by Calculated Risk on 3/11/2009 07:01:00 PM

This is amazing ...

From the Boston Globe: Now-needy FDIC collected little in premiums (ht Atrios)

The federal agency that insures bank deposits, which is asking for emergency powers to borrow up to $500 billion to take over failed banks, is facing a potential major shortfall in part because it collected no insurance premiums from most banks from 1996 to 2006.

... a booming economy left banks flush with cash, and by 1996 the insurance fund was considered so large that it could grow through interest payments and fees charged only to banks with high credit risk. Congress agreed that premiums didn't need to be collected if the fund was sustained at a level that was considered safe. Thus, about 95 percent of banks paid no premiums from 1996 to 2006 ...

James Chessen, chief economist of the American Bankers Association, said that it made sense at the time to stop collecting most premiums because "the fund became so large that interest income on the fund was covering the premiums for almost a decade." There were relatively few bank failures and no projection of the current economic collapse, he said.

"Obviously hindsight is 20-20," Chessen said.

Hoocoodanode?

by Calculated Risk on 3/11/2009 04:56:00 PM

Press Release: Freddie Mac Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2008 Financial Results

Freddie Mac today reported a net loss of $23.9 billion ...

For the full-year 2008, the company reported a net loss of $50.1 billion ...

Fourth quarter 2008 results were driven primarily by net mark-to-market losses of $13.3 billion on the company’s derivative portfolio, guarantee asset and trading securities due to the impacts of spread widening and declines in interest rates. In addition, the company recorded $7.2 billion in credit-related expenses related to the continued deterioration in economic conditions during the fourth quarter, including a rapid deterioration in labor markets, steeper declines in home prices, and a drop in consumer confidence to record lows. Results were also impacted by security impairments on the company’s available-for-sale securities of $7.5 billion primarily due to sustained deterioration in the performance of the underlying collateral on the company’s non-agency mortgage-related securities.

... Pursuant to Treasury’s funding commitment under the Purchase Agreement, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has submitted a request to Treasury for funding in the amount of $30.8 billion. The company expects to receive such funds in March 2009.
emphasis added

The $30.8 billion in funding is in line with the announcement in January.

by Calculated Risk on 3/11/2009 04:07:00 PM

The markets were calm today ... so here is something else.

Earlier today, the BLS released the state unemployment rates for January. Four states are now above 10%: Michigan, South Carolina, Rhode Island and California.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the unemployment rate by state (and D.C.) for January 2008 and January 2009.

The unemployment rate has increased significantly in every state, and more than doubled in Hawaii and Alabama over the last 12 months - and has nearly doubled in North Carolina, Indiana and Oregon.

There is pain everywhere.

by Calculated Risk on 3/11/2009 03:04:00 PM

From Rex Nutting at MarketWatch: Budget deficit widens 10% as receipts fall to 14-year low

U.S. federal government budget widened to $192.8 billion in February ... the second largest monthly deficit on record ... receipts dropped 17% to $87.3 billion, the lowest since February 1995.

In February, individual income taxes fell 64% to just $8.7 billion. That's the lowest monthly total for individual income taxes since May 1985.

Ouch!

by Calculated Risk on 3/11/2009 12:45:00 PM

From James Saft at Reuters: Builder loans are the forgotten land mine in U.S. credit crisis (ht Michael)

Banks in the United States face a new source of write-downs and failures in the coming year, as loans made to developers to finance residential and commercial property development rapidly go bad.
...
Called acquisition, construction and development, or ADC, loans, they total 8.4 percent of all bank loans, just below a 30-year peak, and are used by developers to buy land, put in infrastructure and construct housing or commercial space.

[CR Note: or just C&D loans for Construction & Development]

"Everyone in the media is focused on consumer foreclosures," said Ivy Zelman, a housing analyst at Zelman & Associates. "What they're not focused on is the builder-developer foreclosures, which are only in the early innings and which will continue to wreak havoc as these assets are liquidated at depressed prices. Until they are cleared, there can't be a stabilization in home prices."

