by Calculated Risk on 3/22/2009 07:54:00 PM

From Kevin Hall at McClatchy Newspapers: Treasury to deliver details of "toxic asset" treatment plan

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will meet with reporters shortly before the 9:30 a.m. opening bell for trading on the New York Stock Exchange. ...

Geithner is expected to announce a plan in which Treasury will use $75-100 billion from last year's $700 billion Wall Street bailout. ...

Mark Zandi supports the plan, although I'm not sure what he means by "fair price" since the price will be above market prices (because of the low interest rate, non-recourse loans):

"This plan has a good chance of success; certainly much better than the plan Treasury put forward six weeks ago," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, a forecaster in West Chester, Pa. "This plan relies much less on private investors and much more on direct government purchases of banks' troubled assets. Only a handful or so of private investors need to participate in this plan to establish workable auctions for the assets and thus determine a fair price for the assets."
...
"The government can then come in and buy these assets on a large scale at these prices. (Roughly) $1 trillion is not enough; it probably needs to be twice that," said Zandi. "But if the plan works well enough, I think Congress will provide more money to solve the problem once and for all. This plan makes me more optimistic about the financial prospects for the financial system and the economy".

Brad DeLong also supports the plan, but thinks much more is needed:

Our guess is that we would need to take $4 trillion out of the market and off the supply that private financial intermediaries must hold in order to move financial asset prices to where they need to be in order to unfreeze credit markets ...

Krugman and Atrios disagree with DeLong.

It is pretty clear the administration opposes nationalizing insolvent large banks, and is instead willing to have taxpayers subsidize shareholders of the banks. So the question isn't "Is this the optimal solution?" (it isn't) but "Will it work?" Maybe, but at what cost?

Oh well, what's a few trillion between friends?

by Calculated Risk on 3/22/2009 12:10:00 PM

From Kenneth Harney at the LA Times: New supply of 'jumbo' financing in pipeline

Bank of America, the country's largest mortgage lender, is rolling out a large program to finance loans between about $730,000 and $1.5 million, with fixed 30-year rates starting in the upper 5% range.
...
The minimum down payment for an ING Direct jumbo is 25%; Bank of America quotes a minimum of 20%.
...
Bank of America's new program requires hefty liquid resources -- six months of principal, interest, property tax and insurance payments in reserve -- plus fully documented income, solid credit scores and a full appraisal.

The lenders are paying attention to the "Three C's": creditworthiness, capacity, and collateral, and requiring a serious downpayment that will keep the homeowners committed.

Currently jumbo rates are in the 6.5% range, and rates for these new programs are in the "upper 5% range" - still way above rates on conforming loans, but this will probably help in some markets. Here is an excerpt from DataQuick's report on the California Bay Area:

[U]se of so-called jumbo loans to finance high-end property remained at abnormally low levels. Before the credit crunch hit in August 2007, jumbo loans, then defined as over $417,000, represented 62 percent of Bay Area purchase loans, compared with just 17.5 percent last month.

The difficulties potential high-end buyers have had in obtaining jumbo loans helps explain why sales of existing single-family houses fell to record-low or near-record-low levels for a February in some higher-end communities. They included Orinda, Walnut Creek, San Rafael, San Francisco, Burlingame, San Mateo, Los Gatos, and Los Altos.

“A lot of Bay Area activity is basically on hold, waiting for the jumbo mortgage spigot to reopen.” said John Walsh, MDA DataQuick president.

I'm not sure this will "open the spigot", but it will probably help a little.

by Calculated Risk on 3/22/2009 11:12:00 AM

From Zach Fox at the North County Times: From half a million to under $100K

This two-bedroom, two-bath house was built in 1979 and has 1,230 square feet of living space.

Click on photo for larger image in new window.

Photo by Jamie Scott Lytle, North County Times Staff photographer


September 2005: $469,000

December 2008: $91,000 (foreclosure)

Why did someone pay $469,000 for this house in 2005? Amazing.

by Calculated Risk on 3/21/2009 10:24:00 PM

If you missed this, Zach Fox at the North County Times had an incredible story: HOUSING: Banks selling properties in bulk for cheap

For example, a unit of Citigroup, the troubled financial giant, sold a foreclosure in Temecula to an Arizona investment firm for $139,000 when comparable homes in the area were selling for $240,000 to $260,000.

The firm listed the home for $249,000, received multiple offers and the property has entered escrow, said Amber Schlieder, the real estate agent who handled the listing.

Citi just left $100,000 on the table.

I hear stories like this all the time.

