by Calculated Risk on 3/16/2009 09:58:00 PM

From the WSJ: Obama Seeks to Avoid Auto Bankruptcies

The leaders of President Barack Obama's auto task force are focused on restructuring General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC outside of bankruptcy court ...
...
"It sometimes becomes a necessary place for some companies, but it's certainly not a desired place and it is certainly not our goal to see these companies in bankruptcy, particularly considering the consumer-facing nature of their businesses," [Steven Rattner, a private-equity executive leading the team] said in an interview.
...
By the end of the month, the government plans to lay out its view on the companies' viability and what the industry should look like in future years, Mr. Rattner said.

Meanwhile: Chrysler Presses Request for Loans. Just another $5 billion by the end of the month ...

by Calculated Risk on 3/16/2009 07:56:00 PM

From Reuters: U.S. credit card defaults rise to 20 year-high

U.S. credit card defaults rose in February to their highest level in at least 20 years, with losses particularly severe at American Express ... and Citigroup ...

AmEx ... said its net charge-off rate ... rose to 8.70 percent in February from 8.30 percent in January.

... Citigroup Inc (C.N) ... default rate soared to 9.33 percent in February, from 6.95 percent a month earlier ...
...
Chase ... reported its charge-off rate rose to 6.35 percent in February from 5.94 percent in January. ...

Capital One Financial Corp's ... default rate increased to 8.06 percent in February from 7.82 percent in January.
...
Analysts estimate credit card chargeoffs could climb to between 9 and 10 percent this year from 6 to 7 percent at the end of 2008.

The Treasury and Federal Reserve haven't publicly released the indicative loss rates for various asset classes associated with the two stress test economic scenarios (baseline and more adverse), but these numbers are probably approaching the "more adverse" scenario range for credit cards.

by Calculated Risk on 3/16/2009 06:06:00 PM

Here is a comparison of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Housing Market Index and new home sales from the Census Bureau. Since new home sales are released with a lag, the NAHB index provides a possible leading indicator for sales.

Note: the NAHB index released this morning was for a March survey. New Home sales for February will be released on March 25th - so the NAHB is released almost 6 weeks ahead of the corresponding sales numbers.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This shows that major tops and bottoms (green arrows) for the two series line up pretty well (usually within 1 month). However both series are noisy month to month, and there are plenty of head fakes in between the significant peaks and troughs. Also the new home sales data is revised significantly (this graph uses revised data).

Just something to watch going forward ...

by Calculated Risk on 3/16/2009 03:46:00 PM

From Bloomberg: FASB Moves Toward Giving Banks More Flexibility on Fair-Value (ht Justin)

The Financial Accounting Standards Board, pressured by lawmakers to change the fair-value rule blamed for worsening the financial crisis, proposed permitting companies to use “significant judgment” in valuing assets.

Companies would be able to apply the revised rule to their first-quarter financial statements, FASB Chairman Robert Herz said today during a meeting at the U.S. accounting rulemaker’s Norwalk, Connecticut, headquarters. The board is set to vote on the proposal April 2, after a 15-day public comment period. ...

From the American Bankers Association: Breaking News: FASB to Propose Improvements to Mark-to-Market, OTTI

Mark-to-Market. The proposal for estimating market values will take into consideration whether there is an active market (such as the number of recent transactions, whether price quotes are based on current information, whether price quotes vary substantially, etc.). If there is not an active market, then the quoted price is a distressed transaction unless certain other conditions exist. For distressed transaction prices, “Level 3” techniques (such as present values of future cash flows) are used instead of the distressed prices and should reflect an orderly transaction between market participants, including a reasonable profit margin for uncertainty in a non-distressed situation.

Other-Than-Temporary-Impairment. FASB will also propose that the full market loss continue to be reported through earnings (and capital) only if the entity intends to sell or will be required to sell the security prior to its recovery. For all other OTTI, the amount of market loss will be split between the credit portion of the loss, which will be reported in earnings, and the remainder of the loss, which will be reported in “other comprehensive income.”

by Calculated Risk on 3/16/2009 03:21:00 PM

Update: Housing Wire has more: Mortgage Fraud at All-Time High: Report

This report appears to deal with Fraud for Housing, and not Fraud for Profit (what most people think of as mortgage fraud).

From Dina ElBoghdady at the WaPo: Mortgage Fraud Rises Even as Loans Decline

Mortgage fraud rose last year even though fewer loans were issued nationwide ... Fraud jumped by 26 percent in 2008 from the previous year, the study concluded, based on data collected from roughly 70 percent of the nation's lenders as well as mortgage insurance companies and mortgage investors. The study was prepared by the Mortgage Asset Research Institute, an arm of LexisNexis, for the Mortgage Bankers Association.
...
"With fewer loan originations today, the data suggest that the economic downturn may have created more desperation, causing more people than ever before to try to commit mortgage fraud," said Denise James, one of the study's authors.

The most common type of fraud continues to be application misrepresentation, which includes falsifying a borrower's income. That kind of fraud represented about 61 percent of all the reported cases last year, followed by fraud on tax returns and financial statements. The volume of reported fraud related to credit reports dropped from 9 percent to 4 percent in the past year.
...
The study noted that the spike in fraudulent activity cases can be partially attributed to more vigorous reporting and investigations.

Historically there have been two types of mortgage fraud: fraud for housing, and fraud for profit. The MBA/MARI report focuses on fraud for housing (and that probably includes refinance fraud because borrowers are desperate).

Tanta explained this well: Unwinding the Fraud for Bubbles

There is a tradition in the mortgage business of distinguishing between two major types of mortgage fraud, called “Fraud for Housing” and “Fraud for Profit.” The former is the borrower-initiated fraud—inflating income or assets, lying about employment, etc.—that is motivated by the borrower’s desire to get housing (not the same thing as “real estate”), by means of getting a loan he or she doesn’t actually qualify for. It may require some collusion by the loan originator or appraiser, but it may not. It is usually the least expensive kind of fraud to lenders and investors, since the goal is getting (and keeping) the property, so the borrower is at least usually motivated to make the payments. The problems come about, of course, because these borrowers failed to qualify honestly for a reason. Borrower-initiated fraud loans may be considered “self-underwritten,” and such loans do have a much higher failure rate than the “lender-underwritten” ones. Their only saving grace is that the lender tends to recover more in a foreclosure than in a fraud for profit case. Penalties to the borrower rarely ever come in the form of prosecution; losing the home and becoming a subprime borrower for the next four to seven years—with the credit costs that implies—are the borrower's punishment.

Fraud for profit is simply someone trying to extract cash—not housing—out of the transaction somewhere. If it is borrower-initiated fraud, it’s not a borrower who wants a house; it’s a borrower who wants to flip a piece of real estate or launder money or in some other way grab the cash and leave the lender holding the bag. Most of it, however, is initiated by a seller, real estate broker, lender, or closing agent (or all of them in collusion). It generally requires additional collusion by bribable appraisers, although it can certainly be initiated by a corrupt appraiser looking for a kickback, or can merely take advantage of a trainee or gullible appraiser. This is the flip scam, straw borrower, equity skimming, misappropriation of payoff funds, identity theft kind of fraud. It may not be as common as fraud for housing, at least in some markets, but it’s much, much more expensive to the bagholder. At minimum, the fraud-for-housing borrower wants to take clear, merchantable title to the property and maintain it at an acceptable level. That’s either unnecessary expense or (in the case of title) a hurdle to be gotten over by the fraud-for-profit participant.

As Tanta noted, during the housing bubble, these two frauds merged, and that is probably not happening now. I suspect most of the fraud today is "fraud for housing" by homeowners desperate to refinance.