Northern Country

How globalization changes capitalism, the economy and politics

Posts Tagged ‘securitization

The U.S. economy and housing – part II

leave a comment »

foreclosuremapAug09               Foreclosure rates and Unemployment by state

Risky lending practices have led to a stellar rise in home prices and subsequent plunge when the housing bubble started to burst in the so-called sand states of California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. It is no surprise that delinquency rates for missed or late mortgage payments have spiked strongly in those areas but also around the country.

In the second quarter of 2009 according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) delinquency rates for one-to-four-unit residential properties have reached a seasonally adjusted rate of 9.4 percent of all loans outstanding. These numbers set the record for highest late payments rates ever recorded.

Foreclosed properties are also at record high with 4.3 percent at the end of the second quarter, leading to a total combined 13.7 percent of loans past due, also the highest amount of non-current payments in the history of the MBA survey. A welcomed exception are loans 30 days past due which are still well below the record set in the second quarter of 1985.

A sure sign that mortgage problems are being driven by economic recession rather than non-conforming lending practices is the increase in foreclosure rates with prime fixed rate loans. Foreclosure filings are now spreading to areas hit by the economic downturn. The combined percentage of foreclosure filings in the sand states has decreased slightly to 44 percent from 46 in the first quarter.

The State of Oregon is a good example with its unemployment rate rising to 11.9 percent in July compared to last year, at the same time foreclosures in the state are up a whopping 84 percent. The problem seems to be unemployment rather than toxic loans. Many first time home owners who bought at the peak of real estate prices simply have not enough equity in their homes and cannot afford current mortgage payments due to the weak economy.

Of course the actual foreclosure rates are very hard to predict. Government moratoriums have effectively created a hidden backlog of foreclosures that one day have to be dealt with. There are also more warning sign of homeowners under duress emerging as fewer are catching up on lapsed mortgages.

A report from Fitch Ratings found that cure rates for prime loans collapsed to 6.6 percent in July from an average 45 percent for the years 2000 through 2006. Cure rates have also fallen dramatically for non-conforming loans of Alt-A and subprime category. Fitch looked only at a return to current payment for loans bundled into securities, excluding GSE and non-securitiezed loans. 

This dramatic shift in the recovery of delinquent loans towards current payment is partially caused by the economic recession and fall in home prices, which puts a significant number of homeowners under water with little hope of ever recovering their investments. With toxic loans from non-conforming lending practices on the one hand and economic recession on the other, it is no surprise the outlook for both the economy and housing remains highly uncertain.

Few signs of a turn around in housing are starting to emerge. According to Case/Shiller nationwide home prices are showing tangible signs of improvement month over month in June and May of this year. In some areas where prices have fallen dramatically investors are coming back to the market hoping to snap up properties on the cheap.

The Outlook remains uncertain and yet a recovery will by and large depend on the pace of turn around in the economy. While it is no secret that recessions caused by a slump in businesses of the financial services industry tend to last longer, on average almost five years, the depth of the economic trough and the pace of recovery is still unclear.

Key to answering the question whether we will have a V, W, U, or L shaped recovery lies with the American consumer. In the past abundance of credit fueled conspicuous consumption and a debt driven economy. No wonder many are fearing a new found admiration for frugality that is exemplified by an increased savings rate in the U.S. today.

Even though less consumption in the U.S. would almost certainly have implications reverberating around the global economy, the results of this dramatic shift in behavior would be felt most severely in the U.S. itself. While there likely will have to be some shift towards a more export driven economy it is hard to imagine that policymakers in the U.S. are willing to completely adjust to this new set of paradigms without recourse to pre-crisis conditions.

In fact strong signs of reoccurrence of pre-crisis behavior are starting to emerge. Reports of once-again record compensation packages among employees in the financial services industry have angered critics who see the industry at the center of the economic storm and would like to see more humbleness instead of the same old greed.

Even more daunting is another bad habit that many consider at the heart of the financial meltdown through its manipulative prowess in credit distribution behavior. Many banks still stuffed with risky mortgage loans from frothy days of real estate exuberance are once again engaging in what some call resecuritization of real estate mortgage investment conduits.