Here is a short video from KCET with a couple more examples (these are short sales):



Clearly the banks are overwhelmed and the process is broken. Maybe there is an opportunity here for added transparency ...

by Calculated Risk on 3/21/2009 08:06:00 PM

Randyl Drummer at CoStar writes: Rising Cap Rates Add to Real Estate Investors' Worries. Here are some stats:

In fourth-quarter 2007, 180 closed transactions of Class A office sales of more than $5 million were recorded, trading at an average actual cap rate of 6.1% nationally. By the last three months of 2008, the average cap rate spiked to 7.6% on just 80 transactions, including a jump of more than 100 basis points between the third and fourth quarters. With sales results for the quarter still being collected, CoStar had recorded 42 closed transactions at an average actual cap rate of 7.9% as of March 18.

Investors closed 279 sales of Class A and B warehouse and distribution property in the fourth quarter of 2007 at an average cap rate of 7.1%. The number of transactions dropped sharply in fourth-quarter 2008, with the cap rate rising 100 bp. First-quarter 2009 is continuing to trend toward a sharp drop in transactions, with the cap rate edging up another 50 bp to a preliminary 8.6% as of March 18.

In the apartment sector, a look at sales totaling $5 million or more shows that 629 Class A properties exchanged hands in fourth-quarter 2007 at an average actual cap rate of 5.9%. For the same period a year later, 355 transactions sold and the average cap rate rose 90 basis point to 6.8%, thanks to a 50-bp jump between the third and fourth quarters. Though deal volume appears to be again dropping sharply in the first quarter, the cap rate for closed transactions was holding steady at 6.8% in the quarter to date -- the only major property category to hold the line on cap rate expansion.

So for Class A office space, average actual cap rates have risen from 6.1% in Q4 2007 to 7.9% currently.

For Class A and B warehouse and distribution properties, cap rates have risen from 7.1% to 8.6% over the same period.

And for Class A apartments, cap rates have risen from 5.9% to 6.8%.

This is just another way of saying prices have fallen sharply. Most small investors buy Class B or C apartments, and I'd be curious about those cap rates.

by Calculated Risk on 3/21/2009 01:59:00 PM

Earlier I posted the publicly released economic scenarios from the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (bank stress tests).

The following graphs shows the stress test economic scenarios on a quarterly basis as provided by the regulators to the banks as part of the FAQs (no link). I've also added the most recent forecasts from Paul Kasriel at Northern Trust, and from Goldman Sachs (no link) for comparison.

The first graph is for the unemployment rate through 2010. This is a quarterly forecast - the January unemployment rate was 7.6% and February 8.1%.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

Although the two private forecasts don't include all of 2010, it appears that both the Kasriel and Goldman forecasts are near the "more adverse" scenario for 2009.

The second graph makes the same comparison for changes in real GDP.

An interesting note: the stress test scenario is using the advanced GDP release estimate for Q4 2008 of -3.8%, as opposed to the revised estimate of -6.2%.

Once again the private forecasts are tracking much closer to the the more adverse scenario than the baseline scenario.

And please don't think Kasriel and Goldman are UberBears. From Paul Kasriel: Light at the End of the Tunnel or an Oncoming Freight Train?

With regard to the economy, we believe there are faint signs of light at the end of the tunnel. Real consumer spending increased by 0.4% in January (and is likely to be revised up) and the decline in February nominal retail sales of 0.1% suggests that the decline in real consumer spending that month will not be severe. For the first quarter as a whole, we now expect a contraction in consumer spending much less severe than last year’s fourth-quarter contraction of 4.3%. Although we do not expect to see outright growth in real consumer spending until the fourth quarter of this year, we believe the deepest quarterly contraction is behind us. With light motor vehicle sales idling just above 9 million units at an annual rate, it appears that for the first time since 1945 there are more used cars and trucks being scrapped than there are new ones getting out on the highways. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the purchases and production of cars and trucks will be stepped up.

These are the points I've been making and I also think there is a good chance (better than a coin flip) that GDP will turn slightly positive later this year. However I also think any recovery will be very sluggish.

Even with these "faint signs of light at the end of the tunnel", it appears the "more adverse" scenario is now the real baseline.

by Calculated Risk on 3/21/2009 05:30:00 AM

The NY Times has some details ...

From Edmund L. Andrews, Eric Dash and Graham Bowley: Toxic Asset Plan Foresees Big Subsidies for Investors

The plan to be announced next week involves three separate approaches. In one, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will set up special-purpose investment partnerships and lend about 85 percent of the money that those partnerships will need to buy up troubled assets that banks want to sell.

In the second, the Treasury will hire four or five investment management firms, matching the private money that each of the firms puts up on a dollar-for-dollar basis with government money.

