by Calculated Risk on 10/20/2014 02:56:00 PM

From FHFA Director Melvin Watt: Prepared Remarks of Melvin L. Watt, Director, FHFA, At the Mortgage Bankers Association Annual Convention

On lower downpayments:

To increase access for creditworthy but lower-wealth borrowers, FHFA is also working with the Enterprises to develop sensible and responsible guidelines for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 95 and 97 percent. Through these revised guidelines, we believe that the Enterprises will be able to responsibly serve a targeted segment of creditworthy borrowers with lower-down payment mortgages by taking into account “compensating factors.” While this is a much more narrow effort than our work on the Representation and Warranty Framework, it is yet another much needed piece to the broader access to credit puzzle. Further details about these new guidelines will be available in the coming weeks as we continue to advance FHFA’s mission of ensuring safety, soundness and liquidity in the housing finance markets.

On Reps and Warrants:

We know that the Representation and Warranty Framework did not provide enough clarity to enable lenders to understand when Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would exercise their remedy to require repurchase of a loan. And, we know that this issue has contributed to lenders imposing credit overlays that drive up the cost of lending and also restrict lending to borrowers with less than perfect credit scores or with less conventional financial situations.

To address this problem, FHFA and the Enterprises have worked to revise the Framework to ensure that it provides clear rules of the road that allow lenders to manage their risk and lend throughout the Enterprises’ credit box. These revisions are consistent with our broader efforts to place more emphasis on upfront quality control reviews and other risk management practices that provide feedback on the quality of loans delivered to the Enterprises earlier in the process.
...
As I committed FHFA to do when I announced these refinements in May, we have continued to engage in an ongoing process to address the issue of life-of-loan exclusions. Life-of-loan exclusions are designed to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from instances of fraud or other significant noncompliance, and, as a result, they allow the Enterprises to require lenders to repurchase loans at any point during the term of the loan. The current life-of-loan exclusions are open-ended and make it difficult for a lender to predict when, or if, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac will apply one of them.

So, we have continued to address this issue, and I can report that we have reached an agreement in principle on how to clarify and define the life-of-loan exclusions. These changes are a significant step forward that will result in a better Representation and Warranty Framework and facilitate market liquidity without compromising the safety and soundness of the Enterprises.

First, we are more clearly defining the life-of-loan exclusions, so lenders will know what they are and when they apply to loans that have otherwise obtained repurchase relief. These exclusions fall into six categories: 1) misrepresentations, misstatements and omissions; 2) data inaccuracies; 3) charter compliance issues; 4) first-lien priority and title matters; 5) legal compliance violations; and 6) unacceptable mortgage products.

Second, for loans that have already earned repurchase relief, we are clarifying that only life-of-loan exclusions can trigger a repurchase under the Framework. This is a straightforward clarification, but one that we believe will reduce confusion and risks to lenders.

The Enterprises will provide details about the updated definitions for each life-of-loan exclusion in the coming weeks ...
emphasis added

by Calculated Risk on 10/20/2014 11:04:00 AM

I frequently hear stories from prime borrowers about their horrible experiences getting mortgages right now. Yes, the process is difficult because of all the extra checks because the lenders are afraid the loans will be put back to them in a few years.

At the same time, loan officers are telling me it is easy for prime borrowers to get a loan.

This isn't a contradiction - an onerous process isn't "tight credit", it is just risk management.  But that is for prime borrowers.

First, here is a piece today from Mark Fleming, chief economist at CoreLogic, writes: Is Credit Too Tight, Too Loose or Just Right?

One of the most pressing issues in housing finance today is the availability of credit. The lack of access to credit has been cited as a reason for the slower-than-hoped-for growth in home sales. The often cited Federal Reserve Loan Officer Survey tells us whether lenders are tightening or loosening credit, but tells us much less about the overall level of availability of credit. Furthermore, terms like tight credit or loose credit imply a normative goal of the right amount of credit. In fact, when discussing this topic, one can’t help but think of Goldilocks and the Three Bears: one bed is too hard, another too soft, and the last one is just right.

