|
|
December 2008 Entries
Fast Internet Service Has Become a Must-Have
For today's home buyers, speedy Internet service ranks right up there with good schools, low crime rates, and accessible public transportation.
"Buyers ask what broadband services are available, who cable providers are and whether [Verizon's] FiOS is in place," said Tania Gonda, an associate with Weichert Realtors in Reston, Va.
She said a savvy practitioner should be familiar with the available services, including the advantages and disadvantages of each vendor, and whether the local neighborhood association or zoning laws restrict satellite antennas.
Seller who have installed a range of high-tech services should be able to provide specific information about the systems they have installed, Gonda added.
Source: The Washington Post, Gabe Goldberg (12/13/2008)
Greening Your Business
Tips on how to start making your business operations easier on the planet -- and on your bottom line.
Use Better Paper, and Less of It
The average office tosses out about 350 pounds of paper per employee, per year. Reducing your waste and purchasing paper with postconsumer recycled content can help save trees and nudge the pulp and paper industry, one of the most environmentally destructive industries in the world, toward a less damaging path.
- Set your printers to print double-sided, or designate a draft tray and fill it with paper that's blank on one side.
- Buy copier paper with a minimum 30 percent postconsumer recycled content. (100 percent is best!)
- Collect used paper separately for recycling, and coordinate with your building manager and waste hauler to set up a recycling system that works for everyone. If you can, also recycle other materials, like aluminum, glass and plastic.
- Stock bathrooms with postconsumer recycled tissue products. Tissue manufacturers destroy forests when they turn virgin wood into throw-away paper products. See our guide for ecologically preferable brands.
Cut Water Waste
One billion people on our planet can't get safe drinking water. In the United States, some rivers are being drawn down faster than nature can fill them up. Using water efficiently today will help ensure that future generations have access to the water they need.
- Install faucet aerators and low-flow toilets
- Check for and fix leaks
- Recycle water
- Landscape for maximum water efficiency
Create a Greener Working Environment
Employees are on the front lines of any sustainability initiatives your company chooses to make. Participation from all levels of your staff is a crucial part of any greening effort.
- Buy less toxic cleaners to improve indoor air quality and reduce risks to employee health.
- Create a green team with members from all divisions of your organization to help implement plans and bring new ideas to the table.
Stay Tuned
NRDC offers comprehensive getting-started guides to green building and to smart paper-use practices. If you are a business owner or manager and you'd like to hear from us when we add resources to help you green your business, sign up here.
Get Energy Efficient
Using less energy reduces the demand on power plants, the nation's leading contributors to global warming pollution and mercury pollution. And it saves a bundle on your energy bills.
- Contact your utility company to arrange for a free (or inexpensive) energy audit. An engineer will examine your operations and provide you with a detailed report about how your firm can save on energy costs, from rebates to improved maintenance.
- Turn off lights and unplug electronics after hours -- computers and other electronics use energy while they're plugged in, even when they're switched off. (Plug all your appliances into a power strip and you'll only have to flip one switch at the end of the day.)
- Set computers to sleep and hibernate when inactive, and lose the screen savers. Flying toasters and slideshows can use up about $50 of electricity in a year. Look for power management or energy saving features on the control panel for Windows, or system preferences under the apple menu for Macs.
- Use Energy Star office equipment -- most major brands carry energy-saving models marked with the Energy Star label.
Best Cars for the Money
The numbers don't look good. November car sales were down 30 percent from last year. While shoppers are used to doom and gloom sales numbers coming out of Detroit, the declines are now industry-wide, with Honda posting a 32 percent decline, Toyota sales dropping 34 percent, and even venerable Porsche reporting a nearly 50 percent drop in sales.
While these numbers obviously spell trouble for automakers, what they mean for car shoppers isn't immediately clear. The credit crisis has continued for months and with belt-tightening becoming the new American pastime, car shoppers are finding themselves adrift in a sea of bad industry news, rising new car incentives, and little advice for consumers.
That's where this year's U.S. News Best Car for the Money awards come in. Car shoppers face an uncertain economy and a shrinking ability to borrow. The key to surviving the current marketplace is to stretch your dollars as far as they'll go -- but that doesn't mean flocking to the biggest incentives. It means focusing on cars that are proven winners and offer a great value over the entire life of the car.
The Awards
The Best Car for the Money awards use data from U.S. News' online automotive rankings (at www.rankingsandreviews.com) to find cars that are among the best in their class. The rankings are based on the collective opinion of the automotive press, which helps to eliminate subjectivity and elevate expert opinion about each car. The awards also take initial price into account, but more importantly, they incorporate the five-year total cost of owning the car. Using data from IntelliChoice, an industry leader in determining new car values and ownership costs, the awards include how much buyers can expect to spend on maintenance and fuel, as well as how much of a hit they'll take from the car's depreciation. As a result, the awards tell you which cars are the best for your money over the long haul. Read more on the awards methodology.
The Winners
Across 14 new car classes, the clear winner is Toyota. Five Toyotas won Best Car for the Money in their classes, with Lexus, Toyota's luxury marquee, pulling in another three. Chevrolet and Mazda each claim two awards and Honda and Korean upstart Hyundai each claim one. Five of the award winners are even available as hybrids - most of which are also great values.
Despite ranging in size from the tiny Honda Fit to the hulking Chevrolet Tahoe, the winners have a lot in common. They share a high level of build quality that makes for worry-free and low-cost ownership. One of the reasons Toyota models take so many of the awards is because of their bulletproof quality. That not only lowers the cost of maintaining Toyotas -- it means that they retain value better than most other cars.
The winners have something else in common: they are favorites in the automotive press. Not because they tear up drag strips or star in music videos, but because they are extremely livable. Each winner occupies an automotive sweet spot that makes it an attractive choice for the vast majority of car shoppers. Take the Lexus ES, the Best Upscale Car for the Money: it doesn't drive as sharp as the BMW 3-Series and doesn't look as sharp as the Mercedes Benz C-Class, but taken as a total package, it's very comfortable to drive and easy to live with on a daily basis -- not to mention easier on your wallet.
Some winners, like the Mazda5, the Best Compact Crossover for the Money, take the best of what class leaders like the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V have to offer, but pack in an appealing lower price. The case of the Hyundai Elantra, the Best Compact Car for the Money, proves what many have been saying for years: Honda and Toyota should watch their backs because Hyundai is making not just economical cars, but very good ones.
Time to Buy
It's a confusing time to be shopping for a new car. While there are some incredible deals to be had, many of those incentives are for cars that don't offer a lot of value in the long term. Worse, a car with thousands of dollars in cash-back offers may be tough to drive, and laden with features you don't need.
The U.S. News Best Car for the Money awards cut through fog surrounding the auto industry to point out the cars that combine value with day-to-day livability. As scary as it is to part with thousands of dollars in this economy, by sticking with the cars that offer maximum satisfaction at a minimal cost, your money will go further and your driving will be happier. And, who knows? Happy new car buyers may be just the stimulus this economy needs.
2009 Award Winners
Best Midsize Car for the Money
Best Subcompact Car for the Money
Best Compact Crossover for the Money
Best Compact Car for the Money
Best Midsize Crossover for the Money
Best Luxury Crossover for the Money
Best Full Size SUV for the Money
Best Sports Car for the Money
Best Luxury Car for the Money
Best Compact Truck for the Money
Best Full Size Truck for the Money
Best Minivan for the Money
Best Large Car for the Money
Best Upscale Car for the Money
Los Angeles Has Worst Ozone Pollution
The American Lung Association's 2008 State of the Air report ranks cities most affected by three types of pollution: short-term particle pollution, year-round particle pollution and ozone pollution.
The association found that 42 percent of Americans live in 216 counties where they are exposed to unhealthful levels of air pollution in the form of either ozone or short-term or year-round levels of particles.
About 30.4 million Americans – about 10 percent – live in 18 counties with unhealthful levels of all three pollutants, ozone, short-term and year-round particle pollution.
Here are the 10 most ozone-polluted cities:
- Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside, Calif.
- Bakersfield, Calif.
- Visalia/Porterville, Calif.
- Houston, Texas
- Fresno/Madera, Calif.
- Sacramento, Calif.
- Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
- New York, N.Y./Newark, N.J.
- Baltimore, Md./Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia
- Baton Rouge, La.
Source: American Lung Association (12/22/2008)
Song Captures Glow of Homeownership
When Charles Fox composed the theme song for the REALTORS®' Tournament of Roses parade float, which will be celebrating homeownership at the Rose Bowl Parade in Pasadena, Calif., Jan. 1, , his inspiration wasn't houses but the people who live in them. "It's people that make a house a home," Fox says in a video interview on the Web site of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®. "What is a home but where we live our lives?"
Fox, a widely celebrated arranger who has worked with Roberta Flack among other musical legends, tapped lyricists Marilyn and Alan Bergman to help him bring out the special place of homes in people's lives. They came up with the memorable line, "See the chair, it waits with open arms for you/years of wear from hands that held you near, with laughter you still can hear, memories that you hold dear/No place that you would rather be than comfortable and happily at home."
"We didn't have to do much [to bring out the essence of home]," says Alan Bergman. "The feeling of home is universal and what one brings to it when one steps inside that door."
To bring the words and music alive, Fox and the Bergmans tapped singer Steve Tyrell, the highly-regarded balladist. "He has a smile in his voice," says Alan Bergman, "a welcoming feel to it."
"It's homey, comfortable," says Marilyn Bergman.
The conversation with the musical artists is one in a series of videos looking at the REALTORS®' Tournament of Roses parade float on REALTOR.org. Other videos look at the design and construction of the float. Watch the videos and listen to the song, composed exclusively for REALTORS®, at REALTOR.org. Learn more about the Tournament of Roses parade on REALTOR.org, too.
Source: NAR
Amid Rate Drops, Mortgage Applications Soar
With interest rates approaching reaching historic lows, the application volume for mortgages jumped a seasonally adjusted 48 percent last week compared with the previous week, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association's weekly survey.
Application activity for the week ending December 19th was 124.6 percent over the same period a year ago, the Washington, D.C-based MBA said. The spike in applications coincided with another drop in mortgage rates, as the government's efforts to unfreeze the residential-mortgage market show further signs of having the desired effect.
Applications to refinance existing mortgages increased 62.6 percent on a week-to-week basis, while applications filed for mortgages to buy homes increased a seasonally adjusted 10.6 percent.
Refinancings made up 83.2 percent of all applications filed last week, up from 76.9 percent the previous week.
According to the MBA survey, interest rates fell across the board:
- Rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages averaged 5.04 percent last week, their lowest level in more than five years.
This was down from 5.18 percent the previous week.
- Fifteen-year fixed-rate mortgages averaged 4.91 percent, down from 4.93 percent the week before.
- One-year ARMs averaged 6.36 percent, down from 6.63 percent.
Source: Mortgage Bankers Association and MarketWatch (12/24/08)
Unemployment Hurts Commercial Sector
Shrinking employment is reducing the demand for commercial real estate, and the Urban Land Institute, an industry trade group, is predicting that the bottom of the commercial market is still six to 12 months away.
"There is a psychological component to all this," said Robert Gardner, managing director of real estate consulting firm Robert Charles Lesser & Co. "Exuberance on the upside is being compounded on the downside and markets will overshoot in the other direction."
Financing is almost impossible for developers to obtain in many parts of the country, even for modest projects. “The mega deal is done” at least for now, Gardner said.
"Usually some markets perform better than others," said Delores Conway, director of the Casden Economic Forecast at University of Southern California, "but demand is weak everywhere."
Source: Los Angeles Times, Roger Vincent (12/15/08)
Fast Internet Service Has Become a Must-Have
For today's home buyers, speedy Internet service ranks right up there with good schools, low crime rates, and accessible public transportation.
"Buyers ask what broadband services are available, who cable providers are and whether [Verizon's] FiOS is in place," said Tania Gonda, an associate with Weichert Realtors in Reston, Va.
She said a savvy practitioner should be familiar with the available services, including the advantages and disadvantages of each vendor, and whether the local neighborhood association or zoning laws restrict satellite antennas.
Seller who have installed a range of high-tech services should be able to provide specific information about the systems they have installed, Gonda added.
Source: The Washington Post, Gabe Goldberg (12/13/2008)
Press Release
Release Date: December 22, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Monday announced its approval of the application under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act ("BHC Act") submitted by CIT Group Inc., New York, New York, to become a bank holding company on conversion of CIT Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah, to a state bank. The Board also approved the notices by CIT Group Inc. under section 4 of the BHC Act to retain certain nonbanking subsidiaries.
Attached is the Board's Order relating to this action.
Attachment (37 KB PDF)
Press Release
Release Date: December 24, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday announced its approval of the application and notices under sections 3 and 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act by GMAC LLC and IB Finance Holding Company, LLC, both of Detroit, Michigan, to become bank holding companies on conversion of GMAC Bank, a Utah industrial loan company, to a commercial bank and to retain certain nonbanking subsidiaries.
Attached is the Order relating to this action.
Attachment (73 KB PDF)
Mortgage Applications Surge on Falling Rates
Mortgage lenders are seeing a deluge of applications for refinancings as borrowing costs decline due to a recent cut in the federal funds rate by the Federal Reserve, and many are hiring temporary workers or reassigning employees to handle the swelling volume.
Some experts believe the jump in refis could signal a turning point in the market and reduce pressure on banks by the U.S. government to bolster lending following the distribution of millions of dollars in assistance.
However, it remains uncertain how many borrowers will qualify for loans, how long it will take to process loans under new documentation and credit standards, and whether borrowers will back down in hopes that mortgage rates will fall further.
Source: Wall Street Journal, Dan Fitzpatrick (12/22/08)
Press Release
Release Date: December 22, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Monday announced its approval of the application under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act ("BHC Act") submitted by CIT Group Inc., New York, New York, to become a bank holding company on conversion of CIT Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah, to a state bank. The Board also approved the notices by CIT Group Inc. under section 4 of the BHC Act to retain certain nonbanking subsidiaries.
Attached is the Board's Order relating to this action.
Attachment (37 KB PDF)
Joint Press Release
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
National Credit Union Administration
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Office of Thrift Supervision
For immediate release
December 22, 2008
Federal Financial Regulators Issue Revised Identity Theft Brochure
The federal bank, credit union, and thrift regulatory agencies today announced publication of a revised identity theft brochure--You Have the Power to Stop Identity Theft--to assist consumers in preventing and resolving identity theft.
The updated brochure focuses primarily on Internet "phishing" by describing how phishing works, offering ways to protect against identity theft, and detailing steps to follow for victims of identity theft.
The brochure includes contact information for three major credit bureaus, where to report suspicious e-mails, and where to access additional information.
The brochure is attached and is available to download from the websites of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
You Have the Power to Stop Identity Theft
| Media Contacts: |
| Federal Reserve |
Susan Stawick |
202-452-2955 |
| FDIC |
David Barr |
202-898-6992 |
| OCC |
Dean DeBuck |
202-874-5770 |
| OTS |
William Ruberry |
202-906-6913 |
| NCUA |
Cherie Umbel |
703-518-6331 |
Last update: December 22, 2008
Press Release
Release Date: December 22, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Monday announced the execution of a Written Agreement by and among Michigan Heritage Bank, Farmington Hills, Michigan, a state chartered member bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation.
A copy of the Agreement is attached.
Attachment (87 KB PDF)
Press Release
Release Date: December 19, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Friday adopted revisions to its Payment System Risk (PSR) policy that are designed to improve intraday liquidity management and payment flows for the banking system, while also helping to mitigate the credit exposures of the Federal Reserve Banks from daylight overdrafts. The Board has spent several years reviewing long-term developments in intraday liquidity, operational risk, and risk management in financial markets and the payments system, including the increased use of daylight overdrafts at the Federal Reserve Banks and increased Fedwire funds transfers late in the day. The Board published a consultation paper on these issues in 2006 and proposed major changes to the PSR policy in early 2008.
