I caught a video piece of Barney Frank fielding questions the other day, in which it was painfully obvious to this mortgage planner that the legislation cannot force free markets to do as legislators intend or wish. I wish I had a link to the video, but I don’t, nor do I have the time to search for it. I am sure it is out there.
In 2008, the elected representatives on Capitol Hill decided to allow for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase loans at a temporarily increased ceiling – ranging by county according to the median home values in these counties. The non-conforming loan breakpoint was 417k, we’ve talked about it here. Anything above 417 could not be touched by Fannie/Freddie.
The 2008 temporary limits were put into effect, and some areas were able to treat loans all the way up to 729,750 as conforming, per law. But the banks did not like the temporary nature, investors didn’t look at it the same way either, and rates and terms for anything between 417 and 729k left much to be desired, and many to be refinanced at some other time, or never.
For 2009, lawmakers made the “temporary” permanent, but revised the limits, bringing the max ceiling down to 625,500 in the highest cost areas. Investors and banks were a little better to adopt these. And in many ways, borrowers with 417-625k see many of the same underwriting rules. But some of the differences are significant.
Pricing these loans is not the same, bringing much disappointment to the borrowing and lending community. Lawmakers stipulated that banks could only package a small percentage (10%) of “high balance” loans with the traditional, sub-417k loans into their bond issues for the secondary market.
There was so much pent up demand from borrowers with high balance loans to refinance, that the banks all got inundated with demand for money under these terms. It put them way off balance, and they dont have 9x the traditional conforming investments to match every dollar worth of high balance loans. So what do they do? Raise rates. So now when you have a high balance loan, your rate is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the traditional balance conforming loans.
This will ebb and flow as the banks process and liquidate their inventory. But watching Barney Frank scratch his head, saying something to the tune of “I don’t understand why anybody would be treated any differently if they were borrowing the higher balance, we changed the rules to make it the same” – which is not a quote, but is precisely what he was saying – you can see why so many of the governments attempts to help the market have not worked, or only partially helped, or helped one area and introduced a new problem…
One more complication in today’s market. Next to impossible to predict a given bank’s pipeline composition, and therefore next to impossible to know when they will spike their rates overnight, as we are seeing them do erratically.
What happened to inflation? 5$ gas, 6$ milk, 7$ Pabst Blue Ribbon!!! ???
Today’s PPI (Producer Price Index) came in at a negative for the 5th straight month. It measures commodity prices, and other materials that producers of goods and services need to buy in order to produce their good or service. Tomorrow’s CPI (Consumer Price Index – which measures the cost of goods that consumers buy) is expected to indicate the same signal – no inflation to speak of.
Meanwhile, much is being said about the efforts by the government to push down mortgage rates. But the underlying fundamentals that determine interest rates are not correlating with the rates being offered to consumers,. Or they are correlating less than is usual, presenting challenges to consumers and brokers trying to execute on their behalf.
Yes, rates are quite a bit lower. But the challenges of our “new landscape” are also new in nature, and no matter where you turn, it just gets more and more interesting. After 6 quarters of downsizing, banks were slammed in recent weeks with record applications for new loans. There was an immediate logjam. Demand is exceeding capacity. Banks do not need to lower costs to attract business. Margins are fat, ‘because they can’.
Icing on the cake: Banks offer lower rates to deals on shorter term locks. But it takes twice as long for them to underwrite files today, so what’s the point? You have to lock long-term, which means higher rates. Or, you float. And if you float, you get jumped in line at underwriting by all the locked-in deals. These same banks offer 7 day locks at their absolutely lowest rates… but you can never get within 7 days of closing UNLESS YOU LOCK!
If you do lock, and the period does not wind up being adequate, for ANY reason whatsoever, you can pay to extend it. But banks are doubling and tripling their extension fees as their queue grows longer and longer. Oh, and they are charging some brokers additional fees for not delivering on a loan once it is locked – even if they are too busy to underwrite it!
So lets review:
-banks have been taking it on the chin for ~6 quarters, so…
-rates are down, but not as much as they should be given the government intervention, and economic datapoints
-extension fees are skyrocketing
-processing times are skyrocketing
-lock periods are skyrocketing
-penalty for cancelling is skyrocketing
As far as I know, mortgage rate lock extension fees are not included in the PPI or CPI. Yet another area of the economy overlooked by the economic reporting data. Outrageous! Somebody call David Horowitz!
Ric Edelman fields a question from one of his radio show listeners:
Q: Do you and your wife make extra principal payments to your
interest-only loan? Or do you not want to own your home someday?
