‘Call It $130 Trillion or So’
by ilene - June 16th, 2010 9:44 pm
‘Call It $130 Trillion or So’
Courtesy of Michael Panzner of Financial Armageddon
If you’ve ever had to deal with teenagers or IT workers, you know the drill: whatever they tell you something will cost usually turns out to be less — often much less — than you end up paying. Politicians, too, are especially good at this game, which is not surprising given that most don’t expect to be around when the final bill comes in. So, in theory at least, no one should be unsettled by the fact, as the following National Review commentary, "The Other National Debt," by deputy managing editor Kevin D. Williamson, reveals, that the amount of money we (and our ancestors) are currently on the hook for is around ten times what our leaders say it is — right?
About that $14 trillion national debt: Get ready to tack some zeroes onto it. Taken alone, the amount of debt issued by the federal government — that $14 trillion figure that shows up on the national ledger — is a terrifying, awesome, hellacious number: Fourteen trillion seconds ago, Greenland was covered by lush and verdant forests, and the Neanderthals had not yet been outwitted and driven into extinction by Homo sapiens sapiens, because we did not yet exist. Big number, 14 trillion, and yet it doesn’t even begin to cover the real indebtedness of American governments at the federal, state, and local levels, because governments don’t count up their liabilities the same way businesses do.
Accountants get a bad rap — boring, green-eyeshades-wearing, nebbishy little men chained to their desks down in the fluorescent-lit basements of Corporate America — but, in truth, accountants wield an awesome power. In the case of the federal government, they wield the power to make vast amounts of debt disappear — from the public discourse, at least. A couple of months ago, you may recall, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., State of Bankruptcy) got his Fruit of the Looms in a full-on buntline hitch when AT&T, Caterpillar, Verizon, and a host of other blue-chip behemoths started taking plus-size writedowns in response to some of the more punitive provisions of the health-care legislation Mr. Waxman had helped to pass. His little mustache no doubt bristling in indignation, Representative Waxman sent dunning letters to the CEOs of these companies and demanded that they come before Congress to explain
…
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn 
del.icio.us
DiggFannie, Freddie “Mother of all Bailouts” may cost Taxpayers $1 Trillion
by ilene - June 15th, 2010 11:00 pm
Fannie, Freddie "Mother of all Bailouts" may cost Taxpayers $1 Trillion
.png)
Courtesy of Mish
Please consider Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case.
The cost of fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that last year bought or guaranteed three-quarters of all U.S. home loans, will be at least $160 billion and could grow to as much as $1 trillion after the biggest bailout in American history.
“It is the mother of all bailouts,” said Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, who is now a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry.
The Congressional Budget Office calculated in August 2009 that the companies would need $389 billion in federal subsidies through 2019, based on assumptions about delinquency rates of loans in their securities pools. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget estimated in February that aid could total as little as $160 billion if the economy strengthens.
If housing prices drop further, the companies may need more. Barclays Capital Inc. analysts put the price tag as high as $500 billion in a December report on mortgage-backed securities, assuming home prices decline another 20 percent and default rates triple.
Sean Egan, president of Egan-Jones Ratings Co. in Haverford, Pennsylvania, said that a 20 percent loss on the companies’ loans and guarantees, along the lines of other large market players such as Countrywide Financial Corp., now owned by Bank of America Corp., could cause even more damage.
“One trillion dollars is a reasonable worst-case scenario for the companies,” said Egan, whose firm warned customers away from municipal bond insurers in 2002 and downgraded Enron Corp. a month before its 2001 collapse.
Foreign governments, including China’s and Japan’s, hold $908 billion of [Fannie and Freddie] bonds, according to Fed data.
“Do we really want to go to the central bank of China and say, ‘Tough luck, boys’?
The terms of the 2008 Treasury bailout create further complications. Fannie and Freddie are required to pay a 10 percent annual dividend on the shares owned by taxpayers. So far, they owe $14.5 billion, more than the companies reported in income in their most profitable years.
“It’s like a debt trap,” said Qumber Hassan, a mortgage strategist at Credit Suisse Group AG in
…
Fannie And Freddie: We’ve Fixed Nothing
by ilene - June 14th, 2010 9:41 pm
Fannie And Freddie: We’ve Fixed Nothing
Courtesy of Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker
June 14 (Bloomberg) — The cost of fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that last year bought or guaranteed three-quarters of all U.S. home loans, will be at least $160 billion and could grow to as much as $1 trillion after the biggest bailout in American history.
Uh, how?
Remember, the government has funded $145 billion thus far. Where is the rest of the money going to come from?
This year, thus far, $730 billion has been borrowed by Treasury beyond tax receipts – and spent. $1.5 trillion, roughly, on an annualized basis.
