The FHA Delinquency Crisis: 1 in 6 Borrowers in Default

18 years ago

The next foot to drop;

<_snip_>
At a time when borrowers, lenders, regulators, and lawmakers are scurrying for cover from the subprime lending crisis, a new crisis appears to be emerging with FHA.

Just take a look at FHA delinquency rates:

http://whistleblower.ml-implode.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/whistle-blower-power-point001.jpg

<_>

More "unintended consequences" of government playing nanny-saviour...

Cheers,

Dave Donhoff

Leverage Planner

Here is a link that might be useful: The FHA Delinquency Crisis: 1 in 6 Borrowers in Default

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (26)

devorah
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Oh my - where will it all end? I read the article you referred us to earlier Dave, but I don't pretend to have understood it all or quite what I would know if I did except that the economic outlook is poor. What should a prudent person do?
3katz4me
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I anticipate we'll be paying astronomically higher taxes on every front to fund the growing nanny state - which is growing like a malignant tumor. Clearly the message is no one needs to be held accountable for anything - the government (aka taxpayers) will bail everyone out. Hopefully we'll have enough responsible people left with some money to pay the huge tax bill. Hard to imagine how that will all play out since the more that goes toward taxes, the less available to fuel "normal" economic growth. I think the vast majority of the American population has no clue what kind of "house of cards" we're living in. Government intervention has been growing at a rate that is simply not sustainable. I keep wondering what it will take for our elected officials to start making decisions in the best interest of the country's long term stability vs. the individual's electability.
Related Discussions
After Wall Street Bailout, Is Main Street Headed for Depression?
Q
Comments (17)
Oh, gdogni. I tried to make this short, but it can't be said in a few sound bites. Who was doing the jobs before the illegals came? They were being done. Have we been quick to buy the idea that Americans don't want to do these jobs because we, ourselves, wouldn't want to do them? Americans have done jobs for many years I wouldn't want to have to do. I would do anything I could do, if necessary, but I do have my 'druthers. I wish you could have talked with the young woman I just spent time with the other day. She was almost in tears because she was pretty sure she was going to loose her jobs because the company had just brought in a new group of illegals. She commuted 60 miles - one way - to work on the assembly line of a chicken processing plant. I've been just in the office of a processing plant and my stomach lurched from the smell. It's a job I don't want to have to do - but others have for many years. She said, in a shakey voice, 'I've just got to have this job.' The shocking thing she told me is, if this company lays someone off, not fired for reason, but laid off because of slowdowns, etc., they will only rehire you one time. That means you can be rehired, but if laid off again (because a batch of illegals come in) you are no longer 'qualified' to work for that company. By way of their hiring practices, they are creating 'unqualified' workers in the area. People know to not apply for the job again. So when the news media goes to the spokesman for that company he/she can say things like 'we just can't find qualified workers', or 'we just haven't had any applicants' or the old stand by 'no one wants to do these kinds of jobs'. Neither they nor the media are going to tell you they fixed the situation. When you see jobs being filled by illegals - the only thing that means is they have the job. It means absolutely nothing else. We don't know how many others applied for the job, and didn't get it. One thing you have to realize is that in many areas, people are aware that only illegals will be hired, and they don't even apply. I saw illegals building the houses that got built in the frenzy of the last few years. Can we assume that Americans no longer wanted to do carpentry, dry walling, electrical,plumbing, bricklaying?? I don't think so. I know a lot who wanted the jobs. They are a bargain to employers because the employers have no responsibility. They don't have to comply with overtime laws, collect and match taxes, worry about OSHA regulations, workman's comp. If one gets hurt, they are taken to the hospital and the taxpayers pay for it. The media and the politicians are not giving out the true story on this. Now the reason I mentioned illegals was the fact they are working here. Americans already are competing with them for jobs, and if things get bad, it will be even more so. There is nothing wrong with mowing lawns and bussing tables, but that is not the only jobs they are doing. We will be hampered by the fact employers will have to work within the labor laws when hiring Americans, so given the choice, they will take illegals. The illegals are also getting benefits that are going to be needed for American families who loose their jobs. Again, just because Americans aren't doing the jobs, don't assume they won't or don't want to - now - but especially in the future.
...See More
Bear Stearns Mortgage-Backed Securities Bail-Out...
Q
Comments (19)
I got this from a newsletter which I highly recommend written by John Mauldin although I just read it for curiousity not investment advice It seems to illustrate Bear Sterns is just the begining and if interest rates go up more we will be in a pickle. Altough he seems to indicate at the end that interest rates will eventually go down in response to a slow down This Week in Outside the Box we Join Bill Gross of Pimco in his July 2007 Investment Outlook as he strives to address the implications of the Bear Stearns hedge fund debacle, the toxic waste that is Wall Streets' innovative derivative products and their respective valuation, rather, lack thereof. If Dear reader you have not been party to the excess of the Wall Street you may have not heard of the two Bear Stearns hedge Funds focusing on the subprime market that were subsequently liquidated on account of their inability to meet margin calls, thus wiping out investors. Mr. Gross believes that while significant, we ought not to look to Wall Street to see the repercussions of our excess but to the heart lands of America and the real estate there financed via subprime loans to witness the true folly of our capitalist ways. John Mauldin, Editor Looking for Contagion in All the Wrong Places Investment Outlook Bill Gross : July 