Many in the investment business suggest investing it in the stock market
– you don’t keep up with inflation by putting the money into your home
or keeping the money in cash. Well, over the past decade or so, with all
of the ups and downs of the stock market, I bet the folks who kept their
money in cash or paid down their mortgages fared better than those in
the stock market. I know, I know, the market goes up and down, and over
the “long term” the stock market is supposed to outperform the other
things, but I question this advice sometimes and just wonder if you are
going to own your home someday? If not, why?
Ric: No, we don’t make extra payments. We personally handle our money
the same way we advise our clients and consumers.
Why would we want to add extra money to our payment? If you believe that
real estate values rise over long periods, the home’s equity will grow
all by itself, and it will do so at such a rate that any extra payments
we’d make would be pointless.
Here’s an example: Say you own a $500,000 house with a $400,000
mortgage. You thus have only $100,000 in equity. If you send in an extra
$100 per month for five years, you’ll have an extra $6,000 in equity.
But if the house grows just 1% per year, it will produce $25,505 in new
equity, or four times more than your effort from making extra payments!
And if the house grows 2% per year, your new equity will be more than
$50,000!
This is one reason – there are nine others in my DVD on the topic – why
making extra payments is a waste of time and effort.
Of course, I began by asking if you believe that real estate values will
rise over long periods. If you don’t believe that, then you shouldn’t be
a real estate owner in the first place. You should rent instead.
Also, I note that you referred to those who recommend placing into the
stock market all the money that you’d otherwise use to make extra
payments. I do not agree with that advice. Instead, you should invest
the money in a highly diversified manner. That’s because, as you’ve
noted, it’s possible to see stock prices falter for extended periods. By
owning a wide variety of assets, and not just stocks, you reduce the
risk of such underperformance.
But even if you invest solely in stocks, you’re highly likely to do
fine. Remember that we’re comparing the interest rate on your mortgage
to the performance of the stock market. Since your mortgage will last
for 30 years, we need to evaluate stock prices over that same period.
And in every 30-year period since 1926, according to Ibbotson
Associates, stocks have handily outperformed mortgage rates.
I realize that you’re questioning the strategy because of the stock
market’s recent performance, but it’s precisely at such times that we
need to remind ourselves of the long-term nature of the markets.
Otherwise, you’ll be tempted to do the wrong thing at the wrong time for
the wrong reason.
Find out more about Home Ownership here:
http://www.ricedelman.com/cs/
A colleague forwarded this to me, so I don’t have the direct link.
“In recent months, Wall Street has seen an extreme liquidity drought with steady redemptions from hedge funds and long-term mutual funds. However, this doesn’t mean that investors have no money to put to work. In fact, in November, M2 (the total value of money held in cash, checking accounts, savings accounts, CDs under $100,000 and retail money market accounts) exceeded $7.9 trillionfor the first time, up 7.4% over the past year. Interestingly, holdings in these short-term accounts now exceed the total capitalized value of the S&P 500. The problem is not the ability of investors to invest, but rather their willingness to do so.”
Don’t want to miss the bounce, do you? Good time to be checking in with your financial planner. Please email me if you need a referral.
New reports on CNBC today that the re-default rate on modified mortgage loans is greater than 50% after 6 months.
That’s a pretty disappointing and discouraging statistic. A lot of money is being spent on the modification efforts, and with that kind of performance, lenders are going to be less likely to continue the effort.
This gives good fuel to the debate over whether market intervention can soften the blows of a natural market correction….
Some evidence of the US Government’s activity affecting our markets in positive ways:
Yesterday, a statement from FHFA Director James B. Lockhart:
“The Federal Reserve Board’s announcement that it will purchase debt of the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae is a very positive step. This $600 billion program should be a major boost to the mortgage and housing markets. By providing more liquidity to the market FHFA expects these actions to help reduce the large interest rate spreads between mortgages and Treasuries, resulting in lower mortgage rates over time, assisting homeowners and home purchasers.”
And then, a press release:
FHFA URGES SERVICERS TO TAKE PROMPT ACTION ON LOAN MODIFICATIONS
And then, the announcement of a new report: “Monthly Foreclosure Prevention Report” which promises to detail the efforts to slow down the flood of foreclosure activity.
STRONG moves are being made to stop foreclosures from happening in such large quantities, as the downward spiraling momentum they bring is causing rot within our nation’s housing stock. Property inventory declined this month for the first time in months, quarters, over a year? Let’s hope it is the beginning of a trend… There was a 39% decrease in foreclosures in California, month over month, largely due to the cancellations and the moratorium imposed by the government, which is being followed by most major lenders and loan servicers.
