by Anonymous on 5/30/2008 04:13:00 PM

My day started with my inability to understand a series of statistics reported in Bloomberg this morning.

Housing Wire follows up on the "methodology change" that purportedly caused the new defaults and cured loan reporting for April to surge and plummet, respectively, in the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America's most recent report. I share HW's sources' skepticism about the explanation given for this change. It simply sounds like a very large lender has been allowed--heretofore--to report fewer delinquencies and more cures than everyone else does, by using different definitions. As that is not something that sounds very good, I would suggest that MICA needs to come up with a better explanation.

Meanwhile, the Hope Now folks released a pathetic set of data charts on mortgage loss mitigation through April 2008. For heaven's sake, we're the financial industry, people. We're supposed to be able to use Excel properly.

There are some really puzzling features of this data, like why the total loan counts have not changed since October (see the first page). Since those loan counts are used to calculate the 60+ day delinquency percentage, the failure to update the total count makes those numbers rather dubious. On page two, I found myself unable to make sense of the completed FC sales/FC starts calculation using any possible definition of "five months" I can think of. Perhaps I am misreading the footnote. In any event, I gave up on my ambition to put this data into a more sensible format for you, after I lost confidence in the data integrity.

So here's from the press release, instead:

The April report from HOPE NOW estimates that on an industry-wide basis:
• Mortgage servicers provided loan workouts for approximately 183,000 at-risk borrowers in April. This is an increase of 23,000 from the number of workouts in March 2008 and is the largest number of workouts completed in any month since HOPE NOW’s inception.
• The total number of loan workouts provided by mortgage servicers since July 2007 has risen to 1,558,854.
• Approximately 106,000 of the prime and subprime loan workouts conducted by mortgage servicers in April were repayment plans, while approximately 77,000 were loan modifications.

Maybe next month the report will be cleaned up a little and we can look in more detail at these numbers. If we can shame Hope Now into issuing something readable.

Harrumph. Is it Happy Hour yet?

by Calculated Risk on 5/30/2008 03:23:00 PM

"I don't know if it's going to be a majority or not but I think a large number of the [Alt-A] senior classes are facing downgrade pressure."
Grant Bailey, a senior director at Fitch, May 30, 2008

From Bloomberg: Fitch Changes Method of Rating Alt-A Mortgage Bond

Fitch Ratings modified how it assesses outstanding securities backed by Alt-A U.S. mortgages by starting to update projections for losses from non-delinquent loans instead of keeping estimates static from the time of issuance.

A record jump in delinquencies and defaults prompted the change ... Borrowers are at least 60 days late on 11 percent of adjustable-rate Alt-A loans backing bonds created in 2006 and rated by the firm, compared with a historical average of 1 percent to 2 percent.
...
The firm hasn't yet decided whether to use its new surveillance approach on prime-jumbo mortgage securities, Barberio said....

The Fitch analysts weren't able to immediately say how many Alt-A securities from the past three years have been downgraded. Most of the non-AAA bonds were lowered and others remain under review, they said.

Top-rated securities accounted for about 90 percent of the debt created in Alt-A deals. The company will downgrade many over the next few months, [Grant Bailey, a senior director at Fitch] said.

``I don't know if it's going to be a majority or not but I think a large number of the senior classes are facing downgrade pressure,'' he said.

More downgrades coming ...

by Calculated Risk on 5/30/2008 01:17:00 PM

From Boston Fed President Eric S. Rosengren: Current Challenges in Housing and Home Loans: Complicating Factors and the Implications for Policymakers .

Here is an excerpt from the section: Length and Duration of Housing Downturns, and Other Recent Research from the Boston Fed

New England is no stranger to falling asset values. As you no doubt know, during the early 1990s, New England experienced a steep decline in housing prices. We at the Boston Fed think it may be useful to compare that experience to what we have experienced to date with falling housing prices, and we are pursuing a number of research avenues to do that. ...