2007 Whew, that was a close one! Ugly for a few days I guess, but it could have been much worse! No, I refer not to Paris Hilton upon her initial release from the LA County pokey after serving three days of hard time, but to the Bear Stearns/subprime crisis. Shame on you Mr. Stearns, or whoever you were, for scaring us investors like that and moving the Blackstone IPO to the second page of the WSJ. We should have had a week of revelry and celebration of levered risk taking. Instead you forced us to remember Long Term Capital Management and acknowledge once again (although infrequently) that genius, when combined with borrowed money, can fail. But (as the Street would have you believe), this was just a close one. Sure Bear itself had to come up with a $3 billion bailout, but folks, most of these assets are worth 100 cents on the dollar. At least that's how they have 'em marked! Didn't wanna sell any so that someone would think otherwise...no need to yell "fire" in a crowded theater 'ya know. After all, hasn't Ben Bernanke repeated in endless drones that financial derivatives are a healthy influence on the financial markets and the economy? And aren't these assets well...financial derivatives? Besides, I direct you to the investment grade, nay, in many cases AAA ratings of these RMBS (Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities) and CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations) and defy you to tell me that these architects were not prudent men. (Sorry ladies, they are still mostly men!) Well prudence and rating agency standards change with the times, I suppose. What was chaste and AAA years ago may no longer be the case today. Our prim remembrance of Gidget going to Hawaii and hanging out with the beach boys seems to have been replaced in this case with an image of Heidi Fleiss setting up a floating brothel in Beverly Hills. AAA? You were wooed Mr. Moody's and Mr. Poor's by the makeup, those six-inch hooker heels, and a "tramp stamp." Many of these good looking girls are not high-class assets worth 100 cents on the dollar. And sorry Ben, but derivatives are a two-edged sword. Yes, they diversify risk and direct it away from the banking system into the eventual hands of unknown buyers, but they multiply leverage like the Andromeda strain. When interest rates go up, the Petri dish turns from a benign experiment in financial engineering to a destructive virus because the cost of that leverage ultimately reduces the price of assets. Houses anyone? Oh, I kid the Fed Chairman - and I should stop because this is no laughing matter, and somehow I have a suspicion that this "close one," this Paris Hilton charade of a crisis, is really so much more than just a 3 or 27 day lockup in the LA County jail. Those that point to a crisis averted and a return to normalcy are really looking for contagion in all the wrong places. Because the problem lies not in a Bear Stearns hedge fund that can be papered over with 100 cents on the dollar marks. The flaw resides in the Summerlin suburbs of Las Vegas, Nevada, in the extended city limits of Chicago headed west towards Rockford, and yes, the naked (and empty) rows of multistoried condos in Miami, Florida. The flaw, dear readers, lies in the homes that were financed with cheap and in some cases gratuitous money in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Because while the Bear hedge funds are now primarily history, those millions and millions of homes are not. They're not going anywhere...except for their mortgages that is. Mortgage payments are going up, up, and up...and so are delinquencies and defaults. A recent research piece by Bank of America estimates that approximately $500 billion of adjustable rate mortgages are scheduled to reset skyward in 2007 by an average of over 200 basis points. 2008 holds even more surprises with nearly $700 billion ARMS subject to reset, nearly ¾ of which are subprimes. It was not supposed to be this way. 1% teasers or 3% 2/28's were supposed to be rolled with no points into something resembling...well...1% teasers and 3% 2/28's. Instead today we have nearly 7% fixed rate mortgages and not a teaser to be found. Congress, regulators, even Fed officials are stepping in and warning mortgage originators (even mortgage buyers!) that they'd better be careful and only make good loans. Those nasty capitalists! They must have gotten carried away a few years ago. Somehow all those BMWs in the New Century parking lot in Irvine, California didn't attract much notice in 2006. Now, well, there's nary a Prius to be found there, but lots of outraged politicians in Washington, that's for sure. The right places to look for contagion are therefore not in the white-washed Bear Stearns hedge funds, but in the subprime resets to come and the ultimate effect they will have on the prices of homes - the collateral that's so critical in this asset-backed, and therefore interest-sensitive financed-based economy of 2007 and beyond. If delinquencies lead to defaults and then to lower home prices, then we have problems and the potential for an extended - not a 27-day Paris Hilton sentence. Take a look at Chart 1, which graphically points out the deterioration in subprime ARM delinquencies. Escalating delinquencies of course ultimately lead to escalating defaults. Currently 7% of subprime loans are in default. The percentage will grow and grow like a weed in your backyard tomato patch. Now I, the curmudgeon of credit, am as sure of this as I am that the sun will set in the west. The uncertain part is by how much. But look at it this way: using the current default rate of 7% (3-4% total losses), the holders of some BBB investment grade subprime-based CDOs will lose all of their moolah because of the significant leverage. No need to worry about fictitious 100 cents on the dollar marks here. One hundred percent of nothing equals nothing. If subprime total losses hit 10% then even some single-A tranches face the grim reaper. AAA's? Folks the point is that there are hundreds of billions of dollars of this toxic waste and whether or not they're in CDOs or Bear Stearns hedge funds matters only to the extent of the timing of the unwind. To death and taxes you can add this to your list of inevitabilities: the subprime crisis is not an isolated event and it won't be contained by a few days of headlines in The New York Times. And it will not remain confined to a neat little Petri dish in some mad financial derivative scientist's laboratory. Ultimately through capital market arbitrage it will affect risk spreads in markets completely divorced from U.S. housing. What has the Brazilian Real to do with U.S. subprimes? Nothing except many of the same bets are held in hedge