Based on the comments on the proposed changes, the Board adopted changes to the PSR policy that are substantially the same as those proposed for comment. The revised PSR policy will adopt a new approach that explicitly recognizes the role of the central bank in providing intraday balances and credit to healthy depository institutions predominately through collateralized daylight overdrafts. To avoid significantly disrupting the operation of the payment system and increasing the cost burden on a large number of institutions that incur small amounts of daylight overdrafts, the Board approved a voluntary collateral regime that would encourage the pledging of collateral to cover daylight overdrafts by providing collateralized daylight overdrafts at a zero fee and by raising the fee for uncollateralized daylight overdrafts to 50 basis points (annual rate). The Board also sought to minimize the effect of the policy changes on institutions that use small amounts of daylight overdrafts and approved a substantial increase in the biweekly fee waiver to $150 from $25.
In addition, the Board approved changes to other elements of the PSR policy dealing with daylight overdrafts, including adjusting net debit caps, streamlining maximum daylight overdraft capacity (max cap) procedures for certain foreign banking organizations, eliminating the current deductible for daylight overdraft fees, and increasing the penalty daylight overdraft fee for ineligible institutions to 150 basis points (annual rate). The implementation of the revised PSR policy will take effect either in the fourth quarter of 2010 or the first quarter of 2011. A specific date will be announced by the Board at least 90 days in advance.
The Board also approved for eligible foreign banking organizations an interim policy change. The interim policy relates to the calculation of the deductible amount from daylight overdraft fees under the existing policy, which will be discontinued with the elimination of the deductible under the revised PSR policy. The interim policy also allows for the early implementation of the streamlined procedure for max caps, which will remain under the revised PSR policy. The interim policy change for the deductible and streamlined max cap procedure will be effective on March 26, 2009.
Lastly, the Board endorsed a four-prong strategy, which includes these policy changes, through which the Federal Reserve and industry will address related intraday liquidity, operational, and credit risks in the wholesale payment system. Industry and Federal Reserve efforts are ongoing with these initiatives.
To assist depository institutions in assessing the impact of the revised PSR policy on their institution, the Board has created a simple fee calculator that will allow institutions to estimate their new daylight overdraft fees. The fee calculator is located on the Board’s website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/RPFCalc/.
The Board's notice is attached.
Federal Register notice (249 KB PDF)
Press Release
Release Date: December 19, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Friday released revised terms and conditions and questions and answers detailing operational aspects of the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). The revised terms and conditions were determined after consultation with asset-backed securities (ABS) issuers, investors, and dealers, and include an extension of the TALF loan maturity from one to three years and additional specification of eligible ABS collateral. In addition, to provide more certain investor access, TALF loans will be provided to all eligible borrowers with eligible collateral rather than distributed through an auction. The documents will be subject to further refinement in coming weeks based on continued market analysis and consultation and on clarification of operational details.
The Board authorized the TALF on November 24, 2008 under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The TALF is designed to increase credit availability and support economic activity by facilitating renewed issuance of consumer and small business asset-backed securities (ABS). The ABS markets historically have funded a substantial share of consumer credit and SBA-guaranteed small business loans, but conditions in ABS markets have caused issuance of such securities to come to a standstill in recent months.
Under the TALF, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will finance the purchase of eligible ABS by investors. The TALF will finance only certain newly issued, highly rated ABS collateralized by student loans, auto loans, credit card loans, and loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.
Terms and conditions
Frequently asked questions
FREDDIE MAC REQUIRES GENWORTH TO SUBMIT REMEDIATION PLAN AFTER RATINGS DOWNGRADE
McLean, VA – Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation (Genworth), a Freddie Mac-approved mortgage insurer, has recently notified Freddie Mac that it was downgraded by Standard & Poor's from AA+ to A+.
Under Freddie Mac policies announced on February 13, 2008, the eligibility status of any downgraded mortgage insurer will not automatically change from a Type I to a Type II Insurer. Instead, Genworth has committed to submit to Freddie Mac a complete remediation plan within 45 days of the downgrade for restoring a minimum AA- rating.
Freddie Mac will then determine, at its sole discretion, whether or not to impose additional requirements and the nature of those requirements. Freddie Mac will notify the mortgage insurer of its determination in writing.
Both Type I and Type II mortgage insurers are eligible to insure loans that Freddie Mac already owns as well as loans to be sold to Freddie Mac. Private mortgage insurance enables Freddie Mac to buy mortgages when the borrower makes a downpayment of less than 20 percent of the purchase price.
Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.
FDIC: No Mortgage Modifications, No Recovery
Modifying mortgages to make them affordable is key to a recovery, says Sheila Bair, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Bair, who spoke Wednesday at an event sponsored by the New America Foundation, emphasized that regulators’ top priority must be to stop the housing crisis.
"Using a combination of interest rate reductions – capped at a prime, conforming rate -– amortization extensions and, in some cases, principal deferment produces modifications that will last and, we believe, dramatically lower the re-default rate," Bair said
Source: Dow Jones Business News, Ruth Mantell (12/17/2008
Press Release
Release Date: December 19, 2008
For release at 8:00 a.m. EST
Today, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the Swiss National Bank are announcing schedules for term auctions of U.S. dollar liquidity to be conducted during the first quarter of 2009. These schedules cover operations providing 28-day and 84-day dollar liquidity. Schedules for provision of dollar liquidity at other terms will be announced separately by individual central banks. Central banks will continue to work together to address pressures in global money markets.
Federal Reserve Actions
During the first quarter of 2009, the Federal Reserve will conduct three auctions of 28-day credit and three auctions of 84-day credit through its Term Auction Facility (TAF), as indicated in the schedule below.
Schedule for 28-day and 84-day TAF Auctions
First Quarter 2009
|
Auction Date
|
Term
|
Settlement Date
|
Maturity Date
|
|
12 January 2009
|
28 days
|
15 January 2009
|
12 February 2009
|
|
26 January 2009
|
84 days
|
29 January 2009
|
23 April 2009
|
|
9 February 2009
|
28 days
|
12 February 2009
|
12 March 2009
|
|
23 February 2009
|
84 days
|
26 February 2009
|
21 May 2009
|
|
9 March 2009
|
28 days
|
12 March 2009
|
9 April 2009
|
|
23 March 2009
|
84 days
|
26 March 2009
|
18 June 2009
|
Related Announcements by Other Central Banks
Information on related announcements by other central banks is available at the following websites:
Bank of England 
Bank of Japan (79 KB PDF) 
European Central Bank 
Swiss National Bank (61 KB PDF) 
| |
 |
|
| |
December 18, 2008 |
|
 |
|
 |
Streamlined Modification Program (SMP) Now Available to Borrowers Program Part of Ongoing Effort to Prevent Foreclosures |
 |
 |
WASHINGTON, DC -- Fannie Mae (FNM/NYSE), today said that the Streamlined Modification Program (SMP) announced by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in November is now available to Fannie Mae servicers and borrowers as an option to help prevent foreclosures. Fannie Mae on December 12, 2008, provided information and guidelines to its servicers regarding the implementation of the SMP.
The SMP is designed to be a streamlined process for modifying the loans of a large number of borrowers who are delinquent in their mortgage payment and may be able to avoid a foreclosure through the program. As FHFA has indicated, SMP was intended to help set standards in the mortgage servicing industry for conducting loan modification programs on a large scale as a foreclosure prevention measure.
Fannie Mae has been working with FHFA and 27 lenders and servicers in the HOPE NOW alliance to implement the SMP. Under the program, borrowers who meet certain eligibility criteria and demonstrate financial hardship may be eligible for a loan modification that reduces their monthly principal and interest payment. The streamlined process allows a borrower to sign a single document at the outset of the workout process that both establishes a new monthly payment during a three-month trial period, and sets forth the modification terms that will take effect if the borrower makes the new payments during the trial period. The program is available to borrowers who have missed at least three monthly payments on their existing mortgages.
"By bringing the collective efforts of FHFA, Treasury, HOPE NOW, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other mortgage industry participants together through the SMP to confront the foreclosure challenge, we'll be able to help more families across America stay in their homes," said Herb Allison, Fannie Mae president and CEO. "Along with other recently announced initiatives by Fannie Mae to reach and help financially troubled borrowers earlier, including our Early Workout program, the SMP is a critical component of our company's foreclosure prevention efforts. These efforts are helping more than 10,000 delinquent borrowers every month get back on track."
Modification Options
Through the SMP, servicers may change the terms of a loan to reduce a borrower's first lien monthly mortgage payment, including taxes, insurance and homeowners association payments, to an amount equal to 38 percent of gross monthly income. The changes in terms may include one or more of the following:
- Adding the accrued interest, escrow advances and costs to the principal balance of the loan, if allowed by state law;
- Extending the length of the mortgage loan as appropriate;
- Reducing the mortgage loan interest rate in increments of 0.125 percent to an interest rate that is not less than 3 percent. If the new rate is set below the market interest rate, after five years it will step up in annual increments to either the original loan interest rate or the market interest rate at the time of the modification, whichever is lower;
- Forbearing on a portion of the principal, which will require the borrower to make a balloon payment when the loan matures, is paid off, or is refinanced.
Eligibility
Highlights of the SMP's eligibility requirements communicated to servicers include:
- Conforming conventional and jumbo conforming mortgage loans originated on or before January 1, 2008;
- Borrowers who are at least three or more payments past due and are not currently in bankruptcy;
- Only one-unit, owner-occupied, primary residences; and
- Current mark-to-market loan-to-value ratio of 90 percent or more.
Servicers will be sending modification solicitation letters beginning this month to thousands of borrowers believed to be eligible for the program. It is critical that eligible borrowers respond to these letters and reach out to their servicers to determine if they can receive SMP assistance. Also, borrowers who don't receive a letter are encouraged to contact their servicer to see if they may be eligible for SMP help. Fannie Mae will be working with servicers to monitor and improve implementation of the program as necessary.
Fannie Mae exists to expand affordable housing and bring global capital to local communities in order to serve the U.S. housing market. Fannie Mae has a federal charter and operates in America's secondary mortgage market to enhance the liquidity of the mortgage market by providing funds to mortgage bankers and other lenders so that they may lend to home buyers. In 2008, we mark our 70th year of service to America's housing market. Our job is to help those who house America.
|
30-YEAR FIXED RATE FALLS TO AT LEAST A 37-YEAR LOW
McLean, VA – Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE) today released the results of its Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS®) in which the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) averaged 5.19 percent with an average 0.7 point for the week ending December 18, 2008, down from last week when it averaged 5.47 percent. Last year at this time, the 30-year FRM averaged 6.14 percent. The 30-year FRM has not been lower since Freddie Mac started the Primary Mortgage Market Survey in 1971.
The 15-year FRM this week averaged 4.92 percent with an average 0.7 point, down from last week when it averaged 5.20 percent. A year ago at this time, the 15-year FRM averaged 5.79 percent. The 15-year FRM has not been lower since April 1, 2004, when it averaged 4.84 percent.
Five-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) averaged 5.60 percent this week, with an average 0.6 point, down from last week when it averaged 5.82 percent. A year ago, the 5-year ARM averaged 5.90 percent.
One-year Treasury-indexed ARMs averaged 4.94 percent this week with an average 0.5 point, down from last week when it averaged 5.09 percent. At this time last year, the 1-year ARM averaged 5.51 percent.
(Average commitment rates should be reported along with average fees and points to reflect the total cost of obtaining the mortgage.)
"Interest rates for 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rates fell for the seventh consecutive week, moving these rates to the lowest since the survey began in April 1971," said Frank Nothaft, Freddie Mac vice president and chief economist. "The decline was supported by the Federal Reserve announcement on December 16th, when it cut the federal funds target to a record low and stated it stood ready to expand its purchases of mortgage-related assets as conditions warrant."
Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
| Fixed-Rate Mortgages |
| |
Average Conventional 30-Year Commitment Rate |
Fees & Points |
Average Conventional 15-Year Commitment Rate |
Fees & Points |
| US |
5.19 |
0.7 |
4.92 |
0.7 |
| Northeast |
5.28 |
0.6 |
4.97 |
0.6 |
| Southeast |
5.24 |
0.7 |
4.95 |
0.7 |
| N. Central |
5.19 |
0.6 |
4.91 |
0.6 |
| Southwest |
5.09 |
0.6 |
4.91 |
0.5 |
| West |
5.14 |
0.8 |
4.86 |
0.8 |
| Five/One-Year Adjustable-Rate Mortgages |
| |
First Commitment Rate |
Fees & Points |
Margin |
| US |
5.60 |
0.6 |
2.74 |
| Northeast |
5.37 |
0.5 |
2.71 |
| Southeast |
5.61 |
0.8 |
2.75 |
| N. Central |
5.95 |
0.5 |
2.74 |
| Southwest |
5.70 |
0.5 |
2.77 |
| West |
5.57 |
0.7 |
2.73 |
| One-Year Adjustable-Rate Mortgages |
| |
First Commitment Rate |
Fees & Points |
Margin |
| US |
4.94 |
0.5 |
2.74 |
| Northeast |
4.88 |
0.7 |
2.66 |
| Southeast |
5.31 |
0.0 |
2.75 |
| N. Central |
5.04 |
0.7 |
2.75 |
| Southwest |
5.03 |
0.3 |
2.81 |
| West |
4.64 |
0.6 |
2.75 |
Freddie Mac defines its regions as follows:
Northeast: NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, VA, WV, ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT
Southeast: NC, SC, TN, KY, GA, AL, FL, PR, VI, MS
North Central: OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, MN, IA, ND, SD
Southwest: TX, LA, NM, OK, AR, MO, KS, CO, NE, WY
West: CA, AZ, NV, OR, WA, UT, ID, MT, HI, AK, GU
Freddie Mac's Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS) is for informational purposes only and Freddie Mac is not responsible for business decisions made based on the reported results of the PMMS. Freddie Mac may change the methodology used to conduct the PMMS survey at any time and without notice.
DEFINITIONS
Commitment Rate is the interest rate a lender would charge to lend mortgage money to a qualified borrower exclusive of the fees and points required by the lender. This commitment rate applies only to conventional financing on conforming mortgages with loan-to-value rates of 80 percent or less.
ARM Index - is the One-year Treasury
Loan to Value Ratio (LTV) is the ratio of the loan amount of a mortgage loan to the lower of the appraisal value or purchase price of the property securing the loan.
Origination Fees and Discount Points are the total charged by the lender at settlement. One point equals one percent of the loan amount.
Margin is a fixed amount added to the underlying index to establish the fully indexed rate for an ARM.
Weighted Averages for the Primary Mortgage Market Survey have been adjusted as of October 16, 2008. The new weights use the dollar volume of conventional mortgage originations within the 1-unit Freddie Mac loan limit as reported under Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) for 2007. The weights are listed in the table below.
| Freddie Mac Region |
PMMS Weights |
| Northeast |
24.2 |
| Southeast |
19.8 |
| North Central |
15.1 |
| Southwest |
12.7 |
| West |
28.2 |
PRIMARY MORTGAGE MARKET SURVEY RESULTS
December 18, 2008
| 30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgages |
| |
US |
NE |
SE |
NC |
SW |
W |
| Average |
5.19 |
5.28 |
5.24 |
5.19 |
5.09 |
5.14 |
| Fees & Points |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
| 15-Year Fixed Rate Mortgages |
| |
US |
NE |
SE |
NC |
SW |
W |
| Average |
4.92 |
4.97 |
4.95 |
4.91 |
4.91 |
4.86 |
| Fees & Points |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
0.8 |
| 5/1-Year Adjustable Rate Mortgages |
| |
US |
NE |
SE |
NC |
SW |
W |
| Average |
5.60 |
5.37 |
5.61 |
5.95 |
5.70 |
5.57 |
| Fees & Points |
0.6 |
0.5 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.7 |
| Margin |
2.74 |
2.71 |
2.75 |
2.74 |
2.77 |
2.73 |
| 1-Year Adjustable Rate Mortgages |
| |
US |
NE |
SE |
NC |
SW |
W |
| Average |
4.94 |
4.88 |
5.31 |
5.04 |
5.03 |
4.64 |
| Fees & Points |
0.5 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
| Margin |
2.74 |
2.66 |
2.75 |
2.75 |
2.81 |
2.75 |
| The National Mortgage Rate Snapshot |
| |
One Year Ago |
One Week Ago |
| |
30-YR |
15-YR |
5/1-YR |
1-YR ARM |
30-YR |
15-YR |
5/1-YR |
1-YR ARM |
| Average |
6.14 |
5.79 |
5.90 |
5.51 |
5.47 |
5.20 |
5.82 |
5.09 |
| Fees & Points |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.4 |
| Margin |
N/A |
N/A |
2.76 |
2.73 |
N/A |
N/A |
2.75 |
2.75 |
|
FAST TRACK WORKOUTS FOR DELINQUENT BORROWERS WITH FREDDIE MAC-OWNED MORTGAGES UNDERWAY
Washington, DC – Seriously delinquent borrowers with mortgages owned by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae can now take advantage of a new Streamlined Modification Program designed to make mortgage payments more affordable so more families can avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. The Streamlined Mod Program officially went into effect on December 15, three days after Freddie Mac sent detailed implementation instructions to its servicers.
