by Calculated Risk on 9/29/2009 10:33:00 AM

Here is a hockey stick graph ...

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

Fannie Mae reported that the serious delinquency rate for conventional loans in its single-family guarantee business increased to 4.17 percent in July, up from 3.94 percent in June - and up from 1.45% in July 2008.

"Includes seriously delinquent conventional single-family loans as a percent of the total number of conventional single-family loans. These rates are based on conventional single-family mortgage loans and exclude reverse mortgages and non-Fannie Mae mortgage securities held in our portfolio."

Just more evidence of some shadow inventory and the next wave of foreclosures.

Update: These stats include Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) loans in trial modifications.

by Calculated Risk on 9/29/2009 09:00:00 AM

S&P/Case-Shiller released their monthly Home Price Indices for July this morning.

This monthly data includes prices for 20 individual cities, and two composite indices (10 cities and 20 cities). This is the Seasonally Adjusted data - others report the NSA data.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The first graph shows the nominal seasonally adjusted Composite 10 and Composite 20 indices (the Composite 20 was started in January 2000).

The Composite 10 index is off 31.6% from the peak, and up about 1.3% in July.

The Composite 20 index is off 30.6% from the peak, and up 1.2% in July.


The second graph shows the Year over year change in both indices.

The Composite 10 is off 12.8% from July 2008.
The Composite 20 is off 11.5% from last year.

This is still a very strong YoY decline.

The third graph shows the price declines from the peak for each city included in S&P/Case-Shiller indices.

Prices increased (SA) in 17 of the 20 Case-Shiller cities in July.

In Las Vegas, house prices have declined 55.2% from the peak. At the other end of the spectrum, prices in Dallas are only off about 4.9% from the peak - and up in 2009. Prices have declined by double digits almost everywhere.

The debate continues - is the price increase because of the seasonal mix (distressed sales vs. non-distressed sales), the impact of the first-time home buyer frenzy on prices, and the slowdown in the foreclosure process (with a huge shadow inventory), or have prices actually bottomed? I think we will see further house price declines in many areas.

I'll compare house prices to the stress test scenarios soon.

by Calculated Risk on 9/28/2009 11:14:00 PM

Here are some unintended consequences ...

According to the NAR, the "first-time" homebuyer tax credit will lead to an additional 350 thousand homes sold in 2009. As I've mentioned before, this tax credit is inefficient and poorly targeted, costing taxpayers about $43,000 for each additional home sold.

And where are those 350 thousand buyers coming from? My guess is most were probably renters (a few might have been living in their parent's basements!).

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

And what will be the impact on the rental vacancy rate?

The rental vacancy rate was already at a record 10.6% in Q2 2009. Some quick math suggests the tax credit will push the national vacancy rate above 11% soon.

And that means even more pressure on rents (rents are already falling). This is good news for renters, but this will also lead to more apartment defaults, higher default rates for apartment CMBS, and more losses for small and regional banks.

And falling rents are already pushing down owners' equivalent rent (OER), and my guess is OER will probably turn negative soon. Since OER is the largest component of CPI (and almost 40% of core CPI), this will push down CPI for some time.

Extend the tax credit and we might be looking at the core CPI showing deflation. Welcome to the Fed's nightmare.

by Calculated Risk on 9/28/2009 08:38:00 PM

From Reuters: S&P cuts MBIA, MBIA Insurance as losses continue

Standard & Poor's on Monday cut its ratings on MBIA Inc and its structured finance insurance arm, MBIA Insurance Corp, citing an expectation the company will continue to take significant losses from insuring risky loans. ... The outlook for both companies is negative ...

From S&P:

We downgraded MBIA and the holding company because macroeconomic conditions continue to contribute to losses on the group's structured finance products. Losses on MBIA's 2005-2007 vintage direct RMBS and CDO of ABS could be higher than we had expected. However, the downgrade also reflects potentially increased losses in other asset classes, including but not limited to CMBS and--for other years prior to 2005--within RMBS.
...
The negative outlook on MBIA and the holding company reflects our view that adverse loss development on the structured finance book could continue. In the next few years, liquidity will likely be adequate to meet debt-service and holding-company obligations (including operating expenses). However, increased losses and earnings volatility could still occur. ... Considering the runoff nature of the franchise, it is unlikely that we would raise the rating. Alternatively, if there were increased losses within the investment portfolio, potential reserve charges, or diminished liquidity, we could take a negative rating action.
emphasis added

There is still significant counterparty risk for the banks from both MBIA and Ambac.

by Calculated Risk on 9/28/2009 04:25:00 PM

From the Financial Times: FDIC considers calling for bank advances

The FDIC’s board, which meets on Tuesday to discuss options, is currently leaning towards asking banks to pay several years’ worth of its fees in advance ...
excerpted with permission

The other alternatives are 1) borrowing from the Treasury, 2) borrowing from healthy banks, or 3) assessing banks another special fee.

The options of borrowing from the Treasury, or from healthy banks, are apparently off the table for now. On Friday, FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair said about borrowing from banks: "It's a possibility, I assume. I don't see that as a preferred option, but it is something in the statute."

So it appears the FDIC will ask for three years of assessments in advance, or about $36 billion according to Reuters.

The advantage to the banks of prepaying assessments (as opposed to another special assessment) is the banks don't have to record the expense immediately.