With Spring upon us, and new buyers out looking for houses, we thought today might be a good time to review the basics of what lenders look for as they decide to approve (or deny) mortgage applications. For at least the last two decades we have heard them called “The 4 C’s of Underwriting”- Capacity, Credit, Cash, and Collateral. Guidelines and risk tolerances change, but the core criteria do not.
CAPACITY
CAPACITY is the analysis of comparing a borrower’s income to their proposed debt. It considers the borrower’s ability to repay the mortgage. Lenders look at two calculations (we call ratios). The first is your Housing Ratio. It simply is the percentage of your proposed total mortgage payment (principal & interest, real estate taxes, homeowner’s insurance and, if applicable, flood insurance and mortgage insurance – like PMI or the FHA MIP) divided by your monthly, pre-tax income. A solid Housing Ratio (often called the front end ratio) would be 28% or less; although, at times loans are approved at a significantly higher number. That’s because your front end ratio is looked at in conjunction with your back end ratio.
The back end ratio (referred to as your Debt Ratio) starts with that mortgage payment calculation from the Housing Ratio and adds to it your recurring debts that would show up on your credit report (auto loans, student loans, minimum credit card payments, etc.) without taking into consideration some other debts (phone bills, utility bills, cable TV). A good back ratio would be 40% or less. However, loans sometimes are granted with higher debt ratios. Understand that every application is different. Income can be impacted by overtime, night differential, bonuses, job history, unreimbursed expenses, commission, as well as other factors. Similarly, how your debts are considered can vary. Consult an experienced loan officer to determine how the underwriter will calculate your numbers.
CREDIT
CREDIT is the statistical prediction of a borrower’s future payment likelihood. By reviewing the past factors (payment history, total debt compared to total available debt, the types of monies: revolving credit vs. installment debt outstanding) a credit score is assigned each borrower which reflects the anticipated repayment. The higher your score, the lower the risk to the lender which usually results in better loan terms for the borrower. Your loan officer will look to run your credit early on to see what challenges may (or may not) present themselves.
CASH
CASH is a review of your asset picture after you close. There are really two components – cash in the deal and cash in reserves. Simply put, the bigger your down payment (the more of your own money at risk) the stronger the loan application. At the same time, the more money you have in reserve after closing the less likely you are to default. Two borrowers with the same profile as far as income ratios and credit scores have different risk levels if one has $50,000 in the bank after closing and the other has $50. There is logic here. The source of your assets will be examined. Is it savings? Was it a gift? Was it a one-time settlement/lottery victory/bonus? Discuss how much money you have and its origins with your loan officer.
COLLATERAL
COLLATERAL refers to the appraisal of your home. It considers many factors – sales of comparable homes, location of the home, size of the home, condition of the home, cost to rebuild the home, and even rental income options. Understand the lender does not want to foreclose (they aren’t in the real estate business), but they do need to have something to secure the loan against, in case of default. In today’s market, appraisers tend to be conservative in their evaluations. Appraisals are really the only one of the 4 C’s that can’t be determined ahead of time in most cases.
Now, each of the 4 C’s are important, but it’s really the combination of them that is key. Strong income ratios and a large down payment with strong reserves can offset some credit issues. Similarly, long and strong credit histories help higher ratios….and good credit and income can overcome lesser down payments. Talk openly and freely with your loan officer. They are on your side, advocating for you and looking to structure your file as favorably as possible. We hope you find some value in this information as you elect to move up, move down or accross this great country of ours!
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
How to ensure your home isn't under-insured
For many of our clients, the following information is view similarly to going to the dentist. That said, it's mission critical that your family review the following and please get with one of our agents for a policy review.
Fact is, most homeowners have insurance. All homeowners who have a mortgage must have insurance. The question is: do you have enough insurance? Will your policy cover you if the worst happens – if your house is totally destroyed and you need to rebuild?
According to the Insurance Information Institute’s 2011 Insurance Pulse Survey, nearly half (48 percent) of all homeowners in the U.S. believe the insured value of their home is linked to its market value.
“They are two different things,” says Michael Barry, the institute’s vice president of media relations. “When it comes to buying homeowners insurance, you have to look at the insured value – what would it cost to rebuild my home in its current location with comparable construction materials if I were to have a total loss? And that number does not represent the market value.”
With home prices in the flat, it’s easy to assume that you can save money by lowering the insurance coverage. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. The cost of building materials – copper, lumber, steel, concrete – have all gone up dramatically the last few years.
“It’s truly unfortunate that people don’t understand market value versus replacement cost,” says Ned, the vice president of claims for a regional insurance company. He agreed to talk to me as long as I did not use his real name.
Ned told me about a recent claim for a house that burned to the ground and the homeowner was grossly under-insured. He had coverage for up to $350,000, but the estimated construction cost came in at $500,000. Ned says this customer was “one of the rare individuals who accepted responsibility” for the situation.