Announced on November 11, 2008 with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Fannie Mae and the HOPE Now Alliance, the Streamlined Modification Program replaces several time-consuming steps in a traditional loan modification with a faster uniform process that uses standard eligibility requirements and documents.
“This initiative builds on Freddie Mac's current loss mitigation efforts, which are on track to provide three out of five of our seriously delinquent borrowers with a workout this year,” said David M. Moffett, Freddie Mac's Chief Executive Officer. “Our alliance with FHFA, Fannie Mae, and the HOPE Now Alliance will help our industry bring relief to thousands of distressed homeowners.”
Under the Streamlined Modification Program, mortgage and escrow payments can be cut to 38 percent or less of an eligible borrower's gross monthly income by one or more of the following steps as necessary: reducing mortgage rates, extending the mortgage term up to 40 years, or forbearing part of the principal. To be eligible, borrowers must own and occupy the property as a primary residence, have missed at least three mortgage payments and not filed for bankruptcy.
Borrowers should contact their servicers if they think they may qualify. At the same time, servicers will be identifying eligible borrowers and reaching out to them through the mail.
If an affordable payment cannot be achieved through the Streamlined Modification Program, servicers will evaluate borrowers through the traditional modification process. Servicers will also continue reaching out to distressed borrowers as early as possible to determine their eligibility for a workout or other foreclosure alternative.
Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.
NAR Applauds Fed for Timely Action on Rates
The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® applauds the actions of the Federal Reserve Board in lowering interest rates for home buyers and homeowners who need to refinance. This will significantly impact housing sales, home valuations, and the nation’s overall economy.
The Federal Reserve will purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities to provide support to the mortgage and housing markets.
“NAR has been aggressively calling for mortgage rate reductions, and the Fed’s action to slash interest rates, coupled with the actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of the Treasury, has driven down interest rates to make the dream of homeownership once again attainable for thousands of Americans,” said NAR President Charles McMillan.
Mortgage rates, which had averaged 6.3 percent in the third quarter, have recently fallen into the 4 percent range in some parts of the country. “That is the lowest rate in nearly 50 years and will bring buyers back to the market,” McMillan said. “We are pleased that the government heard our message and responded to our call for action.”
NAR has estimated that a one percentage point decrease in mortgage rates will increase home sales by more than 500,000 homes. “To boost the economy, it is critical to stem the rising tide of foreclosures and boost home buyer confidence in the housing market.” McMillan said. “Lower interest rates coupled with increased foreclosure mitigation are the key ingredients to stabilizing the housing market and preserving communities and homeownership.”
NAR continues to call on the federal government to maintain the higher loan limits passed in the economic stimulus bill earlier this year and to expand the $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers to all buyers and to eliminate the credit repayment requirement. “Together, all of these actions will stimulate and stabilize the housing market and begin an overall economic recovery,” McMillan said.
Source: NAR
Research: Good Loans Make Good Borrowers
Properly structured programs to help low-income people buy homes can be sound public policy, according to a study that compares 4,000 low-income and minority homeowners with a similar group of renters.
The study by the University of North Carolina School of Social Work determined that loans with low monthly payments result in borrowers who stay current. They also participate in their communities and vote.
The problem is subprime loans, says Roberto G. Ouercia, director of the Center for Community Self-Help, a nonproft that partners with Fannie Mae and the Ford Foundation to lend mortgage money to low-income borrowers. The study found that borrowers with subprime loans are four times more likely to fall behind.
"If done right, lending to low-income and minority families is good business," says Quercia,
Source: News-Observer, David Ranii (12/18/2008)
Buyers Increasingly Suspicious of Foreclosures
Fewer buyers are willing to consider purchasing foreclosed property than they were seven months ago, according to a study commissioned by Trulia.com and RealtyTrac.
Seven months ago, 54 percent of adults surveyed said they would consider purchasing a foreclosed home. In November, only 47 percent of adults say they’d buy a foreclosure.
The chief turnoff is perceived risk, with 80 percent of those surveyed citing hidden repair costs, a tricky buying process, and the possibility that the neighborhood will lose more value and drag the property down with it.
To compensate for these risks, 75 percent say they expect at least a 25 percent discount and 30 percent say they would only buy if there is a 50 percent discount compared with a comparable home that isn’t in foreclosure.
Other findings:
* 56 percent of single/never married adults were at least somewhat likely to consider purchasing a foreclosed home, down from 60 percent in April.
* 43 percent of married adults were at least somewhat likely to consider purchasing a foreclosed home, down from 50 percent in April.
* 42 percent of divorced/separated/widowed adults were at least somewhat likely to consider purchasing a foreclosed home, down from 50 percent from April.
Source: Trulia.com (12/16/2008
Press Release
Release Date: December 18, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Thursday published its annual notice of the asset-size exemption threshold for depository institutions under Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).
The asset-size exemption for depository institutions will increase from $37 million to $39 million based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the twelve-month period ending in November 2008. As a result, depository institutions with assets of $39 million or less as of December 31, 2008, are exempt from collecting data in 2009. An institution's exemption from collecting data in 2009 does not affect its responsibility to report the data it was required to collect in 2008.
The adjustment is effective January 1, 2009.
HMDA and the Board's Regulation C require most mortgage lenders located in metropolitan areas to collect, report, and disclose data about applications for, and originations and purchases of, home purchase loans, home improvement loans, and refinancings. Data reported include the type, purpose, and amount of the loan; the race, ethnicity, sex, and income of the loan applicant; the location of the property; and loan price information for some loans. The purposes of HMDA include helping to determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities and assisting in fair lending enforcement.
The Board's notice is attached.
Attachment (18 KB PDF)
Press Release
Release Date: December 18, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Thursday approved final rules that would better protect credit card users by prohibiting certain unfair acts or practices and improving the disclosures consumers receive in connection with credit card accounts and other revolving credit plans.
The final rules prohibiting certain credit card practices were adopted under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and are being issued concurrently with substantially similar final rules by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration. Among other things, the rules will:
- Protect consumers from unexpected interest charges, including increases in the rate during the first year after account opening and increases in the rate charged on pre-existing credit card balances.
- Forbid banks from imposing interest charges using the "two-cycle" billing method.
- Require that consumers receive a reasonable amount of time to make their credit card payments.
- Prohibit the use of payment allocation methods that unfairly maximize interest charges.
- Address subprime credit cards by limiting the fees that reduce the amount of available credit.
In finalizing the rules on unfair credit card practices, the Board carefully considered information obtained through consumer testing and more than 60,000 comment letters received during the comment period.
"The revised rules represent the most comprehensive and sweeping reforms ever adopted by the Board for credit card accounts," said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. "These protections will allow consumers to access credit on terms that are fair and more easily understood."
The Board is also adopting final rules to revise the disclosures consumers receive in connection with credit card accounts and other revolving credit plans to ensure that information is provided in a timely manner and in a form that is readily understandable. These rules amend Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) and conclude a comprehensive review of the open-end credit rules. The final rules under Regulation Z require changes to the format, timing, and content requirements for credit card applications and solicitations and for the disclosures that consumers receive throughout the life of an open-end account. Many of the changes reflect the result of consumer testing conducted on behalf of the Board during its review.
"Our intent is to increase transparency and fairness in how credit card and deposit accounts operate, thereby enhancing competition and empowering consumers to better manage their accounts and avoid unnecessary costs," said Federal Reserve Governor Randall S. Kroszner. "The rules represent a significant step forward in consumer protection. By ensuring fairness and making credit terms easier to understand, these safeguards should allow more consumers to benefit from using credit."
Both of the final rules addressing credit card accounts take effect on July 1, 2010.
The Board is separately proposing rules to protect consumers that use overdraft services offered by their bank. The rule solicits public comment on proposed amendments to Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfers) intended to provide consumers a choice regarding their institution's payment of overdrafts for automated teller machine withdrawals and one-time debit card transactions. The Board is proposing two alternative approaches to providing consumer choice, including a proposed requirement that would require institutions to obtain consumers' affirmative consent (or opt-in) before any overdraft fees or charges may be imposed on consumers' accounts. The comment period for the Regulation E proposal ends 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
In a related move, the Board is adopting final amendments to Regulation DD (Truth in Savings) to address depository institutions' disclosure practices related to overdraft services. The effective date for the final rules adopted under Regulation DD is January 1, 2010.
All four Federal Register notices are attached. Publication of each of the rules is expected shortly.
Highlights of Final Rules Regarding Credit Card Accounts (27 KB PDF)
Statement by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Statement by Governor Randall S. Kroszner
Federal Register notice, Regulation AA (848 KB PDF)
Federal Register notice, Regulation DD (110 KB PDF)
B-10 (70 KB PDF) Aggregate fee model
Federal Register notice, Regulation E (367 KB PDF)
Model forms and samples:
- A-9 (23 KB PDF) Model consent form for overdraft services
- A-9 (A) (24 KB PDF) Model opt-out form for account opening
- A-9 (B) (9 KB PDF) Model opt-out form for periodic statements
Review and Testing of Overdraft Notices (1.94 MB PDF)
Federal Register notice, Regulation Z (2.18 MB PDF)
Model forms and samples:
- G-10 (A) (81 KB PDF) Applications and solicitations model form (credit cards)
- G-10 (B) (77 KB PDF) Applications and solicitations sample (credit cards)
- G-10 (C) (79 KB PDF) Applications and solicitations sample (credit cards)
- G-10 (D) (32 KB PDF) Applications and solicitations model form (charge cards)
- G-10 (E) (111 KB PDF) Applications and solicitations sample (charge cards)
- G-17 (A) (83 KB PDF) Account-opening model form
- G-17 (B) (77 KB PDF) Account-opening sample
- G-17 (C) (79 KB PDF) Account-opening sample
- G-17 (D) (79 KB PDF) Account-opening sample (line of credit)
- G-18 (A) (158 KB PDF) Periodic statement transactions: interest charges; fees sample
- G-18 (D-E) (29 KB PDF) Periodic statement new balance, due date, late payment, and minimum payment sample (credit cards) and periodic statement new balance, due date, and late payment sample (open-end plans (non-credit-card accounts))
- G-18 (F) (170 KB PDF) Periodic statement form
- G-18 (G) (197 KB PDF) Periodic statement form
- G-19 (18 KB PDF) Checks accessing a credit card sample
- G-20 (100 KB PDF) Change-in-terms sample
- G-21 (149 KB PDF) Penalty rate increase sample
Design and Testing of Effective Truth in Lending Disclosures: Findings from Qualitiative Consumer Research (3.78 MB PDF)
Design and Testing of Effective Truth in Lending Disclosures: Findings from Experimental Study (3 MB PDF)
Press Release
Release Date: December 17, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday extended the end of the comment period on its proposal to revise the disclosure requirements for mortgage loans under Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) from January 23, 2009, to February 9, 2009. The revisions would implement the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act (MDIA), which was enacted in July 2008 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The extension is granted to give the public additional time to comment on the proposal.
The Board's notice is attached.
Attachment (24 KB PDF)
Joint Press Release
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Office of Thrift Supervision
For immediate release
December 17, 2008
Agencies Release Annual CRA Asset-Size Threshold Adjustments for Small and Intermediate Small Institutions
The federal bank regulatory agencies today announced the annual adjustment to the asset-size thresholds used to define "small bank," "small savings association," "intermediate small bank," and "intermediate small savings association" under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations. The annual adjustments for banks are required by the 2005 CRA regulatory amendments and for savings associations by the OTS 2007 CRA regulatory amendments.
Annual adjustments to these asset-size thresholds are based on the year-to-year change in the average of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, not seasonally adjusted, for each twelve-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million.
As a result of the 4.49 percent increase in the CPI index for the period ending in November 2008, the definitions of small and intermediate small institutions for CRA examinations will change as follows:
- "Small bank" or "small savings association" means an institution that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had assets of less than $1.109 billion.
- "Intermediate small bank" or "intermediate small savings association" means a small institution with assets of at least $277 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years, and less than $1.109 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years.
These asset-size threshold adjustments are effective January 1, 2009. The agencies will publish the adjustments in the Federal Register. In addition, the agencies will post a list of the current and historical asset-size thresholds on the website of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Attachment (30 KB PDF)
| Media Contacts: |
| Federal Reserve |
Susan Stawick |
202-452-2955 |
| FDIC |
David Barr |
202-898-6992 |
| OCC |
Dean DeBuck |
202-874-5770 |
| OTS |
William Ruberry |
202-906-6913 |
Joint Press Release
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Office of Thrift Supervision
For immediate release
December 16, 2008
Agencies Approve Final Rule on Deduction of Goodwill from Tier 1 Capital
The federal banking and thrift regulatory agencies today approved a final rule that would permit a banking organization to reduce the amount of goodwill it must deduct from tier 1 capital by any associated deferred tax liability.
Under the final rule, the regulatory capital deduction for goodwill would be equal to the maximum capital reduction that could occur as a result of a complete write-off of the goodwill under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The final rule is in substance the same as the proposal issued in September. The final rule will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, banking organizations may adopt its provisions for purposes of regulatory capital reporting for the period ending December 31, 2008.
The final rule was approved by the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision. The draft Federal Register notice is attached.
Attachment (53 KB PDF)
| Media Contacts: |
| Federal Reserve |
Deborah Lagomarsino |
202-452-2955 |
| FDIC |
David Barr |
202-898-6992 |
| OCC |
Kevin M. Mukri |
202-874-5770 |
| OTS |
William Ruberry |
202-906-6677 |
Press Release
Release Date: December 16, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to establish a target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent.
Since the Committee's last meeting, labor market conditions have deteriorated, and the available data indicate that consumer spending, business investment, and industrial production have declined. Financial markets remain quite strained and credit conditions tight. Overall, the outlook for economic activity has weakened further.
Meanwhile, inflationary pressures have diminished appreciably. In light of the declines in the prices of energy and other commodities and the weaker prospects for economic activity, the Committee expects inflation to moderate further in coming quarters.
The Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote the resumption of sustainable economic growth and to preserve price stability. In particular, the Committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time.
The focus of the Committee's policy going forward will be to support the functioning of financial markets and stimulate the economy through open market operations and other measures that sustain the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet at a high level. As previously announced, over the next few quarters the Federal Reserve will purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities to provide support to the mortgage and housing markets, and it stands ready to expand its purchases of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities as conditions warrant. The Committee is also evaluating the potential benefits of purchasing longer-term Treasury securities. Early next year, the Federal Reserve will also implement the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to facilitate the extension of credit to households and small businesses. The Federal Reserve will continue to consider ways of using its balance sheet to further support credit markets and economic activity.
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Christine M. Cumming; Elizabeth A. Duke; Richard W. Fisher; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Sandra Pianalto; Charles I. Plosser; Gary H. Stern; and Kevin M. Warsh.
In a related action, the Board of Governors unanimously approved a 75-basis-point decrease in the discount rate to 1/2 percent. In taking this action, the Board approved the requests submitted by the Boards of Directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Minneapolis, and San Francisco. The Board also established interest rates on required and excess reserve balances of 1/4 percent.
Last update: December 16, 2008
Housing Inventory Falls in Key Metropolitan Areas .
The inventory of homes for sale is down 3.6 percent from October in the 29 major metropolitan areas for which ZipRealty compiles data.
Housing inventory has traditionally declined in November. The average decrease has been 1.9 percent, according to research firm Zelman & Associates.
The ZipRealty data doesn’t cover New York City, where appraisal firm Miller Samuel Inc. says the number of homes on the market rose 4.7 percent compared with October.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, James R. Hagerty (12/11/08)
Foreclosures Decline, but Lull Likely Temporary
Foreclosures of U.S. homes declined 7 percent in November, compared to the previous month, according to RealtyTrac, foreclosure marketing company.