Where will we find the other trillion dollars?
Neither political party
wants to risk damaging the mortgage marketwants to admit it has run a 20-year long Ponzi scheme, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and White House economic adviser under President George W. Bush.“Republicans and Democrats
love putting Americans in housesare both looking for ways to maintain that Ponzi for just one more day, and there’s no getting around that,” Holtz-Eakin said.
Now there’s a bit of truth. Oh wait – that was mine, not Holtz-Eakins 
“People all over the world think, ‘Where is the safest place I could possibly put my money?’ and that’s the U.S.,” Shiller said in an interview. “We can’t let Fannie and Freddie go. We have to stand up for them.”
…
Fraudulent ‘Flopping’ of Homes
by ilene - June 10th, 2010 11:58 pm
Fraudulent ‘Flopping’ of Homes
Courtesy of Larry Doyle at Sense on Cents
As day follows night, financial fraud follows economic distress. God forbid people try to make an honest living as opposed to seizing opportunities to make a dishonest buck. This financial artifice is on display in the short sales of homes throughout our country.
Bloomberg highlights this fraudulent activity in reporting, Banks Face Short-Sale Fraud as Home ‘Flopping’ Schemes Spread:
Two Connecticut real estate agents found a way to profit in the U.S. housing bust: Buy low, sell fast. Their tactic was also illegal.
Sergio Natera and Anna McElaney are scheduled to be sentenced in Hartford’s federal court in August after pleading guilty to fraud. Their crime involved persuading lenders to approve the sale of homes for less than the balance owed — known as a short sale — without disclosing that there were better offers. They then flipped the houses for a profit.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the California Department of Real Estate and mortgage finance company Freddie Mac have warned that such schemes may be spreading after a plunge in values left homeowners owing more than their properties are worth. The scams threaten to deepen losses for lenders that are increasingly agreeing to short sales as an alternative to more costly foreclosures.
How and why might a lender agree to a sale at an exceptionally depressed price? Kickbacks and payoffs. To whom and from whom? Brokers or agents who have a buyer willing to pay more for the home. Bloomberg highlights how Uncle Sam has overlooked the potential for this fraudulent ‘flopping’:
An Obama administration effort to boost short sales may increase incentives for fraud, Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, wrote in an April 20 report to Congress. The government, through its Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program, that month began offering as much as $1,500 to servicers, $2,000 to investors and $3,000 to homeowners who close short sales.
“It appears that the program may lack necessary antifraud protections,” Barofsky wrote.
While the Bloomberg article focuses on payoffs to appraisers, it would seem the fraud embedded in payoffs and kickbacks likely runs far wider than that. Other likely recipients for these payoffs and kickbacks?
1. The mortgage servicers are already being paid by Uncle Sam to expedite short sales. Might a little extra cha-ching provide even greater incentive for these servicers…
And The Housing Fraud Continues
by ilene - May 31st, 2010 1:51 am
And The Housing Fraud Continues
Courtesy of Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker
From a report emailed to me over the weekend:
At the core of the foreclosure-prevention strategy is ignoring delinquencies. The percentage of older delinquent loans not yet in foreclosure is startling: 60% have at least 12 missed payments, and 35% have at least 18 missed payments. Add to this that three-fourths of delinquent loans are not in foreclosure, and we see that hidden losses well exceed those in the open.
Uh, they’re not being "ignored" – this is systemic and intentional fraud.
Remember, these loans are either being held by someone or securitized into some sort of package. When you have a loan that has no chance of "curing" (to cure a loan with 12 missed payments the borrower would have to come up with the 12 payments to bring it current!) that loan should be carried at its recovery value – that is, the value of the collateral that can be seized and sold, LESS the cost of eviction, remediation and resale.
Does anyone recall all the entries I’ve written about getting competent legal and accounting (tax) advice before proceeding with any sort of action regarding walking away, short sales or foreclosure? This same report says:
Many homeowners would be better off going into foreclosure, than doing a short sale. Short sales are fraught with potential legal, credit, and complicated tax issues. For example, someone who refinanced could owe capital gains taxes, which are not forgiven under federal and California temporary debt relief acts. In the foreclosure route, borrowers can live in their house mortgage-free for at least one year, maybe two years. Both short sales and foreclosures are reported as “account not paid in full”, and are equally damaging to a credit score. An exception exists if short sellers can negotiate better terms with their lender on recourse liens. The other possible advantage to a short sale is the ability to get a mortgage again in 2 years (Fannie, Freddie), rather than having to wait 3-5 years after a foreclosure.
Homeowners pursue short sales, unaware of the problems they are creating for themselves. Their agents never warned them of deficiencies, ruined credit, taxes due on forgiven debt, or legal consequences. Agents made flowery promises to get listings, and now the lawsuits are starting.