Zelman thinks the pressure will cause "hundreds of banks" to close.
...
Of particular concern is that ADC loans are concentrated in smaller banks, which tend to have deep ties to local developers. ADC loans account for 47 percent of nonperforming loans at small banks, compared with 14 percent at larger banks.

This really isn't a new topic - the FDIC issued a report on emerging risks in 2006 that clearly showed that medium sized institutions ($1-$10 billion in assets) had excessive exposure to C&D loans. And it is really the mid-sized institutions, not the smaller institutions (although plenty of those will fail too because of bad C&D loans).

Here are three key graphs concerning C&D loans based on the FDIC Q4 Quarterly Banking Profile:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The first graph shows the number of FDIC insured institutions with construction loans exceeding total capital.

Not all of these institutions will fail, and not all failures will be because of C&D loans, but this gives an idea of the number of institutions with excessive exposure to C&D loans.

The second graph shows the concentration of C&D loans by institution asset size.

This suggests that a higher percentage of mid-sized banks ($1 to $10 billion range) will fail from C&D losses. There were two examples this year: County Bank, Merced, California had $1.7 billion in assets. Alliance Bank, Culver City, CA had $1.14 billion in assets. Both were seized by the FDIC on February 6th.

Of course there are many more small banks. The FDIC Q4 report shows 7,629 institutions under $1 billion in assets, 562 mid-sized institutions, and only 114 with greater than $10 billion in assets. So most of the failures will be smaller banks.

The third graph shows the noncurrent rate for C&D loans. The rate is rising quickly - hitting 8.5% in Q4 - although the rate is still below the level of the early '90s (related to overbuilding of CRE and the S&L crisis).

Put together, these graphs suggest many more bank failures as the C&D noncurrent rate continues to rise. Other banks will fail because of bad residential loans (like IndyMac), and some institutions from bad CRE loans, but most bank failures will probably be C&D related.

by Calculated Risk on 3/11/2009 10:51:00 AM

From Brad Setser: The fall in China’s exports caught up with the fall in China’s imports, at least for now

After soaring for most of this decade — the pace of China’s export growth clearly turned up in 2002 or 2003 and then stayed at a very high pace — China’s exports are falling back to earth. The surge in China’s exports could prove to be as unsustainable as the rise in US (and some European) home prices. They might end up being mirror images … as Americans and Europeans could only import so much from China so long as they could borrow against rising home prices.
emphasis added

credit: graph from Brad Setser

Historically there has been a strong correlation between household mortgage equity withdrawal (MEW) in the U.S. and the U.S. trade deficit. Now that MEW is essentially over, the U.S. trade deficit has declined sharply too.

As Setser suggests, the surge in China's exports were very dependent on the U.S. and European housing bubbles - and MEW.

Note: Q4 MEW will probably be available next week (the Fed's Flow of Funds report will be released tomorrow).

by Calculated Risk on 3/11/2009 09:13:00 AM

From The Times: Bank to begin 'printing money' to boost economy

The Bank of England will start pumping newly created money into the economy today by buying £2 billion in gilts as it embarks on "quantitative easing" in an effort to boost the economy.
...
Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank, indicated last week that the Bank would continue this course of action until the lending markets became unglued.

... the Bank's announcement has already had some effects.

Benchmark ten-year bond yields fell to a record low of 2.95 per cent at the beginning of the week and sterling swap rates, used by banks and building societies to calculate fixed-term mortgage rates, have also dropped, indicating that lenders should be able to offer more competitive home loan rates.

Corporate borrowing costs have also fallen by between 0.44 and 0.72 percentage points, according to the sterling iBoxx index.

The Fed will probably watch this closely as they discuss buying long-term treasuries at the Fed meeting next week.

by Calculated Risk on 3/11/2009 01:49:00 AM

Link: A conversation with Timothy Geithner

Stress test / public-private discussion starts at just after 6 minutes ...

by Calculated Risk on 3/10/2009 11:16:00 PM

From Bloomberg: Libor Creep Says Credit Markets Risk Freeze on Policy Distrust

The cost of borrowing in dollars is rising as the global recession deepens and central bank efforts to prop up the financial system fail to prevent a growing number of banks from requiring government bailouts.