"Foreclosure activity in November hit the lowest level we've seen since June thanks in part to recently enacted laws that have extended the foreclosure process in some states, along with more aggressive loan modification programs and self-imposed holiday foreclosure moratoriums introduced by some lenders," said James J. Saccacio, RealtyTrac CEO.
Foreclosures remained 28 percent higher than they were in November 2007, and there are indications that this is just a temporary lull.
Delinquencies on loans not yet in the foreclosure process jumped to nearly 7 percent in the third quarter, a record high, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. And more than half of the homeowners whose loans have already been modified are already delinquent again, according to the U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision.
States with the highest number of foreclosures are: California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio, Georgia, Illinois, Texas and Virginia.
Source: RealtyTrac (12/11/2008)
Should You Reveal a Pending Foreclosure?
Whether a real estate practitioner can, should or must tell potential buyers when a property is facing or already in the foreclosure process depends on where it is located, experts say.
For instance, Virginia laws require that practitioners protect their clients’ personal and financial information. They can’t discuss pending foreclosure or short sales without permission from their clients.
In Maryland and Washington, D.C., practitioners are required to disclose all material defects that are “known” or “should be known.” Whether that includes pre-foreclosure or pending auction status isn’t clear.
"Generally, it's preferred that material defects be disclosed, and by 'material defects,' this means anything that might affect how a buyer approaches negotiations," says Chris Darby, a lawyer with Counselors Title in Washington.
In Virginia, a lack of candor about short sales can be particularly problematic because Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, which operates the multiple listing service, requires that short sales be revealed. A seller who won’t give permission can’t be included, which, of course, makes the home harder to sell.
Plus, "buyers usually are wanting a response in a couple of days," said Tony Arko, an agent with Market Advantage in Sterling. "If you don't tell them upfront that it could take weeks or months, they are going to get ticked off.”
Source: The Washington Post, Patricia Kime (12/06/08)
CHICAGO - Little in Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich’s background prepared the people of Illinois for the man who was revealed in the criminal complaint that dropped like a bombshell. Delusional, narcissistic, vengeful and profane, Mr. Blagojevich as portrayed by federal prosecutors shocked even his most ardent detractors.
(Click on the web address below for the VIDEO - NOTE: Give it 30 seconds to load and play)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28155244#28155244
Study Shows Housing Values Have Climbed
News reports have been packed with stories about declining home values, but a recent government report shows that the situation is not nearly so dire as some reports make it sound.
Despite big loses in some areas of the country, the majority of markets continue to show growth in home value over the last five years.
According to the third-quarter survey released by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, out of 292 metropolitan markets, 273 showed positive net home values in the last five years. Only 19 percent were negative.
While home values declined 4 percent on average in the last year, values were up nearly 29 percent over the past five years.
According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, markets that gained the most over the last five years were:
- Honolulu: up 78.7 percent
- Virginia Beach: 72.6 percent
- Flagstaff, Ariz.: 66.5 percent
- Bellingham, Wash.: 65.6 percent
- Wilmington, N.C.: 62.1 percent
- Baltimore: 60.6 percent
Source: The Washington Post Writers Group, Kenneth R. Harney, (12/06/08)
Deadline Nears for Dropping Jumbo Loan Limits
The deadline for getting what is known as a conforming jumbo loan is closing. As of Jan. 1, the maximum for loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are willing to buy will decline from $729,750 to $625,500 in the nation’s priciest areas.
Also, beginning Jan. 1, underwriting standards for these loans will rise, requiring that most buyers put down 20 percent and have a debt-to-income ratio as low as 30 percent, according to the trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance.
Observers say this makes it more likely that home prices in these upper ranges will fall, pushing down prices for less-costly properties in the process.
Source: Washington Times, David M. Dickson (12/09/08)
Illinois governor's arrest stuns politicos
By SHARON COHEN, AP National Writer Sharon Cohen, Ap National Writer
CHICAGO – The words on the recording sound as if they were uttered by a mob boss. Instead, the feds say, it is the governor of Illinois speaking.
"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden, and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it," Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich says in a conversation intercepted by the FBI.
Federal prosecutors Tuesday accused the 51-year-old Blagojevich of scheming to enrich himself by selling Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for cash or a lucrative job for himself. In excerpts released by prosecutors, Blagojevich snarls profanities, makes threats and demands and allegedly concocts a rich variety of schemes for profiting from his appointment of a new senator.
"I want to make money," he declares, according to court papers. Blagojevich allegedly had a salary in mind: $250,000 to $300,00 a year. (He earns $177,412 a year.)
Even in this city inured to political chicanery — three other governors have gone to prison in the past 35 years, and numerous officeholders from Chicago have been convicted for graft — the latest charges were stunning. And not just for the vulgarity, but for the naked greed, the recklessness and the self-delusion they suggest.
What is mystifying is why Blagojevich spoke so openly and so brazenly. He knew the feds were looking into his administration for the past three years for alleged hiring fraud; one of his top fundraisers has been convicted, another is awaiting trial. He even warned some associates not to use the phone because "everybody's listening ... You hear me?"
Blagojevich also is no neophyte. He was baptized in the nitty gritty of Chicago Machine politics and confirmed in back-room bargaining and big money deals. He spent years climbing the ladder, first as a state representative, then a congressman and finally governor. He was boosted to power by his father-in-law, Alderman Dick Mell, a veteran Democratic ward boss and longtime stalwart of the once mighty Machine.
And yet, in conversations recorded from late October to last week, Blagojevich seemed almost oblivious as he vented his frustrations about being "stuck" as governor, complained of "struggling" financially, and allegedly talked of using the Senate appointment to land a lucrative job in the private sector, or even an ambassadorship or a Cabinet post.
"It's about greed," said Don Rose, a longtime political strategist in Chicago. "He's got to be completely off his rocker to be talking like that at a time when he knows the feds are looking at him. ... He's out there like he's talking to his wife in bed."
He added: "I think this is beyond ordinary sanity. We're talking about something clinical here. This is beyond logic. It's beyond greed as we know it."
He also scoffed at the notion that Blagojevich had any chance of obtaining a post in Obama's Cabinet.
"I consider myself a student of corruption, but I've never heard of this kind of thing going on," Rose said. "The way he's talking about it is lunacy. ... `Maybe they'll make me secretary of health and human services.' Who's going to hire this guy?"
Paul Green, a political scientist at Roosevelt University, said: "If you're under so much scrutiny by an unbelievably dedicated U.S. attorney's office, why would you risk it all? This is a case less about politics and more about social psychology. ... A hard-nosed Illinois politician wouldn't even dream of doing this, considering the situation."
One of the most intriguing aspects of the story was that Blagojevich was elected as Mr. Clean, promising to clean up state government. His predecessor, Republican Gov. George Ryan, is behind bars for graft.
Blagojevich "had everything going for him," Green said. "He could have been the Serbian Obama. He was young, handsome, articulate."
In court papers, prosecutors said Blagojevich also tried to strong-arm political contributions in exchange for jobs and contracts, and tried to use his authority to get editorial writers from the Chicago Tribune who criticized him fired.
He also discussed getting his wife, Patti, who has been in the real estate business, on corporate boards where she could earn up to $150,000 a year.
Some of the most shocking conversations came in the days before and after Obama's victory, when Blagojevich seemed intent on capitalizing on his role in choosing the president-elect's successor in the Senate.
According to court papers, on Nov. 3, the day before the election, Blagojevich talked with someone identified only as Deputy Governor A about the Senate seat, and said: "If ... they're not going to offer anything of any value, then I might just take it" — that is, make himself senator.
That same day, he talked tough, and said he intended to "drive a hard bargain."
Later, he noted the seat is a "(expletive) valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing."
On Election Day, as crowds were gathering in Grant Park to celebrate Obama's victory, Blagojevich spoke with John Harris, his chief of staff, who also has been charged in the case. The governor likened himself to a sports agent shopping a free agent to teams, and said, "How much are you offering, (president-elect)?"
Days later, according to the documents, Blagojevich said he was willing to "trade" that Senate seat for the position of the secretary of health and human Services in Obama's Cabinet. There is no indication that Obama ever considered him.
In another conversation, though, the governor seemed aware he was not going to get a Cabinet post or an ambassadorship, noting all the negative publicity swirling around him.
In the documents, Blagojevich raised the possibility of starting a nonprofit organization and perhaps getting someone such as billionaire investor Warren Buffett or someone else to help.
Ill. governor charged in Obama successor probe
By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer Mike Robinson, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was roused from bed and arrested Tuesday after prosecutors said he was caught on wiretaps audaciously scheming to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for cash or a plum job for himself in the new administration.
"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden," the 51-year-old Democrat said of his authority to appoint Obama's replacement, "and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it."
Prosecutors did not accuse Obama himself of any wrongdoing or even knowing about the matter. The president-elect said: "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening."
FBI agents arrested the governor before daybreak at his Chicago home and took him away while his family was still asleep, saying the wiretaps convinced them that Blagojevich's "political corruption crime spree" had to be stopped before it was too late.
"The Senate seat, as recently as days ago, seemed to be on the verge of being auctioned off," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said. "The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave."
Federal investigators bugged the governor's campaign offices and tapped his home phone, capturing conversations laced with profanity and tough-guy talk from the governor. Chicago FBI chief Robert Grant said even seasoned investigators were stunned by what they heard, particularly since the governor had known for at least three years that he was under investigation for alleged hiring fraud and clearly realized agents might be listening in.
The FBI said in court papers that the governor was overheard conspiring to sell the Senate seat for campaign cash or lucrative jobs for himself or his wife, Patti, a real estate agent. He spoke of using the Senate appointment to land a job with a nonprofit foundation or a union-affiliated group, and even held out hope of getting appointed as Obama's secretary of health and human services or an ambassador.
According to court papers, the governor tried to make it known through emissaries, including union officials and fundraisers, that the seat could be had for the right price. Blagojevich allegedly had a salary in mind — $250,000 to $300,000 a year — and also spoke of collecting half-million and million-dollar political contributions.
The governor has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. As recently as Monday, he told reporters: "I don't care whether you tape me privately or publicly. I can tell you that whatever I say is always lawful."
The governor's attorney, Sheldon Sorosky, said he didn't know of any immediate plans for the governor to resign. Blagojevich believes he didn't do anything wrong and asks Illinois residents to have faith in him, Sorosky said.
"I suppose we will have to go to trial," Sorosky said.
The charges do not identify by name any of the political figures under consideration for the Senate seat, referring to them only as "Candidate 1," "Candidate 2," and so on. However, those being considered for the post include: Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr., Danny Davis, Jan Schakowsky and Luis Gutierrez; Illinois Senate President Emil Jones; and Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth.
Fitzgerald did not address whether any of the potential Senate candidates crossed the line themselves and could face charges. And it was unclear from court papers whether the governor or his aides spoke directly to the candidates.
Blagojevich was charged with two counts: conspiracy to commit fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and solicitation to commit bribery, which is punishable by up 10 years. He was released on his own recognizance.
Blagojevich, a former congressman, state lawmaker and prosecutor, also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune, in an attempt to strong-arm the newspaper into firing editorial writers who had criticized him.
In addition, the governor was accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics — that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.
Court papers portray Blagojevich as a greedy, vindictive pol who couldn't wait to find ways to cash in on the Senate appointment. The charges also paint a picture of breathtaking arrogance and perhaps cluelessness, with the governor contemplating a Cabinet position or even a run for the White House despite an abysmal 13 percent approval rating and a reputation as one of the most corrupt governors in the nation.
Blagojevich becomes the latest in a long line of Illinois governors to become engulfed in scandal. He was elected in 2002 as a reformer promising to clean up after Gov. George Ryan, who is serving six years in prison for graft. He was re-elected to another four-year term in 2006.
The scandal leaves the Senate seat in limbo. Illinois legislative leaders said they were preparing to quickly schedule a special election to fill Obama's seat rather than let Blagojevich pick someone.
"No appointment by this governor, under these circumstances, could produce a credible replacement," said Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Some Illinois politicians immediately demanded that the governor step down or face impeachment.
Also arrested was Blagojevich's chief of staff, 46-year-old John Harris, who was accused of taking part in the schemes to enrich the governor.
Blagojevich also considered appointing himself to the Senate seat, telling his deputy governor that if "they're not going to offer me anything of value, I might as well take it," prosecutors said.
He said becoming a senator might help him avoid impeachment and also remake his image for a possible presidential run in 2016, according to court papers. And he allegedly said that he would have access to greater resources if he were indicted while in the Senate.
Prosecutors said he also talked about getting his wife placed on corporate boards where she might get $150,000 a year in director's fees.
In court papers, the FBI said Blagojevich expressed frustration at being "stuck" as governor. "I want to make money," the governor, whose salary is $177,412, was quoted as saying in one conversation.
The head of the FBI's office in Chicago said he phoned Blagojevich at 6 a.m., telling him of a warrant for his arrest and informing him there were two FBI agents at his door. Blagojevich's first comment was, "Is this a joke?" Grant said. The governor was led away in handcuffs.
Nothing in the court papers suggested Obama had any part in the discussions about selling the Senate seat or knew of them. In fact, Blagojevich was overheard complaining at one point that Obama's people are "not going to give me anything except appreciation." He added: "(Expletive) them."
Authorities said Blagojevich was hoping to raise $2.5 million by the end of the year and decided to speed up his "crime spree" before a state anti-corruption law takes effect Jan. 1. The governor had vetoed the law, but the Legislature overrode his veto.
The incriminating conversations took place even before Election Day and continued as recently as last week. On the recordings, Blagojevich warned one person not to use the phone and said, "The whole world is listening. You hear me?"
Political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who raised money for the campaigns of both Blagojevich and Obama, is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of fraud and other charges. And Blagojevich's chief fundraiser goes on trial next year on obstruction charges.
The court papers also outline Blagojevich conversations related to Tribune Co., which has been hoping for state aid in selling Wrigley Field, the home of the Chicago Cubs. Blagojevich was quoted as telling his chief of staff, Harris, in a profanity-laced Nov. 4 conversation that Tribune executives should fire the editorial writers "and get us some editorial support."
Harris was later overheard telling the governor on Nov. 11 that an unnamed Tribune owner, presumably CEO Sam Zell, "got the message and is very sensitive to the issue."
___
Associated Press writer Don Babwin contributed to this report.
Blagojevich scandal creates distraction for Obama transition
By Marisa Taylor and Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers Marisa Taylor And Steven Thomma, Mcclatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama was untainted but not untouched Tuesday by the stunning scandal surrounding charges that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Obama's now vacant Senate seat in exchange for cash or a lucrative job in the future Obama administration.
The charges against Blagojevich suggested that Obama rebuffed the governor, punctuated by Blagojevich's string of curse words to describe Obama. Patrick Fitzgerald , the U.S. Attorney in Chicago , said his office was not alleging that Obama was involved in the scheme, or even aware of it.
However, the scandal, which Fitzgerald described as a "political corruption crime spree," threatened to be a distraction as the Obama team assembles a new administration. Some Chicagoans planning to move to Washington with Obama could find themselves facing continuing questions about what they knew about Blagojevich's attempted shakedown.
Obama friend Valerie Jarrett , for example, is not implicated but likely will face questions about how and why she withdrew her name from consideration for the Senate seat. The charges allege that Blagojevich wanted a payoff from Obama or his allies to name her to the seat. She's now slated to be a top White House counselor to Obama.
In a short statement Tuesday afternoon, Obama said he was "saddened and sobered" by the allegations, but added he had "no contact with the governor or his office. And so I was not aware of what was happening." The governor has the sole power to appoint Obama's replacement.
Earlier statements by incoming Obama senior adviser David Axelrod appear to contradict at least part of Obama's assertion. In an interview with Fox News in November, Axelrod said the president-elect had talked to Blagojevich about the Senate appointment, although he didn't think Obama would act as "kingmaker."
In a statement Tuesday evening, Axelrod said he was "mistaken" and that Obama and the governor "did not then or at any time discuss the subject."
Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan called Obama's comments on the matter "insufficient at best."
"Given the President-elect's history of supporting and advising Governor Blagojevich, he has a responsibility to speak out and fully address the issue," Duncan said.