In order to determine whether credit is too tight, too loose, or just right CoreLogic has developed the Housing Credit Index (HCI) that measures the range and variation of residential mortgage credit over time and multiple housing credit underwriting attributes. The index includes attributes that are relevant to the assessment of credit risk for a borrower applying for credit. ...

So is credit currently too loose, too tight or just right? In Figure 1, the HCI is shown from 1998 to early 2014 measured on the left axis along with the overall serious delinquency rate measured on the right axis. In the refinance boom of the early aughts, credit availability expanded significantly and then declined, but to a level moderately elevated compared to before the refinance boom. The result of increased credit availability was a modest rise from about 1 percent to 1.25 percent in the overall serious delinquency rate. The mid-aughts saw the significant expansion of credit to double the normal level and the very quick and dramatic contraction with which we are all far too familiar. Credit availability reached its tightest point in late 2010 at only one-third the normal level of the late 1990s. It is safe to say that credit was too tight. Of course, this was a natural response to the quickly rising serious delinquency rate that turned upward dramatically starting in 2006. Since 2010 credit availability has eased in fits and starts with the utilization of modification and refinance programs aimed at struggling homeowners. Most recently, the index is indicating a slight easing, but remains tight by historic standards.
emphasis added

According to the CoreLogic index, credit is easing a little, but remains tight.

Below are some other measures. Note: Some less qualified borrowers are using FHA, but that involves high fees (high G-Fees), and the share of FHA loans is at the lowest level in 5 years according to Campbell/Inside Mortgage Finance HousingPulse. But most less qualified borrowers just can't qualify now. Two indicators of this are:

This graph from Black Knight's mortgage monitor shows the share of purchase and refinance originations with credit scores at or above 720.

As Black Knight notes: "The share of purchase originations with high borrower credit scores is at an all time high".  This suggests credit is tight for less qualified borrowers.

The second graph, also from Black Knight's mortgage monitor, shows that the recent loans are performing very well.

This graph only includes loans originated in 2005 through 2014, but older data shows the recent loans are the best performing ever. The loan performance suggests lending is currently tight (I believe this is better loan performance than even during the 2001 through 2005 period when house prices were rising quickly).

by Calculated Risk on 10/20/2014 08:58:00 AM

The Department of Transportation (DOT) reported:

Travel on all roads and streets changed by 0.4% (1.0 billion vehicle miles) for August 2014 as compared with August 2013.

Travel for the month is estimated to be 267.8 billion vehicle miles.

Cumulative Travel for 2014 changed by 0.6% (11.1 billion vehicle miles).

The following graph shows the rolling 12 month total vehicle miles driven.

The rolling 12 month total is still mostly moving sideways ...


Click on graph for larger image.

In the early '80s, miles driven (rolling 12 months) stayed below the previous peak for 39 months.

Currently miles driven has been below the previous peak for 81 months - almost 7 years - and still counting.  Currently miles driven (rolling 12 months) are about 2.0% below the previous peak.

The second graph shows the year-over-year change from the same month in the previous year.

 In August 2014, gasoline averaged of $3.57 per gallon according to the EIA.  That was down from August 2013 when prices averaged $3.65 per gallon.

Prices will really be down year-over-year for September and October.

Of course gasoline prices are just part of the story.  The lack of growth in miles driven over the last 7 years is probably also due to the lingering effects of the great recession (high unemployment rate and lack of wage growth), the aging of the overall population (over 55 drivers drive fewer miles) and changing driving habits of young drivers.

