by Anonymous on 10/05/2007 08:45:00 AM

Because we really needed to know that 47% of you think a professional opinion about cycling vs. jogging or miniblinds vs. drapes or mary janes vs. t-straps is of more value to you than a professional opinion about stocks vs. bonds.

According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association:

Washington, D.C., October 3, 2007 – A majority of adults (53%) would choose to receive financial advice over that of a personal trainer, interior designer or fashion consultant if given the opportunity, according to the findings of a recent survey conducted on behalf of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA).

Should you for some reason really care, the question was "If you could have a free consultation session with an expert, which would you choose?" The responses were:

Financial Advisor: 53%
Personal Trainer: 23%
Interior Designer: 9%
Fashion/Style Consultant: 6%
Don't Know: 8%

We have certainly managed successfully to redefine the term "expert." I for one see great opportunities for financial advisors who also offer personal training services. If you could discuss portfolio allocation while teaching yoga--good morning, CR!--you could make a fortune. (I, whose interior design has been described as "presence of the usual items of furniture" and whose fashion has been described as "clothed and shod" and whose major form of aerobic exercise is typing, am angling for the "don't know" crowd.)

by Calculated Risk on 10/05/2007 12:00:00 AM

From the Chicago Tribune: Here's a new one: Being too broke to sell

A survey of mortgage brokers suggests that one in three consumers who recently signed purchase contracts canceled in August -- up from just 4 percent three years ago, according to the research firm that conducted the survey for Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade journal.

The cancellation rate undoubtedly was fed by two scenarios playing out: Many buyers couldn't get mortgage approval because lending suddenly tightened; or, financially strained lenders yanked funding from their borrowers at the last minute.

But another factor was at work: Sellers -- not buyers -- were in trouble as their closing dates neared.

"Our office had four sales in one week that failed to close because the seller didn't have the cash," said the real estate agent, who declined to be identified because she feared office repercussions.

Actually this isn't "new"; if the seller is making the payments - and can afford the payments - the lender won't do a short sale. The only way out is for the seller to bring cash to the closing. I wrote about this in March: Escrow to Seller: "Bring Money". Tanta called this "making your downpayment after the fact."

by Anonymous on 10/04/2007 05:50:00 PM

As a follow-up to CR's post below, here's a chart from the Moody's report, "Subprime Mortgage Market Update: September 2007," released yesterday.

Note that this chart calculates delinquencies as a percent of the original security balance, so these numbers may not match other delinquency measures you have seen reported that are based on current security balances.

And what seems to be driving 2006 and 2007 delinquencies?

The data show that, as we have noted in previous communications, loan performance for the 2006 subprime vintage seems to be driven primarily by the proportions of stated documentation loans and high CLTV loans backing the transactions as well as the proportion of loans that combine (or "layer") these risk characteristics. (Stated documentation loans are those loans for which the borrower's income and assets are not verified by documentation during the loan approval process and therefore are more likely to be overstated.) Interestingly, FICO scores and LTV ratios do not vary significantly between the strongest and weakest performing transactions and on average transaction performance does not appear to have been influenced by these characteristics.

by Calculated Risk on 10/04/2007 04:34:00 PM

From Bloomberg: Subprime Borrowers' Payments Should Be Fixed, FDIC's Bair Says (hat tip Brian)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair called for payments on most subprime mortgages to be fixed at current levels.

Lenders should extend "teaser" rates on all subprime adjustable-rate mortgages if the borrowers haven't missed any payments and they live in the homes, Bair said today in New York. Modifying loans on a case-by-case basis and fixing rates for limited periods won't avert enough foreclosures, she said.

And from Congress: (hat tip NYT junkie)

House: "Miller and Rep. Linda Sánchez Introduce Legislation to Protect Consumers in Financial Distress from Losing Their Homes"

Senate: Durbin Introduces Bill to Help Hundreds of Thousands of Homeowners Avoid Foreclosure

To help families save their homes, the Durbin bill would:

* Eliminate a provision of the bankruptcy law that prohibits modifications to mortgage loans on the debtor’s primary residence, so that primary mortgages are treated the same as vacation homes and family farms.

* Extend the time frame debtors are allowed for repayment, to support long-term mortgage restructuring.

* Waive the bankruptcy counseling requirement for families whose houses are already scheduled for foreclosure sale, so that precious time is not lost as families fight to save their homes.

To further help families get back on their feet financially as they go through bankruptcy, the bill would also:

* Combat excessive fees that are sometimes charged to debtors in bankruptcy.

* Maintain debtors’ legal claims against predatory lenders while in bankruptcy.

* Reinforce that bankruptcy judges can rule on core issues rather than deferring to arbitration.

* Enact a higher homestead floor for homeowners over the age of 55, to help older homeowners who are fighting to keep their homes as they go through bankruptcy but live in states with low homestead floors.

* Reinforce that consumer protection claims are still available in bankruptcy.

And from Sentor Specter: Specter Introduces Bill To Combat Home Mortgage Crisis

And there is a growing backlash against the bailout proposals, from CNNMoney Subprime: Bailout backlash

But judging from the hundreds of reader responses CNNMoney.com has received in recent weeks, "foreclosure prevention" sounds a lot like "bailout" to many Americans, and they don't like it one bit.
...
Joseph Mason, an associate professor of finance at Drexel University and a senior fellow at Wharton, argues in a research paper released Wednesday that proposed remedies could actually make things worse and even that troubled borrowers have gotten some benefit from their loans.
...
One proposal seems to be garnering support from everyone: exempting homeowners who foreclose or otherwise have some of their mortgage debt forgiven from having to pay income tax on the forgiven amount.

Who is this "everyone"? I support no income taxes on debt forgiveness on the purchase debt (or equal amount if the homeowner refi'd), but for homeowners that borrowed money on their home - tax free using their home as an ATM - shouldn't they be liable for the taxes on that forgiven debt? What a mess.

Note: Say someone bought a house with a $200K first, and then loses the house in foreclosure. I don't think there should be any tax consequences. But if they borrowed an additional $50K tax free (now owe $250K) and then lose their home in foreclosure, I think they should be liable for taxes on the additional $50K.

by Calculated Risk on 10/04/2007 03:58:00 PM

From MarketWatch: Citizens Banking Co. takes on Miami Valley deposits (hat tip REBear)

The Citizens Banking Company of Sandusky, Ohio, got federal approval to take over the insured deposits of the failed Miami Valley Bank on Thursday, a U.S. banking regulator announced.

The Ohio Superintendent of Financial Institutions' closure of Miami Valley, which had $86.7 million in total assets and $76 million in total deposits, marks the third FDIC-insured bank to fail this year.

FDIC link is here.