Category: Real Estate and Mortgages

Another Look At Fannie and Freddie

Another Look At Fannie and Freddie

For what it is worth, I am the proud owner of a “Fannie Fraud Patrol” T-shirt.? The fraud patrol was a loose mix of investors who felt that Fannie Mae’s finances were misstated back in 2003.? My small contribution to the effort was showing that the fair value balance sheet was not compatible with the standard balance sheet.? That was a pretty basic finding for an actuary used to doing cash flow testing.

I did not post much on Fannie and Freddie after the partial takeover by the US Government, because there wasn’t all that much that I could add.? I had gotten my calls right, most notably:

If you followed those calls, you made good money, particularly the first one.

But with all of the fuss over the actions of the Treasury, I must note several items:

  • Congress has the power to reverse or modify what the Treasury has done.? (Not that I ever expect much out of Congress…)
  • Even if the Treasury succeeds in lowering mortgage rates, that does not mean much when borrowers aren’t capable of scraping together the proper downpayment.??? Lower interest rates do not stimulate economic sectors under stress, but do stimulate healthy sectors, as housing did in 2001-3, while industry suffered.
  • I don’t like being a wet blanket, but aside from preventing systemic risk from letting senior debt and agency MBS suffer credit risk (these are big things), there isn’t a lot to boast about in the takeover.? At best, this leads to the wind-off of two entities that never should have been created.? Housing should not be subsidized by US taxpayers.

To the free market purists, who I sympathize with, I say let the hybrids die.? Our government has meddled too much in lending markets, but it is egregious when they do so where there is a private profit motive.? This bailout delivered real pain to those that were equity holders, while protecting against systemic risk.? The moral hazard issue to equity and preferred holders is dead.? They can lose it all, or close to it.? This is real improvement.

To liberals I say the public interest has been protected.? Systemic risk is avoided.? It is better that those without the wherewithal to own homes rent, than that they strain to own.

To all of Congress I say, if the Administration comes to you asking for a rise in the debt ceiling, ask them to sell their mortgage-backed securities first.? Why should those with mortgages be favored over renters and freeholders?

What’s Going Well, and What’s Not

What’s Going Well, and What’s Not

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on the increase in exports from the US in today’s paper.? Also, they have this nifty interactive graphic that shows what areas of the US are benefiting most from exports.

Exports are a key to the new US economy.? Even though the dollar has rallied recently, it has become cheaper to manufacture many things in the US because the dollar is a lot cheaper than it was one to five years ago.? That makes US wages cheaper, and American workers are among the most productive in the world.

That’s the bright side of the US Economy, and it influences how I invest.? I pay more attention to global demand than to US consumer demand.

But now for the worries.

  • Money supply growth is anemic.? The Fed is not pushing on a string; the Fed is not pushing.? What strength they have is being directed toward solving financial market problems, not toward stimulating the US economy.? Banks are not expanding credit because they can’t afford to do it.
  • Residential real estate prices are likely (in my opinion) to fall another 10-20% across the US over the next two years.? That mortgage rates have fallen is a small help, but not enough to fundamentally change the situation.
  • The investment banks have cleared away some of their troubles, but they are still opaque, and their derivative books are possibly mispriced as a group.? Level 3 assets as a fraction of equity must come down.
  • Well, credit spreads have risen, but aside from financials, where are the junk bond defaults?? We had a ton of weak single-B and CCC issuance — where are the defaults?
  • There are a variety of weak finance companies that suffer in this environment, mostly due to their own foolishness: Chrysler, Ford, GM, AIG, mortgage insurers, and financial guarantors.

You’ll note that I have focused on financials.? That’s because in a credit-driven economy, if they are sick, then most of us are sick.