funds that by prudence or necessity will reduce their risk budgets to stay afloat. And the U.S. economy? Of course it will be affected. Consumption will be reduced to say nothing of new home construction over the next 12-18 months. After all, attractive subprime pricing has been key to the housing market's success in recent years. Now that has disappeared. Importantly, as well, and this point is neglected by most pundits, the willingness to extend credit in other areas - high yield, bank loans, and even certain segments of the AAA asset-backed commercial paper market should feel the cooling Arctic winds of a liquidity constriction. If not taken too far - and there is no hint yet of a true "crisis" - these developments may be just what the Fed has been looking for: easy credit becoming less easy; excessive liquidity returning to more rational levels. Still, PIMCO looks for the Fed to issue an insurance policy in the form of lower Fed Funds at some point over the next 6 months. And what happened to our glass half-full secular thesis of last month? We still believe in strong global growth, but...as we also suggested...that the U.S. housing downturn will affect growth and short-term yields over the next year or so. We remain consistent and resolute. Contagion? Maybe, but you won't be finding it at "99.9%" pure Bear Stearns. Look for it instead, in the subprimely financed homes of Las Vegas, Rockford, Illinois, and Miami, Florida. This problem - aided and abetted by Wall Street - ultimately resides in America's heartland, with millions and millions of overpriced homes and asset-backed collateral with a different address - Main Street. William H. Gross Managing Director
...See More
New penalty for homeowners who walk away
Q
Comments (8)
IMO, these people have learned from Wall Street, as they too walked away from their TRILLIONS in debt. Their outrageous leveraging decimated the economy...yet THEY were bailed out by the taxpayers...courtesy of the same politicians who won't extend unemployment benefits. The finance community is now rolling merrily along, laughing all the way to the proverbial bank, and planning on hiring. That being the case, is there any wonder that so many home buyers have just said "screw it"? Here is a recent, very on point NYT article. Interestingly enough, when the rich walk away...or a corporation walks away, it is considered an "investment strategy" in terms of cutting losses. When the average person does the same, they are considered to be greedy deadbeats, who bit off more than they can chew, and are getting what they deserve. We live in a society that penalizes anyone who has a moral compass, and rewards those who have destroyed our economic viability simply to feed their own unbridled greed. Gives a whole new meaning to "double standard" and reinforces the old adage, "nice guys finish last". July 8, 2010 NY Times Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich By DAVID STREITFELD LOS ALTOS, Calif. No need for tears, but the well-off are losing their master suites and saying goodbye to their wine cellars. The housing bust that began among the working class in remote subdivisions and quickly progressed to the suburban middle class is striking the upper class in privileged enclaves like this one in Silicon Valley. Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population. More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic. By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent. Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment. "The rich are different: they are more ruthless," said Sam Khater, CoreLogicÂs senior economist. Five properties here in Los Altos were scheduled for foreclosure auctions in a recent issue of The Los Altos Town Crier, the weekly newspaper where local legal notices are posted. Four have unpaid mortgage debt of more than $1 million, with the highest amount $2.8 million. Not so long ago, said Chris Redden, the paperÂs advertising services director, "it was a surprise if we had one foreclosure a month." The sheriff in Cook County, Ill., is increasingly in demand to evict foreclosed owners in the upscale suburbs to the north and west of Chicago Â like Wilmette, La Grange and Glencoe. The occupants are always gone by the time a deputy gets there, a spokesman said, but just barely. In Las Vegas, Ken Lowman, a longtime agent for luxury properties, said four of the 11 sales he brokered in June were distressed properties. "IÂve never seen the wealthy hit like this before," Mr. Lowman said. "They made their plans based on the best of all possible scenarios Â that their incomes would continue to grow, that real estate would never drop. Not many had a plan B." The defaulting owners, he said, often remain as long as they can. "TheyÂre in denial," he said. Here in Los Altos, where the median home price of $1.5 million makes it one of the most exclusive towns in the country, several houses scheduled for auction were still occupied this week. The people who answered the door were reluctant to explain their circumstances in any detail. At one house, where the lender was owed $1.3 million, there was a couch out front wrapped in plastic. A woman said she and her husband had lost their jobs and were moving in with relatives. At another house, the family said they were renters. A third family, whose mortgage is $1.6 million, said they would be moving this weekend. At a vacant house with a pool, where the lender was seeking $1.27 million, a raft and a water gun lay abandoned on the entryway floor. Lenders are fearful that many of the 11 million or so homeowners who owe more than their house is worth will walk away from them, especially if the real estate market begins to weaken again. The so-called strategic defaults have become a matter of intense debate in recent months. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two quasi-governmental mortgage finance companies that own most of the mortgages in America with a value of less than $500,000, are alternately pleading with distressed homeowners not to be bad citizens and brandishing a stick at them. In a recent column on Freddie MacÂs Web site, the companyÂs executive vice president, Don Bisenius, acknowledged that walking away "might well be a good decision for certain borrowers" but argues that those who do it are trashing their communities. The CoreLogic data suggest that the rich do not seem to have concerns about the civic good uppermost in their mind, especially when it comes to investment and second homes. Nor do they appear to be particularly worried about being sued by their lender or frozen out of future loans by Fannie Mae, possible consequences of default. The delinquency rate on investment homes where the original mortgage was more than $1 million is now 23 percent. For cheaper investment homes, it is about 10 percent. With second homes, the delinquency rate for both types of owners was rising in concert until the stock market crashed in September 2008. That sent the percentage of troubled million-dollar loans spiraling up much faster than the smaller loans. "Those with high net worth have other resources to lean on if they get in trouble," said Mr. Khater, the analyst. "If theyÂre going delinquent faster than anyone else, that tells me they are doing so willingly." Willingly, but not necessarily publicly. The rapper Chamillionaire is a plain-talking exception. He recently walked away from a $2 million house he bought in Houston in 2006. "I just decided to let it go, give it back to the bank," he told the celebrity gossip TV show "TMZ." "I just didnÂt feel like it was a good investment." The rich and successful often come naturally to this sort of attitude, said Brent T. White, a law professor at the University of Arizona who has studied strategic defaults. "They may be less susceptible to the shame and fear-mongering used by the government and the mortgage banking industry to keep underwater homeowners from acting in their financial best interest," Mr. White said. The CoreLogic data measures serious delinquencies, which means the borrower has missed at least three payments in a row. At that point, lenders traditionally file a notice of default and the house enters the official foreclosure process. In the current environment, however, notices of default are down for all types of loans as lenders work with owners in various modification programs. Even so, owners in some of the more expensive neighborhoods in and around San Francisco are beginning to head for the exit, according to data compiled by MDA DataQuick. In Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and the most expensive neighborhood in adjoining Mountain View, defaults in the first five months of this year edged up to 16, from 15 in the same period in 2009 and four in 2008. The East Bay suburb of Orinda had eight notices of default for million-dollar properties, up from five in the same period last year. On Nob Hill in San Francisco, there were four, up from one. The Marina neighborhood had four, up from two. The vast majority of owners in these upscale communities are still paying the mortgage, of course. But they appear to be cutting back in other ways. The once-thriving Los Altos downtown is pocked with more than a dozen empty storefronts in a six-block stretch. But this is still Silicon Valley, where failure can always be considered a prelude to success. In the middle of a workday, one troubled homeowner here leaned over his laptop at the kitchen table, trying to maneuver his way out from under his debt and figure out the next big thing. His five-bedroom house, drained of hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity over the last 13 years, is scheduled for auction July 20. Nine months ago, after his latest business (he has had several) failed in what he called "the global meltdown," the man, a technology entrepreneur, said he quit making his $9,000 monthly payments. "IÂm going to be downsizing," he said. The man spoke on the condition of anonymity because, he said, he did not want his current problems to interfere with his coming reinvention. "IÂm a businessman," he explained. "I have to be upbeat." Carol Pogash contributed reporting.
...See More
How 'off book' operations are wrecking the RE market..or
Q
Comments (3)
logic wrote: "dreamgarden, great article....brings a whole new meaning to "what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive".... And there you have it in a nutshell. However, I can see why it is more comforting for all too many to simply blame the lowly homebuyer....as one can then continue to remain in denial that of the fact that in essence, our entire finance system is one HUGE scam. Thanks. The more I read about the subprime mess, the more I realize what a "shell game" the bigger interests are playing with everyone's money. Even UK chancellor Alistair Darling has joined growing calls for a probe into the role that credit agencies have played in the world financial crisis. Darling censures rating agencies news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6995699.stm Its too bad the U.S. didn't follow Canada's example for insuring mortgages. "All high-ratio mortgages in Canada Ñ those with less than 20 per cent down Ñ must be secured by mortgage insurance, through, for example, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In addition, Canadian financial institutions do not finance more than 100 per cent of a home's purchase price, and that value must be verified with a separate appraisal." marys1000 wrote: "Is there going to be a run on banks? Are banks going to fail? All my mother's money is in one bank." If you have all of your money in ONE bank, that could be a problem. I don't know if there is going to be a run on banks in the U.S. or not, but DH and I are NOT waiting to find out. We have already moved some of our investments into T-bills and CD's. The last time we talked to our banker, he told us we didn't have any sub-prime investments and tried to convince us to keep everything in the market. When I asked him to tell us which part of our portfolio was FDIC insured (or if he would be willing to support us if the market drops), he was silent. Never suggested T-bills or CD's either. I guess he is only interested in our "welfare" as long as he (and his employer) stand to gain. Now I understand why the Russians stuffed money under their mattresses after their banks failed so many times. Time-The Last Sacrifice- Dec. 22, 1947 The Soviets had spiraled into economic trouble similar in some ways to capitalist inflationary difficulties. The ruble, officially valued at 20 U.S. cents, was worth no more than three in actual buying power. Illegal speculation by bureaucrats, collective-farm bosses, store and factory managers and others had become a lively menace to state planning. Peasants, and some city dwellers, had also accumulated hoards of rubles largely because too few of the things they needed, or wanted to buy, were available. Never knowing when deposits might be frozen, they distrusted banks, kept their hoarded money at home. Rationing controls could not be lifted until this money was destroyed, and its destruction was Zhdanov's principal aim.
...See More
turnage (8a TX)
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
"I keep wondering what it will take for our elected officials to start making decisions in the best interest of the country's long term stability vs. the individual's electability."