Blagojevich, who was released without bail after a brief court appearance Tuesday, was aware he was already under federal investigation for other pay-to-play allegations even as he speculated how he could gain favors or money from the senate seat appointment, a 76-page criminal affidavit said. The FBI began tapping his campaign office and home phone in October.
According to the affidavit, Blagojevich, who turns 52 on Wednesday, hoped the Obama administration would appoint him Secretary of Health and Human Services or as an ambassador if he picked who he believed to be Obama's favored candidate for the seat, but acknowledged it was unlikely "because of all the negative publicity" surrounding him. He also speculated that Obama might get his wife, Patricia, on paid corporate boards.
Blagojevich said he tried to cut a deal with a person identified in the affidavit as Senate Candidate 5 whose associate he claimed had promised to "pay to play" or raise between $500,000 and $1 million in campaign contributions in exchange for the appointment, the affidavit said. On Dec. 4 , the governor said he had spoken to that fundraiser and decided he was "elevating" that candidate on the list.
He allegedly warned the fundraiser "you gotta be careful . . . and assume everybody's listening, the whole world is listening."
If his scheme failed, he is heard talking about appointing himself to avoid impeachment by the Illinois legislature, the affidavit said.
His chief of staff, John Harris , suggests that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) act as a go-between with Obama. The governor later met with a SEIU official, the affidavit said. Harris also was arrested Tuesday.
In a statement Tuesday, SEIU spokeswoman Ramona Oliver said the organization had "no reason to believe that SEIU or any SEIU official was involved in any wrongdoing."
Blagojevich also plotted to set up and head a nonprofit that would be the vehicle for Obama's political allies, including billionaire Warren Buffett , to illegally pump millions of dollars to pay him if he was indicted and had to leave office, the affidavit said. There is no indication in the affidavit that Buffett was involved in any way.
In one passage, Blagojevich allegedly says he knew Obama wanted an unnamed "Senate Candidate 1" for the seat but that "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them."
At another point, Blagojevich uses an obscenity to describe the president-elect after being told by his advisers he has to "suck it up" for two years and pick Obama's favored candidate "for nothing."
Senate candidate 1, who's not identified by prosecutors, is presumably Obama adviser Jarrett. She's the only Obama adviser who was being considered for the seat and the only one who took her name out of the running on Nov. 12 , as the indictment says that candidate did. Jarrett didn't return phone calls seeking comment.
Fitzgerald, who is known as a hard-charging apolitical prosecutor, said he felt it was important to make arrests quickly because of the timing of the Senate appointment. He signaled the investigation was still ongoing.
The affidavit includes a litany of alleged corrupt schemes by Blagojevich, including his attempts to force the Tribune Co. , the owner of the Chicago Tribune , to oust members of the paper's editorial board who were critical of him in exchange for giving the company $100 million in state assistance for its sale of Wrigley Field .
Tribune filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Monday.
Fitzgerald said Blagojevich was racing to beat a change in state ethics laws that would bar certain contributions beginning January 1 .
"Blagojevich and others were working feverishly to get as much money from contractors, shaking them down, pay to play, before the end of the year," he said.
The governor's office issued a statement that did not address the allegations, except to emphasize that the case did "nothing to impact the services, duties or function of the State."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D- Nev. , called the charges "appalling" and representing as "serious a breach of the public trust as I have ever heard."
"It is clear that anyone Governor Blagojevich appoints to the Senate will fairly or unfairly be tainted by questions of impropriety," Reid said.
Sen. Richard Durbin , D- Ill. , the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, said the Illinois General Assembly should enact a law calling for a special election.
The arrest marks the second time that a political figure tied to Obama has been accused of federal corruption charges. Antoin Rezko , a long-time Obama fundraiser, was convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges by Fitzgerald's office. Rezko also raised money for Blagojevich.
While Obama was not implicated during Rezko's trial, however, Blagojevich was. In Tuesday's complaint, Rezko was identified as a go-between for Blagojevich who talked to campaign contributors about state jobs and lucrative appointments.
The relationship between Blagojevich and Obama was largely political, an apparently casual link as fellow Democrats in Illinois .
Obama elbowed Blagojevich aside by running for president, something Blagojevich wanted to do himself. In the indictment, the governor was said to still be harboring hopes of running in 2016.
( David Lightman and Margaret Talev contributed to this article.)
MMG Update + By The Numbers - Monday, December 8, 2008 9:57am ET
Current Trend Direction: Sideways
Risks favor: Carefully Floating
Current Price of FNMA 5.5% Bond: $101.59, +16bp
Stocks are building on their recent gains on news that lawmakers on Capitol Hill have reportedly agreed on the outline of a deal to rescue the ailing auto industry. Also adding some fuel to Stocks is the announcement of a massive infrastructure investment pledged by President-elect Obama. Stocks have taken a beating this year with the Dow down 40%, S&P 500 down 40% and the Nasdaq down 43% - but these announcements, as well as next week's Fed Rate cut and pending decision on "mark to market" accounting are setting the stage, that we have been forecasting, for a major Stock Market rally in the first quarter of 2009. Remember that close to 30% of fund manager's holdings are in cash and the redemptions we have been talking about from hedge funds will need to be put back to work between January 15th and February 15th.
There are no economic reports due out today so Mortgage Bonds may take a cue from technical factors as prices once again test the best levels of 2008. At 11:00am ET, the Treasury will announce a new 3 and 10-year Treasury Note funding. And at 1pm ET, there is an auction of 3-month and 6-month Treasury Bills. These events could be a drag on prices later today.
We advise floating for now, but with support still a ways beneath current levels and prices already off the best levels of the day - it promises to be choppy and volatile.
By The Number$
1. JUST HELPING CLOSE THE DEAL - The Federal Reserve assisted a major Wall Street firm in its 3/16/08 purchase of Bear Stearns by providing up to $29 billion in loans (i.e., a backstop) in the event that the buyer suffered losses on subprime assets acquired in the transaction (source: BusinessWeek).
2. HOUSING RELIEF - President George Bush signed a housing bill on 7/30/08 that will insure up to $300 billion in mortgages. The bill allows up to 400,000 homeowners to refinance their existing mortgages into new 30-year fixed rate mortgages backed by the government. A qualifying homeowner has to be spending more than 31% of his/her monthly income on the mortgage payment and be currently living in the house (source: USA Today).
3. MORE INCENTIVES - The 7/30/08 housing bill had $15 billion in tax cuts, including a first-time home buyer tax credit of up to $7,500 for home purchases between 4/09/08 and 7/01/09. The bill also contained $4 billion for cities to buy and renovate foreclosed properties in hard-hit neighborhoods (source: AP, Denver Post).
4. FANNIE AND FREDDIE - Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson announced a plan on 9/07/08 where the government took control of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Treasury Department acquired $1 billion of preferred stock in each company, warrants for 80% of their common stock and pledged up to $200 billion of financial support as a result of potential mortgage defaults (source: Wall Street Journal).
5. TARP - The $700 billion “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (TARP) was signed into law by President Bush on 10/03/08. The $700 billion was divided between $250 billion to be allocated by the Treasury Department into bank purchases, another $100 billion to be directed by President George Bush (as needed) and $350 billion to be allocated by our next president (i.e., Barack Obama) in 2009 and beyond (source: Congress, Lincoln Journal Star).
6. SWEETENERS - In order to win Congressional support of the TARP bill, $150 billion of tax incentives were added to the legislation, including changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax law (source: Wall Street Journal).
7. BUYING BANKS - Half of the $250 billion TARP money designated for bank purchases went into 9 banks. This $125 billion bought non-voting preferred bank shares with a 5% dividend. The Treasury also acquired $18.75 billion in warrants (15% of the $125 billion) to buy common stock of the banks (source: BTN Research).
8. MORE BANK PURCHASES - The other $125 billion allocated for bank purchases will be used to take equity positions in smaller US banks, i.e., not the original 9 big banks (source: Financial Times).
9. BUYER OF LAST RESORT - The Fed announced on 10/07/08 (“Commercial Paper Funding Facility”) that it will buy short-term commercial paper through 4/30/09. Eligible issuers of the short-term debt have $1.3 trillion of outstanding commercial paper (source: Federal Reserve).
10. GOVERNMENT-BACKED CORPORATE BONDS - The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced on 10/14/08 the “Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program.” The plan allows banks and other firms that have been approved to participate and issue up to $1.4 trillion in government-guaranteed bonds with maturities of more than 30 days. The bonds must be issued by 6/30/09. The guarantee lasts no longer than 6/30/12 (source: FDIC).
11. FED HELP - The Fed announced on 10/21/08 that they would lend $540 billion to corporations, a plan (“Money Market Investor Funding Facility”) designed to unclog the commercial paper market (source: WSJ, Barron’s).
12. STRUGGLING INSURER - The original bailout of the nation’s largest insurance company (worked out on 9/16/08) involved an $85 billion loan and warrants that would give the government an 80% ownership in the firm. On 10/08/08, a $38 billion loan was added to the agreement. That deal was reworked on 11/10/08 to a $60 billion loan, a $40 billion purchase of the insurance company’s preferred stock (using some of the $700 billion TARP money), and $52.5 billion to buy other mortgage-backed assets of the firm (source: WSJ, AP, Denver Post).
13. BUYING TROUBLED ASSETS - The Fed announced on 11/25/08 a program (“Government Sponsored Entities Purchase Program”) to buy $600 billion of mortgage-backed securities and debt from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Banks (source: Investment News).
14. CONSUMER CREDIT MARKET - The Fed launched on 11/25/08 a new program (“Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility”) to lend up to $200 billion to private investors who would in turn buy securitized assets that are backed by auto loans, credit card loans, student loans or small business loans (source: USA Today).
15. RUNNING ON EMPTY - The 3 largest auto makers in the USA delivered their request to Congress for $34 billion of loans and lines of credit on 12/02/08 (source: USA Today).
Spotless Homes Sell
Ideally, real estate agents want the properties we market to look spotless, but even the most impeccable housekeepers find it difficult to keep the house in prime showing condition all the time.
Keeping the beds perpetually made, dishes washed, bathrooms spotless and the closets neat is a lot of work. Is it worth it? Yes, it is -- if you want to get your house sold in a reasonable amount of time for the best price.
Often when buyers see normal household clutter, what registers is "this place hasn't been maintained." They see bathtub rings and think "plumber's bills." They see lint under the refrigerator and grease on the electric range and imagine having to replace all of the appliances. It isn't particularly logical, but people often respond with their feelings when buying a house. When making their final selection, buyers may be going on emotion and adrenaline rather than reason and logic. You can help your real estate agent by minimizing the amount of imagination they will need to fall in love with your home.
Improving To Sell
Many homeowners wait until they are ready to put their home on the market before painting, planting flowers, and making other improvements to their homes. After completing these improvements, they may be so delighted with the results that they wish they had done the work on their home sooner in order to enjoy the changes.
Whether you have recently purchased a home or have been settled in your home for several years, you should consider evaluating the condition of your house as if you planned to sell it soon. Maximize your home's "curb appeal" now, so that you will reap the benefits every time you pull into your driveway. Plant those flowers and bulbs and you will have your fresh flowers on your own dining room table. Add new window treatments to freshen the appearance of the main rooms. If your house needs an upgraded kitchen, go ahead with the renovation. You will enhance your whole neighborhood and experience the pleasure of living in a more beautiful and fully functional home.
Keeping Your House Safe
Home safety precautions are always important, but it is especially important to make your home "accident-proof" while it is on the market. Many strangers will be coming through your home who won't be aware of the minor hazards that you and your family instinctively avoid.
Go through your home with an eye for potential hazards. Remove the obstacles that you can and post "watch your head" or "watch your step" signs where they are needed. Look for loose banisters, uneven steps, precariously placed plants, art objects or anything else that could fall on someone, wet spots on bath or kitchen floors, toys that someone might fall over and anything that you have to step over or duck under. Make sure that rugs will not slip, especially those at the bottom of stairs. There aren't many things that will more quickly dampen a buyer's enthusiasm for a house than a bump on the head or an unexpected trip down a flight of stairs.
Lighting Up the Sale
Lighting is an important factor to take into account when you are selling your home. Natural and artificial lighting can create a mood that buyers notice when they walk into your home, so don't overlook this significant factor which can favorably influence a potential buyer.
Before your house is shown, walk through each room with an eye to creating a pleasant ambiance through lighting. Accentuate the natural light by keeping curtains open and windows sparkling clean. Arrange your furniture to take advantage of the best view. You may want to install indirect lighting to highlight a vaulted ceiling or to draw attention to indoor plants. Dimmer switches can create simple and inexpensive lighting appeal. Place a lamp and table arrangement in a dark alcove or corner to brighten up the area.
Speech
Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn
At the Office of Thrift Supervision National Housing Forum, Washington, D.C.
December 8, 2008
Restoring Financial Intermediation by Banks: The Role of Regulators
I thought I might use these brief introductory remarks to put some of our challenges as regulators in the broad context of the tremendous shifts in the pattern of financial flows that we are witnessing. Traditionally, funds have been channeled from savers to borrowers in two ways: through financial markets and through financial intermediaries, such as banks and savings institutions. The turmoil in the U.S. financial system during the past 16 months has put both channels of financial intermediation under great strain and, in doing so, has produced a significant financial crisis. Large losses taken by financial institutions and investors, mostly from mortgage-related assets, have increased uncertainty and undermined confidence; these events have caused lenders to greatly tighten credit conditions for households and businesses, which, in turn, have contributed to a downturn in the economy that has reinforced the strains in the financial system.1
One consequence of the distress in financial markets is that banks are being pushed to take a greater role in financial intermediation, which reverses, in part, a long-term trend away from bank-based financial intermediation and toward market-based intermediation. And, indeed, bank lending surged earlier in the fall following a lull over the summer. However, the degree to which the pickup represented deliberate choices by banks is unclear, as many households and businesses reportedly drew on previously committed lines of credit, and selling of loans in securitization markets was hampered by further deterioration in those markets. In recent weeks, bank lending appears to have dropped back, consistent with the significant tightening of terms and standards reported by bank loan officers in recent quarters as well as the weakening of economic activity.
The need for greater bank intermediation has occurred at a time when banks are managing losses and are worried about meeting their funding needs. Concerns about banks' creditworthiness have made it costly for them to issue long-term debt. Growth in bank deposits has been fairly strong this year, and the recognition that deposits can be a reliable source of funds protected by the federal safety net has perhaps helped to draw investment banks to convert to bank holding companies. But the competition for deposits has raised their relative cost, and deposits cannot be expected to make up fully for reduced funding from other sources.
The challenge for regulators and other authorities is to create an environment that supports greater bank intermediation, which should help to restore the health of the financial system and the economy. We want banks to be willing to deploy capital and liquidity, but they must do so in a responsible way that avoids past mistakes and does not create new ones.
Banks need access to funds to make loans--especially with securitzation markets impaired--and the authorities have taken several steps to enhance the supply of funds to banks. The Treasury, working with the regulators, has used its authority under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, or EESA, to inject capital into banks so they will be stronger and more stable. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has expanded its guarantee on deposits and is insuring new senior debt obligations of banking firms. The Federal Reserve has reduced the cost of borrowing at the discount window and created a new facility to provide term credit to banks.
The Federal Reserve and the other federal banking agencies have also issued regulatory guidance to promote greater lending by banks. This guidance encouraged banks to meet the needs of creditworthy borrowers in a manner consistent with safety and soundness--specifically, by taking a balanced approach in assessing borrowers' ability to repay and making realistic assessments of collateral valuations.2 Additional capital, liquidity backstops, and regulatory encouragement should all reinforce financial stability and set the stage for increased bank lending.
As it is neither realistic nor desirable for banks to meet all financial intermediation needs, the Federal Reserve and other authorities are also making efforts to stabilize financial markets more broadly. In this regard, the Federal Reserve has created facilities to lend to primary dealers, to purchase highly rated commercial paper at a term of three months, and to provide backup liquidity for money market mutual funds. We are also creating a facility to support the issuance of asset-backed securities collateralized by student loans, auto loans, credit card loans, and loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.