At the heart of Wall Street’s newest innovation is the re-remic, an impaired bond that does not necessarily have a natural buyer but by splitting it into two bonds may find a buyer for both of them. Investors who take on a really risky pool of securitized loans agree to lose money first if the deal goes sour. Investors in the safer pool of assets get paid first, therefore securitized loans in this category are slapped with a AAA-rating. Sound familiar?

The financial meltdown shooting out from non-conforming lending practices is in part credited to the failed securitization of mortgage loans deemed useful by false credit ratings. Yet, here we go again relying on financial repackaging of inferior securities dubbed suitable once again by rating agencies.

Sifma and the European and the American Securitization Forums (ESF and ASF) are ambitiously drafting new rules to rebuild confidence in structured credit markets reacting to a call from financial regulators to enhance transparency in this notoriously shrouded over-the-counter market. There is clearly a consensual desire to clean up the securitization markets, no wonder given its impact on the current financial crisis.

Initiatives aimed at standardizing issuer disclosure, facilitating and broadening investors’ access to transaction information and enhancing the usability of information are all welcomed but do they really justify the inherent risks purported by this form of financial engineering? Wall Street’s history and its future always has been and always will be abusive in nature, which should give everyone a moment’s thought, unless the crisis was for naught.

While this initiative has been started more than a year ago it does not seem to get into gears. The first drafts of reform were to be implemented at the beginning of 2009 but new rules are still in the workings and have not taken off ground yet. The MBAs proposal to standard procedures for servicing non-conforming residential mortgage loans and ASF’s Project Restart aimed at the securitization market are now trying to put the squeeze on regulators to let more players get sucked back into this ailing market.

So far the magic wand of enhanced transparency did not help to lift the freeze in in the securitization market. During Goldman Sachs’ second quarter the securitization powerhouse was only able to sell $12.9 billion in securitized loans, with meager $496 million outside of safe government agency bonds. That dwarfs in comparison to upwards of $30 billion at the beginning of 2007.

Inquisitive minds might argue that policy makers are not too successful in their attempt to hawk back to pre-crisis conditions. The emperors new clothes in the form of enhanced transparency seems not sufficient to once again resurrect bad habits from the dawn of the credit crisis.

Nevertheless much will depend on future success of the credit-distribution-lifter in form of securitized mortgage or other asset backed loans. Without it the American consumer might well be maxed out, with it the financial services industry and investors will probably once and for all loose their last shirt over it. Much like the Federal Reserve also Wall Street seems to be damned if they do and dammed if they don’t.

While these contradictions contribute to the overall uncertainty credit markets in general are still not healthy. Recently the Fed extended its Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) for another six months. It was scheduled to expire at the end of 2009.

In the UK, Bank of England governor King detonated a bomb last week when it became known that he voted for an even bigger increase in the bank’s quantitative easing policy. The minutes of the August meeting revealed King wanted to expand the program by 75 billion instead of 50 billion pounds.

In this apparent game of confidence policymakers are hitting the monetary accelerator full throttle to make sure the public can have trust in their abilities to revive the economy. Yet under these strange conditions a sustained recovery in housing, the economy and on Wall Street seems to be still ways off.

Advertisements

Goldman’s 10-Q reveals – balance sheet still bloated

with 2 comments

sc

Goldman Sachs Group has tripled their growth forecast for the second half of this year. Inflation adjusted economic growth is supposed to jump to 3 percent annual rate. Yet even the mega bulls at GS do not think this growth spurt is sustainable, and anticipate a decline to 1.5 percent in late 2010.

Will the American consumer be able to return and then keep up with lavish spending habits? This is the 64 thousand dollar question. In the past US consumer spending powered both the US economy and the rest of the world. After the crisis there still exists a possibility of painful adjustments to household and corporate balance sheets mainly in debt fueled economies.

Indebtedness of US private households peaked at 132% of disposable income at the end of 2007. This ratio had fallen to 124% at the end of March, 2009, but is still too high. As a reaction US consumers are spending less and saving more in recent months. As people continue to struggle to repay their debt the savings rate is expected to gradually return to a range of 7% to 10%.