As you can see in Figures 4 and 5, Massachusetts moved quite rapidly from a situation of relatively limited foreclosures in 1990 to a period of very high foreclosures in 1992. The timing is interesting. By late 1989, Massachusetts house prices had begun to fall, but delinquencies and foreclosures did not really accelerate until there was also a significant weakening of the economy. In fact, the unemployment rate in Massachusetts, which had declined to 3.1 percent in late 1987, peaked at 9.1 percent in the second half of 1991. Declining housing prices alone did not cause very elevated foreclosures; it was significantly compounded by an economic shock such as the loss of a job which disrupted the ability of many borrowers to make payments. As house prices fell, many homeowners who lost their jobs in the early-1990s recession could not sell their homes to pay off their mortgages because they owed more than their homes were worth. For unemployed homeowners with “negative equity,” foreclosure was often the only option.

The more recent period also points to the importance of falling house prices and negative equity in foreclosures. In the more recent period (shown in Figures 6 and 7), the foreclosure rate – which was not particularly elevated in 2005 – had become quite elevated by 2007 as house prices softened. This increase in foreclosures occurred even though the Massachusetts unemployment rate averaged 4.5 percent for the year.

Why are foreclosures so high today, given that the economic situation is so much better than it was during the early 1990s? Even in expansions, many homeowners undergo adverse life events – like a job loss, a divorce, a spike in medical expenses, or the like – that disrupt their ability to make mortgage payments. Of course, with regard to unemployment, such household-level disruptions are not as prevalent in expansions as they are in recessions. But when such a life event does occur, it can still precipitate a foreclosure if the homeowner has negative equity because of a fall in house prices.

Another reason for elevated foreclosures today concerns changes in the susceptibility of mortgages to economic shocks. In the late 1980s, many borrowers had made significant down payments and had good credit histories. But the recent ability of borrowers with weak credit histories and little or no down payments to purchase homes, often with subprime loans (and sometimes with minimal income verification), means that a greater share of today’s mortgages are a good bit more susceptible to the types of disruptive life events that precipitate foreclosure. These borrowers were fine when housing prices were rising because if needed, they had the ability to refinance or sell their homes and pay off (or more than pay off) their mortgages. In contrast, in the current environment of falling housing prices, borrowers who made small down-payments or have otherwise risky mortgages are now more likely to end up in foreclosure if they experience an adverse event that interrupts their ability to make mortgage payments.

So, in short, we have seen similar foreclosure numbers this time around without a technical recession, and with a more modest fall in home prices. Boston Fed researchers attribute that to the prevalence of riskier loans and higher combined loan-to-value ratios in general.
...
Several lessons from the historical comparison can be highlighted. First, should the economy worsen and suffer a period of significant job losses, the housing problem could become much more severe. Second, past episodes of elevated foreclosures lingered well after the peak in foreclosures had passed, indicating that the duration of today’s situation may be longer than some are anticipating. ...
emphasis added

Read on ... this is a long excerpt.

by Calculated Risk on 5/30/2008 11:21:00 AM

Barry Ritholtz discusses the impact of revisions and cancellations with regards to the New Home sales report: April New Home Sales - Revisited. I'll have more on revisions, but I'll try to clear up cancellations first. Barry writes:

Cancellations: Of course, none of the new home sales data includes cancellations, which were running north of 30% -- and with the recently tightened credit, it may be even worse.

Yes. New home sales data doesn't include cancellations, and cancellations were probably just over 30% in Q1 2008 (based on my survey of public builder reports), but ...

Cancellations are not getting worse. In fact they are getting better. For most builders, cancellation rates peaked in Q3 2007 (with the credit crunch) and have improved significantly since then. And it's the change in cancellation rates that matter when analyzing the New Home data.

This is a key point: right now the Census Bureau is probably underestimating sales!