Regarding the fall in mortgage rates, that’s a good thing for financials, except that lending standards have tightened.? When we talk about the Fed “pushing on a string,” it means that when the banks are weak, lowering rates doesn’t do much; they can’t lend more because their balance sheets are weak.? With lower mortgage rates and tighter lending standards, the “pushing on a string” phenomenon reappears.? There aren’t that many people who can benefit from the lower rates, because many marginal buyers don’t have the wherewithal to meet the new lending standards.? That will change over time.? Indeed, when the Fed “pushes on a string” eventually their power is seen, delayed, but with a vengeance.? The same is true here, if mortgage rates stay low for long enough.

Things aren’t as bad as the bears put out, and are not as good as the bulls put out.? The economy is muddling with flattish growth as far as the average consumer sees, even if some export sectors are doing well.? That’s how I see it, and simplistic words like “recession” only cloud the picture.

How Much Can the US Government Guarantee?

How Much Can the US Government Guarantee?

There are irregular miracles from God, the Creator of all, but there is no magic.? The US government can step forward and say, “We guarantee the liabilities of Fannie and Freddie, and take control of the companies.”? But who guarantees the US government?? In the economic world, there is always a cost for every action.

Yes, the US government will continue to borrow from the Saudis and their allies, who appreciate our military actions constraining their Shi’ite adversaries, and supporting their own regimes.? China wants to continue to “grow,” and they don’t care if they are paid back in “funny money” for now, buying Treasury securities with excess dollars.

The US Dollar rallied today, even as the government absorbed liabilities that are uncertain as to size, even though I think the eventual cost will be less than $200 billion.

Who doesn’t want to be guaranteed by the government?? The auto companies are in line, can I get in line too?? I could do amazing things with a $50 billion credit line from the government.? I would assemble a small empire of undervalued companies with earnings yields higher than what I would have to pay Uncle Sam in interest.

My point is this: when you take into account the structural deficit, funding for the wars, social security currently on the balance sheet (but not its increase in liabilities), Fannie and Freddie, and future demands for bailouts of homeowners and auto companies, where does the bailout stop?? Where does the willingness of foreigners to buy Treasury debt end?

I don’t know, and this is the biggest question facing the global debt markets now.? A century from now, a fellow resembling James Grant will write several popular books explaining the decadence of the era, and how the US squandered its leading position in the world by borrowing too much.

So, call me skeptical of the US Dollar and Treasury rallies today.? Those should reverse soon.

Cash Ain’t What It Used To Be

Cash Ain’t What It Used To Be

I’ve always been a little reluctant when people argue that cash is building up on the sidelines, so it is time to buy.? First, this is an ill-defined concept.? What cash are we measuring?? For every seller, there is a buyer.? Thus, I am reluctant to be bullish after articles like this, or like this.

There is enough derivative activity going on that the cash level may not represent buying power, because they represent cash that must be held to control derivative positions.? As for individuals, they are moving from individual stocks to mutual funds.

Cash levels are hard to interpret, and have not correlated well with market movements.

With that, I warn you to be careful.? With the GSEs in flux, there are many things, good and bad that can take place.? Until the plan is announced we won’t know how it is proceeding.? What will be guaranteed and what will be wiped out?? Who will bring lawsuits against the government for damages?

There is a mantra at present: if the government takes over Fannie and Freddie, mortgages will get cheaper, and the housing market will revive.? Well, that is true until foreign governments adjust their lending practices.? Will Treasury rates remain the same when Fannie and Freddie fund off the Treasury?? I would expect that Treasury rates will rise, but agency spreads would fall more.

Be careful in this environment.? Many are being dogmatic about what will happen with stocks, given the bailout of Fannie and Freddie.? I would be a seller on strength, on most lending financials.

My Interview on BizRadio

My Interview on BizRadio

On Wednesday afternoon I was interviewed on BizRadio’s The MoneyMan Report regarding my recent piece: The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms.? (Boy, did that get a lot of play all over the web.)

You can listen to the interviews here (at my site):

Or here (at their site):

The two segments together are about 15 minutes in length.

I enjoyed the interview, though it would have helped if I had done a little more homework into the prevailing philosophy of the show, and if I had been more clear about how to introduce me.? I sent them my bio, but they must not have looked too As it is, they never mentioned my employer (bad — I want them to be better known).? Nor did they mention my blog, so if someone wants to read the piece, they don’t know where to find it.