The other 80 percent of the people in this country to get off their rears and vote the morons out of office.
dave_donhoff
Original Author
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Hi Devorah,

What should a prudent person do?

ACTUALLY, that's a simple answer; BE PRUDENT!

If you manage your own finances as a mature adult, you won't be nearly as likely to be trapped by the government's incompetence.

Hi Gibby,

I think the vast majority of the American population has no clue what kind of "house of cards" we're living in. Government intervention has been growing at a rate that is simply not sustainable.

This is indeed a fact, on both accounts.

I keep wondering what it will take for our elected officials to start making decisions in the best interest of the country's long term stability vs. the individual's electability.

We'd have to dramatically redesign the rewards structures we allow to be in place for elected officials.

SOME anti-business (and even pro-business) folks decry the corporate executive compensation plans that allow CEOs and those of similar rank to earn wildly and have wonderful perks while their company fails in profitability and shareholder value plummets.

Yet our elected officials are not only guaranteed secure retirement packages (despite the country's actual financials and actual fundamental results,) they are allowed free reign to incite negative results "all in the name of politics" with no real accountability to the citizenry.

Our founding fathers planned our original government designs to avoid exactly these developments... this isn't the first time a nation has meandered itself into this kind of entrapped trouble, and ours was one of (if not *THE*) first nation ever consciously initiated with the mature foresight to attempt to engineer these risks OUT of our government.

Its been a gradually developing tragedy, in the greatest original Greek tradition of drama, that otherwise-well-meaning forces have gradually and continually eroded away the designs of a consensus of mature, wise, and deeply thoughtful leaders who tried with all their hearts to "beat the gods" and establish binding values & agreements to supercede our humanity in its darkest nature.

Grimly... the volume of voices who believe the founding leaders to be "merely old-minded misguided dominating caucasian slavemasters" has risen... and the fate of following in the traditional cycle of nations (to follow the fall of Greece, Rome, and so many others) is all but locked into our future from here, unfortunately.

As Shakespeare theoretically penned; "Gird your loins!" The impending collapse of our nation will be neither quick, nor pleasant.

Cheers,
Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
turnage (8a TX)
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Dave - I'm curious where you think home mortgages will be 3-4 years down the road. What kind of down payment will a young couple (without much established credit) buying their first home have to come up with? 5-10-20 percent? How about a family of four moving up to a larger home or being transferred. I'm just looking for your best guess - not a "set in stone" prediction.
dave_donhoff
Original Author
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Hi Turnage,
Currently, although the natural mortgage markets now mostly require at least 5% down, the givernment-subsidized schemes still allow 3% down (and have yet to close the loophole allowing the down-payment schemes to cover the difference for an effect of zero down financing, when the taxpayers are shouldering the risks.)

I do expect that for the most part the credit availability has collapsed as far as it is realistically going to collapse. I don't know how long we'll be "bottomed-out" but I don't think it will get too much worse.

Borrowers will (as they now currently do) have more stringent standards to meet for documentation of employment, income, credit, and reserves. The bottom line is simply; "Live financially responsibly" and you should really be fine... INCLUDING the capability of getting a mortgage for a home, on a truly "make sense" basis.

Cheers,
Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner

(Not nearly as doom & gloom today... its Friday!)
RooseveltL
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
FHA mortgages which have more flexible terms vs. the typical bank did have higher rates of abandonment but consider all banks/financial institutions (even those with "Stricter" terms are hurting) no figure deserves more praise vs. another. Countrywide & IndyMac probably offer up a variety of FHA and conventional loans so the underwriters are too blame along with the folks who felt "they MUST own a home".

Too bad our federal government wants to reregulate the system now and give life-support to every institution vs. let things naturally sort themselves out and we start a new. Japan suffered badly in the 90s via real estate and have since recovered.
chelone
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I am particularly struck by the naivite of so many when it comes to purchasing a mortgage. Many seem to have the opinion that a mortgage is something that ought to be available to all. I disagree with that assumption. Mortgages are (and should be) available to those with money to put down as collateral, those who have a history of sound money management, and those who have a work history that can be documented!

Shame on mortgage brokers/lending institutions who hand out money without bothering to research a borrower's fitness to assume such long-term debt. I'm appalled and infuriated by the havoc deregulation has wrought. Phil Gramm has rather a long history with respect to deregulation... (from the party of fiscal responsibility).

I vacillate between sympathy for ignorant victims and a rather hard-hearted, "survival of the fittest" attitude. The grim reality of money and personal finance is RESPONSIBILITY. If the "deal" seems "too good to be true" it probably is. If you don't fully understand the rules of the game, don't play. There is method of dog training called "nothing in life is free", works slick. We need to start using it with the citizenry, too. ("Smarten up, dummies").

In this day and age there is no way to backtrack and trace crummy loans to their source? yeah, that's right, it's too "expensive" to do that, easier to stick the taxpayer with the bill. Deregulation ain't all it's cracked up to be.

If you want to purchase land or a home you must have money to "put down". And the best indicator of ability to pay a long-term note is the ability to amass the down payment, based on a solid work history. This from a friend who is a loan officer for our locally owned bank (one who turned down several buy-out offers from recently affected "big" banks). Old-fashioned fiscal responsibility works and it teaches patience. A good relationship with a locally owned bank is how communities used to be built. I believe we will return to that philosophy out of necessity.
RooseveltL
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
We are a consumer market. In the past, you couldn't afford a car or bad credit and you didn't get one and rode the bus.

However, at some point lenders/dealers realize they can make lots of money loaning to that poor credit risk so our roads were flooded with new drivers paying up to 3x price for their car. IF we remember the Mitsubishi 0/0 sale which was 0 payments/0 down for about 1-2 yrs. A friend who didn't have money went to the dealership without realizing his credit was not Tier A but the dealership sold him a truck - at super super fees/rates.

The same thing happen to real estate and I can't blame the consumer if you are told over and over own a home for the same price of your rent or 0/0 for 2-4 yrs - without knowledge or friends to dissuade them.

Basic logic - "If it sounds too good to be true there is a reason you should be cautious"
dave_donhoff
Original Author
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Hi Chelone,

Shame on mortgage brokers/lending institutions who hand out money without bothering to research a borrower's fitness to assume such long-term debt. I'm appalled and infuriated by the havoc deregulation has wrought. Phil Gramm has rather a long history with respect to deregulation... (from the party of fiscal responsibility).

Deregulation didn't cause the current market meltdown, and looking to the government to be better risk-managers than the actual market is a grave disaster begging for a dance.