…
The Root of the Housing Bubble Remains Unchanged
by ilene - May 28th, 2010 12:00 pm
Introduction, courtesy of Michael Panzner of Financial Armageddon, ‘Who Benefits?’
It’s not often that I highlight material from the same blog more than once over the course of a few days or weeks. But then again, there are not too many commentators who are as thoughtful and insightful as Charles Hugh Smith, author of Survival+ and publisher of Of Two Minds blog, a long-time favorite of mine. Last time around, he gave us a no-holds barred assessment of the so-called recovery. In "The Root of the Housing Bubble Remains Unchanged," he suggests, among other things, that for many people, there’s little to gain — and lots to lose — from pursuing the traditional American dream.
The Root of the Housing Bubble Remains Unchanged
Courtesy of Charles Hugh Smith
Banks and Wall Street profited immensely from millions of unqualified home buyers reaching out for the simulacrum of middle class "ownership."
The fundamental root of the housing bubble--the collusion of the Central State and banks to extend home ownership to millions of citizens who did not qualify for that burden-- remains firmly in place.
The Federal government continues to pour tens of billions of dollars into this "home ownership should be for everyone" project via subsidies to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA. Mortgage lenders have been delighted to write mortgages in our completely nationalized market in which the government backs literally 99% of all mortgages and the Federal Reserve bought $1.2 trillion in mortgages that no sane private investor would touch.
Fannie Mae seeks $8.4 billion from government after loss: Fannie Mae, the largest U.S. residential mortgage funds provider, on Monday asked the government for an additional $8.4 billion after the company lost $13.1 billion in the first quarter.
Because of current trends in housing and financial markets, Fannie Mae expects to continue having a net worth deficit in future periods and to need to tap more funding from the Treasury.
"Promoting sustainable homeownership and maintaining ready access to liquidity are our guiding principles in serving the residential markets," said Michael Williams, the firm’s chief executive.
The government has relied heavily on both companies, which buy mortgages from lenders to stimulate more lending, to stabilize the housing market.
In other words, the housing market would collapse without this massive Federal support, and there is no end to the losses this subsidy will require. Propping up the…
Are the Losses of Fannie and Freddie Now “National Policy”?
by ilene - May 27th, 2010 4:25 pm
Are the Losses of Fannie and Freddie Now "National Policy"?
Courtesy of Trader Mark, Fund My Mutual Fund
Barry Ritholtz and Dean Baker discuss a concept I’ve advanced – effectively Fannie and Freddie (or as we call them around here, FanFredron) are being run for loss to create a false housing economy via subsidization. They do put forth an additional point that I have not harped on as much: one added benefit of this ‘policy’ is our financial oligarchs win…. again.
If we ever do get back to a world where the private sector is truly a part of financing the housing market it is going to be mighty interesting to see what true mortgage rates will settle at, now that ‘strategic default’ is part of the American lexicon. The higher risks involved will create an increase in costs to every future mortgage due to this exciting new fad. But with government now supporting some 95%+ of all financing this is an issue that won’t face us for many years. Thankfully the government does not price in any risk and gleefully backs mortgages of almost any kind (still). Until some far in the future reform date, more below market rates offered by the 2 institutions that can gladly lose money forever – ponzi style.
(Amazing fact I heard the other day, Fannie
6 minute video
The Senate on Tuesday rejected a Republican sponsored measure that would effectively cut off support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in two years. The government-sponsored enterprises, now in conservatorship, have already cost the
And there’s no limit to how much more they can ask for for the next two years!
Fannie Mae lost $11.5 billion in the first quarter while Freddie Mac lost more…
FHA Volume Sign of ‘Very Sick System’; Fannie, Freddie, FHA Account for 90% of Mortgage Market
by ilene - May 24th, 2010 11:20 pm
FHA Volume Sign of ‘Very Sick System’; Fannie, Freddie, FHA Account for 90% of Mortgage Market
Courtesy of Mish
The US mortgage market is extremely sick and getting sicker every month. For the first time ever, the FHA is issuing more mortgages than Fannie and Freddie. The reason is the FHA has lower down payments.
Please consider FHA Home-Financing Volume Sign of ‘Very Sick System’.
FHA lending last quarter may have topped the combined volume of government-supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a home-lending market that’s still a “government-financed market,” David Stevens, the agency’s head, said today at a conference in New York, citing research by consultant Potomac Partners.
“This is a market purely on life support, sustained by the federal government,” he said at the Mortgage Bankers Association conference. “Having FHA do this much volume is a sign of a very sick system.”