The insurance company did its best to help, but the new house did not have the quality of the original. The homeowner had to downgrade the kitchen appliances. Instead of granite countertops, he went with composite. He also had to settle for a lower-quality roof; one that was guaranteed for 30 years instead of 40.
Getting the right coverage is your responsibility. We advise reviewing your insurance coverage each year with our agents. Despite our reminders and email notifications, most people don’t do this.
Angie’s List recently polled its members and found that nearly one-third of those who responded hadn’t checked their home insurance policies for two years or more.
“This is your responsibility,” says Angie Hicks, the website’s founder. “Your insurance agent doesn’t know what you’ve done to your house. They don’t know if you added a deck or bought an expensive piece of jewelry. Only you know that information.”
So put this on your calendar to make sure you’re reviewing your policy at renewal time.
At the very least, you want to know what you have. Then you can tweak the policy or comparison shop. Make sure you don’t buy too much insurance. You don’t need to insure for the value of the land your house sits on.
According to the Insurance Information Institute, there are four elements that help you decide how much coverage to get:
- The cost to rebuild the structure.
- The cost to replace the contents.
- Additional living expenses if you have to move out during repairs.
- Your liability to others who might get hurt on your property.
If you’re looking to save money raise the deductible, don’t cut back on coverage. The Insurance Information Institute says increasing the deductible from $500 to $1,000 could reduce premiums by up to 25 percent.
Remember: the amount of money the policy will pay for contents and additional living expenses is typically based on the coverage of the structure.
It’s important to have a home inventory to show the insurance company if there is a loss. The free app MyHOME Scr.APP.book (available for iPhones and Android phones) from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners lets you quickly photograph, grab bar codes and serial numbers and store them digitally. There is also free software for your computer at knowyourstuff.org, a site run by the insurance industry.
We encourage you to spend time on both. It'll be time well spent.
Fact is, most homeowners have insurance. All homeowners who have a mortgage must have insurance. The question is: do you have enough insurance? Will your policy cover you if the worst happens – if your house is totally destroyed and you need to rebuild?
According to the Insurance Information Institute’s 2011 Insurance Pulse Survey, nearly half (48 percent) of all homeowners in the U.S. believe the insured value of their home is linked to its market value.
“They are two different things,” says Michael Barry, the institute’s vice president of media relations. “When it comes to buying homeowners insurance, you have to look at the insured value – what would it cost to rebuild my home in its current location with comparable construction materials if I were to have a total loss? And that number does not represent the market value.”
With home prices in the flat, it’s easy to assume that you can save money by lowering the insurance coverage. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. The cost of building materials – copper, lumber, steel, concrete – have all gone up dramatically the last few years.
“It’s truly unfortunate that people don’t understand market value versus replacement cost,” says Ned, the vice president of claims for a regional insurance company. He agreed to talk to me as long as I did not use his real name.
Ned told me about a recent claim for a house that burned to the ground and the homeowner was grossly under-insured. He had coverage for up to $350,000, but the estimated construction cost came in at $500,000. Ned says this customer was “one of the rare individuals who accepted responsibility” for the situation.
The insurance company did its best to help, but the new house did not have the quality of the original. The homeowner had to downgrade the kitchen appliances. Instead of granite countertops, he went with composite. He also had to settle for a lower-quality roof; one that was guaranteed for 30 years instead of 40.
Getting the right coverage is your responsibility. We advise reviewing your insurance coverage each year with our agents. Despite our reminders and email notifications, most people don’t do this.
Angie’s List recently polled its members and found that nearly one-third of those who responded hadn’t checked their home insurance policies for two years or more.
“This is your responsibility,” says Angie Hicks, the website’s founder. “Your insurance agent doesn’t know what you’ve done to your house. They don’t know if you added a deck or bought an expensive piece of jewelry. Only you know that information.”
So put this on your calendar to make sure you’re reviewing your policy at renewal time.
At the very least, you want to know what you have. Then you can tweak the policy or comparison shop. Make sure you don’t buy too much insurance. You don’t need to insure for the value of the land your house sits on.
According to the Insurance Information Institute, there are four elements that help you decide how much coverage to get:
- The cost to rebuild the structure.
- The cost to replace the contents.
- Additional living expenses if you have to move out during repairs.
- Your liability to others who might get hurt on your property.
If you’re looking to save money raise the deductible, don’t cut back on coverage. The Insurance Information Institute says increasing the deductible from $500 to $1,000 could reduce premiums by up to 25 percent.
Remember: the amount of money the policy will pay for contents and additional living expenses is typically based on the coverage of the structure.