Mortgage brokers/lenders *ONLY* made loans according to the guidelines that the investors (that was YOUR pension managers) told them they wanted to buy, for retirement income 'yield' accounts. You, along with millions of other baby-boomers (generically... though it is also possible the term "you" fits personally) were DEMANDING greater and greater "yield" to "catch up" with your meager retirement savings that "you" had decimated in the last buble (the stock party.)

The "shame" is a circular one... there is no "end of the line."

========================================

Hi rooseveltl,

A friend who didn't have money went to the dealership without realizing his credit was not Tier A but the dealership sold him a truck - at super super fees/rates.

Right.... and once again the vendor sold that car note off to the Wall Street bond houses who were re-packaging the debt into securities to fulfill the relentless consumer demand for "high yield bonds."

So... who was to blame?

The same thing happen to real estate and I can't blame the consumer if you are told over and over own a home for the same price of your rent or 0/0 for 2-4 yrs - without knowledge or friends to dissuade them.

If you can't blame the consumer... who owns the decision?

We're ALL in the consumer game together.... instead of being in the food chain, we are all in several links of the consumer financial chain. We buy some things, and we demand ivnestments in other things. Some people don't even KNOW they are adding to the speculative mania... but they are... as they "shrewdly shop" the lowest insurance quotes, and unwittingly choose the lowest quoter, who can only afford to stay in business by putting its own reserves into high-yield bonds (which goes right back to pitching your lousy-credit friend who wants a premium car, regardless of reality.)

Just as with our failures to truly be 100% "living green"... none of us can escape our own ownership of our pressure on the natural markets (stocks, real estate, credit, oil, etc. etc.) to continue to cycle to extremes, and then eventually back again.

The bottom line is to live our OWN lives as healthy & balanced as possible... and drop the blame game, it serves nobody.

Cheers,
Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
chelone
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
You are entitled to you opinion, Don. It is not one I share, for the most part.

I believe the deregulation in banking has encouraged the shocking lending practices that have lead to the present circumstance. I am a "shareholder" who' s perfectly content to plunk along with modest returns, carefully investing in riskier vehicles as my research dictates. A studied look at my portfolio would make that clear to someone like yourself.

On a personal level I really couldn't care less about some dub who invests recklessly and leverages everything heavily, but those idiots and their bad habits impact me; hence my desire for regulation in the banking sector.
dave_donhoff
Original Author
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Chelone,

I'm never surprised when someone auditorily hears my first and last names and then gets confused... but its always a bit astounding when someone does it while the names are in front of them as they type.

ANYWAY....

I believe the deregulation in banking has encouraged the shocking lending practices that have lead to the present circumstance.

OK... how? How has deregulation "encouraged" the "shocking" lending practices???

Support your drama specifically... not with some broadbrush intuitions.

I am a "shareholder" who' s perfectly content to plunk along with modest returns, carefully investing in riskier vehicles as my research dictates. A studied look at my portfolio would make that clear to someone like yourself.

WONDERFUL... if this is in fact true (and I have no reason to doubt it,) then you are pretty much unaffected in the current market mayhem.

That is, if it is indeed true.

On a personal level I really couldn't care less about some dub who invests recklessly and leverages everything heavily, but those idiots and their bad habits impact me; hence my desire for regulation in the banking sector.

So, then, were you lying in the previous paragraph, or just having a forgetful moment... or perhaps "wishing" taht you were actually as cautious & conservative as you say you are?

It can't be both... you were either going along with the mob and engaging in the skullduggery directly or indirectly... and thereby experiencing the results today... or you were not.

Which is/was it then?

Cheers,
Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
dreamgarden
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Dave-"More "unintended consequences" of government playing nanny-saviour..."

Dave, what do you think of the following? Looks like another case of 'the fox watching the henhouse'.

"FDIC Faces Mortgage Mess After Running Failed Bank/WSJ
Subprime Lender Made Problem Loans On Regulators' Watch

It turns out that the U.S. government itself was one of the lenders giving out high-interest, subprime mortgages, some of them predatory, according to government documents filed in federal court.

The unusual situation, which is still bedeviling bank regulators, stems from the 2001 seizure by federal officials of Superior Bank FSB, then a national subprime lender based in Hinsdale, Ill. Rather than immediately shuttering or selling Superior, as it normally does with failed banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. continued to run the bank's subprime-mortgage business for months as it looked for a buyer. With FDIC people supervising day-to-day operations, Superior funded more than 6,700 new subprime loans worth more than $550 million, according to federal mortgage data.

The FDIC then sold a big chunk of the loans to another bank. That loan pool was afflicted by the same problems for which regulators have faulted the industry: lending to unqualified borrowers, inflated appraisals and poor verification of borrowers' incomes, according to a written report from a government-hired expert. The report said that many of the loans never should have been made in the first place."

A link that might be useful:

predatorylendinglaw.org/dynamics/predatory-lending-6/
dave_donhoff
Original Author
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Hi Dreamgarden,

Indeed... pure irony thrown to the feet of the "big saviour government" protagonists.

Nobody has truly clean hands in this... there are no "innocents" to defend.

REALITY: There is no drama... we've just gone through a natural cycle, and nobody perpetrated anything against anyone else with any mal intent. The best we can all do is carry one & not waste good effort making much ado of nothing.

Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
mnk716
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I believe it is both the owners and banks/investors fault.