The FHA, which backs loans with down payments as low as 3.5 percent, insured $52.5 billion of home-purchase mortgages in the first quarter, compared with $46 billion of purchases of the debt by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to data compiled by Washington-based Potomac Partners.
The FHA and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which regulators seized in 2008, have been financing more than 90 percent of U.S. home lending after a retreat by banks and the collapse of the market for mortgage bonds without government-backed guarantees.
To sell houses the government needs to give $8,000 tax credits and the government also needs to grant the mortgage as well because the private marker won’t.
This is on top of the $trillion in mortgages on the Fed’s balance sheet. Supposedly Bernanke will sell them at some point. Any bet the Fed buys more first?
Can I ask a simple question: Who does not have a house that wants one and can afford one, and does not need money from the government to buy one, and is not in danger of losing their job?
Supposedly there is a recovery underway. Recovery my ass.
Is 103 Months to Clear Housing Inventory Too Optimistic?
by ilene - April 26th, 2010 3:30 am
According to my friend Patrick Pulatie, CEO for Loan Fraud Investigations, the number of months to clear housing inventory is likely to be much greater than 103 months. Below, he explains why the 103 figure is too low.
In a follow up article Pat discusses HAMP and explains why HAMP = Foreclosure. – Ilene
Number of the Week: 103 Months to Clear Housing Inventory
103: The number of months it would take to sell off all the foreclosed homes in banks’ possession, plus all the homes likely to end up there over the next couple years, at the current rate of sales.
How much should we worry about a new leg down in the housing market? If the number of foreclosed homes piling up at banks is any indication, there’s ample reason for concern.
As of March, banks had an inventory of about 1.1 million foreclosed homes, up 20% from a year earlier, according to estimates from LPS Applied Analytics. Another 4.8 million mortgage holders were at least 60 days behind on their payments or in the foreclosure process, meaning their homes were well on their way to the inventory pile. That “shadow inventory” was up 30% from a year earlier.
Based on the rate at which banks have been selling those foreclosed homes over the past few months, all that inventory, real and shadow, would take 103 months to unload. That’s nearly nine years… Read more here.>>
****
Pat says not so fast. Here are his reasons why the 103 month estimate is too low.
There are problems with the numbers that the article uses to arrive at the 103 months.
The HAMP modifications will have a failure rate of at least 75%. That is due to the Debt Ratios that the mods are approved at. In Feb, the mean ratio was 59.8%. In Mar, it was 62.7%, which to increase that much, most every
…
Here Comes the Debt Pushback (Where’s the Fed with the Firehose?)
by ilene - March 28th, 2010 10:12 pm
Here Comes the Debt Pushback (Where’s the Fed with the Firehose?)
Courtesy of Jr. Deputy Accountant
Down go the dominoes. The out-of-the-loop financial media will probably blame this largely on the Fed ending its MBS program but let’s be honest about the real factor behind it: remedial economics. Surprise surprise; when the market is flooded with supply with few takers, you get bond auctions like we got last week.
It had to end at some point.
FT:
For more than a year, analysts have been warning that record sized debt sales by the US Treasury were at odds with a 10-year yield sitting comfortably below 4 per cent. This week, the yield on 10-year notes jumped from 3.65 per cent to a peak of 3.92 per cent on Thursday. On Friday it was 3.87 per cent.
I’m afraid someone has to point out the obvious here: credit markets don’t like getting the crack unceremoniously taken away, no more than the investors who have been buying into this ridiculousness thinking the free money will never end. Guess what? It’s over.
WSJ on last week’s wake-up call:
Mortgage investors got an unwelcome wake-up call last week after Treasury yields surged, a jolt that indicated that the Federal Reserve’s exit from the market may not go as smoothly as thought.
As the yield on 10-year Treasury notes jumped, yields on Fannie Mae’s benchmark 30-year bond followed, rising to 4.45% from 4.33%. That sent mortgage rates above 5%.
It was an unsettling surge as the Fed prepares to end its $1.25 trillion program of buying mortgage securities on Wednesday. Many in the market had come to believe the Fed’s exit would have little effect on mortgage bonds. They reasoned there were enough investors hungry for extra yield that they would step in to buy once the Fed left.
Here’s what I see… the skittish Fed, scared to death to let markets work out their own kinks lest they allow the cancerous bits to rot off (that might put Fannie and Freddie in an uncomfortable position), backpedals on its plan to start unloading MBSs and instead holds on to (and/or increases) its holdings to wait out the expiration of the first-time homebuyer credit in April, despite dismal numbers after the December extension. If you call 180,000 new…
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
Philip R. Davis is a founder Phil's Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders...
Ilene is editor and affiliate program
coordinator for PSW. She manages the Favorites backup site
(