by Calculated Risk on 1/17/2010 09:43:00 AM

From Kenneth Harney at the LA Times: Mortgage lenders exploit a loophole in HUD's new 'good faith estimate' rules

Starting Jan. 1, mortgage lenders nationwide were required to begin issuing new "good faith estimates" [GFE] to applicants covering loan fees and settlement charges.

Under the regulations issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the estimates that lenders provide upfront must be accurate -- the same or nearly the same as the fees that are later charged at closing.
...
So how have the first two weeks of the reforms been going? Not exactly as planned. Many loan officers and lending institutions are sidestepping the new, price-bound GFE by giving shoppers "work sheets" and "loan scenario" forms that come with no legal requirements for accuracy, and were not even contemplated under the reforms.

In effect they are substitutes for the new GFEs but, in the wrong hands, they are open to lowballing and bait-and-switch games.

The work sheets purport to contain much of the information provided by a GFE. Typically they are issued only when shoppers do not provide -- or are asked not to provide -- key information that constitutes an "application" under HUD's definition in the rules.

In certain circumstances this makes sense, although it is open to abuse. As Harney notes, some lenders used to low ball the estimate of fees, and then surprise the borrowers with higher costs at closing. The GFE was intended to eliminate this practice.

Perhaps HUD could add an additional rule that says "worksheets" must require: 1) a description of what a GFE is, and 2) a clear statement that the worksheet is not a GFE, and 3) what additional information the borrower needs to provide to get a GFE. Who could object to that?

by Calculated Risk on 1/17/2010 12:51:00 AM

Here is the link to the Colbert video.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Honor Bound
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

by Calculated Risk on 1/16/2010 09:08:00 PM

Even with occupancy rates at record lows since the Great Depression, there are still a number of hotel projects being completed. It takes a number of years to build a new hotel, and all these projects were planned during the bubble years.

This has significant implications for non-residential investment and construction employment in 2010. As these large projects are completed, there will be more construction job losses, and less investment in non-residential structures.

And it definitely doesn't help the occupancy rate to have more rooms!

From the LA Times: New L.A. luxury hotels face tough debuts

The newest downtown hotel complex buzzed with activity this week as carpenters, electricians and gardeners hustled to put the finishing touches on the $970-million skyscraper that rises over the Los Angeles Convention Center and the L.A. Live entertainment center.

But when the glass-sheathed tower that houses the JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels opens next month, it will face one of the worst slumps in years for the hospitality business.
...
In 2009, hotel revenues took their steepest decline in more than two decades, and the occupancy rate in Los Angeles now hovers at a meager 65%.
...
Other upscale hotels are also opening in Los Angeles under economic clouds this year, all aiming to survive the steep drop in demand.

The $360-million W Hollywood Hotel & Residences at the corner of Hollywood and Vine is scheduled to open Jan. 28.

by Calculated Risk on 1/16/2010 06:21:00 PM

As a followup to my previous post, Professor Krugman points out that Q1 2002 GDP growth¹ was originally reported as 5.8% with rising unemployment. Good point.

Although Q1 2002 GDP growth was later revised down to 3.5%, it is another good example of a "GDP blip" driven by changes in inventory (inventory changes added 2.63% to the final 3.5%), with weak underlying demand (PCE was 1% in Q1 2002 - and stayed weak into 2003).

Krugman notes "at the time there was much unwarranted celebration (unemployment didn’t peak until summer 2003)."

I expect some unwarranted celebration this time too - and the unemployment rate to continue to increase.

Note: I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm not just being bearish - I called the 2nd half recovery in GDP pretty early and I've been consistently concerned about 2010.

¹GDP growth refers to the headline BEA number. That is the seasonally adjusted annualized real rate of GDP growth.

by Calculated Risk on 1/16/2010 02:24:00 PM

In a research note released last night, Goldman Sachs raised their estimate of Q4 GDP from 4.0% to 5.8%. They cautioned that the "headline will be an eye-popper", but that this growth is mostly due to inventory changes: "More than two-thirds of our estimated increase comes from a sudden stabilization in inventories". They also noted "anything between 4½% and 7% is possible given the volatility of the inventory data".

The rest of the note cautions on 2010, and Goldman still sees sluggish growth of just under 2.0% with the unemployment rate peaking in early 2011.

This is what we've been discussing - GDP boosted by inventory changes in the 2nd half of 2009, followed by sluggish growth in 2010.

San Francisco Fed President described the impact of inventory changes back in September: The Outlook for Recovery in the U.S. Economy

I expect the biggest source of expansion in the second half of this year to come from a diminished pace of inventory liquidation by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. Such a pattern is typical of business cycles. Inventory investment often is the catalyst for economic recoveries. True, the boost is usually fairly short-lived, but it can be quite important in getting things going. ...

But what if this doesn't "get things going"?

When was the last time we saw 5%+ GDP growth, due mostly to inventory changes, and increasing unemployment? It was in Q1 1981.

The 1980 recession ended in Q3 1980, and inventory changes boosted Q4 GDP by 3.8%, and Q1 1981 GDP by an amazing 6.4%! However underlying demand remained weak (as defined by GDP ex-inventory changes, and PCE) as shown in the following table:

	1980-IV	1981-I	1981-II	2009-III	2009-IV1
GDP	7.6%	8.6%	-3.2%	2.2%	5.8%est
GDP ex-Inventory Changes	3.8%	2.2%	0.8%	1.5%	2.0%est
PCE	3.4%	1.5%	0.0%	2.0%	1.7%est
Change in Unemployment Rate	-0.3%	0.2%	0.1%	0.3%	0.2%

Look at the blue period, and notice the boost in GDP from inventory changes in the Q4 1980, and Q1 1981. But PCE was only 1.5% in Q1 1980, and fell to 0.0% in Q2 1980. Since there was no pickup in underlying demand, the economy slid back into recession in July 1981.

Now the causes of the current recession are very different from the early '80s, but once again we are seeing a transitory boost from inventory changes and underlying demand remains weak. With the huge overhang of existing home inventory and record rental vacancies, and the ongoing repair of household balance sheets, I expect underlying demand to remain weak in 2010.

The blip in the 2nd half from inventory changes was expected, and I expect Q4 to be the best quarter for GDP for some time.

¹ Q4 2009 is estimated. GDP is from Goldman Sachs, and ex-inventory and PCE is from my own estimate.