Investors are always looking for increased return; that is why you invest in stocks or mutual funds. however there are risks associated with stocks which is why they usually pay out more than fixed investments.

you invest in bonds/money markets/govt backed bonds, etc for safety of principal with some additional interest paid out. for that you accept less return than stocks or stock mutual funds.

there are higher yielding fixed investments (junk bonds, emerging market bonds, etc.) where there is increased risk of default or refinance but you get some addl return. again usually less than stocks over the long term

what happened here is investors were looking for addl return but wanted the benefit of bonds. mortgage rates have been relatively low (compared to what i am not sure) for the past 5-7 years in the 5-6.8% range. the mortgages were made to those with good credit and the belief that they could pay off after 15-30 years.

at those rates investors were taking on a little more risk (homeowners not being able to payoff the mortgages or refinancing early) for not much more return than US Govt bonds, money markets, etc.

so investors want higher returns but dont want to get into stocks. Research shows that subprime mortgages are about 1-3% above current mortgage rates and the fees associated with them are high as well. with rising house prices if a HO stops paying investors would get their money back through a sale. as money became cheaper to lend they also were lax in underwriting standards to generate those fees.

remember most of these mortgages get sold right away and are not kept on the banks books. that also contributed to the taking on more risk in underwriting. i blame the US Govt (FHA, Fannie, Fredie Mac) for buying these mortgages without due diligence. they should have incorporate stricter lending standards; at a minimum whether HO could afford to pay those mortgages after teaser rates, I/O & ARM period, etc.

now people are buying homes they should not have due to the hype that howme ownership will lead to great wealth. they did not hire attys or read the loan documents (this also happens with people with good credit as well) to see the ridiculous fees they were being charged. they dont want to pay PMI so they do an 80/20 set up.

I strongly believe it is preferrable to pay PMI for a few years then do an 80/20 set up.

its amazing to see people incur the largest purchase of their life and trust so many others to do the work for them (story for another time).

now more and more HO cant afford these mortgages and then default. now the homes are worth less than the mortgage and the investors get nothing so they force the banks to take the mortgages back (usually part of the bond contract) and a cascade effect starts.

on the investors side the loans were mixed with prime mortgages and sold into bonds that paid a little more return (RED FLAG).

i am not against the govt getting involved in mortgages but they should stick to purchasing mortgages to people who can afford them. investors should be not protected from losing their investment with subprime it comes with the terrority also there are HO who simply should never have been in a home they could not afford. if the only way to pay for a home is through these products a red flag should go off.

there is nothing wrong with subprime loans, if the bank/investor wants to generate a higher return that is there right but they should not be mixed with prime mortgages or should taxpayers provide backup for them. that is the risk you take.

just my opinion.
chelone
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Reading material:

Wall Street Journal
New York Times
Atlantic Journal
New Yorker
NPR news, esp. "Marketplace"
Alternet
MSN "your money" forum (regular participant!)

I'm sorry I screwed your name up. I'm usually pretty good about that, and historicially I've been "on the money" with your's, I think.

My own philosophy about investing (WHEN and how) is very different than your's, Dave (sorry again!). I believe in retiring debts efficiently before the term.

My own portfolio has seen a downturn, but not a terribly precipitous one, frankly. Mostly, I think, because I have paid my major debts in full and now have the option of directing current contributions (that would have be directed to debt/interest payments) to longer term investments.

I am reasonably certain you will find fault with it all. I'm OK with that. I know that the properties I own are owned "free and clear". I know also that my portfolio is reasonably (within my "risk toleranace") conservative relative to the times frames I have in mind.

"Broadbrush" is workin' just fine for me.

Cheers!
Chelone
(bonehead sewing machine jockey)

Chelone
dave_donhoff
Original Author
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Hi Chelone,

What's with the listing of your magazines? Was that meant for this thread? Or are you saying that all of those are your cause for belief that "deregulation in banking has encouraged the shocking lending practices that have lead to the present circumstance."?

I'm sorry I screwed your name up. I'm usually pretty good about that, and historicially I've been "on the money" with your's, I think.

No worries, no offense taken (the mix-up, as I stated, is so extremely common outside of written communications that I'm virtually never offended by it... no even when an offender points out in hindsight that she *MEANT* it to be offensive at the time ;~) I'm either thick-skinned, or thick-skulled (depending who you ask) that way.

My own philosophy about investing (WHEN and how) is very different than your's, Dave (sorry again!). I believe in retiring debts efficiently before the term.

What do you believe in when the term is too short to efficiently eliminate the leverage, in respect to a person's actual life (not the arbitrarily set term of the loan)?

My own portfolio has seen a downturn, but not a terribly precipitous one, frankly. Mostly, I think, because I have paid my major debts in full and now have the option of directing current contributions (that would have be directed to debt/interest payments) to longer term investments.

If you look at a comparison of a pre-funded sum growing on a compounding basis (even minus the interest charges considered if the funds were from leverage,) versus a "drip-funded" scheme of the same monthly payment... you'll apparently be quite surprised at how dangerous the "eliminate the leverage, then drip the investment" strategy actually is.

I am reasonably certain you will find fault with it all. I'm OK with that. I know that the properties I own are owned "free and clear". I know also that my portfolio is reasonably (within my "risk toleranace") conservative relative to the times frames I have in mind.

I'm glad to know you are blissful. ;~)

"Broadbrush" is workin' just fine for me.

I'll keep that in mind when I see future claims or statements, and pull in the reigns of my accuracy expectations.

Here's to your blissful seasons; that you are confronted by no surprises you weren't anticipating, and that you remain safe without having to be aware!

Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
bunnyman
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
The current economic mess was caused by the corruption of our society. More destroyers then builders for the last few years.

As homes continue to be foreclosed and dumped on the market the credit markets will have to price in that risk. As price rises relative to risk fewer people will be able to buy homes accelerating the fall. Risk begets higher prices and a weaker economy which brings more risk.