So, I get heard across Texas, and wherever else they syndicate their programming.? It’s interesting talking with people who are looking to make money, and had to say to them, “Not yet, not yet.”? But, I tried, and I did better than I expected.? I would be willing to do other radio shows as the opportunity arises.

The Value of Financial Slack

The Value of Financial Slack

During crises, assets shift from weak to strong hands, from the weakly capitalized to the strongly capitalized.? This morning I see at least two examples:

Hedge funds are an inherently weak structure for managing assets, because the liabilities often don’t match the assets.? Lockups are short, and in some cases, very short to non-existent.? All it takes is a significant series of bad picks, and investors will bail, and the lack of liquidity exacerbates asset management thereafter.? Beyond that, the best talent is often lost after a few bad years with no bonuses, and the high water mark is distant.? Hedge funds in better shape are there to pick up business at a discount, and the best talent.

Buffett gets to pick up residential real estate sales firms when they are out of favor, and need liquidity.? He gets them at favorable terms; his managers will rationalize them, and they will likely be the #1 real estate brokerage when the dust settles and the next bull market in residential real estate starts in about 2 years from now.? Little tuck in purchases at 20-25% of past levels can be quite a deal, and Buffett has the capability of doing the deals because he was prudent during the boom phase, and let others do deals at imprudent levels while we watched, sat on cash, and tended his insurance and other enterprises.

Sitting on financial slack is tough during the bull phase.? Not only do you look dumb when other seem to be making easy money, but you can become a target for acquisition yourself.? Surviving in such a position requires good management of the operating businesses, such that your stock is expensive enough, that potential acquirers can’t make the M&A math work.

But, if you have excess purchasing power in the bear phase, how delightful it can be.? Whether buying distressed assets or whole companies, the intelligent acquirer can add new markets, technologies, or cheap capital assets to make the existing business more productive.

The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms

The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms

This article was posted at The Big Picture this morning as I was guest-blogging for Barry.? That’s a first for me, and there is no better site to do it at.? I present the article here for those that did not see it at The Big Picture.

=–==–==–==–==-=-=–==-=-=-=-=–==-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-==-=-=-

This piece completes a series that I started RealMoney, and continued at my blog.? For those with access to RealMoney, I did an article called The Fundamentals of Market Tops, where I concluded in early 2004 that we weren?t at a top yet.? For those without access, Barry Ritholtz put a large portion of it at his blog.? I then wrote another piece at RM applying the framework to residential housing in mid-2005, and I came to a different conclusion: yes, residential real estate [RRE] was near its top.? Recently, I posted a piece a number of readers asked me to write: The Fundamentals of Market Bottoms, where I concluded we weren?t yet at a bottom for the equity markets.

This piece completes the series for now, and asks whether we are at the bottom for RRE prices. If not, when, and how much more pain?

Before I start this piece, I have to deal with the issue of why RRE market tops and bottoms are different.? The signals for a bottom are not automatically the inverse of those for a top. Tops and bottoms for RRE are different primarily because of debt investors.? At market tops, typically credit spreads are tight, but they have been tight for several years, while seemingly cheap leverage builds up.? There is a sense of invincibility for the RRE market, and the financing markets reflect that. Bottoms are more jagged, with debt financing expensive to non-existent.

As a friend of mine once said, ?To make a stock go to zero, it has to have a significant slug of debt.?? The same is true of RRE and that is what differentiates tops from bottoms.? At tops, no one cares about the level of debt or financing terms.? The rare insolvencies that happen then are often due to fraud.? But at bottoms, the only thing that investors care about is the level of debt or financing terms.

Why Do RRE Defaults Happen?

It costs money to sell a home ? around 5-10% of the sales price. In a RRE bear market, those costs fall entirely on the seller. That?s why economic incentives for the owners of RRE decline once their equity on a mark-to-market basis declines below that threshold. They no longer have equity so much as an option on the equity of the home, should they continue to pay on their mortgage and prices rise.

