| The term red pill and its opposite, blue pill, are pop culture terms that have become a common symbol for the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red). |
| Take The Journey |
|
|
- Talk of a Greek Exit Gets Louder
- Doug Casey on Taxes and Freedom, Part II
- Is Facebook the Rusty Hinge of the Stock Market?
- Fitch Downgrades Japan
- Doug Casey on Taxes and Freedom
- Greeks Run on Banks as Euro-Confidence Wanes
- To the Class of 2012
- Hedge Funds Bail On Euro Now
- Expatriation in the Wake of the Facebook IPO
Will America Ever Recover From The Housing Crisis – A Real Estate Infographic
Back in March, on the back of the last gasp of yet another central bank-induced sugar high (in this case mostly LTRO 1+2), as well as economic data skewed by record warmth, a plethora of housing bottom callers (we would call them analysts but they are anything but) emerged from their hibernation and did what they do like clockwork every year: called a housing in bottom. Sadly, now that the market has topped out, at least for the current easing iteration, it appears that the housing triple dip as measured by Case Shiller will shortly be a quadruple dip. And so on, and so on, until the question becomes: will America ever recover from the housing crisis. We don’t know, but we do know one thing – fixing an excess debt problem with more debt won’t work. Period. Yet that is what continues to be the only “policy” in resolving the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis. For everyone else seeking a more nuanced answer we suggest perusing the infographic below which provides a less jaded perspective and even has a Hollywood conclusion: “The end is on the horizon”… well, a Tarantino-esque conclusion: “…The distant horizon.”
continue, to see infographic
Uncle Sam’s Fire Sale. Minimum Investment: $1 Billion
The federal government is about to dump millions of the foreclosed homes at fire-sale prices to hedge funds and private-equity firms with government connections. If you’re an individual investor who might like to get in on the action, forget it! You’re shut out of this deal.
Homeowners who might be interested in buying the foreclosure property next door? Out of luck. And retirees hoping for a return on their money more than 1.8% on a five-year CD find another avenue closed off.
Prior to the calamity of 2008, we might have thought the deal we’re profiling today unthinkable. But now we’re becoming as immune to new instances of blatant cronyism as American babies are to diphtheria.
If you’ve got the hammer for it, we may as well get down to brass tacks: As many as 10,000 properties might be unloaded in a single transaction during the first quarter of 2012 — thanks to a government program so new it doesn’t have a catchy name yet, only the working title “Enterprise/FHA REO Asset Disposition.”
Roger Arnold, chief economist for Pasadena, Calif.-based ALM Advisors, has a different name for it — “the largest transfer of wealth from the public to the private sector.”
As of last September, there were about 800,000 “real estate owned” or REO homes in the United States — homes repossessed and on the market. Close to one-third of these — 250,000 — sit on the books of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration. That is, 250,000 homes are owned by you and me, the US taxpayers.
Schneiderman MERS Suit and HUD’s Donovan Remarks Confirm That Mortgage “Settlement” is a Stealth Bank Bailout
In case you had any doubts about what the mortgage settlement was really about and why banks that were so keenly opposed to it are now willing to go ahead, the news of the last two days should settle any doubts.
As we had indicated earlier, one of the many leaks about the settlement showed that there had been a major shift its parameters. Of the $25 billion that has been bandied about as a settlement total for the biggest banks, comparatively little (less than $5 billion) is in cash. The rest comes in the form of credits for principal modifications of mortgages.
Originally, that was to come only from mortgages held by banks, meaning they would bear the costs. The fact that this meant that whether a homeowner might benefit would be random (were you one of the lucky ones whose mortgage had not been securitized?) was apparently used as an excuse to morph the deal into a huge win for them: allowing the banks to get credit for modifying mortgages that they don’t own.
The first rule of finance (well, maybe second, “fees are not negotiable” might be number one) is always use other people’s money before your own. So giving the banks permission to modify loans they don’t own guarantees that that is where the overwhelming majority of mortgage modifications will take place, ex those the banks would have done anyhow on their own loans. And the design of the program, that securitized loans will be given only half the credit towards the total, versus 100% for loans the banks own, merely assures that even more damage will be done to investors to pay for the servicers’ misdeeds.
Let me stress: this is a huge bailout for the banks. The settlement amounts to a transfer from retirement accounts (pension funds, 401 (k)s) and insurers to the banks. And without this subsidy, the biggest banks would be in serious trouble
Why? As leading mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman pointed out in a late 2010 presentation, just over half of the private label (non Fannie/Freddie) securitizations have second liens behind them (overwhelmingly home equity lines of credit). Moreover, homes with first liens only have far lower delinquency rates than homes with both first and second liens. Separately, various studies have found that defaults are also correlated with how far underwater a borrower is. If a borrower is too far in negative equity territory, it makes less sense for them to struggle to stay current, no matter how much they love their home.