Here is how the Census Bureau handles cancellations:

The Census Bureau does not make adjustments to the new home sales figures to account for cancellations of sales contracts. The Survey of Construction (SOC) is the instrument used to collect all data on housing starts, completions, and sales. This survey usually begins by sampling a building permit authorization, which is then tracked to find out when the housing unit starts, completes, and sells. When the owner or builder of a housing unit authorized by a permit is interviewed, one of the questions asked is whether the house is being built for sale. If it is, we then ask if the house has been sold (contract signed or earnest money exchanged). If the respondent reports that the unit has been sold, the survey does not follow up in subsequent months to find out if it is still sold or if the sale was cancelled. The house is removed from the "for sale" inventory and counted as sold for that month. If the house it is not yet started or under construction, it will be followed up until completion and then it will be dropped from the survey. Since we discontinue asking about the sale of the house after we collect a sale date, we never know if the sales contract is cancelled or if the house is ever resold. Therefore, the eventual purchase by a subsequent buyer is not counted in the survey; the same housing unit cannot be sold twice. As a result of our methodology, if conditions are worsening in the marketplace and cancellations are high, sales would be temporarily overestimated. When conditions improve and these cancelled sales materialize as actual sales, our sales would then be underestimated since we did not allow the cases with cancelled sales to re-enter the survey. In the long run, cancellations do not cause the survey to overestimate or underestimate sales.
emphasis added

The housing outlook is grim, but there is no need to borrow trouble. We are now in a period of improving cancellation rates, and this means the Census Bureau is likely underestimating actual sales.

by Calculated Risk on 5/30/2008 09:04:00 AM

The BEA reports: Personal Income and Outlays

Real disposable personal income decreased less than 0.1 percent in April, in contrast to an increase of less than 0.1 percent in March. Real PCE decreased less than 0.1 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.1 percent.

Basically real PCE spending has been flat for the first four months of 2008. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) accounts for almost 71% of GDP, and it appears there has been no growth in real PCE.

Note: After the May release, we will have a reasonable estimate of Q2 PCE spending (using the "Two Month Method").

by Anonymous on 5/30/2008 07:18:00 AM

Forgive me for once again falling into despair over the media's inability to report sensibly and critically on foreclosure and delinquency numbers. I should be immune by now. If you are wiser than I, just skip to the next post. If you still cradle to your wounded heart the battered but indomitable belief that even media outlets like Bloomberg can learn to spot the flaws in a reported statistic, and that there is a point to doing this, click the link below.

***********

The headline: "New Overdue Home Loans Swamp Effort to Fix Mortgages in Default." We will take this as a promise that the article is going to demonstrate something about the relationship between newly delinquent loans and workout efforts.

The lede:

May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Newly delinquent mortgage borrowers outnumbered people who caught up on their overdue payments by two to one last month, a sign that nationwide efforts to help homeowners avoid default may be failing.

In April, 73,880 homeowners with privately insured mortgages fell more than 60 days late on payments, compared with 39,584 who got back on track, a report today from the Washington-based Mortgage Insurance Companies of America said.

The last of eighteen paragraphs:

Last month's 54 percent "cure ratio" among defaulted mortgages compares with 80 percent a year earlier and 87 percent in March. The comparison may not be valid because one lender changed the way it calculated defaults and cures reported to the insurers.

So we start with an eye-popping number, and then only at the very end do we note that this number may mean much less than meets the eye. This is, in fact, what MICA said in its data release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. May 30, 2008 – Mortgage Insurance Companies of America (MICA) today released its monthly statistical report for April which includes a one-time adjustment to the number of defaults and cures and also notes an 11.7% increase in new insurance written year-over-year.

As a result of a major lender’s change to its methodology for recording delinquencies, and to how it reports them to MICA’s members, there was a sharp increase, to 73,880, in reported defaults in April. The increase includes both newly reported defaults for the month, as well as previously unreported defaults by this lender.

MICA’s members reported 39,584 cures in April. This statistic also reflects the above noted change in reporting defaults.

I assumed when I read this that somebody--a large somebody, since it significantly impacts the data--switched over from the OTS method to the MBA method of delinquency reporting. I do not know if this is the case or not. Before I published this article, however, I might have called MICA for a comment. In any case I might have been more cautious with headlining a number that is described as a "one-time adjustment" to the data collection. Burying that in the last paragraph is . . . disingenuous.

I'm also a touch troubled by the statement that "Last month's 54 percent 'cure ratio' among defaulted mortgages compares with 80 percent a year earlier and 87 percent in March." That is literally true. However, the cure rate in December of 2007 was 54.1% and in January of 2008 was 51.4%. Could there be some seasonality in these numbers? Another confounding factor besides new delinquencies?