There are also those who disagree and are not convinced that higher savings will ipso facto result in lower output. Michael Darda, chief economist at brokerage firm MKM Partners, anticipates a strong recovery in stocks and the economy. Obviously an increased savings rate is only a temporary phenomenon according to Darda.

Even if Darda is right and we will return to old habits, can we be sure this is really what we want? A return to a debt fueled economy got us into trouble in the first place. These are rather conflicting interests between corporate and business protégés and basically everybody else.

The leader of the pack on Wall Street is investment firm turned bank-holding company, Goldman Sachs. Yesterday GS released its consolidated financial statement for the second quarter of 2009. On first impression we see a great quarter and a reoccurrence of the firm’s unmatched earning power. Taking a closer look reveals quite a different picture. The 10-Q statement for the second quarter tanked GS stock by 2.01% yesterday, down $8.65 since August 6, 2009.

GS 10-Q unaudited condensed consolidated financial statement makes certain estimates and assumptions. Most important are fair value measurements and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets. Actual results could be materially different from these estimates.

The firm’s assets and liabilities are generally separated into two categories, cash instruments and derivative contracts. In determining their fair value, hierarchy levels two and three are significant because of the use of judgment and estimate for price transparency. Government agency securities, certain mortgage products, and certain money market securities are considered to be level two, if not actively traded.

Cash instruments are considered to be level 3 if they are infrequently traded and lack price transparency. Such instruments include private equity and real estate fund investments, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), less liquid mortgage whole loans and securitization products (backed by either commercial or residential real estate), and acquired portfolios of distressed loans.

Over the counter (OTC) traded derivatives contracts are always valued as level three, and therefore subject to least price transparency. In such cases the transaction price is often used as the best estimate of fair value. In addition the lowest level of input in any financial instrument determines its level within the value hierarchy.

In October 2008, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FAS 157-3, approving the use of management estimates or assumptions to determine fair value in not active markets. In April 2009 this rule was amended to FAS 157-4 and applied fair value assumptions to not orderly transactions of assets and liabilities with significantly decreased activities.

These new FASB rules have tremendously helped financial firms to hide potential losses of mostly impaired mortgage backed securities under level two and three of fair value accounting. For Goldman Sachs trading assets at fair value increased to $355.2 billion in 2Q09 from $338.3 billion in 2Q08.

Composition of assets held at fair value has changed and Goldman has replaced risky collateralized debt obligations with safer US government agency debt during the most recent quarters. Though the firm has not at all shied away from derivative contracts and as of June 2009 held a net position of $90.0 billion at fair value.

Although compression efforts across the industry have helped to decrease the notional amount of derivative contracts outstanding, the firm’s gross fair value exposure was still a staggering $1.093 trillion. Purchased $3.19 trillion of credit derivatives were partially offset with $2.96 trillion in written contracts. Net of collateral only $90.0 billion contributed to trading assets at fair value.

Net purchased protection total derivative exposure was $227.02 billion as of June 2009, with $212.1 billion level 2 and $15.0 billion level 3. A $137.5 billion cash collateral helped to reduce the risks associated with these derivative contracts. At the end of the fist quarter 2007 cash collateral for derivative contracts at fair value was a meager $27.7 billion, representative of an easygoing and low risk culture on Wall Street at the time.

For the first time the financial statement provided some insight into the composition of the firms staggering exposure to derivative contracts. In the second quarter 2009 the firm held a gross exposure of written high risk credit derivatives with credit spreads of 501 to 1000 basis points or greater over Libor. $73.3 billion had a term exposure of 5 years or greater and a total of $526.9 billion a term exposure of zero to five years or greater.

These contracts were partially offset with purchased credit derivatives and their fair value was also greatly reduced. Nevertheless it poses a staggering exposure to potentially toxic assets in a harmful environment of severe credit contraction.

From trading assets held at fair value at the end of the second quarter $332.7 billion were still level 2 and $54.4 billion, with economic exposure of actually $50.3 billion, at level 3. In the first quarter of 2007 Goldman owned financial assets at fair value of $231.6 billion at level 2 and $47.6 billion at level 3. Fair value of level 2 and 3 assets as determined by FASB 157-3,4 are subject to the firm’s estimates and assumptions and not mark-to-market.