Some still cling to the notion they have good investments. As in the last Depression when wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few they don't have a market to invest in. Until decent paying jobs are available to most people the economy will not recover. As our government is starting to discover citizens without money don't pay taxes.
dave_donhoff
Original Author
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Anecdotally... ear-to-the-ground hubbub is that Las Vegas real estate appears to be done bleeding, and common folk are more often chit-chatting about a "clean bank repo" they bought to move into in the high 100's or low 200's...

As in all cycles, nothing is forever and bear markets tend to be shorter (but exponentially scarier) than bulls.

Cheers,
Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
bethesdamadman
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Dave: "Anecdotally... ear-to-the-ground hubbub is that Las Vegas real estate appears to be done bleeding...."

I subscribe to that theory as well, and in fact, I'm taking a house-hunting trip out to LV in September.
chris8796
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I think the frothier markets in LV, LA, etc are bottoming out. Most are down 35-40% now, the banks seem to be capitulating and moving foreclosures at fire sale prices. Prices are now back to ~10x annual rental income and starting to look attractive again. I don't see prices appreciating for a quite some time, thanks to increasing interest rates and general economic malaise.
gbrenna
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I think part of the problem is the credit system. Credit scoring is nonsense. Years ago, loans were underwritten following certain guidelines. If a person had a bad period following unemployment or a serious illness, the underwriter looked at the facts and made a determination. Then credit scoring arrived, but of course now people who had problems in the past were pretty much locked out. The answer was subprime lending. AT first, nearly all buyers were told the scores were very low (liars). Eloan ended this process by giving people access to their score. Thank God. Next, housing in certain areas increased dramatically. Buyers turned to crazy loans in order to afford these expensive homes (NY, CA etc). The market declined and people are now upside down. In a traditional mortgage, they could ride it out, but these 0% type mortgages increase in this situation beyond the ability of many people to pay for them. Now we have job loss. I live in a small Midwestern town. A GM plant has closed. Thousand of good paying jobs are gone. There will be foreclosures not because the people were given loans improperly, but because their circumstance has changed. It's a terrible situation.
triciae
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Another here that thinks LV is looking attractive...especially the condo market. We're also planning a trip using a long weekend get-a-way as an excuse to nose around a bit. Does anybody know of a nice condo/hotel development near the Strip?

Right now, on realtor.com, there are 3,400 condo units listed! It's mindboggling.

/tricia
bethesdamadman
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Tricia, I've been reseaching The Signature at MGM Grand. It's a condo/hotel and is a joint venture between MGM & Turnberry. I've been following the prices there ever since I walked through a model unit during the preconstruction phase several years ago. All three buildings were sold out before they were built - mostly by investors. As you can imagine, there is now a fire sale, with many investors trying to bail out of their "investment" after the plunge in real estate out there. I plan on staying in a unit on my trip next month in order to get an "up close and personal" view of how the property is being run. (Although I'm not sure yet whether I will rent from the management firm or from an individual owner.)

The condo fee includes all of the MGM hotel amenities, as well as specific amenities just for the Signature owners, such as an owners-only pool at the resort. Valet parking is also included.

I'm also planning on checking out the new City Center devlopment which also is being built by MGM Mirage and which is directly across the street from the MGM Grand.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Signature at MGM Grand
worthy
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Wow, Dave! I've been warned off making "controversial" comments here! And here you go doubting the wisdom and beneficence the State.

Not that I think there's any question that the housing "crisis" is just the end result of 30 years of government intervention in the market in the pursuit of home ownership for everyone. And now that the bubble bursts, the permanent criminal class, i.e., Congress, is in a rush to "bail out" the defaulters. Though it's likely it will be well-heeled speculators that will be the biggest winners.

Here is a link that might be useful: The CRA scam and its defenders
Brewbeer
18 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
"I keep wondering what it will take for our elected officials to start making decisions in the best interest of the country's long term stability vs. the individual's electability."

Two words: TERM LIMITS

Our nation's founders never intended for our elected officials to make careers out of their elected positions.

2 terms for senators, 4 terms for representatives, 2 terms for governors, 8 years total for state and local elected officials. When it is no longer necessary for elected officials to appeal to the least common denominator to keep their job, we may actually get enough people elected who will tell us all what we don't want to hear: save more, spend less, and prepare for the coming austerity.

The FHA Delinquency Crisis: 1 in 6 Borrowers in Default

Comments (26)

devorah

3katz4me

Related Discussions

turnage (8a TX)

dave_donhoff
Original Author

turnage (8a TX)

dave_donhoff
Original Author

RooseveltL

chelone

RooseveltL

dave_donhoff
Original Author

chelone

dave_donhoff
Original Author

dreamgarden

dave_donhoff
Original Author

mnk716

chelone

dave_donhoff
Original Author

bunnyman

dave_donhoff
Original Author

bethesdamadman

chris8796

gbrenna

triciae

bethesdamadman

worthy

Brewbeer

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

The FHA Delinquency Crisis: 1 in 6 Borrowers in Default

Comments (26)

Related Discussions

dave_donhoffOriginal Author

dave_donhoffOriginal Author

dave_donhoffOriginal Author

dave_donhoffOriginal Author

dave_donhoffOriginal Author

dave_donhoffOriginal Author

dave_donhoffOriginal Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

dave_donhoff
Original Author

dave_donhoff
Original Author

dave_donhoff
Original Author

dave_donhoff
Original Author

dave_donhoff
Original Author

dave_donhoff
Original Author

dave_donhoff
Original Author