In related actions, policymakers are taking steps to address the problems in housing and mortgage markets. The Federal Reserve supported placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship to help stabilize an important source of housing finance. More recently, the Federal Reserve has announced that it will purchase $600billion in debt issued by the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises and in mortgage-backed securities backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae, which could reduce funding costs for mortgages. It also is supporting foreclosure prevention and neighborhood stabilization efforts, which help reduce unnecessary foreclosures and their costs on communities. Limiting foreclosures will also help reduce the risk that house prices will sink significantly below the level justified by fundamentals.
The events of the past year and a half have highlighted the need for changes in our financial system. Presumably, such changes may include a different balance between bank-based and market-based financial intermediation. As regulators of banks and thrifts, our job is not to determine what this balance should be. Rather, our job is, and has been, to create an environment in which, in the short run, banks can step up to fill as much of the gap as possible that has been left by still-dysfunctional markets, consistent with a strong, stable banking system. Over time, of course, we will need to work with the Congress and the new Administration to construct a system of oversight over both markets and institutions that better protects the stability of the financial system and the U.S. economy.
Footnotes
1. The views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Open Market Committee. Karen Dynan, J. Nellie Liang, and Sabeth Siddique of the Board staff contributed to these remarks. Return to text
2. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision (2008), "Interagency Statement on Meeting the Needs of Creditworthy Borrowers," joint press release, November 12. Return to text
Return to top
Governor Randall S. Kroszner
At the Risk Minds Conference, International Center for Business Information, Geneva, Switzerland
December 8, 2008
Assessing the Potential for Instability in Financial Markets
Good morning. I am honored to give the opening remarks at this impressive conference. Today, I would like to offer some thoughts about risks in financial markets and the manner in which banking organizations need to assess those risks.1 In particular, I will note the problems that can arise when the safeguards that market participants employ for their individual positions can have the unintended effect of actually exacerbating market-wide distress and amplifying losses among multiple market participants during times of market turbulence. But before offering recommendations that might serve to address these problems for banking institutions, I believe it is worthwhile to take a step back and explore some conceptual issues about the organization of markets.
A conceptual framework for the organization of markets
In the simplified world of an introductory economics class, a market brings together the potential buyers and sellers of a product to negotiate prices and quantities. In this paradigm, the invisible hand of the market matches all willing buyers and sellers at a single, market-clearing price. Transactions occur instantaneously and costlessly.
While this stripped-down story is remarkably powerful in its essential predictions about the behavior of markets and economic agents, it leaves the operation of the market itself as a mystery. Any real-world market must deal with at least two fundamental questions: first, how do the buyers and sellers find one another? And second, how can buyers be assured that sellers will deliver as promised, and that the goods will be of the quality and value that the buyer expects? To understand how markets deal with the fundamental issues of transaction costs and information costs is an important and enduring challenge for economists.
Market institutions arise to overcome these barriers to trade, but do not arise wholly-formed and perfect. Market institutions evolve. Buyers and sellers gravitate towards markets that prove most effective in fostering transactions, and this rewards successful innovation and refinement in the institutional forms of markets. As market institutions adapt to serve the particular needs of their participants, they grow more varied and specialized. The imperfections and ongoing evolution of market institutions have inspired a rich and insightful literature within economics.
Returning to the first question, how do buyers and sellers find one another in the real world? Each side might be aware that potential counterparties exist, but not where and when to find them. Information problems of this sort, often termed search costs, have since ancient times been overcome by designating a market by location, time and product. The Pushkar camel fair, which draws 50,000 camels for trade to a small desert town in western India at the full moon in November, is a colorful but not atypical example. In the financial world, a corresponding institution is the exchange. Many exchanges have their historical roots as gatherings of speculators at a coffee house or other designated public place for a daily or weekly session to buy and sell securities.2
The introduction of new technology can change the institutional structure of markets. Improved telecommunications has made it possible to relax coordination on the physical location of markets. Once a building, the exchange is now a network of screens. Furthermore, by dramatically reducing the cost of locating counterparties and comparing prices, technology has increased the scope for decentralized markets such as OTC derivative markets. Decentralized markets excel at providing variety and thus at accommodating the idiosyncratic needs of investors and consumers.
Returning to our second question, then, how can buyers be assured of quality goods in a real-world marketplace? Whenever quality and value are costly to verify, how can buyers be assured that the seller will not deliver subpar goods? Market institutions have arisen to address these concerns. A seller might invest in bolstering its reputation for delivering quality goods or offer a warranty. Standardized grading is a convention that facilitates the unambiguous specification of quality in a contract. An important milestone in the development of commodity markets was the promulgation in 1856 by the Chicago Board of Trade of standardized grades of wheat.3 This allowed buyers and sellers of wheat to trade in standardized "warehouse receipts," rather than specific lots, with inexpensive quality verification by third-party policy and certification. The idea of standardized grading and third-party assessment was introduced to credit markets by rating agencies in the early 20th century. Of course, as recent events have made clear, the qualitative and multi-faceted nature of credit risk limits the extent to which investors can or should rely on ratings as the sole measure of quality.
A more subtle form of the quality assurance problem arises when a transaction results in future contingent obligations by the counterparties. Future obligations are common in financial markets, where the risk of nonperformance is known as counterparty credit risk. In a credit default swap, for example, each side is seeking to alter credit exposure to the reference entity. The resulting contingent credit exposure to the counterparty is entirely incidental to the reason for the transaction, yet may be a first-order determinant of future performance.
Financial markets have developed mechanisms that are specific to the control of counterparty risk. The simplest of these is the posting of collateral against counterparty exposures. Ensuring the efficacy of collateral is challenging even under ordinary circumstances, and may leave counterparties especially vulnerable to large sudden changes in market prices, also called gap risk.
A more sophisticated convention for mitigating counterparty credit risk is a central counterparty or a clearinghouse. In markets with a clearinghouse, all trades are intermediated through a central counterparty. This arrangement can and, in practice, does vastly reduce counterparty risk. The central counterparty runs a balanced book, so generally has no direct market exposure. In the case of a member's default, the central counterparty can draw upon the proprietary margin of the defaulting member, its own reserve fund, and the assessment of members for share purchase. As you know, plans are currently being developed to establish one or more central counterparties in the credit derivatives market.
So why do we not find a central counterparty in every financial market? A key reason is that the gain in safety may come at the expense of flexibility. Like an exchange, a central counterparty imposes a degree of standardization upon contracts. As noted earlier, OTC derivative markets have grown so rapidly in large part due to the demand for variety and customization of contracts. That said, many OTC contracts are already eligible for clearing through a central counterparty. For example, SwapClear, a central counterparty for interest rate swaps, clears about half of global single-currency swaps between dealers.
Assessing recent financial market performance
Now that I have laid out a conceptual framework about markets and how participants ensure the quality of transactions, I would like briefly to apply that conceptual framework to the events of the past 18 months. Financial crisis can serve as a powerful stimulant to the evolution of market mechanisms, and I expect that the aftermath of the present turmoil will see both innovation and incremental refinement to quality assurance in credit markets and in counterparty credit risk management. I would like to highlight two themes that I believe will influence this process.
First, for quality assurance to be effective, some of the products traded in financial markets have to become simpler and more transparent. Product complexity and a lack of transparency are at the root of many of the problems that have emerged, especially in the markets for securitizations and structured credit products. I elaborated on these themes in remarks I made at a Federal Reserve conference last week on the future of the mortgage market.4 There I argued that a recovery in the market for mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) will require greater transparency and less complexity, and importantly, comprehensive and standardized loan-level data that will allow more independent credit analysis. For example, the structures of cash flows from mortgage payments in the pool to the various tranches of MBSs should be much less complex than some of those created in recent years, and securitization contracts will need to be made more homogeneous so as to allow greater comparability of risk profiles across deals and perhaps promote more robust liquidity.
I believe that a new infrastructure for MBSs built upon these foundations might be reasonably expected to lower the costs of information production and processing in the marketplace. The reduction of these costs will facilitate broader independent credit analyses, greater due diligence by potential purchasers, and, hence, greater ability to provide a double check on credit rating agencies' evaluation of the riskiness of the securities. In other words, market participants would be more likely to acquire the expertise to evaluate securities issues that were more homogeneous and less complex.
A second key factor for effective quality assurance relates to the institutional and contractual framework for ensuring future performance on financial transactions, namely counterparty credit risk management. Counterparty credit risk management should be focused on its effectiveness in different market situations and its implications for financial stability. There is a broad class of market practices that can provide useful protections when an individual firm experiences trouble but these practices may not provide useful protections--and could be potentially harmful--when the trouble is marketwide.
A representative example is the use of rating triggers in counterparty credit risk management. Some debt contracts and OTC derivative contracts link collateral requirements to a counterparty's credit rating. If a counterparty is downgraded past some threshold, it may become subject to an immediate margin call. Counterparty credit risk appears to remain contained so long as the rating trigger is breached long before the counterparty could reach insolvency--that is, the trigger is set at a relatively high rating. In such cases, this type of clause can be quite valuable in mitigating counterparty credit risk and in giving the counterparty strong incentives to try to maintain its financial health and, hence, its rating.
This type of protection against counterparty risk is most effective when changes in risk are specific to the counterparty and not correlated with increases in risks to other counterparties and in other markets. In this case, the posting of additional collateral long before a firm reaches insolvency can provide valuable protection. Such a provision may not provide protection, however, if the rating change comes too late, the firm is on the brink of insolvency, and the requirement to post the margin can push it into insolvency.
More importantly, such a provision may also fail to provide protection if the trouble at the counterparty is correlated with trouble at other institutions and in other markets, that is, due to marketwide distress. In times of widespread distress, many counterparties may have to sell assets simultaneously to post margin. This occurrence can potentially lead to a situation in the market in which assets are sold quickly and below their fundamental values. When many counterparties are forced to liquidate similar assets, prices for those assets are pushed down. If these assets are used as collateral on other positions, then the decline in value leads to additional margin calls. This set of circumstances, in turn, forces further liquidation and price declines. A widespread use of rating triggers can accelerate this downward slide, with further losses in asset values triggering additional downgrades and requirements to post collateral and liquidate positions. Recent events have demonstrated this potentially destabilizing dynamic at work.
Rating triggers are certainly only one example of market practices that can exacerbate the impact of a systemic event and make financial markets less stable. Credit enhancements and guarantees can also create fragility while seeming to offer protection. A highly-rated guarantor, for example, could offer effective protection against the default of a small number of instruments. In the event of a market-wide increase in credit risk, however, there is an increased probability that the guarantor would be required to pay out on many positions simultaneously. As the market comes to realize that the credit enhancement may not be effective, further pressure may come upon the institutions that would be left exposed. Thus, widespread reliance on credit enhancements could induce a form of "wrong way risk" in which the seller of protection becomes most likely to default in precisely the circumstances where protection is most valued.
What might seem like a "herd" behavior in some markets may be at least in part a response to the fragile interconnections affecting the stability of those markets. Such apparent herding behavior, reflecting a collective loss of confidence, may be generated by a market infrastructure that induces co-movements across markets and institutions during times of stress. In these circumstances, contractual provisions that might seem on the surface to be prudent counterparty risk management could increase financial market stress.
Improving banks' risk management for participation in financial markets
Marketwide credit events and stresses, and how market infrastructure could exacerbate them, did not receive sufficient attention in risk management efforts in the period leading up to the current turmoil. For example, risk managers did not fully contemplate the possibility that many participants would need to unwind their positions at the same time, that such actions might present substantial losses for several key counterparties, and that collateral posted as protection for positions would fall in value at the same time. There was not sufficient understanding of the correlation between declines in collateral value and the likelihood that collateral would need to be called upon. Similar issues arose with third-party guarantees and with hedging strategies that had less effectiveness than anticipated. Even when risk managers had some understanding of these issues, each individually likely faced difficulty in demanding more collateral or guarantees during good times because no risk manager wanted to be the first.
A key factor for assuring market quality, as I noted above, is assessing the behavior of counterparties in stressful times. Not only do banks need to assess counterparty creditworthiness and behavior on an individual basis, they also need to assess counterparties on a collective basis. They need to understand how their own actions to protect positions can put pressure on key counterparties, especially when other market participants are likely to be taking similar action to protect themselves. So beyond ensuring that their own individual positions are sound and well protected, banks need to assess whether there is a systematic component to a market that could adversely affect multiple counterparties at the same time, and thereby affect their own risk exposures. As we have seen, a counterparty does not need to be technically insolvent for it to be shunned by other market participants. The anticipation of downgrades, triggers, and so forth could very quickly cause a firm to lose funding and fail.
In short, banks and regulators need to understand the type of market conditions that will exist when there is likely to be reliance on collateral, guarantees, or other contract clauses. It is then important to assess the likelihood that the bank's safeguarding actions could worsen market conditions and actually increase its losses. Might the bank only realize collateral at substantially reduced prices? Would multiple counterparties suffer distress at the same time? Would guarantors perform in times of distress? In other words, would the collateral, guarantee, insurance, hedge, and so forth work in precisely the time the institution would need it most, that is, during a market stress event? These are important questions that regulators and supervisors are asking in the Basel Committee and in the Financial Stability Forum, and I represent the Federal Reserve System on both of these bodies.
Naturally, these types of questions underscore the importance of stress testing and scenario analysis that focus on market-wide events. Such stress tests would include the potential for key counterparties to fail or suffer difficulty at the same time, for market liquidity to erode and remain low for some time, and for market participants to view the bank itself as an impaired counterparty. And these stress tests, when properly designed, can provide information that typical statistical models may leave out or have trouble capturing, such as abnormally large jumps or market moves, evaporation of liquidity, prolonged periods of market distress, or structural changes in markets. Stress tests are most useful when they aim to include potential secondary or "knock-on" effects, which are also often difficult to model with standard techniques. In these ways, stress tests can serve as a complementary tool to other risk measures.
Even if the ex ante estimate of the probability of joint distress among counterparties appears small, it is still useful to know the severity of such an outcome, since it may clearly reveal an unacceptable loss. Importantly, banks should also conduct stress tests across several markets, since some counterparties are key players across many financial markets and their inability to repay could cascade across those markets.
Of course, based on their consideration of the factors noted above and the results of their stress tests, banks may reassess their participation in certain markets and exercise greater caution to account for potential "tail" risks and better protect themselves in times of market-wide stress. One of the first things they may do is increase their internal assessments of capital needs for these activities, given the added risks that stress tests reveal. They may wish to restructure contracts or alter terms. Institutions also might ask for higher initial margin, given that subsequent calls may not provide as much risk mitigation during distress. They may wish to ask for more collateral, or ensure that the collateral is less linked to the counterparty's condition or broader market distress. Or they might look for other ways to enhance their assessment of counterparties, and, perhaps more importantly, the potential for counterparties to encounter difficulties during marketwide stresses. Additionally, they may wish to conduct more of their trading and hedging on more organized exchanges or with clearinghouses, to benefit from the safeguards I noted earlier in my remarks.
Some banks, acting on a collective basis, may decide to take action to improve the quality assurance performance of markets during future times of stress. Trade associations in the banking industry may consider additional safeguards to reduce the impact of systematic risks among counterparties; for example, banks may collectively act to remove uncertainty associated with back-office inefficiencies and related risks in the credit default swaps market. Another example, as I noted in remarks last week, is an attempt to enhance mortgage markets so that there is greater standardization of data and simpler, more homogeneous provisions in the securitizations, and less reliance on third-party monitoring.5
As a more general step, banks should hold higher liquidity and capital buffers, since the enhancements I just noted are still no guarantee against future market distress that could cause correlated and cascading losses among market participants. Finally, banks need to exercise strong discipline so that when good times return, they do not forget the current market difficulties and return to more profligate ways. Indeed, now is the time for banks to establish good risk management policies addressing the issues I have just discussed, so that strong risk discipline is codified.
Concluding thoughts
Of course, it is not just the banking industry, but also those of us in the public sector who have some key lessons to learn. Banks and supervisors alike need to undertake additional work to facilitate the building of robust methods of quality assurance in the financial markets that will help to restore and maintain confidence. Ensuring that banks exercise good risk management, of course, is an important job for bank supervisors, which includes overseeing their ability to properly capture the risks in the markets in which they operate, as well as their ability to conduct appropriate stress testing to explore potential consequences of different types of market distress. Doing so requires that supervisors themselves develop a strong understanding of the value, limits, and potential harms associated with banks' attempts to protect their exposures.