It’s important to have a home inventory to show the insurance company if there is a loss. The free app MyHOME Scr.APP.book (available for iPhones and Android phones) from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners lets you quickly photograph, grab bar codes and serial numbers and store them digitally. There is also free software for your computer at knowyourstuff.org, a site run by the insurance industry.
We encourage you to spend time on both. It'll be time well spent.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Securities Lending – Share Hypothecation
For the last several months, Efinity Finanical has quietly grown in the Dallas Fort Worth market. Those clients already presently working with our advisors are well aware of the weekly commentary we publish. Last week's was so good we felt it should repost here on the Efinity Report. Enjoy.
Securities Lending – Share Hypothecation
One of the main issues facing the financial world today is the difficulty investors have estimating the effect that a specific financial issue, such as a 50% haircut on Greek bonds, may have on the global or domestic financial and banking system.
So why can’t the people who run the European Central bank, the U.S. Central Banks Federal Reserve and Wall Street estimate the probability and effect of a bank going out of business? It looks like the reason some banks are classed as “too big to fail” is the fact that no one knows what will happen if they DO fail!
The reason is the financial system is based on everyone lending and making promissory contracts with each other. The system has evolved to a highly leveraged point where very little real cash or collateral exists. Looking at ‘cash in the bank’ has been replaced by credit ratings and rates as means to judge the fiscal security of a loan to a counterparty.
Unfortunately, these ratings and loan rates can change quickly; confidence is especially ephemeral these days. Take Italy, for example, whose cost of borrowing has nearly doubled in a period of weeks. This means the capital held by banks in the form of Italian bonds has shrunk by nearly 50%.
European banks are currently levered by approximately 30 to 1 – for every $1 they have in actual capital, they have $30 in borrowings. U.S. banks are current around half that level.
Shorting the System
Another reason for high volatility is the increasing ability of financial firms to profit from betting against markets - Shorting. Probably the most infamous example was Goldman Sach’s $550 million fine relating to fraud charges over the shorting of (seeking to profit from betting against) mortgage securities they had previously profited from by advising clients to buy. The fund was called Abacus.
Securities Lending
Securities Lending, a.k.a. Share Hypothecation, is a little known method for large financial firms to leverage the financial system - proponents call it the lubrication of securities markets. It certainly facilitates increased short selling activity. It is estimated that $1.9 trillion of securities are out on loan every day.
Securities Lending allows a Wall Street firm to loan shares to another firm in return for both a transaction fee and collateral to cover the loan. Although this may sound ‘normal’ among large companies, many Wall Street investor custody agreements include securities lending clauses allowing the firm to lend out shares owned by retail investors.
Yes, investment banks and the like regularly take their investors’ shares and loan them to companies looking to short the market.
For any financial relationship you have, check to see if the company participates in Securities Lending. If they do and the lender goes bankrupt, you will lose your shares!
Why Lend Securities?
Financial companies often “Lend” securities to facilitate short selling. Selling a stock “Short” means borrowing stock from a Lender for a period then selling the stock to a Buyer. At the end of the borrowing period, the Borrower has to give the stock back to the Lender.
If the price of the stock goes down during the lending period, at the end of the period the Borrower buys the stock in the market at the current reduced market price and gives it to the Lender. The Borrower therefore pockets the difference between the price they had originally sold to the Buyer at the start of the lending period and the price they had just paid for it at the end of the lending period.
If the stock rises in value during the borrowing period, the Borrower loses the difference in the original sale price and the price they have to buy it back to satisfy the loan. This practice avoids the short company for being accused of “Naked Shorting”, the practice of selling a stock short without owning the underlying stock.
Take a moment to think how frightening this concept is…in order to make a big negative bet against a company or country, all a Wall Street company has to do it find a counterparty who is willing to loan the representative securities for a nominal fee.
Even worse, the collateral to cover the trade is rarely “tangible”; it’s often other financial contracts. It is therefore very easy to see how confidence can rapidly evaporate in financial markets.
Company versus Country
One interesting result of the above is the changing risk/credit perception between many large corporations and a number of countries, chiefly those in Europe. Sovereign fixed income investments that were previously thought to be low volatility are now behaving like Tech stocks! At the same time, high yield corporate bonds are relatively stable.
Countries have been able to run whatever fiscal policy they wanted because their credit rating always allowed them to borrow and borrow at low interest rates. Companies generally had to maintain pristine balance sheets to enjoy anything like similar access to debt. Moreover, everyone assumed sovereign debtors were highly creditworthy whereas companies have to prove their creditworthiness on a quarterly basis.
Now that the confidence in the finances of many countries has disappeared, we are seeing massive swings in the prices of sovereign bonds; those securities that we all previously thought were very stable. Hedge Funds and short sellers are able to use leverage to bet against the debt of countries in the same way they contributed to the decline of Lehman Brothers.