Decreasing inventory causes a shift in supply/demand equilibrium. Are we nearing a bottom? Is it time to be thinking about investing in real estate?
Some interesting retrospective views in this collection of Peter Schiff interviews on various financial circuits. Why post this? There’s nothing valuable or encouraging listening to somebody who can look back and say “I told you so”, but we really need to be careful when we listen to people who are in agreement on things that obviously want to believe. Listen to that voice that stands against the pack, and just give it a thought or two. Its very interesting to hear people laughing at Schiff as he made his forecasts.
I am optimistic, but cautious. And also realistic. We will hit a bottom, and we will recover. We are still adjusting to this environment, and there are some violent corrections going on that are going to damage a lot of people. A long bumpy road is ahead, but we’ll get there.
Another vein of panic running through the foundation of the economic and financial stability – whatever amount of it is left – is a concern over an impending seizure by the government of 401(k) balances to be used for some nationalized program used for bailout funds. The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on Friday, allowing this widespread concern to proliferate.
You can disregard any fear over this – it ain’t gonna happen.
According to George Miller (D-CA), who is chairman of house Committee on Education and Labor, this is nowhere near the intention or goal of Miller, or anybody else in congress.
Miller’s hearings on 401(k) legislation have the following objectives:
1. Expose excess fees that Wall St middlemen take from workers accounts
2. Bring young and low wage workers into the system
3. Ensure that retirement accounts have diversified investment options with low fees
4. Ensure workers have access to reliable independent investment advice
5. Reduce vesting periods and portability of 401(k) accounts
Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-FL), member of the House Ways and Means Committee, says he is against anything of the sort, and suggests that this concept was born out of political gaming, pushed by conservatives as a threat of what a Democratic leadership landscape might bring.
Speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, says “we would never even consider a proposal to seize retirement assets.” in a statement issued to Ric Edelman, financial planner, when asked specifically about this topic.
One of the voices pushing this concept, Teresa Ghilarducci of New York’s New School for Social Research, who is referenced in the Wall Street Journal piece, even claims in an interview with Edelman that her comments were taken way out of context. However sour on the concept of 401(k)s, she admits she was never suggesting that the government take the funds under control.
If you want more information about participating in 401(k) plans, please contact your plan administrator at work, or your financial planner. If you would like a referral to a financial planner, please contact me.
Scientists must be folding their arms and shaking their heads at the financial industry. The financial media and economic discourse of the day has adopted the term “Negative Feedback Loop”, a term that originated in scientific labs, to describe the downward spiraling momentum of our economy (housing values go down, more people are encouraged to sell, foreclose, etc, and that causes values to go down further, and round and round we go…).
The market action systematically feeds its result back into the force that caused it to do what it just did. A feedback loop. Have you ever stood between two mirrors, and looked at your reflection, and then the infinite reflections of your reflection behind it? Its like that.
Problem is, we’ve got the name wrong. This may sound like I’m picking on a technicality here, but I think it points to a bigger problem.
A “Negative Feedback Loop” sounds like the right way to describe what we are seeing in the economy. But a true Negative Feedback Loop is one where the output of the system works against the system, causing it to lose momentum, and return to equilibrium. What we have here is a Positive Feedback Loop, or one where the output reinforces the input. The result is an increasingly negative impact on our economy, so its easy to understand the confusion. We had another Positive Feedback Loop that fed the mania side of the cycle as well.
A snowball rolling downhill, growing in weight, causing it to keep rolling, is a Positive Feedback Loop.
Why do I split hairs here? The widespread adoption of an erroneously illustrated concept just begs the question of who is doing the thinking out there, and who is doing all the talking. The mainstream media just takes it in on one side, spits it out the other, no regard for accuracy or perspective. All of the talking heads, the so-called experts, the pundits, the authorities, they’re all confused like the rest of us about the big picture.
And it’s a tough issue to figure out, so confusion is understandable. But our electable leaders and policy makers would serve us all well to admit what they don’t know. Seems to me they feel a need to convince us that they do know, and the next thing you know, they’re acting on their contrived and false sense of confidence. And let’s face it, since 8 out of 10 Congressmen have no formal education in economics, most of these folks are expert at one thing, and one thing only: getting votes.
The bomb has gone off in the markets, and there’s a lot of dust flying around. Those of us who slow down and focus while everyone else runs around screaming, are going to be the first to see what the new landscape looks like.