As RRE prices have fallen, a larger percentage of the housing stock has fallen below the 10% equity threshold. Near the peak in October 2005, maybe 5% of all houses were below the threshold. Recently, I estimated that that figure was closer to 12%. It may go as high as 20% by the time we reach bottom.

Defaults occur in RRE when there would be negative equity in a sale, and a negative life event occurs:

  • Unemployment
  • Death
  • Disability
  • Disaster
  • Divorce
  • Large mortgage payment rise from a reset or a recast

The negative life events, which, aside from changes in mortgage payments, can?t be expected, cause the borrower to give up and default. During a RRE bear market, most people in a negative equity on sale position don?t have a lot of extra assets to fall back on, so anything that interrupts the normal flow of income raises the odds of default. So long as there are a large number of homes in a negative equity on sale position, a certain percentage will keep sliding into foreclosure when negative life events hit. For any individual, it is random, but for the US as a whole, a predictable flow of foreclosures occur.

Examining Economic Actors as We near the Bottom

Starting at the bottom of the housing ?food chain,? I?m going to consider how various parties act as we get near the RRE price bottom. At the bottom, typically Federal Reserve policy is loose, and the yield curve is very steep. Financial companies, if they are in good shape, can profit from lending against their inexpensive deposit bases.

This presumes that the remaining banks are in good shape, with adequate capacity to lend. That?s not true at present. Regulation has moved into triage mode, where the regulators divide the institutions into healthy, questionable, and dead. The bottom typically is not reached until the number of questionable institutions starts to shrink. Right now that figure is growing for banks, thrifts, and credit unions.

The Fed?s monetary policy can only stimulate the healthy institutions. Over time, many of the questionable will slow growth, and build up enough free assets to write off bad debts. Those free assets will come through capital raises and modest profitability. Others will fail, and their assets will be taken over by stronger institutions, and losses realized by the FDIC, etc. The FDIC, and other insurance funds, will have their own balancing act, as they will need to raise premiums, but not so much that it harms borderline institutions.

Another tricky issue is the Treasury-Eurodollar [TED] Spread. Near the bottom, there should be significant uncertainty about the banking system, and the willingness of banks to lend to each other. Spreads on corporate and trust preferreds should be relatively high as well. Past the bottom, all of these spreads should be rallying for surviving institutions.

Financing for purchasing a house in a RRE bear market is expensive to nonexistent, but the underwriting is strong. At the bottom, volumes increase as enough buyers have built up sufficient earning power and savings to put a decent amount down, and be able to comfortably finance the balance at the new reduced housing prices, even with relatively high mortgage rates relative to where the government borrows.

Many other players in RRE financing will find themselves stretched, and some will be broken. Consider these players:

1) Home equity lenders will be greatly reduced, and won?t return in size until well after the bottom is passed.

2) Many unregulated and liberally regulated lenders are out of business. The virtue of a strong balance sheet and a deposit franchise speaks for itself.

3) Buyers of subordinated RMBS have been destroyed; same for many leveraged players in ?high quality? paper. Don?t even mention subprime; that game is over, and may even be turning up now as vultures pick through the rubble. This has implications for MBIA, Ambac, and other financial guarantors, since they guaranteed similar business. How big will their losses be?

4) Mortgage insurers are impaired. In earlier RRE bear markets, that meant earnings went negative for a while. In this case, one has failed, and some more might fail as well.

5) Do the GSEs continue to exist in their present form? That question never came up in prior bear markets, but it will have to be answered before the bottom comes. Will the FHLB take losses from their mortgage holdings? Will it be severe enough that it affects their creditworthiness? I doubt it, but anything is possible in this down cycle, and the FHLBs have absorbed a lot of RRE mortgage financing.

6) Securitization gets done limitedly, if at all. This is already true for non-GSE-insured loans; the question is how much Fannie and Freddie will do. My suspicion is near the bottom, as loan volumes increase, banks will be looking for ways to move mortgages off of their balance sheets, and securitization should increase.