In our opinion, large multinationals have managed their finances exceptionally well in recent years and their debt (Bonds) deserve the stability currently being shown. We have long stated that the world continues to grow in new areas and different ways. Companies and not countries seem to be doing much better at managing this change.
Securities Lending – Share Hypothecation
One of the main issues facing the financial world today is the difficulty investors have estimating the effect that a specific financial issue, such as a 50% haircut on Greek bonds, may have on the global or domestic financial and banking system.
So why can’t the people who run the European Central bank, the U.S. Central Banks Federal Reserve and Wall Street estimate the probability and effect of a bank going out of business? It looks like the reason some banks are classed as “too big to fail” is the fact that no one knows what will happen if they DO fail!
The reason is the financial system is based on everyone lending and making promissory contracts with each other. The system has evolved to a highly leveraged point where very little real cash or collateral exists. Looking at ‘cash in the bank’ has been replaced by credit ratings and rates as means to judge the fiscal security of a loan to a counterparty.
Unfortunately, these ratings and loan rates can change quickly; confidence is especially ephemeral these days. Take Italy, for example, whose cost of borrowing has nearly doubled in a period of weeks. This means the capital held by banks in the form of Italian bonds has shrunk by nearly 50%.
European banks are currently levered by approximately 30 to 1 – for every $1 they have in actual capital, they have $30 in borrowings. U.S. banks are current around half that level.
Shorting the System
Another reason for high volatility is the increasing ability of financial firms to profit from betting against markets - Shorting. Probably the most infamous example was Goldman Sach’s $550 million fine relating to fraud charges over the shorting of (seeking to profit from betting against) mortgage securities they had previously profited from by advising clients to buy. The fund was called Abacus.
Securities Lending
Securities Lending, a.k.a. Share Hypothecation, is a little known method for large financial firms to leverage the financial system - proponents call it the lubrication of securities markets. It certainly facilitates increased short selling activity. It is estimated that $1.9 trillion of securities are out on loan every day.
Securities Lending allows a Wall Street firm to loan shares to another firm in return for both a transaction fee and collateral to cover the loan. Although this may sound ‘normal’ among large companies, many Wall Street investor custody agreements include securities lending clauses allowing the firm to lend out shares owned by retail investors.
Yes, investment banks and the like regularly take their investors’ shares and loan them to companies looking to short the market.
For any financial relationship you have, check to see if the company participates in Securities Lending. If they do and the lender goes bankrupt, you will lose your shares!
Why Lend Securities?
Financial companies often “Lend” securities to facilitate short selling. Selling a stock “Short” means borrowing stock from a Lender for a period then selling the stock to a Buyer. At the end of the borrowing period, the Borrower has to give the stock back to the Lender.
If the price of the stock goes down during the lending period, at the end of the period the Borrower buys the stock in the market at the current reduced market price and gives it to the Lender. The Borrower therefore pockets the difference between the price they had originally sold to the Buyer at the start of the lending period and the price they had just paid for it at the end of the lending period.
If the stock rises in value during the borrowing period, the Borrower loses the difference in the original sale price and the price they have to buy it back to satisfy the loan. This practice avoids the short company for being accused of “Naked Shorting”, the practice of selling a stock short without owning the underlying stock.
Take a moment to think how frightening this concept is…in order to make a big negative bet against a company or country, all a Wall Street company has to do it find a counterparty who is willing to loan the representative securities for a nominal fee.
Even worse, the collateral to cover the trade is rarely “tangible”; it’s often other financial contracts. It is therefore very easy to see how confidence can rapidly evaporate in financial markets.
Company versus Country
One interesting result of the above is the changing risk/credit perception between many large corporations and a number of countries, chiefly those in Europe. Sovereign fixed income investments that were previously thought to be low volatility are now behaving like Tech stocks! At the same time, high yield corporate bonds are relatively stable.
Countries have been able to run whatever fiscal policy they wanted because their credit rating always allowed them to borrow and borrow at low interest rates. Companies generally had to maintain pristine balance sheets to enjoy anything like similar access to debt. Moreover, everyone assumed sovereign debtors were highly creditworthy whereas companies have to prove their creditworthiness on a quarterly basis.
Now that the confidence in the finances of many countries has disappeared, we are seeing massive swings in the prices of sovereign bonds; those securities that we all previously thought were very stable. Hedge Funds and short sellers are able to use leverage to bet against the debt of countries in the same way they contributed to the decline of Lehman Brothers.