Probably the most contentious issue with the business of accounting in financial firms has been and still is the issue of securitization activities. Goldman Sachs securitizes commercial and residential mortgages and other financial assets. This has undoubtedly been the driving force of a debt fueled economy in the past, but will it remain so in the future? The latest data reveal securitization has virtually come to a standstill, and this shutdown of the consumer is behind rather tepid assertions of economic recovery.

During the three months ending June 2009 Goldman only sold $12.9 billion in securitized products, of which $12.4 billion were primarily safe government agency securitizations and only $496 million of other financial assets. In the first quarter 2007, $16.8 billion in residential mortgage securitizations and $14.8 billion in other securitizations, primarily collateral debt obligations, were transacted.

Total shareholder’ equity was $62.8 billion at the end of the quarter. As of June 2009 the firms equity was about fourteen times leveraged to hold total assets of $889.5 billion. During the first quarter of 2007 shareholder’ equity was still 25 times leveraged. This apparent reduction of leverage in the current quarter is not attributable to general deleveraging. Shareholder’ equity has benefitted greatly from increase in retained earnings and additional paid-in capital.

There were some positive developments as well during the most recent quarter. At the end of the first quarter of 2007 financial assets at fair value subtracted $36.9 billion from cash flows from operating activities. That has dramatically changed in the most recent quarter and trading assets at fair value attributed $172.3 billion to cash flow. This form of associated cash flow from the sale of non-current assets is added back onto the income statement and helps to improve the firm’s earnings.

Overall Goldman Sachs’ balance sheet has improved but is nowhere close to the optimism infused during its earnings report. Fair value accounting with level 2 and 3 still unreasonable high pose tremendous risk. Securitization activities, fuel to a consumer driven economy, ceased to exist. Yet financial firms and other Wall Street combat optimists are again celebrating.

The debate over reigning in the financial industry’s notorious ingenuity and lavish executive compensation is ongoing, all the while bankers are still celebrating. A conflict of interest in this mission impossible to control Wall Street is a done deal with no recourse to moderation. Public outrage is therefore understandable and some are even beginning to ask the question: Do We Need Goldman Sachs?

Formerly disgraced AG from New York and now resurrected from the dead Eliot Spitzer in a recent interview with finance blogger Henry Blodget declared an end to democratization of the market place. He had one advise for retail investors: Don’t play! (video)

Bloated and vague balance sheets of Goldman Sachs and others are testament to a culture on Wall Street hostile to a broad base of a public investment community. They want their game to be elitist and government and regulators have supported them in the past and will continue to do so also in the foreseeable future. Though we must fear that change is nothing but lip service.

MBS – then and now, analogy from a small mortgage REIT

leave a comment »

90-day-chart-big

Dynex Capital Inc. is a rather small US based real estate investment trust with its principal investments in securitized residential and commercial mortgage loans and non-agency MBS. The REIT’s portfolio is managed through a combination of short term debt, securitization financing, and equity capital. Dynax provides a glimpse into the current state in short term financing of mortgage backed securities.

This type of financial wizardry in combination with a deterioration in loan underwriting standards has driven the financial industry and the world economy to the brink of disaster. The subprime debacle has forced private capital to flee securitization markets of residential and commercial mortgages.

As of June 30, 2009, Dynex Capital had carrying assets of $245.1 million in non-Agency MBS, that contrasts with $531.5 million in Agency MBS. During the most recent episode of credit contraction, which is still ongoing, impairment of government guaranteed Agency MBS was less severe than of non-Agency MBS.

In the quarter $245.1 million of non-Agency MBS portfolio was associated with $192.5 million securitization financing and short term debt repurchase agreements. Shareholders’ equity amounted to $52.6 million or 21.5% of the total portfolio. In the non-Agency MBS portfolio leverage of equity capital was about 5 times in the end of the second quarter.

Chairman Thomas Akin commented on the quarter, “The story of this quarter is the performance of our Agency MBS investment portfolio. We earned a net interest spread of 3.70% on Agency MBS as our borrowing costs continued to decline (thanks to Bernanke)….Our highly seasoned non-Agency investments continue to generate solid earnings and cashflow for the Company.”  (() emphasize added)

Net interest spread between annualized yield and annualized costs of funds was a record 3.70% in the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In the year earlier quarter the spread was much smaller, only 1.45%. The conditional prepayment rate (CPR) also decreased from 27.3% a year earlier to 19.9% during the last quarter.