At the Federal Reserve, we have already begun to enhance our supervisory work in this area and are communicating expectations to banks. At the international level, we are working with our colleagues in other countries and within international bodies, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision--which is meeting later this week--and the Financial Stability Forum, to investigate whether other practices could be adopted around the world to mitigate the challenges I have outlined above. This work will be a major focus during the next few months and over the course of 2009.
Footnotes
1. In my remarks, I will use the terms "banks," "banking institutions," and "banking organizations" interchangeably. Return to text
2. The early antecedents to the New York Stock Exchange and other fascinating stories of market formation are elegantly and insightfully recounted in John McMillan, "Reinventing the Bazaar," W.W. Norton & Co, 2002. Return to text
3. See section 1 in Randall S. Kroszner, "Can the Financial Markets Privately Regulate Risk?," Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 31(3), August 1999. Return to text
4. Randall S. Kroszner, 2008, "Improving the Infrastructure for Non-Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities," speech delivered at the Federal Reserve System Conference on Housing and Mortgage Markets, Washington, DC, December 4. Return to text
5. Randall S. Kroszner, 2008, "Improving the Infrastructure for Non-Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities," speech delivered at the Federal Reserve System Conference on Housing and Mortgage Markets, Washington, D.C., December 4. Return to text
Return to top
Last update: December 8, 2008
LONG-TERM MORTGAGE RATES PLUMMET
Short-Term Rates Fall But Not So Dramatically
McLean, VA – Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE) today released the results of its Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS®) in which the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) averaged 5.53 percent with an average 0.7 point for the week ending December 3, 2008, down from last week when it averaged 5.97 percent. Last year at this time, the 30-year FRM averaged 5.96 percent. The 30-year FRM has not been lower since January 24, 2008, when it was 5.48 percent.
The 15-year FRM this week averaged 5.33 percent with an average 0.7 point, down from last week when it averaged 5.74 percent. A year ago at this time, the 15-year FRM averaged 5.65 percent. The 15-year FRM has not been since March 20, 2008, when it averaged 5.27 percent.
Five-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) averaged 5.77 percent this week, with an average 0.6 point, down from last week when it averaged 5.86 percent. A year ago, the 5-year ARM averaged 5.75 percent.
One-year Treasury-indexed ARMs averaged 5.02 percent this week with an average 0.5 point, down from last week when it averaged 5.18 percent. At this time last year, the 1-year ARM averaged 5.46 percent.
(Average commitment rates should be reported along with average fees and points to reflect the total cost of obtaining the mortgage.)
"After Federal Reserve actions to increase liquidity in the mortgage market, interest rates for fixed-rate mortgages (FRMs) took a dive," said Frank Nothaft, Freddie Mac vice president and chief economist. "This week's decline was the largest since the week of November 27th, 1981, and 30-year FRM rates are now almost a full percentage point lower since the last week in October.
"The recent plunge in rates contributed to the nearly 150 percent jump in conventional mortgage applications over the Thanksgiving week, led by almost a 300 percent surge in refinances, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Roughly three out of four mortgage applications were for refinance transactions, up from around half during the prior week."
Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
| Fixed-Rate Mortgages |
| |
Average Conventional 30-Year Commitment Rate |
Fees & Points |
Average Conventional 15-Year Commitment Rate |
Fees & Points |
| US |
5.53 |
0.7 |
5.33 |
0.7 |
| Northeast |
5.52 |
0.7 |
5.27 |
0.7 |
| Southeast |
5.48 |
0.8 |
5.38 |
0.8 |
| N. Central |
5.53 |
0.5 |
5.32 |
0.5 |
| Southwest |
5.48 |
0.7 |
5.32 |
0.6 |
| West |
5.60 |
0.7 |
5.36 |
0.7 |
| Five/One-Year Adjustable-Rate Mortgages |
| |
First Commitment Rate |
Fees & Points |
Margin |
| US |
5.77 |
0.6 |
2.74 |
| Northeast |
5.58 |
0.6 |
2.73 |
| Southeast |
5.73 |
0.8 |
2.75 |
| N. Central |
6.17 |
0.5 |
2.77 |
| Southwest |
5.89 |
0.7 |
2.76 |
| West |
5.70 |
0.6 |
2.73 |
| One-Year Adjustable-Rate Mortgages |
| |
First Commitment Rate |
Fees & Points |
Margin |
| US |
5.02 |
0.5 |
2.74 |
| Northeast |
4.96 |
0.6 |
2.73 |
| Southeast |
5.23 |
0.7 |
2.75 |
| N. Central |
5.08 |
0.0 |
2.71 |
| Southwest |
5.10 |
0.8 |
2.79 |
| West |
4.86 |
0.6 |
2.75 |
Freddie Mac defines its regions as follows:
Northeast: NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, VA, WV, ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT
Southeast: NC, SC, TN, KY, GA, AL, FL, PR, VI, MS
North Central: OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, MN, IA, ND, SD
Southwest: TX, LA, NM, OK, AR, MO, KS, CO, NE, WY
West: CA, AZ, NV, OR, WA, UT, ID, MT, HI, AK, GU
Freddie Mac's Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS) is for informational purposes only and Freddie Mac is not responsible for business decisions made based on the reported results of the PMMS. Freddie Mac may change the methodology used to conduct the PMMS survey at any time and without notice.
DEFINITIONS
Commitment Rate is the interest rate a lender would charge to lend mortgage money to a qualified borrower exclusive of the fees and points required by the lender. This commitment rate applies only to conventional financing on conforming mortgages with loan-to-value rates of 80 percent or less.
ARM Index - is the One-year Treasury
Loan to Value Ratio (LTV) is the ratio of the loan amount of a mortgage loan to the lower of the appraisal value or purchase price of the property securing the loan.
Origination Fees and Discount Points are the total charged by the lender at settlement. One point equals one percent of the loan amount.
Margin is a fixed amount added to the underlying index to establish the fully indexed rate for an ARM.
Weighted Averages for the Primary Mortgage Market Survey have been adjusted as of October 16, 2008. The new weights use the dollar volume of conventional mortgage originations within the 1-unit Freddie Mac loan limit as reported under Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) for 2007. The weights are listed in the table below.
| Freddie Mac Region |
PMMS Weights |
| Northeast |
24.2 |
| Southeast |
19.8 |
| North Central |
15.1 |
| Southwest |
12.7 |
| West |
28.2 |
PRIMARY MORTGAGE MARKET SURVEY RESULTS
December 04, 2008
| 30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgages |
| |
US |
NE |
SE |
NC |
SW |
W |
| Average |
5.53 |
5.52 |
5.48 |
5.53 |
5.48 |
5.60 |
| Fees & Points |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
| 15-Year Fixed Rate Mortgages |
| |
US |
NE |
SE |
NC |
SW |
W |
| Average |
5.33 |
5.27 |
5.38 |
5.32 |
5.32 |
5.36 |
| Fees & Points |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
| 5/1-Year Adjustable Rate Mortgages |
| |
US |
NE |
SE |
NC |
SW |
W |
| Average |
5.77 |
5.58 |
5.73 |
6.17 |
5.89 |
5.70 |
| Fees & Points |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
| Margin |
2.74 |
2.73 |
2.75 |
2.77 |
2.76 |
2.73 |
| 1-Year Adjustable Rate Mortgages |
| |
US |
NE |
SE |
NC |
SW |
W |
| Average |
5.02 |
4.96 |
5.23 |
5.08 |
5.10 |
4.86 |
| Fees & Points |
0.5 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
0.6 |
| Margin |
2.74 |
2.73 |
2.75 |
2.71 |
2.79 |
2.75 |
| The National Mortgage Rate Snapshot |
| |
One Year Ago |
One Week Ago |
| |
30-YR |
15-YR |
5/1-YR |
1-YR ARM |
30-YR |
15-YR |
5/1-YR |
1-YR ARM |
| Average |
5.96 |
5.65 |
5.75 |
5.46 |
5.97 |
5.74 |
5.86 |
5.18 |
| Fees & Points |
0.4 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
| Margin |
N/A |
N/A |
2.76 |
2.73 |
N/A |
N/A |
2.75 |
2.75 |
|
Investors Not Happy With 4-Loan Limit
Some real estate investors are up in arms over a new Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac policy that limits to four the number of real estate loans that can be held by a single person.
The rule, which took effect Dec. 1, prohibits an investor from obtaining even a fifth mortgage no matter how much money he puts down or how much income documentation he provides. It offers no exceptions for assets or history of success as a real estate investor.
“The four-house rule is going to keep us in a recession longer,” said Tom Hutchens, an Atlanta-area investor. “It’s going to keep qualified buyers out of the market.”
Some investors are trying to work around the rule by partnering with other investors to either buy in cash or use their eligibility to borrow.
Source: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, D.L. Bennett (12/05/08)
Fed Chair: Reducing Foreclosures is Critical
Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke asked the federal government Thursday to increase efforts to put an end to foreclosures because they are driving other economic problems.
"Weakness in the housing market has proved a serious drag on overall economic activity," he said. "Steps that stabilize the housing market will help stabilize the economy as well."
In a question-and-answer session after his speech at a Fed housing conference, Bernanke rejected the notion of federal support for declining housing prices.
"I don't think we would be either willing or able to target house prices," he said. "I think that would probably be an impossible thing to do given the size of the national housing market."
Instead, he suggested more support for the mortgage market so more people are able to borrow.
Source: The Associated Press, Jeannine Aversa (12/04/08)
President Bush, First Lady Buy Retirement Home
President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush have bought a house in the affluent Dallas neighborhood of Preston Hollow.
Accountant and family friend, Robert McCleskey, apparently purchased the house on their behalf. It has 8,500 square feet on a cul-de-sac with a half-dozen homes. Its market value is $2.1 million, and total estimated taxes on the property are listed at $43,984.
The neighbors include Tom Hicks, owner of the Texas Rangers, and Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks. T. Boone Pickens and retired Exxon Mobil CEO Lee R. Raymond also own houses nearby.
"If he moves next door, we'd love it," Hicks wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "The Secret Service would make the neighborhood safer!"
Source: The Associated Press, Jeff Carlton (12/04/08)
Why Are Property Taxes Still Rising?
Property taxes continue to rise across the country, despite steep declines in home values.
Property tax collections across the United States rose 3.1 percent this year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). That means state and local governments will collect more than $400 billion in property taxes this year—a record amount.
Most states have caps that prevent taxes from rising rapidly in boom times. The same laws keep taxes from plummeting when home values decline.
"Property taxes aren't always popular, but they are a very stable tax, even in tough times," says Thomas Gentzel, executive director of the Pennsylvania School Board Association.
Source: USA Today, Dennis Cauchon (12/04/08)
Press Release
Release Date: December 5, 2008
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Friday proposed for public comment changes to Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) that would revise the disclosure requirements for mortgage loans. The revisions would implement the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act (MDIA) which was enacted in July 2008 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
The MDIA seeks to ensure that consumers receive cost disclosures earlier in the mortgage process. In several respects, the MDIA is substantially similar to final rules issued by the Board in July 2008. However, the MDIA also broadens and adds to those regulatory requirements.
The MDIA requires creditors to give good faith estimates of mortgage loan costs ("early disclosures") within three business days after receiving a consumer's application for a mortgage loan and before any fees are collected from the consumer, other than a reasonable fee for obtaining the consumer's credit history. These requirements are consistent with the Board's July 2008 final rule which applied to loans secured by a consumer's principal dwelling. The MDIA broadens this requirement by also requiring early disclosures for loans secured by dwellings other than the consumer’s principal dwelling, such as a second home.
In addition, the proposed rules would implement the MDIA's requirements that:
- Creditors wait seven business days after they provide the early disclosures before closing the loan; and
- Creditors provide new disclosures with a revised annual percentage rate (APR), and wait an additional three days before closing the loan, if a change occurs that makes the APR in the early disclosures inaccurate beyond a specified tolerance.
The proposed rules would permit a consumer to expedite the closing to address a personal financial emergency, such as a foreclosure. Under the MDIA, the proposed rules would become effective on July 30, 2009.
The notice that will be published in the Federal Register is attached. The public comment period ends January 23, 2009.
Attachment (188 KB PDF)
Last update: December 5, 2008
Treasury Alerts REALTORS to Fraud Scheme
If a buyer tries to use a "personal promissory note" or "private offset bond" to buy a home, the matter might be an attempt at fraud and you should let the U.S. Treasury Department know, a notice from the Treasury's Office of Inspector General says.
Here's the notice in full, with contact information:
SUBJECT: Fraud Alert
The U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Inspector General (OIG), is investigating incidences whereby individuals are using fraudulent promissory notes and bonds to attempt to purchase vehicles and real estate. The OIG has been notified of numerous occurrences throughout the United States where fraudulent documents were used to attempt to purchase vehicles. Treasury OIG has also been made aware of incidents in Arizona and Colorado where similar fraudulent documents were used to attempt to purchase homes and an office building.
The fraudulent documents are not referenced as “U.S. Treasury” bonds or promissory notes. They are referenced as “personal promissory note” and “private offset bond;” however, they have the name of Henry Paulson, Secretary, U.S. Treasury, on the face of the documents.
Treasury OIG has learned that the only type of hard-copy bond issued by the U.S. Treasury that a citizen can purchase today is a savings bond. All other bonds are electronic and the buyer would not receive a hard-copy document. Finally, Paulson’s name should not appear on any document listed as a private bond or promissory note since these items are not backed or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury.
If you have any information regarding this type of fraudulent activity, we request that you contact the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Investigations Hotline, at 800/359-3898 or e-mail Hotline@oig.treas.gov. REALTORS® approached by a person giving these or similar circumstances should consider the potential for fraud. Should you suspect fraudulent activity, it is recommended that you contact the OIG Hotline and your local law enforcement agency immediately. Additional information regarding this and other similar fraud schemes can be found at the following Department of Treasury Web site:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/statreg/fraud/fraud_bogussightdraft.htm
Source: REALTOR® Magazine Online
NAR-Backed Rate Buydown Gains Traction
An effort by the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® to spur home sales through a mortgage-interest rate buydown appears to be gaining traction. Reports in major news media like the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal today quote sources familiar with a meeting between U.S. Treasury officials and NAR in November in which the buydown proposal was discussed.
"Treasury officials told the REALTORS® that the [buydown] plan could be a more effective way to help homeowners than focusing solely on borrowers who are struggling to meet their monthly payments," the Washington Post story says.
Under the Treasury plan, lenders would sell newly issued mortgage-backed securities to the government provided the interest-rate on the loans collateralizing the securities was no higher than 4.5 percent. Although NAR supports a buydown, it does not take a position on how low interest rates should go.
To pay for the plan, Treasury would issue bonds at 3 percent, creating a 1.5-percent spread that it could use for buying the securities. Those securities would then be purchased by secondary mortgage market companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are under federal conservatorship.
NAR has been calling for a buydown and other measures to help stimulate housing sales as part of a four-point plan it showcased at its annual meeting in Orlando last month. To date, tens of thousands of REALTORS® have sent letters to their members of Congress asking for quick action to help housing, which is widely considered a crucial first step to a broader economic recovery. Other parts of the four-point plan include making 2008 high-cost conforming loan limits, which are now $729,750, permanent, and improving the home buyer tax credit by expanding it to all buyers, not just first-timers, and eliminating the repayment requirement.
Some analysts have calculated that an interest-rate buydown could help as many as 2.5 million households.
Source: REALTOR® Magazine Online
Fed: CRA Didn't Encourage Subprime Loans
The Community Reinvestment Act isn’t the culprit behind the current housing meltdown, said Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner in a speech to a Washington DC public policy forum.
Kroszner said that contrary to charges that that encouraging banks to lend to lower-income borrowers pushed banking firms into high-risk lending, most of the subprime loans took place in middle and higher-income neighborhoods.
The loans that are the focus of the CRA represent "a very small portion of the subprime lending market," Kroszner said.
Source: Dow Jones Newswires (21/03/2008)
Housing Prices Fall Below Replacement Costs
Housing consultancy Global Insight reports that nationwide, housing prices are now 3.8 percent undervalued, based on total market value. It says values fell at a faster pace in the third quarter after stabilizing earlier in the year.