The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, that banks say they charge each other for three-month loans climbed to 1.33 percent yesterday, the highest level since Jan. 8 ...

Short-term borrowing costs are increasing as banks hoard cash and governments struggle to thaw credit markets ... “The market is beginning to think that the solution is either not politically possible, or we can’t afford it, or maybe there isn’t a solution,” said Bob Baur, chief global economist at Des Moines, Iowa-based Principal Global Investors ...

And from Bloomberg: Bank Debt Stressed at Bear Stearns, Lehman Peaks

Bank debt is as stressed as when Bear Stearns Cos. had to be bailed out and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed, according to analysts at BNP Paribas SA.
...
“We’re seeing the start of the next leg of the crisis and that’s going to be financial bondholders taking a haircut as lenders default,” said Mehernosh Engineer, a London-based strategist at BNP Paribas.

by Calculated Risk on 3/10/2009 08:09:00 PM

It seems like the "D" word is everywhere. And that raises a question: what is a depression? Although there is no formal definition, most economists agree it is a prolonged slump with a 10% or more decline in real GDP.

Yesterday I heard an analyst say that a 10% unemployment rate is a depression. But the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8% in 1982, and that period is usually not considered a depression.

Some people argue the duration of the economic slump defines a depression - and the current recession is already 15 months old. That is longer than the recessions of '90/'91 and '01. The '73-'75 recession lasted 16 months peak to trough, and the early '80s recession (a double dip) was classified as a 6 month recession followed by a 16 month recession (22 months total). Those earlier periods weren't "depressions", so if duration is the key measure, the current recession still has a ways to go.

Here is a graph comparing the decline in real GDP for the current recession with other recessions since 1947. Depression is marked on the graph as -10%.

Click on table for larger image in new window.

Q1 2009 is estimated at a -7.0% decline in real GDP (Seasonally adjusted annual rate). This will push the cumulative decline (peak to trough) to about 3.4%.

Even though the current recession is already one of the worst since 1947, it is only about 1/3 of the way to a depression (assuming a terrible Q1).

To reach a depression, the economy would have to decline at about a 6.6% annual rate each quarter for the next year.

The second graph compares the current recession (estimated through Q1 2009) with the more severe recessions of the last century.

Note that the data is annual for the pre-1947 economic slumps.

The Great Depression saw real GDP decline 26.5%.

The post-WWII recession lasted 8 months and saw real GDP decline 13%. This decline in GDP was due to winding down the war effort - something that was celebrated - and is excluded when analysts call the current slump the "worst since the Great Depression".

I still think a depression is very unlikely. More likely the economy will bottom later this year or at least the rate of economic decline will slow sharply. I also still believe that the eventual recovery will be very sluggish, and it will take some time to return to normal growth.

As I noted last weekend, business cycles have a typical pattern (see Business Cycle: Temporal Order). Housing and personal consumption usually lead the economy out of recession - and both of these areas will probably be slow to recover this time.

The following table and text are an excerpt from the previous post. The table shows a simplified typical temporal order for emerging from a recession.

When Recovery Typically Starts

During Recession	Lags End of Recession	Significantly Lags End of Recession
Residential Investment	Investment, Equipment & Software	Investment, non-residential Structures
PCE	Unemployment(1)

This business cycle there are reasons that housing will not be a significant engine of recovery. It is possible - see Looking for the Sun - that new home sales and housing starts will bottom in 2009, but any recovery in housing will probably be sluggish.

That leaves Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) - and as households increase their savings rate to repair their balance sheets, it seems unlikely that PCE will increase significantly any time soon. So even if the economy bottoms in the 2nd half of 2009, any recovery will probably be very sluggish.

At least we know what to watch: Residential Investment (RI) and PCE. The increasingly severe slump in CRE / non-residential investment in structures will be interesting, but that is a lagging indicator for the economy.

(1) In recent recessions, unemployment significantly lagged the end of the recession. That is very likely this time too.