Judicial Watch Sues Obama Administration for Documents Detailing Secret Settlement Negotiations with Mortgage Lenders Accused of Faulty Mortgage Practices
Obama DOJ and HUD Ignore Freedom of Information Act Requests on Effort to Extract $20 Billion from Banking Industry
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on January 3, 2012, against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain documents pertaining to accusations of fraud against the nation’s five largest mortgage companies and the creation of “federal accounts” to settle probes into faulty mortgage practices (Judicial Watch v. HUD and DOJ (No. 1:12-cv-0002)). The Obama administration has reportedly been engaged in settlement negotiations behind closed doors with mortgage companies that would result in at least $20 billion in payments from the nation’s major banks.
Pursuant to a Judicial Watch FOIA request filed with the DOJ and HUD on May 17, 2011, Judicial Watch seeks the following records:
- A set of government audits used to support allegations that the nation’s five largest mortgage companies of defrauding taxpayers in the handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans.
- A term sheet which outlined the Obama administration’s settlement offer to the mortgage companies accused of fraud. The terms described on this document allegedly included the creation of a federal account funded by the nation’s largest mortgage firms to help distressed borrowers avoid foreclosure and settle state and federal probes into alleged faulty mortgages practices.
Continue reading
Taxpayers Still In Hole $133 Bil From Gov’t Bailouts
The bailouts of the last three years were a rousing success, Democrats like to say, a shining example of how government activism can save the economy. Really? A new government report suggests otherwise.
In 2010, the newspapers were full of reports of companies “paying back” loans under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
Over and over, Democratic politicians and left-leaning pundits suggested the money would not only be paid back, but that taxpayers might even profit from it. And even if the money could not be recovered, they said, a depression has been averted.
Well, here’s some news for them, courtesy of the Associated Press: “U.S. taxpayers are still owed $132.9 billion that companies haven’t repaid from the financial bailout, and some of that will never be recovered.”
It may be even worse than that gloomy prognosis delivered to Congress on Thursday. The federal government has already written off $12 billion, and it may take years — if ever — to get the rest of the money owed by the 458 companies it “invested” in.
Take General Motors. The government break-even on its GM investment is $54 a share. GM closed Thursday at $24.72 a share. But in… Continue reading
Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners
Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage giant, has placed multibillion-dollar bets that pay off if homeowners stay trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above current rates.
Freddie began increasing these bets dramatically in late 2010, the same time that the company was making it harder for homeowners to get out of such high-interest mortgages.
No evidence has emerged that these decisions were coordinated. The company is a key gatekeeper for home loans but says its traders are “walled off” from the officials who have restricted homeowners from taking advantage of historically low interest rates by imposing higher fees and new rules.
Freddie’s charter calls for the company to make home loans more accessible. Its chief executive, Charles Haldeman Jr., recently told Congress that his company is “helping financially strapped families reduce their mortgage costs through refinancing their mortgages.”
But the trades, uncovered for the first time in an investigation by ProPublica and NPR, give Freddie a powerful incentive to do the opposite, highlighting a conflict of interest at the heart of the company. In addition to being an instrument of government policy dedicated to making home loans more accessible, Freddie also has giant investment portfolios and could lose substantial amounts of money if too many borrowers refinance.
“We were actually shocked they did this,” says Scott Simon, who as the head of the giant bond fund PIMCO’s mortgage-backed securities team is one of the world’s biggest mortgage bond traders. “It seemed so out of line with their mission.”
The trades “put them squarely against the homeowner,” he says.
Those homeowners have a lot at stake, too. Many of them could cut their interest payments by thousands of dollars a year.
Freddie Mac, along with its cousin Fannie Mae, was bailed out in 2008 and is now owned by taxpayers. The companies play a pivotal role in the mortgage business because they insure most home loans in the United States, making banks likelier to lend. The companies’ rules determine whether homeowners can get loans and on what terms.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency effectively serves as Freddie’s board of directors and is ultimately responsible for Freddie’s decisions. It is run by acting director Edward DeMarco, who cannot be fired by the president except in extraordinary circumstances.
Freddie and the FHFA repeatedly declined to comment on the specific transactions.
Freddie’s moves to limit refinancing affect not only individual homeowners but the entire economy. An expansive refinancing program could help millions of homeowners, some economists say. Such an effort would “help the economy and put tens of billions of dollars back in consumers’ pockets, the equivalent of a very long-term tax cut,” says real-estate economist Christopher Mayer of the Columbia Business School. “It also is likely to reduce foreclosures and benefit the U.S. government” because Freddie and Fannie, which guarantee most mortgages in the country, would have lower losses over the long run.
Freddie Mac’s trades, while perfectly legal, came during a period when the company was supposed to be reducing its investment portfolio, according to the terms of its government takeover agreement. But these trades escalate the risk of its portfolio, because the securities Freddie has purchased are volatile and hard to sell, mortgage securities experts say.
The financial crisis in 2008 was made worse when Wall Street traders made bets against their customers and the American public. Now, some see similar behavior, only this time by traders at a government-owned company who are using leverage, which increases the potential profits but also the risk of big losses, and other Wall Street stratagems. “More than three years into the government takeover, we have Freddie Mac pursuing highly levered, complicated transactions seemingly with the purpose of trading against homeowners,” says Mayer. “These are the kinds of things that got us into trouble in the first place.”