In our opinion, large multinationals have managed their finances exceptionally well in recent years and their debt (Bonds) deserve the stability currently being shown. We have long stated that the world continues to grow in new areas and different ways. Companies and not countries seem to be doing much better at managing this change.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Damn'd if you Do and Damn'd if you Don't
A state court judge has ruled that Illinois can move forward with a lawsuit alleging that Wells Fargo & Co. steered minority borrowers into risky mortgages at the height of the housing bubble. Important to note the court DID NOT find that Wells Fargo engaged in discriminatory lending but the Illinois action is the first fair-lending lawsuit brought by a state attorney general against a national bank to reach discovery, attorneys familiar with the case said. After discovery, Illinois may be able to bring the case to trial. We believe this is a poor decision.
Here are the underlying issues and possible ramifications for this. ALL residential mortgage lenders (BofA, Wells Fargo, Chase, Ally Bank even Efinity for that matter) had and have annual requirements and goals for community lending. Ten years ago, the push from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to grow minority ownership. This was a directive from prior US President Bill Clinton during his presidency (1993-2001). A challenging task as these markets historically have been plagued with on-going credit and down payment issues. The "steering" as referred by the Illinois state attorney general will be difficult to defend as home loan underwriting requirements were much less focused on standard automated underwriting findings and subject to interpretation. Many of the loan programs available to mortgage lenders at the time were very lenient on income and employment documentation compared to the standard FHA loan programs. In addition, programs typically offered short term fixed payment durations lowering the starting rate and payment which many borrowers were attracted to. Add the year over year property increase assumptions, these underwriting decisions are now deemed discriminatory. Furthermore, what will be difficult to defend is the reasoning why those loan programs were selected. In many circumstances, borrowers fully intended to flip or move in a short time window making short term fixed duration loans preferable as the interested rates were significantly lower. Adding to the lack of clarity behind these transactions in question, no where within the application explains or supports the reasoning behind the transaction.
WF was "gently" pushed to lend in certain markets which conventional lending could and would not support. The transactional volume requirements demanded certain products which were available to the market place. Unfortunately while clients are usually always made aware of the risks associated with an adjustable mortgage product the purchase decision is usually made payment. Are there individual transactions where perhaps the risk/rewards were not fully vetted out 100%, perhaps but in this instance we believe individual borrowers are not taking personal responsibility for their decisions.
Here are the underlying issues and possible ramifications for this. ALL residential mortgage lenders (BofA, Wells Fargo, Chase, Ally Bank even Efinity for that matter) had and have annual requirements and goals for community lending. Ten years ago, the push from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to grow minority ownership. This was a directive from prior US President Bill Clinton during his presidency (1993-2001). A challenging task as these markets historically have been plagued with on-going credit and down payment issues. The "steering" as referred by the Illinois state attorney general will be difficult to defend as home loan underwriting requirements were much less focused on standard automated underwriting findings and subject to interpretation. Many of the loan programs available to mortgage lenders at the time were very lenient on income and employment documentation compared to the standard FHA loan programs. In addition, programs typically offered short term fixed payment durations lowering the starting rate and payment which many borrowers were attracted to. Add the year over year property increase assumptions, these underwriting decisions are now deemed discriminatory. Furthermore, what will be difficult to defend is the reasoning why those loan programs were selected. In many circumstances, borrowers fully intended to flip or move in a short time window making short term fixed duration loans preferable as the interested rates were significantly lower. Adding to the lack of clarity behind these transactions in question, no where within the application explains or supports the reasoning behind the transaction.
WF was "gently" pushed to lend in certain markets which conventional lending could and would not support. The transactional volume requirements demanded certain products which were available to the market place. Unfortunately while clients are usually always made aware of the risks associated with an adjustable mortgage product the purchase decision is usually made payment. Are there individual transactions where perhaps the risk/rewards were not fully vetted out 100%, perhaps but in this instance we believe individual borrowers are not taking personal responsibility for their decisions.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Creative planning but ...
There are new developments between the Obama administration and a federal housing regulators who are considering a program to draw private investment back into the government-dominated residential mortgage market by having Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sell slices of securities that wouldn't carry a federal guarantee but would pay a higher interest rate than current mortgage-backed bonds.
No decisions have been made, but officials believe a small pilot program could be rolled out sometime next year, according to people familiar with the matter.
Officials see it as a step toward reducing the $10.4 trillion U.S. mortgage market's dependence on government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If the leadership in both groups believe this model would keep US residential mortgages affordable, we're all for it. However, we fear what this same leadership has not factored in is the "dramatic" increase private money would require in rate to not have government guarantee. The margins just aren't attractive to the everyday commercial investor and without attractive margins, rates to the consumer will surely rise.
No decisions have been made, but officials believe a small pilot program could be rolled out sometime next year, according to people familiar with the matter.
Officials see it as a step toward reducing the $10.4 trillion U.S. mortgage market's dependence on government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If the leadership in both groups believe this model would keep US residential mortgages affordable, we're all for it. However, we fear what this same leadership has not factored in is the "dramatic" increase private money would require in rate to not have government guarantee. The margins just aren't attractive to the everyday commercial investor and without attractive margins, rates to the consumer will surely rise.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
You can lead an Economy to Water, but can you make it Create Jobs?