With all these factors, it might take a few more years before we see a new peak in miles driven - but it does seem like miles driven is now increasing.

by Calculated Risk on 10/19/2014 09:01:00 PM

From Merrill Lynch on Oil:

The plunge in oil prices, if it proves persistent, could end up being the big economic story. Energy prices have fallen very sharply in the past three months. Brent oil prices have declined from around $110/bbl in July to $86/bbl as this goes to print. It takes a few weeks for the full pass-through to gasoline and other refined products, but this would imply a drop of about 70 cents for a gallon of gas by year end.

How much does this boost growth? At first sight, not very much. After all, the US is becoming increasingly energy independent. The monthly energy trade deficit dropped to just $13.1bn in August. For argument’s sake, if we assume the trend since 2008 continues, the deficit will be zero by late 2018 ... Hence, the windfall of lower prices to consumers is almost matched by the loss to producers. Nonetheless, we would expect a net stimulus to growth in the near term. The big oil producers are flush with profits and cash. ... With such a large cushion of savings, we would expect them to respond slowly to weaker profit growth. Of course, if oil prices remain very low, over time, this will discourage investment and eventually lower the growth in oil production.

By contrast, consumers will likely respond quickly to the saving in energy costs. Many families live “hand to mouth”, spending whatever income is available. ... formal models suggest ... the $25/bbl drop in the price of oil can add roughly 0.4pp to real GDP growth over the next two years.

Weekend:
• Schedule for Week of October 19th

From CNBC: Pre-Market Data and Bloomberg futures: currently the S&P futures are up 10 and DOW futures are up about 100 (fair value).

Oil prices were down over the last week with WTI futures at $83.39 per barrel and Brent at $86.43 per barrel.  A year ago, WTI was at $102, and Brent was at $109 - so prices are down close to 20%  year-over-year.

Below is a graph from Gasbuddy.com for nationwide gasoline prices. Nationally prices are around $3.12 per gallon (down more than 20 cents from a year ago).  If you click on "show crude oil prices", the graph displays oil prices for WTI, not Brent; gasoline prices in most of the U.S. are impacted more by Brent prices.

Orange County Historical Gas Price Charts Provided by GasBuddy.com

by Calculated Risk on 10/19/2014 11:09:00 AM

Some interesting thoughts from Professor Hamilton: How will Saudi Arabia respond to lower oil prices?

Oil prices (along with prices of many other commodities) have fallen dramatically since last summer. Some observers are waiting to see if Saudi Arabia responds with significant cutbacks in production. I say, don’t hold your breath.
...
Last week I discussed the three main factors in the recent fall in oil prices: (1) signs of a return of Libyan production to historical levels, (2) surging production from the U.S., and (3) growing indications of weakness in the world economy.

As far as Libya is concerned, the politics on the ground remain quite unsettled. It makes sense to wait and see if anticipated production gains are really going to hold before anybody makes major adjustments.

In terms of surging U.S. production, the key question is how low the price can get before significant numbers of U.S. producers decide to pull out. If world economic growth indeed slows, and if most of the frackers are willing to keep going strong even if the price falls to $80 a barrel, trying to maintain the price at $90 could be a losing bet for the Saudis. They’d be giving up their own revenue just in order to keep the money flowing into ever-growing operations in Texas and North Dakota.

And if some of the U.S. producers do move into the red at current prices, it’s in the Saudis’ longer-term interests to let that pain take its toll until some of the newcomers decide to pack up and go home. If U.S. production does decline, prices would quickly move back up. But if that happens after a shake-out, the next time there would be less enthusiasm for everybody to jump into the game if they always have to keep an eye on whether they might be undercut again. This may be less of an issue for the U.S. tight oil producers, who can move in or out much more easily than operations like deepwater or artic, where there are huge fixed costs, long lead times, and a much bigger unavoidable loss if you gamble on prices always staying high.

And as for worries of another global economic downturn, so far they are only that– worries. If and when we see a downturn materialize, then I would expect to see the Saudis cut back production.

But until then it’s primarily a question of responding to surging output of U.S. tight oil. My guess is that Saudi Arabia would lower prices rather than cut production as long as that’s the name of the game.
emphasis added