Thanks to Fed chair Bernanke’s monetary easing borrowing costs for the financial services industry are almost zero, yet lending rates remain high causing the spreads to widen. According to CEO Akin the joint venture in $6.1 million non-Agency CMBS may be eligible for financial assistance from the government’s TALF program.

There is something suspicious about this joint venture. Could this be a bad bank with potentially impaired investments taken off the REIT owner’s and ultimately its shareholders hands? Akin obviously expects to get help from the government.

In bank land many financial institutions are still getting sicker. At the end of the first quarter the FDIC had still 305 of them (could be less by now) on its problem bank list with about $220 billion in combined assets. Investors in the financial services industry are abandoning their free market principles and line up for a multitude of accommodative government support, yet their commitments to regulation and prudence in compensation are nothing but lip service.

A revealing report by NY Attorney General Cuomo showed that many of the banks which lost billions in 2008 continued to reward its employees with generous bonuses. Financial institutions of all sorts have adopted a motto of ‘heads I win, tails you loose’ . This attitude is rooted in the almost guaranteed government bailouts that have spread all over the Western hemisphere during the last two decades.  

An Icelandic bank lending huge amounts of money mostly to its biggest shareholders shortly before it collapsed, or governors of their states in Germany promising radical changes in compensation policy while asking for public funds to bail out the Landesbanken are just two examples of the prevailing bigotry in the financial services industry. Needless to say top management continued to receive lavish compensations to this day.

This kind of compensation and also lately the marked improvement in earnings for some institutions leave the overall financial health of the industry in doubt. Maybe things aren’t as bad as they seem?! Dynex Capital reported in its press release that delinquencies on securitized mortgage loans increased from April to June of 2009 to $15.0 million from $9.1 million at December 31, 2008, but the company incurred no credit loss during the quarter. That’s payments on about 6.1% of non-Agency MBS loans are 60 to 90 days late.

Finance blogger Calculated Risk has a nice monthly chart with historical data of 90+day delinquency rates for Orange County (CA), one of the hardest hit regions of the U.S. housing bust. The chart above shows 6+% delinquency rate of residential mortgages for June, 2009, and compares with what Dynex reported during the quarter (commercial and single family loans combined).

Interestingly, going back into the archives of financial statements from Dynex, revealed a similar delinquency rate of commercial loans with 5.15% delinquent 90 days and over in the June 2006 quarter. The single family loan portfolio performed much butter, only 2.68% of the loans were delinquent 90 days and over. The commercial loan portfolio is not unlike the non-Agency loan performance during the most recent quarter, although commercial and single family combined.

In general Dynex was substantially less invested in government guaranteed Agency bonds reflecting a more opportunistic environment before hell broke loose in the summer of 2007.  The securitized finance receivables were collateralized with $535.5 million of commercial loans and $136.9 million of single family loans. $487.4 million of commercial loans were financed with non-recourse securitization, and $113.4 million of single family loans were financed with monthly recourse repurchase agreements. The finance strategy was similar then and now, though different in the magnitude of dollar amounts invested.

Shareholder equity was $136.3 million during the quarter, or 20.2% of the $672.4 millions of the commercial and single family loan collateral combined. During the summer of 2006 non-Agency portfolio leverage of equity capital was therefore about 5 times, essentially unchanged to the most recent quarter.

Net interest spread between interest earning assets (average 7.55%) and interest bearing liabilities (average 7.54%) was substantially lower before the crisis, only 0.01% for all investments combined in the portfolio. Thanks to Bernanke, at last something he can be proud of, this margin has improved substantially. For Dynex it was a record 3.7% in the quarter ending June 30, 2009.

The portfolio is certainly more cautious today then it was before the crisis. Government guaranteed mortgage loans have significantly replaced more risky private sector loans. Yet, credit quality benchmarks have not changed that dramatically at all as one would expect.

The following table summarizes the allocation of the Company’s $154.6 million of shareholders’ equity as of June 30, 2009:

REIT-Dynex