You can lead an Economy to Water, but can you make it Create Jobs?
So it‟s now official, the U.S. Economy is going through a “soft spot”. According to the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, speaking last week at an International Monetary Conference in Atlanta:
• "The U.S. economy is recovering from both the worst financial crisis and the most severe housing bust since the Great Depression, and it faces additional headwinds ranging from the effects of the Japanese disaster to global pressures in commodity markets. In this context, monetary policy cannot be a panacea."
• …the economic recovery is “uneven …and frustratingly slow”
• The Fed will keep interest rates bottomed out for “an extended period.”
A few conclusions spring forth from these quotes:
• The Fed will keep Interest Rates low for as long as
possible; longer than most economists currently
believe. Bonds won‟t be under too much interest rate
pressure for a while yet.
• Chairman Ben Bernanke currently feels the launch of a
third round of monetary easing will probably do nothing
to stimulate „real‟ economic demand; principally
meaning create jobs.
• Ben is looking for help from the Government and
Private Sectors in his efforts to inflate the economy.
• The Fed expected QE2 to have more impact on jobs
and GDP. The money benefitted the banking industry
but not industry in general.
It‟s possible to explain away the „soft spot‟ as a result of the Spring 2011 Supply Shocks in Japan and the Middle East; it may even be possible to extrapolate this thinking to justify a return to GDP growth in the Fall.
But one thing remains, until the job market shows signs of sustained improvement, long term confidence in a persistent domestic economic recovery will be questionable.
“Until we see a sustained period of stronger job creation, we cannot consider the recovery to be truly established”, another quote from Ben Bernanke.
Monetary policy cannot be a Panacea
Is The Fed saying that it has done as much as it can through Monetary Easing; the printing and circulating of more money?
QE1 and QE2 achieved their objectives by:
• Saving the U.S. Banking System, and therefore the world‟s banking system.
• Raising the price of Equities
• Reducing Interest Rates and the Dollar
But QE2 or QE3 can‟t sustain economic growth. Quantitative Easing was initially a protective measure; pump liquidity into the economy and provide banks with copious amounts of free capital.
Thereafter, it was intended to be a box of matches that could set the economy ablaze. Well, now all the QE matches have been struck, the economic wildfire still refuses to spread.
Employment is the fuel necessary to get this fire to spontaneously combust.
How to Stimulate Employment?
Jobs are a common byproduct of economic activity; however, productivity increases (together with an amount of outsourcing) has created an economic recovery with fewer new jobs than expected.
So what‟s a government to do about job creation?
QE3?
The Fed obviously thinks: “QE1 and QE2 didn‟t ignite the job market, so why would QE3 do any better?” Additionally, the debt created by quantitative easing requires repayment at some stage (seriously). Repayment will require deficit reduction which will require cut backs in economic activity.
Conclusion: QE3 may ultimately hurt the job market.
Keeping Interest Rates and the Dollar Low?
The Fed may have ended the QE programs, but it will still try to keep interest rates and the dollar low by other means; means too complex to detail here.
Why keep Interest Rates and the Dollar Low?
• Lower interest rates encourage investment (loans cost less) and discourage savers (don‟t put your money in the bank; put it into riskier assets or a business).
• A lower dollar makes domestic goods cheaper and more competitive overseas while making imports more expensive.
Although recent balance of payments data shows U.S. exports have benefitted from a lower dollar, it‟s clear that low interest rates have failed to stimulate lending and economic activity. Why pump more money into the monetary system when it isn‟t finding its way to enough businesses and households. The Government needs to direct the monetary faucet where it can create jobs.
If the printing presses don‟t stop creating money soon, the risk of inflation will increase dramatically. In turn, this may cause interest rates to rise which would defeat the object of the stimulus exercise.
Rising interest rates are synonymous with monetary tightening. Monetary tightening normally means fewer jobs; a downwards spiral no one wants to see at the moment.
Failure to control spending can actually hurt jobs in a similar way to reducing spending.
Note: For all you bond investors, a domestic “rising interest rate environment” may yet be a year or two away if the Fed has their way.
Government & Private Sector Stimulus
Chairman Bernanke‟s comment: “monetary policy cannot be a panacea” begs the question “What else will help monetary policy to create sustainable growth?”
"Policymakers urgently need to put the Federal governments' finances on a sustainable trajectory," Bernanke said in Atlanta. "Establishing a credible plan for reducing future deficits now would not only enhance economic performance in the long run, but could also yield near-term benefits by leading to lower long-term interest rates."
Looks like Ben thinks it's now up to the politicians to help the economy by reducing the federal deficit.