So what about the second half of the claim?

"Modifications are not occurring nearly at the numbers necessary to stem the foreclosure crisis," Allen Fishbein, housing director for the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, said in a May 19 interview. "People are still going into foreclosure when, with a writedown on existing principal, they could still stay in their homes."

In the first two months of 2008, lenders modified loans for 114,000 borrowers while starting 346,000 foreclosures, according to a study by the Durham, North Carolina-based Center for Responsible Lending. In April, 22 percent of the homes in the foreclosure process had been taken over by lending banks; a year earlier, that figure was 15 percent, according to Irvine, California-based data provider RealtyTrac.

Did you assume, when you read that second paragraph, that the 114,000 modifications were exclusive of (not the same loans as) the 346,000 foreclosure starts? It seems you were supposed to assume that. But is is true? "Foreclosure start" simply means that a legally-required preliminary filing (a Notice of Default, Notice of Intent, or Lis Pendens, depending on the state and the type (judicial or non-judicial) of foreclosure) has been made. That is a "start" because in most jurisdictions it will be another 90 to 180 days, or even more in some states, until the auction can be scheduled, the home sold, and the foreclosure "completed." My own view is that the "best practice" is to work hard to negotiate a modification, if possible, in the early days of delinquency before starting the foreclosure process. However, that is not always possible, and it is also "best practice" to continue to attempt reasonable workouts during the foreclosure process all the way up the day before sale, if necessary. There are certainly cases in which a borrower simply cannot be brought to talk to the servicer until the initial FC filing galvanizes him into it. All of this means that it is impossible to look simply at modifications completed in a period compared to foreclosures started in a period and conclude that the starts will never get a mod or that the mods were not effected after the FC start.

Besides that, where is the data to back up the idea that a 30% ratio of modifications to foreclosure starts is poor performance? I am personally not sure that much more than 30% of recent vintage loans can be saved. Back out fraud, flippers and speculators, and borrowers whose loan balances would have to be reduced by half in order to get a workable payment--which would most likely exceed the cost to the investor of a foreclosure--and 30% doesn't sound so shabby.

As far as the second claim--the increase from 15% to 22% of homes in foreclosure "taken over by lending banks," I'm prepared to read that literally. There is no jurisdiction in which a foreclosed home must be purchased by the lender at the foreclosure sale; all jurisdictions require public auctions in which third parties can bid. An increase in REO (lenders "winning" the auction) does not necessarily mean an increase in completed foreclosures; it can mean that fewer third parties care to bid on foreclosed homes. All the data I have seen recently suggests that this is the case: buyers are still wary of further price declines, and lenders are still bidding higher than potential RE investors. One therefore expects the FC-to-REO numbers to increase. But they can do that even in the absence of an increase in total foreclosures. In order for this statistic to mean much, we have to know how much of the increase is due to more foreclosures, and how much due to fewer third-party bidders.

So put these dubious statistics together--the rest of the Bloomberg article is basically filler--and you get anomalous data on new delinquencies, ambiguous data on modification-to-foreclosure-starts, and a claim about REO rates substituting for a claim about foreclosure completion rates. How about taking back that headline, Bloomberg?

You know, last year I might have had some more sympathy for these reporters. We were just newly into the whole problem and a lot of concepts--delinquency reporting methodology, foreclosure processes, various ways of reporting "cures" and "starts"--were all new to everybody except industry insiders and a handful of totally Nerdly blog readers. But surely by now we can have moved the ball forward a couple of yards? I am here to affirm that if you have been reporting on "the foreclosure crisis" for a year or more and you still can't ask basic questions about the press releases you read, you aren't doing your job.

I, Too, Need To Know Why These Numbers Are So Squirrelly

by Calculated Risk on 5/29/2008 06:30:00 PM

In an effort to attract better advertising, we've been asked to survey our readers. If you'd like to participate - thank you - it's short, anonymous, and hopefully painless.

