by Calculated Risk on 12/06/2007 01:46:00 AM

From the WSJ: 'Super Fund' for SIVs, Hoped for $100 Billion, May Be Half the Size

The three banks assembling a "super fund" ... are scaling back its size due to a lack of interest ...

Originally envisioned as a $100 billion fund that would buy assets from the struggling investment vehicles, the fund may now wind up being about half that size... The banks, which have informally been seeking participation from other financial institutions, expect to start a formal syndication process within the next several days.

Two weeks ago it was "next week". Now it's the next several days. Shrinkage and schedule slippage are not a good signs for the Citi bailout Super SIV cleanup fund.

by Calculated Risk on 12/05/2007 09:11:00 PM

From Standard & Poor's: S&P Cuts All Adams Square Funding I Rtgs To ‘D’ On Liquidation (hat tip Brian)

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services today lowered its ratings to 'D' on the senior swap and the class A, B-1, B-2, C, D, and E notes issued by Adams Square Funding I Ltd. The downgrades follow notice from the trustee that the portfolio collateral has been liquidated and the credit default swaps for the transaction terminated.

The issuance amount of the downgraded collateralized debt obligation (CDO) notes is $487.25 million.

According to the notice from the trustee, the sale proceeds from the liquidation of the cash assets, along with the proceeds in the collateral principal collection account, super-senior reserve account, credit default swap (CDS) reserve account, and other sources, were not adequate to cover the required termination payments to the CDS counterparty. As a result, the CDO had to draw the balance from the super-senior swap counterparty. Based on the notice we received, the trustee anticipates that proceeds will not be sufficient to cover the funded portion of the super-senior swap in full and that no proceeds will be available for distribution to the class A, B, C, D, or E notes.

Today's rating actions reflect the impact of the liquidation of the collateral at depressed prices. Therefore, these rating actions are more severe than would be justified had liquidation not been ordered, in which case our rating actions would have been based on the credit deterioration of the underlying collateral. Across the cash flow assets sold and credit default swaps terminated, we estimate, based on the values reported by the trustee, that the collateral in Adams Square Funding I Ltd. yielded, on average, the equivalent of a market value of less than 25% of par value.

Bloomberg is reporting (no link) that $165 million of debt, originally rated AAA will not be repaid.

From triple AAA to nothing. That is a deep cut.

by Anonymous on 12/05/2007 07:30:00 PM

I am, in fact, working on detailed post about The Plan. Since it appears there will be details released tomorrow, I expect to have more worthwhile to say after that.

But, to speak to what just got released (as presented in Bloomberg): this thing with the FICO score buckets seems to have taken a lot of people aback. Certainly we hadn't heard explicit mentions of FICO bucketing in the earlier hints about The Plan.

I think what this is about is a way to keep this focused on subprime loans. As regular readers of this blog (at least) know, there really aren't hard-and-fast definitions of subprime. Saying that efforts will be "prioritized" by FICOs under 660 is a way to try to target this effort to what we would consider "subprime," regardless of how the loans might be described by a servicer or in a prospectus.

And that, really, is a way to target the "freeze" to start rates that are already pretty high. I think some people are getting a bit misled by the idea of "teaser" rates here. As Bloomberg reports quite correctly, the loans being targeted have a start rate in the 7.00% to 8.00% range. (My back-of-the-envelope calculation is a weighted average of about 7.70%, with a weighted average first adjustment rate of just over 10.00%.) Nobody wants to come out and say that "Hope Now" is all about freezing just the highest initial ARM rates that there are, but that's in fact what it's about.

So asking, in essence, why we are "rewarding" people with the worst credit profiles is, really, missing the point. The point is that the cost of this goes directly to investors in asset-backed securities, and those investors are being asked to forgo 10% (the reset rate) and take 7.70% (the current or start rate). They are not being asked, say, to forgo 7.70% and take 5.70%, which is roughly what it would be if this "freeze" were extended to the significantly-over-660 crowd (Alt-A and prime ARMs).

So far, I'm prepared to believe assurances that this will not involve taxpayer subsidies: the cost of this is, actually, going to be absorbed by investors in mortgage-backed securities. This is why "good credit" borrowers are not going to be "rewarded"--because investors cannot be brought to forgo that much interest. Somebody did the math, and somebody concluded that freezing a rate that is still about 200-250 bps over the 6-month LIBOR isn't going to be a disaster (at least not compared to having to foreclose these things).

More tomorrow.

by Calculated Risk on 12/05/2007 05:08:00 PM

I believe Tanta is working on an analysis for tomorrow or later this week. Meanwhile here are some details via Bloomberg: Subprime Rate Five-Year Fix Agreed by U.S. Regulators

The freeze may apply to mortgages issued between January 2005 and July 2007 that are currently scheduled to reset between January 2008 and July 2010, said a person who has seen a draft proposal. Borrowers whose credit scores are below 660 out of a possible 850 and haven't risen by 10 percent since the loan was issued will be given priority.

by Calculated Risk on 12/05/2007 04:00:00 PM

From 1995 to 2005, the U.S. homeownership rate climbed from 64% to 69%, or about 0.5% per year. Note: A special thanks to Jan Hatzius. Much of the ideas for this post are from his piece: "Housing (Still) Holds the Key to Fed Policy", Nov 27, 2007

Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph shows the homeownership rate since 1965. Note the scale starts at 60% to better show the recent change.