And now the good news – it appears both sides of the political divide agree that the deficit must be reduced. The debate has moved on to:
• How to Reduce the Deficit: Reduce Spending or Increase Taxes?
• How much to Reduce the Deficit by
At a time when investors are looking for a clear direction, let us weigh in with a decisive conclusion:
Let’s wait and see what the Government agrees and what kind of earnings season we have starting early July…
PS: Have you noticed the increasing number of States and Municipalities implementing fiscal tightening activities. Nowhere near enough to make a difference yet, but a step in the right direction and a shining beacon for the route the Federal Government will have to follow soon.
So it‟s now official, the U.S. Economy is going through a “soft spot”. According to the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, speaking last week at an International Monetary Conference in Atlanta:
• "The U.S. economy is recovering from both the worst financial crisis and the most severe housing bust since the Great Depression, and it faces additional headwinds ranging from the effects of the Japanese disaster to global pressures in commodity markets. In this context, monetary policy cannot be a panacea."
• …the economic recovery is “uneven …and frustratingly slow”
• The Fed will keep interest rates bottomed out for “an extended period.”
A few conclusions spring forth from these quotes:
• The Fed will keep Interest Rates low for as long as
possible; longer than most economists currently
believe. Bonds won‟t be under too much interest rate
pressure for a while yet.
• Chairman Ben Bernanke currently feels the launch of a
third round of monetary easing will probably do nothing
to stimulate „real‟ economic demand; principally
meaning create jobs.
• Ben is looking for help from the Government and
Private Sectors in his efforts to inflate the economy.
• The Fed expected QE2 to have more impact on jobs
and GDP. The money benefitted the banking industry
but not industry in general.
It‟s possible to explain away the „soft spot‟ as a result of the Spring 2011 Supply Shocks in Japan and the Middle East; it may even be possible to extrapolate this thinking to justify a return to GDP growth in the Fall.
But one thing remains, until the job market shows signs of sustained improvement, long term confidence in a persistent domestic economic recovery will be questionable.
“Until we see a sustained period of stronger job creation, we cannot consider the recovery to be truly established”, another quote from Ben Bernanke.
Monetary policy cannot be a Panacea
Is The Fed saying that it has done as much as it can through Monetary Easing; the printing and circulating of more money?
QE1 and QE2 achieved their objectives by:
• Saving the U.S. Banking System, and therefore the world‟s banking system.
• Raising the price of Equities
• Reducing Interest Rates and the Dollar
But QE2 or QE3 can‟t sustain economic growth. Quantitative Easing was initially a protective measure; pump liquidity into the economy and provide banks with copious amounts of free capital.
Thereafter, it was intended to be a box of matches that could set the economy ablaze. Well, now all the QE matches have been struck, the economic wildfire still refuses to spread.
Employment is the fuel necessary to get this fire to spontaneously combust.
How to Stimulate Employment?
Jobs are a common byproduct of economic activity; however, productivity increases (together with an amount of outsourcing) has created an economic recovery with fewer new jobs than expected.
So what‟s a government to do about job creation?
QE3?
The Fed obviously thinks: “QE1 and QE2 didn‟t ignite the job market, so why would QE3 do any better?” Additionally, the debt created by quantitative easing requires repayment at some stage (seriously). Repayment will require deficit reduction which will require cut backs in economic activity.
Conclusion: QE3 may ultimately hurt the job market.
Keeping Interest Rates and the Dollar Low?
The Fed may have ended the QE programs, but it will still try to keep interest rates and the dollar low by other means; means too complex to detail here.
Why keep Interest Rates and the Dollar Low?
• Lower interest rates encourage investment (loans cost less) and discourage savers (don‟t put your money in the bank; put it into riskier assets or a business).
• A lower dollar makes domestic goods cheaper and more competitive overseas while making imports more expensive.
Although recent balance of payments data shows U.S. exports have benefitted from a lower dollar, it‟s clear that low interest rates have failed to stimulate lending and economic activity. Why pump more money into the monetary system when it isn‟t finding its way to enough businesses and households. The Government needs to direct the monetary faucet where it can create jobs.
If the printing presses don‟t stop creating money soon, the risk of inflation will increase dramatically. In turn, this may cause interest rates to rise which would defeat the object of the stimulus exercise.
Rising interest rates are synonymous with monetary tightening. Monetary tightening normally means fewer jobs; a downwards spiral no one wants to see at the moment.
Failure to control spending can actually hurt jobs in a similar way to reducing spending.
Note: For all you bond investors, a domestic “rising interest rate environment” may yet be a year or two away if the Fed has their way.
Government & Private Sector Stimulus
Chairman Bernanke‟s comment: “monetary policy cannot be a panacea” begs the question “What else will help monetary policy to create sustainable growth?”