7) The losses have to go somewhere, which brings up one more player, the US Government. Through the institutions the US sponsors, and through whatever m?lange of programs the US uses to directly bail out financially broken individuals and institutions, a lot of the pain will get directed back to taxpayers, and, those who lend to the US government in its own currency. It is possible that foreign lenders to the US may rebel at some point, but if the OPEC nations in the Middle East or China haven?t blinked by now, I?m not sure what level of current account deficit would make them change their policy.

That said, the recent housing bill wasn?t that amazing. Look for the US Government to try again after the election.

A Few More Economic Actors to Consider

Now let?s consider the likely actions of parties that are closer to the building and buying of houses.

1) Toward the bottom, or shortly after that, we should see an increase in speculative buying from investors. These will be smarter speculators than the ones buying in 2005; they will not only not rely on capital gains in order to survive, but they require a risk premium. Renting the property will have to generate a very attractive return in order to get to buy the properties.

2) Renters will be doing the same math and will begin buying in volume when they can finance it prudently, and save money over renting.

3) At the bottom, only the best realtors are left. It?s no longer a seemingly ?easy money? profession.

4) At the bottom, only the best builders survive, and typically they trade for 50-125% of their written-down book value. Leverage declines significantly. Land gets written down. JVs get rationalized. Fewer homes get built, so that inventories of unsold homes finally decline.

As for current homeowners, the mortgage resets and recasts have to be past the peak at the bottom, with the end in sight. (In my piece on real estate market tops, I suggested that after the bubble popped ?Short rates would have to rally significantly to bail these borrowers out. We would need the fed funds target at around 2%.? Well, we are there, but I didn?t expect the TED spread to be so high.)

5) Defaults begin burning out, because the number of the number of properties in a negative equity on sale position begins to decline.

6) Places that had the biggest booms have the biggest busts, even if open property is scarce. Remember, a piece of land is not priceless, but is only worth the subjective present value of future services that can be derived from the land to the marginal buyer. When the marginal buyers are nonexistent, and lenders are skittish, prices can fall a long way, even in supply-constrained markets.

For a parallel, consider pricing in the art market. Many pieces of art are priceless, but the market as a whole tends to follow the liquidity of the rich marginal art buyer. When liquidity is scarce, prices tend to fall, though it is often masked by a lack of trading in an illiquid market.

When financing expands dramatically in any sector, there is a tendency for the assets being financed to appreciate in value in the short run. This was true of the Nasdaq in the late ’90s, commercial real estate in the mid-to-late 1980s, lesser-developed-country lending in the late ’70s, etc. Financing injects liquidity, and liquidity creates confidence in the short run, which can become self-reinforcing, until the cash flows can?t support the assets in question, and then the markets become self-reinforcing on the downside, as buying power collapses.

The Bottom Is Coming, But I Wouldn?t Get Too Happy Yet

There are reasons to think that we are at or near the bottom now:

But I don?t think we are there yet, and here is why:

My best guess is that we are two years away from a bottom in RRE prices, and that prices will have to fall around 10-20% from here in order to restore more normal price levels versus rents, incomes, long term price trends, etc. Hey, it could be worse, Fitch is projecting a 25% decline.

Not all of the indicators that I put forth have to appear for there to be a market bottom. A preponderance of them appearing would make me consider the possibility, and that is not the case now.

Some of my indicators are vague and require subjective judgment. But they?re better than nothing, and keep me in the game today. Avoiding the banks, homebuilders, and many related companies has helped my performance over the last three years. I hope that I ? and you ? can do well once the bottom nears. There will be bargains to be had in housing-related and financial stocks.

Full disclosure: no positions in companies mentioned

An Issue Where No One Wins

An Issue Where No One Wins

This is not a political blog.? That’s not to say that I don’t have opinions on politics, but I try to keep them off my blog for the most part.? But, as Bloomberg notes, why aren’t any of the major candidates talking about the credit crisis?? There’s a simple answer: no one has a solution to an intractable problem, and so they say nothing.