In the third piece, the Treasury plans to expand lending through the Term Asset-Backed Secure Lending Facility, a joint venture with the Federal Reserve.

More approaches doesn't make a better plan.

The FDIC plan involves almost no money down. The FDIC will provide a low interest non-recourse loan up to 85% of the value of the assets.

The remaining 15 percent will come from the government and the private investors. The Treasury would put up as much as 80 percent of that, while private investors would put up as little as 20 percent of the money ... Private investors, then, would be contributing as little as 3 percent of the equity, and the government as much as 97 percent.

With almost no skin in the game, these investors can pay a higher than market price for the toxic assets (since there is little downside risk). This amounts to a direct subsidy from the taxpayers to the banks.

Oh well, I'm sure Geithner will provide details this time ...

by Calculated Risk on 3/21/2009 12:14:00 AM

"And for those of you wondering about yours truly — I’m temperamentally unsuited, have never had any desire for the job, and probably have more influence as an outside gadfly than I ever could in DC."
Paul Krugman on the possibility of being appointed Treasury Secretary, Nov 26, 2008

by Calculated Risk on 3/20/2009 08:35:00 PM

Swirling Overhead...
Regulators swoop and seize,
None "too big to fail".
by Soylent Green Is People

First two large Corporate Credit Unions were seized today by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA): U.S. Central and WesCorp. These two credit unions had a combined $57 billion in assets.

A couple of key points: these "corporate credit unions" don't serve the general public, and all "natural person" credit union money held at these corporate credit unions was guaranteed earlier this year.

From the WSJ: U.S. Seizes Key Cogs for Credit Unions

The affected institutions don't serve the general public. They provide critical financing, check clearing and other tasks for the retail institutions. These wholesale credit unions, known in industry parlance as corporate credit unions, are owned by their retail credit-union members.

And from the NCUA January letter to Credit Unions:

Offering a temporary National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) guarantee of member shares in corporate credit unions. The guarantee will cover all shares, but does not include paid-in-capital and membership capital accounts, through December 31, 2010. This guarantee is the equivalent of full share insurance on member shares and will be extended beyond that date by the NCUA Board if necessary.

So the natural person credit unions (the ones that serve the public) have had their money guaranteed.

Still the losses will be huge:

[Michael E. Fryzel, chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, the industry's federal regulator] said NCUA's latest estimate is that wholesale credit unions will eventually have to realize between $10 billion and $16 billion in losses on their holdings. The agency on Friday also raised its estimate for what these losses will cost its insurance fund, to $5.9 billion from the prior $4.7 billion estimate.

Three FDIC insured banks failed today. The FDIC estimates the combined cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund will be just over $200 million.

The WSJ reports that the Geithner toxic asset plan might be announced on Monday: U.S. Sets Plan for Toxic Assets

The federal government will announce as soon as Monday a three-pronged plan to rid the financial system of toxic assets, betting that investors will be attracted to the combination of discount prices and government assistance.

HotelNewsNow.com reported that year-over-year hotel occupancy rates were off 15.7 percent. See: Hotel Occupancy Rate Off Sharply for data and a graph.

by Calculated Risk on 3/20/2009 07:29:00 PM

From the FDIC: Herring Bank, Amarillo, Texas, Assumes All of the Deposits of Colorado National Bank, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Colorado National Bank, Colorado Springs, Colorado, was closed today by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. To protect the depositors, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Herring Bank, Amarillo, Texas, to assume all of the deposits of Colorado National.
...
The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund will be $9 million. Herring Bank's acquisition of all the deposits was the "least costly" resolution for the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund compared to alternatives. Colorado National is the nineteenth FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year and the first in the state. The last FDIC-insured institution closed in Colorado was BestBank, Boulder, on July 23, 1998.

From the FDIC: Great Southern Bank, Springfield, Missouri, Assumes All of the Deposits of Teambank, National Association, Paola, Kansas

Teambank, National Association, Paola, Kansas, was closed today by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. To protect the depositors, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Great Southern Bank, Springfield, Missouri, to assume all of the deposits of Teambank.
...
The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund will be $98 million. Great Southern Bank's acquisition of all the deposits was the "least costly" resolution for the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund compared to alternatives. Teambank is the twentieth FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year and the first in the state. The last FDIC-insured institution closed in Kansas was The Columbian Bank and Trust Company, Topeka, on August 22, 2008.

Teambank was affiliated with Colorado National Bank, Colorado Springs, which was also closed today by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The FDIC entered into a separate transaction with Herring Bank, Amarillo, Texas, to assume the banking operations of Colorado National Bank.

That makes three today (the Corporate Credit Unions are different, but probably a bigger story).