"Policymakers urgently need to put the Federal governments' finances on a sustainable trajectory," Bernanke said in Atlanta. "Establishing a credible plan for reducing future deficits now would not only enhance economic performance in the long run, but could also yield near-term benefits by leading to lower long-term interest rates."
Looks like Ben thinks it's now up to the politicians to help the economy by reducing the federal deficit.
And now the good news – it appears both sides of the political divide agree that the deficit must be reduced. The debate has moved on to:
• How to Reduce the Deficit: Reduce Spending or Increase Taxes?
• How much to Reduce the Deficit by
At a time when investors are looking for a clear direction, let us weigh in with a decisive conclusion:
Let’s wait and see what the Government agrees and what kind of earnings season we have starting early July…
PS: Have you noticed the increasing number of States and Municipalities implementing fiscal tightening activities. Nowhere near enough to make a difference yet, but a step in the right direction and a shining beacon for the route the Federal Government will have to follow soon.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
As we called it, Double Dip Housing has arrived
Here are latest from S&P/Case Shiller report out this morning.
• 4.2 percent decline in Q1 of 2011, 2.9 percent from one year ago.
• The 10 cities fell .6 percent in March
• Top 20 cities fell .8 percent in March
What's probably most concerning and begs to question, what happened to the home buyer tax credits which were supposed to stimulate the economy and housing market (not necessarily in that order)?
Perhaps the best news to come out of this will be evidence that mortgage rates will remain low as yields become subject to basic economic supply and demand. With new mortgage transaction counts down, there just isn't enough fixed income products out there to buy outside of corporate bonds and US Treasuries..
To further the point, the National Association of Realtors released an article the other day verifying the median income of real estate agents has fallen 22% to $34,100? Median income….half make more and half make less. Also, a mere 16% of national real estate agents made 6 figures last year. I’m sure you’re curious to what that number represents and it’s 176,556 agents.
Ok, so all this wonderful news is out there. Here's our take on how to truly jumpstart both the housing industry and this economy.
• Bring back down payment assistance. I know the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) despised these buyer assisted grant programs. Here's how the vast majority of them worked: Seller of the home (at closing) would make a "charitable donation" to a Non-profit organization (say a church), the church in turn work pocket a $900 admin. fee but remit the rest of the month (at times up to $10,000) towards the buyers closing cost. True the default in loans structured in the aforementioned way had higher default levels but now that HUD has grossly increased both the initial upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium and Monthly Premium, there's got to be a pretty decent model which supports a 3-6% default and still ensure "success" in homeownership.
• Housing is only so important to an already service oriented country like the US. Manufacturing MUST return. Leadership in Washington DC must bring back significant incentives to "defend" this countries manufacturing arm.
• Flat tax. If this county remains (as we suspect it will) a service oriented country, we must tax it accordingly whereby those leveraging the most services or consuming the most goods, in turn pay more.
Simple, now where do we petition these simple requests?
• 4.2 percent decline in Q1 of 2011, 2.9 percent from one year ago.
• The 10 cities fell .6 percent in March
• Top 20 cities fell .8 percent in March
What's probably most concerning and begs to question, what happened to the home buyer tax credits which were supposed to stimulate the economy and housing market (not necessarily in that order)?
Perhaps the best news to come out of this will be evidence that mortgage rates will remain low as yields become subject to basic economic supply and demand. With new mortgage transaction counts down, there just isn't enough fixed income products out there to buy outside of corporate bonds and US Treasuries..
To further the point, the National Association of Realtors released an article the other day verifying the median income of real estate agents has fallen 22% to $34,100? Median income….half make more and half make less. Also, a mere 16% of national real estate agents made 6 figures last year. I’m sure you’re curious to what that number represents and it’s 176,556 agents.
Ok, so all this wonderful news is out there. Here's our take on how to truly jumpstart both the housing industry and this economy.
• Bring back down payment assistance. I know the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) despised these buyer assisted grant programs. Here's how the vast majority of them worked: Seller of the home (at closing) would make a "charitable donation" to a Non-profit organization (say a church), the church in turn work pocket a $900 admin. fee but remit the rest of the month (at times up to $10,000) towards the buyers closing cost. True the default in loans structured in the aforementioned way had higher default levels but now that HUD has grossly increased both the initial upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium and Monthly Premium, there's got to be a pretty decent model which supports a 3-6% default and still ensure "success" in homeownership.
• Housing is only so important to an already service oriented country like the US. Manufacturing MUST return. Leadership in Washington DC must bring back significant incentives to "defend" this countries manufacturing arm.
• Flat tax. If this county remains (as we suspect it will) a service oriented country, we must tax it accordingly whereby those leveraging the most services or consuming the most goods, in turn pay more.
Simple, now where do we petition these simple requests?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
