hmm.. maybe, maybe not. The ECB is basically the Germans and I think they are constitutionally resistant to doing that.

Actually, it was especially the export-focused German manufacturing base I had in mind when I mentioned suffering manufacturers. A lofty Euro really takes the wind out if their sales.

I'm sure Trichet will be happy you think of him as a German.
 
i read somewhere that the japaneese bubble happened because the yen rose against the dollar, BOJ cut rates in 1987 and the rest was history
 
I just get the impression the Germans throw their weight around quite a bit.. via osmosis of The Economist.

Germany's allergy to economic tinkering squelches any discussion of measures the EU might take to correct the defects of a one-size-fits-all monetary policy, says Ms Schwarzer.

It was under Mr Schröder that Germany began to subject EU initiatives to cost-benefit tests, which often produced a negative result.

Since taking office in May [Sarkozy] has floated various ideas for prying [the euro] loose from the control of the ECB, whose job is to maintain its value.
France and Germany | Disillusion across the Rhine | Economist.com

A trip to Frankfurt helps to make sense of the deep divisions that the strong euro has exposed among the 15 European Union members of the single currency. In countries like France, placing economic decision-making in the hands of politicians, rather than unelected bureaucrats, sounds like a defence of democracy. But even among Germans too young to remember the D-mark, any hint of political meddling raises fears of unstable prices that have, in the past, destroyed democracy.
...
On the one hand, Mr Strauss-Kahn said, the ECB had done well in controlling inflation (its mandate, to focus on medium-term price stability, was inherited from the Bundesbank). On the other, he said, the ECB lacked a “political” counterbalance in the form of a “finance minister for Europe” to promote growth.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has been attacking the strong euro for months, saying that the currency should be put “at the service” of growth and jobs. Yet he also insists that he does not question the independence of the ECB. More recently, he has preferred to hint at dark dealing by America and other rivals with weaker currencies, saying that European industry must not be “penalised” out of existence by “monetary dumping”.

The euro's strength was debated at this week's meeting of the “Eurogroup”, the club that brings together euro-area finance ministers with the ECB head, Jean-Claude Trichet, and Joaquín Almunia from the European Commission. France was clearly “hoping for a depreciation of the euro”, comments one minister. But he adds that “what France says outside is a lot stronger than what they say inside.” Still, there are deep differences of opinion. Germany pulled off an export boom last year, despite the strong euro. Other countries whose trade is mostly within the euro area point to the inflation-controlling benefits of a strong currency, when it comes to buying imports and above all oil (which is priced in dollars).
...
Within the Eurogroup, there is irritation at the incoherence of calling for a depreciation of the euro, which risks fuelling inflation, but at the same time worrying about purchasing power. Most charitably, it is suggested that French politicians are trying to woo special interests by denouncing the strong euro. Less charitably, some say there is no real strategy behind the criticism—merely a calculation that talking of political action and bashing central bankers sounds good to French voters.

Such attacks are meaningless in practical terms: the treaties guaranteeing the ECB's independence can be changed only with the unanimous agreement of all 27 EU members (which many, starting with Germany, will never give). In short, if French politicians want to play at being European central bankers, their best hope may be a trip to Frankfurt to play on the Money Museum's machine. Even then, they may not like its stern lessons
Charlemagne | Don't play politics with the euro | Economist.com



also:
Trend Capital : ECB expected to hold key rate, despite inflation threat
 
Back
Top Bottom