Reader Survey

Thanks to all,
CR and Tanta
All: I'll probably bump this a couple of times - in the morning and on the weekend. Also, I'll post a link to the results this weekend.

by Calculated Risk on 5/29/2008 05:24:00 PM

Here is an economic letter from Stephen P. A. Brown, Raghav Virmani and Richard Alm at the Dallas Fed: Crude Awakening: Behind the Surge in Oil Prices

A good starting point is strong demand, which has pushed world oil markets close to capacity. New supplies haven’t kept up with this demand, fueling expectations that oil markets will remain tight for the foreseeable future. A weakening dollar has put upward pressure on the price of a commodity that trades in the U.S. currency. And because a large share of oil production takes place in politically unstable regions, fears of supply disruptions loom over markets.

These factors have fed the steady, sometimes swift rise of oil prices in recent years. Their persistence suggests the days of relatively cheap oil are over and the global economy faces a future of high energy prices.

See the charts in the economic letter on each of these points. And their conclusion:

At first blush, crude oil demand doesn’t offer much hope for lower prices. It is likely to grow with an expanding world economy. Higher oil prices will prompt some conservation and take some of the edge off prices—but not much.
...
Geopolitics and exchange rates aside, long-term oil prices will largely be set by supply and demand, which will affect prices directly and influence the expectations that shape futures markets. The key lies in how much new oil reaches markets. Four scenarios for conventional oil resources show a range of outcomes and impacts for the trajectory of prices:

Oil production reaches a plateau or peak—prices likely to rise further.

Oil nationalism continues to slow the development of new resources—prices likely to remain relatively high.

In a shift of strategy, OPEC increases its output sharply—prices likely to fall.

Aggressive exploration activities pay off with the quick development of significant new resources—prices likely to fall.

... International Strategy and Investment, an energy consulting business, has documented a substantial number of projects under way that would boost world oil supplies. The development of these resources could undermine the expectations underlying the higher oil price scenarios—even those of oil nationalism.

Supplies could be bolstered by nonconventional oil sources—tar sands, oil shale, coal-to-liquids. ... The substantial development of these nonconventional oil resources could mean downward pressure on crude oil prices in future years....

What’s the bottom line? Absent supply disruptions, it will be difficult to sustain oil prices above $100 (in 2008 dollars) over the next 10 years.

After reading the letter, their conclusion was a bit of a surprise!

by Calculated Risk on 5/29/2008 04:07:00 PM

From the Economist.com: House Prices: Through the Floor (hat tip Ryan)

Earlier this week, the S&P Case-Shiller National Home Price index was released showing a 14.1% decline over the last four quarters. The Economist has a chart (from Professor Shiller) putting this decline into historical perspective by showing the YoY change in U.S. house prices since 1920. The Economist notes:

Now Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale University and co-inventor of the index, has compiled a version that stretches back over a century. This shows that the latest fall in nominal prices is already much bigger than the 10.5% drop in 1932, the worst point of the Depression.

During the Depression, the rapid decline in house prices was primarily due to the extremely weak economy and high unemployment. This time prices are falling rapidly because of the excesses of the housing bubble - especially excessive speculation and loose lending standards.

This doesn't mean the economy will fall into a depression (very unlikely in my view); instead the current rapid price decline shows how ridiculous house prices and lending standards were during the bubble.

by Calculated Risk on 5/29/2008 01:45:00 PM

From The Canadian Press: CIBC loses $1.11 billion in quarter on massive credit-market hit

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (TSX:CM) posted a net loss of $1.11 billion in the second quarter as it booked a massive hit tied to the credit market.
...
The results in the second quarter of the bank's financial year included a loss of $2.48 billion, or $1.67 billion after tax, on writedowns of structured credit, added to $3.46 billion in first-quarter writedowns.
...
The CIBC World Markets investment banking division ... warned that "market and economic conditions relating to the financial guarantors may change in the future, which could result in significant future losses."
...
The bank said it expects Canadian economic growth "to remain very sluggish in the coming quarter, held back by weak exports as the U.S. appears to be entering a mild recession."

Just a couple billion (and change) more ...