Part of this is the Faustian bargain that politicians of both parties have regarding the economy.? They like to provide the illusion that their policies produce prosperity, and take credit for it, while being quiet when the economy is poor, unless they can blame it on the other party.

Personally, if I were Obama or McCain, I would be concerned about what I would do about the problem if I were elected.? Wait, I would tell people there’s not a lot that can be done aside from increasing immigration on a controlled basis.? But that doesn’t get votes in the US, because we are biased toward action, even if it is useless or harmful.

A Way to Make Money Off of Fannie and Freddie

A Way to Make Money Off of Fannie and Freddie

Things look grim for Fannie and Freddie, if market reaction is the benchmark.? The action in their stocks, preferred stocks, and subordinated debt was ugly on Monday.? Not only did you have the article in Barron’s, which made the case that the equity of the firms wasn’t worth much, but you had selling of their senior debt, and guaranteed MBS by foreign investors.? It may not be that Fannie and Freddie fail, but that they get recapitalized by the government in a way that massively dilutes the equity.? Or, going back to my old idea, they get nationalized and become part of GNMA.? The equity and preferred stock go out worthless, and the subordinated debt gets some sort of haircut (partial conversion to senior, plus an earn-out based off the losses the the government has to bear).? I’m not sure a bailout is inevitable, but the odds are rising.

Now, Fannie and Freddie have been through a lot in the last three weeks.? Freddie has changed servicer guidelines possibly in an effort to forestall current period losses.? They have also both reported huge losses:

Freddie:

Fannie:

Then there is the insult added to injury, as S&P downgrades the preferred stock and subordinated debt.

So, after all of this, we should steer clear of the securities of Fannie and Freddie?? Steer clear of the common and preferred stocks, yes.? Subordinated debt, I’m not sure, but when I’m not sure, I don’t take positions.

Now, the senior debt is another matter.? Spreads are very wide, and the possibility of nationalization is significant.? As Accrued Interest says:

The trade is to be long senior Agency debt. There is just no way the Treasury allows anything to happen to senior debt holders. I don’t know who is playing in sub notes or preferred shares in here. No amount of investment analysis is going to help you figure what the Treasury’s next move is.

I agree, and when I was a bond manager with a good thesis, I would ask which bonds offered me the best advantage.? This article ends with an idea that is practical to some institutional fixed income managers.? Both Fannie and Freddie have a small amount of long non-callable zero coupon bonds.? These bonds will have a significant rally in the case where the US government nationalizes them.? And, if the US government decides to let them slip into default, well, you are buying them at 20-35 cents on par value.? No way in an insolvency you get less than that.

The worst case scenario is that long interest rates rise generally, and the zero coupon bonds get killed.? Sophisticated managers could sell short Treasury zeroes to hedge.

PS — Now, as I wrote this, the estimable Jeff Miller put up a good post on the GSEs.? It is worth a read.

UPDATE — 11 AM 8/19

Manto’s comment below is correct, and I apologize.? Bonds originally issued as discount bonds have bankruptcy claims equal to their accreted value.? Bonds issued at par, that subsequently become discount bonds have a claim value of par.? Why did I make this mistake?? I improperly generalized from my experience trading discount bonds, and other structures (such as zero-to-full bonds created from bonds originally offered at par) where the claim would be par in bankruptcy.

Residential Real Estate Will Not Have A “V” Bottom

Residential Real Estate Will Not Have A “V” Bottom

This will be short.? A warning to those who are looking for a quick recovery in residential real estate prices: don’t expect a quick recovery.? There are many dscouraged sellers who would like to sell, but have pulled their properties off the market, waiting for a better day.? For many of them, stabilization of prices may be that better day, and more supply will come when the bottom comes, extending the length, but not the depth of the bottom.

No V bottom — think of it more as a lazy L.

Theme: Overlay by Kaira