From Bloomberg this morning as stocks tumble:

“This is a systemic financial crisis, there is no end to it,” Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics and international business at New York University, told Bloomberg Television. “It’s a vicious circle between a contracting economy and greater credit and financial losses feeding on the economy.”

President Bush reminds us that the system is “basically sound”:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush urged lawmakers on Tuesday to move quickly in putting into force legislation designed to help prop up mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while declaring the nation’s financial system to be “basically sound.”

My thoughts?

Well - I don’t think the government should move too quickly on the Fannie and Freddie bailouts. I don’t trust them to get it right this quickly. Too many variables, too many unknowns. Take a deep breath, try to really understand what the best solution is to this problem. The last thing you want to do is panic. At the end of the day it’s investors who are losing money right now - and that’s the game they play, and the government can come in at anytime in the future with a more sensible plan and rescue the market. I just want to caution against hastily put together plans.

---

Copyright Notice: © 2007-2008 Shailesh Ghimire (Arizona Mortgage Guru). This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news

Share This

I came across an interesting post at The Liscio Report called “Presidential economics: Do parties matter?” And as I read through it I came across some interesting analysis and I realized there may be come misconceptions about which party really does what. Democrats are believed to be fiscally irresponsible, spenders and Republicans are supposed to be fiscally responsible and small government. Which should technically result in bloated budgets with lots of deficits for Democrats and trimmed outlays with balanced budgets for Republicans. I know in recent years fiscal responsibilty has been thrown out the window, but that seems to fit the pattern and does not appear to be an anaomoly.

Take a look at this chart:

This is not what I would have expected. Democrats lowering the budget deficits and Republicans increasing it for the most part? Are we being misled here then? Do the parties have a branding issue? This is how the authors explain it:

Though the picture so far is of the Republicans as the party of austerity and the Democrats as the party of stimulus, there’s a surprise when it comes to changes in the federal deficit: Republicans are more liberal with the red ink than Dems. On average, a Republican in the White House has meant a shift of –1.9% of GDP in the government’s budget balance (i.e., towards smaller surpluses or bigger deficits), while a Dem has meant a 1.5% improvement in the budget position (or 1.8%, if you start in 1949, thereby omitting the huge World War II deficit). And in this case, the average is a faithful representation of the distribution, with only one Democrat in the minus column and only one Republican in the plus.

Some of this reflects different tax policies, with Reagan and Bush 43 cutting, and Clinton raising income taxes. But it also reflects the partisan difference in GDP growth.

Read the whole thing. Certainly makes you think, doesn’t it?

Hat tip: The Big Picture

---

Copyright Notice: © 2007-2008 Shailesh Ghimire (Arizona Mortgage Guru). This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact sghimire@gmail.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Share This

Negative amortization was always controversial. Option ARMS (Pick-a-pay) always have had a negative amortization feature. In fact this loan has always been World Savings bread and butter. For the financially savvy person this loan makes complete sense. It has features which allows you to lower your taxable income, decrease your cost of funds over the long term and if used with a carefully calibrated investment strategy allows you to maximize returns to the max. Within this context negative amortization is a well accounted for risk and balanced by high returns. Even if on a short term basis you ended up with some negative amortization, over the long term, you would come out ahead.

The problem is the average consumer is not tremendously financially savvy. And therein lies the problem. When option arms were marketed to the average Joe as a financial vehicle, loan originators who themselves are not tremendously financially savvy saw an opportunity to sell more house for lower monthly payment. I’m not trying to put the onus solely on the originator here either. I am of the opinion that the head of every bank in the United States fully knew what they were selling to the average borrower.

I remember a borrower a few years ago who insisted beyond any reasonable persuasion that he wanted to be in such a loan. He said that the payment on the 5/1 ARM I was proposing was to high and he wouldn’t’ be able to afford the house after a few years. However, with the option ARM a different lender had proposed he would be “comfortable”, so if I didn’t give him a similar option he was going to go with the other lender.

This borrower had no business being in an option ARM. Not only was he relatively financially unstable, he was trying to live way beyond his means, counting on future income and future equity to compensate for the short term loss. This was never the market for the option ARM and these types of borrower had no business being in this type of loan. In fact I wrote a post back in 2005 warning borrowers about the dangers of the option ARM. I wanted to remind folks that despite how things were being advertised as a borrower you are still obligated to pay back the full loan amount with any accumulated interest.

And it is because of stories of such borrowers over the past few years that today we sit where we are. Today, Wachovia, one of the largest underwriters of option ARM’s pulled the plug on these negative amortization loans. Here is the news clip from Fortune magazine:

Wachovia (nyse: WB - news - people ) announced Monday that it is pulling the plug on it’s Pick-a-Pay program. The pay-what-you-will exotic loan offerings weren’t exactly subprime –the borrowers were a bit better-heeled Alt-A types– but the default rates on the loans have been much higher than expected and have been driving the lender’s losses.

The loans gave borrowers the option of paying several amounts each month, including low payments that led to an increase in the principal amount of the loans.

Not only did they stop the program they also have said they’ll waive the prepayment penalties on these loans as well. Most option ARM included three year hard pre-payment penalties. So whether you sold or refinanced the loan within the first three years you had to pay a prepayment penalty. With the fall in home prices adding to negative amortization more than they had figured things are not looking good that the banks can make money on these. So, Wachovoia took a long hard look and decided to cut their losses. According to Housing Wire:

Wachovia also said it will waive all prepayment fees for borrowers looking to refinance out of an option ARM, a clear indication of the stress borrowers in such loans are now facing; the bank recently hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS: 174.90, +0.19%) in an effort to help it figure out what it should do with the Option ARM loans on its books.

As you can tell it’s not just the consumer who is in pain here, Wachovia is hurting too.

---

Copyright Notice: © 2007-2008 Shailesh Ghimire (Arizona Mortgage Guru). This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact sghimire@gmail.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Share This