The reasons for the change in homeownership rate will be discussed later in this post, but here are two key points: 1) The change in the homeownership rate added about half a million new homeowners per year, as compared to a steady homeownership rate, 2) the rate (red arrow is trend) appears to be heading down.

The U.S. population has been growing close to 3 million people per year on average, and there are about 2.4 people per household. Assuming no change in these numbers, there would be close to 1.25 million new households formed per year in the U.S. (just estimates).

Since about 2/3s of all households are owner occupied, an increase of 1.25 million households per year would imply an increase in homes owned of about 800K+ per year. If an additional 500K per year moved to homeownership - as indicated by the increase in the homeownership rate from 1995 to 2005 - then the U.S. would have needed 1.3 million additional owner occupied homes per year.

Important note: these number can't be compared directly to the Census Bureau housing starts and new home sales. There are many other factors that must be accounted for to compare the numbers.

During that same period, since about 1/3 of all households rent, the U.S. would have needed about 400K+ new rental units per year, minus the 500K per year of renters moving to homeownership. So the U.S. needed fewer rental units per year from 1995 to 2005.

Sure enough, the number of rental units in the U.S. peaked in early 1995 and declined slowly until 2005. The builders didn't stop building apartment units in 1995, instead the decline in the total units came from condo conversions and units being demolished (a fairly large number of rental and owner owned units are demolished every year).

Even though the total number of rental units was declining, this didn't completely offset the number of renters moving to homeownership, so the rental vacancy rate started moving up - from about 8% in 1995 to over 10% in 2004.

What this change in homeownership rate meant for the homebuilders was that they had the wind to their backs. Instead of 800K of new owner demand per year (plus replacement of demolished units, and second home buying), the homebuilders saw an additional 500K of new owner demand during the period 1995 to 2005. This doesn't include the extra demand from speculative buying. Some of this demand was satisfied by condo conversions and owner built units, but the builders definitely benefited from the increase in homeownership rate.

Looking ahead, if the homeownership rate stays steady, the demand for net additional homeowner occupied units would fall back to 800K or so per year (assuming steady population growth and persons per household). However the homeownership rate is declining, and this is now a headwind for the builders.

It appears the rate is declining at about 0.33% per year (Goldman's Hatzius estimated 0.5% per year). This would mean the net demand for owner occupied units would be 833K minus about 333K or 500K per year - about 40% of the net demand for owner occupied units for the period 1995 to 2005.

This means the builders have two problems over the next few years: 1) too much inventory, and 2) demand will be significantly lower over the next few years than the 1995-2005 period, and even when the homeownership rate stabilizes and the inventory is reduced, demand (excluding speculation) will only be about 2/3 of the 1995-2005 period.

Why did the homeownership rate increase?

A recent research paper - Matthew Chambers, Carlos Garriga, and Don E. Schlagenhauf (Sep 2007), "Accounting for Changes in the Homeownership Rate", Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta - suggests that there were two main factors for the recent increase in homeownership rate: 1) mortgage innovation, and 2) demographic factors (a larger percentage of older people own homes, and America is aging).

The authors found that mortgage innovation accounted for between 56 and 70 percent of the recent increase in homeownership rate, and that demographic factors accounted for 16 to 31 percent. Not all innovation is going away (securitization and some smaller downpayment programs will stay), and the population is still aging, so the homeownership rate will probably only decline to 66% or 67% - not all the way to 64%.

This isn't the first time mortgage innovation contributed to a significant increase in the homeownership rate. The follow graph is from the referenced paper:

After World War II, the homeownership rate increased from 48 percent to roughly 64 percent over twenty years. This period was not only an important change in the trend, but determined a new level for the years to come. The expansion in homeownership during the postwar period has been part of the so-called "American Dream." ...

Prior to the Great Depression the typical mortgage contract had a maturity of less than ten years, a loan-to-value ratio of about 50 percent, and mortgage payment comprised of only interest payments during the life of the contract with a "balloon payment" at expiration. The FHA sponsored a new mortgage contract characterized by a longer duration, lower downpayment requirements (i.e., higher loan-to-value ratios), and self- amortizing with a mortgage payment comprised of both interest and principal.

Not all mortgage innovation is bad!

And finally, the current boom in homeownership rate hasn't be a U.S. only phenomenon. This chart (from the paper) shows the 1995 and 2005 homeownership rate for various countries.

The 5% increase in the U.S. is actually less than many other countries.

Once again, looking forward this means the builders will face two problems over the next few years: too much supply and significantly lower demand (not even counting for speculation).