According to Global Insight’s calculations, prices are now 6.5 percent below their 2007 peak. They fell at a 6.9 percent annual pace affecting 241 of the 330 metropolitan areas analyzed by Global Insight. That’s up from 150 metro areas affected in the second quarter.
Contraction is most severe in the Southeast and Southwest with only the Pacific Northwest remaining overvalued, Global Insight says.
Home prices fell more than 10 percent in the third quarter in nine central California communities. The Central Valley communities of Merced, Stockton, and Modesto have seen property values fall to less than half their 2005 value. Twenty-nine metro areas in California, Florida, and Nevada – at one time among the most overvalued – have seen price declines in excess of 30 percent. Similar steep price drops are occurring in Michigan, northeast Ohio, the southern metro areas from Charlotte to Atlanta, as well as in New England.
"Weak economic conditions and wary consumers continue to hold the housing market back. Although many areas are seeing home sales increase, it is largely due to foreclosure homes being snapped up at significantly discounted prices. As the inventory of these homes is removed from the market, prices will remain on a downward path," predicts Jeannine Cataldi, senior economist and manager of Global Insight’s Regional Real Estate Service.
Source: Global Insight (12/03/2008)
Speech
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
At the Federal Reserve System Conference on Housing and Mortgage Markets, Washington, D.C.
December 4, 2008
Housing, Mortgage Markets, and Foreclosures
The U.S. financial system has been in turmoil during the past 16 months. Credit conditions have tightened and asset values have declined, contributing substantially, in turn, to the weakening of economic activity. As the participants in this conference are keenly aware, I am sure, housing and housing finance played a central role in precipitating the current crisis. As the crisis has persisted, however, the relationships between housing and other parts of the economy have become more complex. Declining house prices, delinquencies and foreclosures, and strains in mortgage markets are now symptoms as well as causes of our general financial and economic difficulties. These interlinkages imply that policies aimed at improving broad financial and economic conditions and policies focused specifically on housing may be mutually reinforcing. Indeed, the most effective approach very likely will involve a full range of coordinated measures aimed at different aspects of the problem.
I will begin this morning with some comments on developments in the housing sector and on the interactions among house prices, mortgage markets, foreclosures, and the broader economy. I will then discuss both some steps taken to date and some additional measures that might be taken to support housing and the economy by reducing the number of avoidable foreclosures. As we as a nation continue to fashion our policy responses in coming weeks and months, we must draw on the best thinking available. I expect that the papers presented at this conference will add significantly to our understanding of these important issues.
Developments in Housing and Housing Finance
As you know, the current housing crisis is the culmination of a large boom and bust in house prices and residential construction that began earlier in this decade. Home sales and single-family housing starts held unusually steady through the 2001 recession and then rose dramatically over the subsequent four years. National indexes of home prices accelerated significantly over that period, with prices in some metropolitan areas more than doubling over the first half of the decade.1 One unfortunate consequence of the rapid increases in house prices was that providers of mortgage credit came to view their loans as well-secured by the rising values of their collateral and thus paid less attention to borrowers' ability to repay.2
However, no real or financial asset can provide an above-normal market return indefinitely, and houses are no exception. When home-price appreciation began to slow in many areas, the consequences of weak underwriting, such as little or no documentation and low required down payments, became apparent. Delinquency rates for subprime mortgages--especially those with adjustable interest rates--began to climb steeply around the middle of 2006. When house prices were rising, higher-risk borrowers who were struggling to make their payments could refinance into more-affordable mortgages. But refinancing became increasingly difficult as many of these households found that they had accumulated little, if any, housing equity. Moreover, lenders tightened standards on higher-risk mortgages as secondary markets for those loans ceased to function.
Higher-risk mortgages are not the only part of the mortgage market to have experienced stress. For example, while some lenders continue to originate so-called jumbo prime mortgages and hold them on their own balance sheets, these loans have generally been available only on more restrictive terms and at much higher spreads relative to prime conforming mortgage rates than before the crisis. Mortgage rates in the prime conforming market--although down somewhat from their peaks--remain high relative to yields on longer-term Treasury securities, and lending terms have tightened for this segment as well.
As house prices have declined, many borrowers now find themselves "under water" on their mortgages--perhaps as many as 15 to 20 percent by some estimates. In addition, as the economy has slowed and unemployment has risen, more households are finding it difficult to make their mortgage payments. About 4-1/2 percent of all first-lien mortgages are now more than 90 days past due or in foreclosure, and one in ten near-prime mortgages in alt-A pools and more than one in five subprime mortgages are seriously delinquent.3 Lenders appear to be on track to initiate 2-1/4 million foreclosures in 2008, up from an average annual pace of less than 1 million during the pre-crisis period.4
Predictably, home sales and construction have plummeted. Sales of new homes and starts of single-family houses are now running at about one-third of their peak levels in the middle part of this decade. Sales of existing homes, including foreclosure sales, are now about two-thirds of their earlier peak. Notwithstanding the sharp adjustment in construction, inventories of unsold new homes, though down in absolute terms, are close to their record high when measured relative to monthly sales, suggesting that residential construction is likely to remain soft in the near term.
As I mentioned earlier, the problems in housing and mortgage markets have become inextricably intertwined with broader financial and economic developments. For example, mortgage-related losses have eroded the capital of many financial institutions, leading them to become more reluctant to make not only mortgage loans, but other types of loans to consumers and businesses as well. Likewise, some homeowners have responded to declining home values by cutting back their spending, and residential construction remains subdued. Thus, weakness in the housing market has proved a serious drag on overall economic activity. A slowing economy has in turn reduced the demand for houses, implying a further weakening of conditions in the mortgage and housing markets.
Reducing Preventable Foreclosures
Because developments in the housing sector have become so interlinked with the evolution of the financial markets and the economy as a whole, both macro and micro policies have a role in addressing the strains in housing. At the macro level, the Federal Reserve has taken a number of steps, beginning with the easing of monetary policy. To the extent that more accommodative monetary policies make credit conditions easier and incomes higher than they otherwise would have been, they support the housing market.
The Federal Reserve has also implemented a series of actions aimed at restoring the normal functioning of financial markets and restarting the flow of credit, including providing liquidity to a range of financial institutions, working with the Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to help stabilize the banking system, and providing backstop liquidity to the commercial paper market. The Federal Reserve supported the actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Treasury to put the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, into conservatorship, thereby stabilizing a critical source of mortgage credit. The Federal Reserve has also recently announced that it will purchase up to $100 billion of the debt issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks and up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities issued by the GSEs.
Although broad-based macroeconomic policies help to create an economic and financial environment in which a housing recovery can occur, policies aimed more narrowly at the housing market are important, too. In the remainder of my remarks, I will focus on policy options for reducing preventable foreclosures.
Foreclosures impose large costs on families who face the loss of their homes and reduced future access to credit. But the public policy case for reducing preventable foreclosures does not rely solely on the desire to help people who are in trouble. Foreclosures create substantial social costs. Communities suffer when foreclosures are clustered, adding further to the downward pressure on property values. Lower property values in turn translate to lower tax revenues for local governments, and increases in the number of vacant homes can foster vandalism and crime.5 At the national level, the declines in house prices that result from the addition of foreclosed properties to the supply of homes for sale create broader economic and financial stress, as I have already noted.6
On the surface, private economic incentives to avoid foreclosure would appear to be strong for the lender as well as the borrower. Foreclosure dissipates much of the value of the property: Indeed, recent losses on defaulted subprime mortgages have averaged around 50 to 60 percent of the loan balance.7 Besides the general decline in property values and foregone payments, fees related to foreclosure, such as court costs, maintenance expenses, and others, can amount to 10 to 15 percent of the loan balance; furthermore, the discount in value due to foreclosure status can be an additional 5 to 15 percent.8
However, despite the substantial costs imposed by foreclosure, anecdotal evidence suggests that some foreclosures are continuing to occur even in cases in which the narrow economic interests of the lender would appear to be better served through modification of the mortgage. This apparent market failure owes in part to the widespread practice of securitizing mortgages, which typically results in their being put into the hands of third-party servicers rather than those of a single owner or lender. The rules under which servicers operate do not always provide them with clear guidance or the appropriate incentives to undertake economically sensible modifications.9 The problem is exacerbated because some modifications may benefit some tranches of the securities more than others, raising the risk of investor lawsuits. More generally, the sheer volume of delinquent loans has overwhelmed the capacity of many servicers, including portfolio lenders, to undertake effective modifications.
During more normal times, mortgage delinquencies typically were triggered by life events, such as unemployment, illness, or divorce, and servicers became accustomed to addressing these problems on a case-by-case basis. Although taking account of the specific circumstances of each case remains important, the scale of the current problem calls for greater standardization and efficiency. Loan modification programs with clearly defined protocols can both help reduce modification costs and protect servicers from the charge that they have acted arbitrarily. The federal banking regulators have urged lenders and servicers to work with borrowers to avoid preventable foreclosures. The regulators recently reiterated that position in a joint statement that encouraged banks to make the necessary investments in staff and capacity to meet the escalating workload and to adopt systematic, proactive, and streamlined modification protocols to put borrowers in sustainable mortgages.10
A number of initiatives have attempted to address the problem of unnecessary foreclosures. Working in collaboration with the Treasury Department, the Hope Now Alliance, a coalition of mortgage servicers, lenders, housing counselors, and investors--led by Faith Schwartz, a member of the Fed's Consumer Advisory Council--has produced a set of guidelines that participating servicers have agreed to use as they work to prevent foreclosures. In addition, servicers in the Alliance agreed to delay foreclosure proceedings if an alternative approach might allow the homeowners to stay in their home. Recently, in conjunction with the FHFA, the coalition announced that its members will adopt a streamlined modification program for certain loans that they service for the GSEs. This program will closely follow the one that the FDIC has introduced for modifying the loans in the portfolio that it took over from IndyMac.11
The Federal Reserve has also been actively supporting efforts to prevent unnecessary foreclosures. Through the System's Homeownership and Mortgage Initiative, we have conducted studies on housing and foreclosures, provided community leaders with detailed analyses to help them better target their borrower outreach and counseling efforts, and convened forums like this one to facilitate the exchange of ideas and the development of policy options. Taking advantage of the Federal Reserve's nationwide presence, the twelve Reserve Banks have sponsored or co-sponsored more than 100 events related to foreclosures around the country since last summer, bringing together more than 10,000 lenders, counselors, community development specialists, and policymakers. A particular focus of the Fed's efforts has been the mitigation of the costs to communities of high rates of foreclosure. For example, we have partnered with NeighborWorks America on a neighborhood stabilization project and helped them develop responses to community needs as well as train local leaders.
Beyond these efforts, two government programs to facilitate loan modifications have been authorized, both through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHASecure program has provided long-term fixed-rate mortgages to borrowers facing a rise in payments due to an interest rate reset. Another, more recent program, dubbed Hope for Homeowners (H4H), allows lenders to refinance a delinquent borrower into a new, FHA-insured fixed-rate mortgage if the lender writes down the mortgage balance to create some home equity for the borrower and pays an up-front insurance premium. In exchange for being put "above water" on the mortgage, the borrower is required to share any subsequent appreciation of the home with the government.
Although the basic structure of the H4H program is appealing, some lenders have expressed concerns about its complexity and cost, including the requirement in many cases to undertake substantial principal write-downs. As a result, participation has thus far been low. In response to these concerns, the board of the H4H program--on which Governor Duke represents the Federal Reserve--recently approved a number of changes, using the authority granted to it under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA). These changes would reduce the necessary write-down on some loans, address the complications caused by subordinate liens by permitting up-front payments to those lien holders, allow lenders to extend mortgage terms from 30 to 40 years to increase affordability, and eliminate the trial modification period to expedite loan closings. It is still too early to know what the ultimate demand for H4H loans under this set of rules will be, but as I will discuss further momentarily, a case can be made for further adjusting the terms of the program to make it more attractive to both lenders and borrowers.
Despite good-faith efforts by both the private and public sectors, the foreclosure rate remains too high, with adverse consequences for both those directly involved and for the broader economy. More needs to be done. In the remainder of my remarks I will discuss, without ranking, a few promising options for reducing avoidable foreclosures. These proposals are not mutually exclusive and could be used in combination. Each would require some commitment of public funds.
To be effective, loan modifications should aim to put borrowers into mortgages that they can afford over the longer term. During more normal times, many homeowners could be helped with a temporary repayment plan--for example, a deferral of interest payments for a period. But under the current circumstances, with house prices declining and credit tight, permanent loan modifications will often be needed to create sustainable mortgages and keep people in their homes. Most current proposals to reduce foreclosures incorporate this view and thus emphasize permanent modifications.
A more difficult design question turns on the extent to which the probability of default or redefault depends on the borrower's equity position in the home, as well as on the affordability of the monthly payment. Although not conclusive, the available evidence suggests that the homeowner's equity position is, along with affordability, an important determinant of default rates, for owner-occupiers as well as investors. If that evidence is correct, then principal write-downs may need to be part of the toolkit that servicers use to achieve sustainable mortgage modifications.12
If one accepts the view that principal write-downs may be needed in cases of badly underwater mortgages, then strengthening the H4H program is a promising strategy, as I have noted. Beyond the steps already taken by the H4H board, the Congress might consider making the terms of H4H loans more attractive by reducing the up-front insurance premium paid by the lender, currently set in law at 3 percent of the principal value, as well as the annual premium paid by the borrower, currently set at 1-1/2 percent. The Congress might also grant the FHA the flexibility to tailor these premiums to individual risk characteristics rather than forcing the FHA to charge the same premium to all borrowers.
In addition, consideration might be given to reducing the interest rate that borrowers would pay under the H4H program. At present, this rate is expected to be quite high, roughly 8 percent, in part because it is tied to the demand for the relatively illiquid securities issued by Ginnie Mae to fund the program. To bring down this rate, the Treasury could exercise its authority to purchase these securities, with the Congress providing the appropriate increase in the debt ceiling to accommodate those purchases. Alternatively, the Congress could decide to subsidize the rate.
A second proposal, put forward by the FDIC, focuses on improving the affordability of monthly payments. Under the FDIC plan, servicers would restructure delinquent mortgages using a streamlined process, modeled on the IndyMac protocol, and would aim to reduce monthly payments to 31 percent of the borrower's income. As an inducement to lenders and servicers to undertake these modifications, the government would offer to share in any losses sustained in the event of redefaults on the modified mortgages and would also pay $1,000 to the servicer for each modification completed.13 The strengths of this plan include the standardization of the restructuring process and the fact that the restructured loans remain with the servicer, with the government being involved only when a redefault occurs.
As noted, the FDIC plan would induce lenders and servicers to modify loans by offering a form of insurance against downside house price risk. A third approach would have the government share the cost when the servicer reduces the borrower's monthly payment. For example, a servicer could initiate a modification and bear the costs of reducing the mortgage payment to 38 percent of income, after which the government could bear a portion of the incremental cost of reducing the mortgage payments beyond 38 percent, say to 31 percent, of income. This approach would increase the incentive of servicers to be aggressive in reducing monthly payments, which would improve the prospects for sustainability. Relative to the FDIC proposal, this plan would pose a greater operational burden on the government, which would be required to make payments to servicers for all modified loans, not just for loans that redefault. However, this approach could leverage existing modification frameworks, such as the FDIC/IndyMac and Hope Now streamlined protocols, and in this respect would build on, rather than crowd out, private-sector initiatives.
Yet another promising proposal for foreclosure prevention would have the government purchase delinquent or at-risk mortgages in bulk and then refinance them into the H4H or another FHA program. This approach could take advantage of the depressed market values of such mortgages, and buying in bulk might help avoid adverse selection problems. In addition, scale efficiencies could be achieved by contracting with specialty firms (perhaps including the GSEs) capable of re-underwriting large volumes of loans to make them eligible for H4H or another program. The Treasury has already considered how to undertake bulk purchases as part of its work under EESA, and the Federal Reserve has submitted to the Congress an analysis of bulk purchases per a legislative requirement in the H4H bill. Even so, this program could take some time to get up and running, and the re-underwriting required for H4H loans would likely take more time and incur greater operational costs than other plans. But such an approach could result in many homeowners being refinanced into sustainable mortgages.
Conclusion
The housing market remains central to the economic and financial challenges that we face. Because housing and mortgage markets are tightly interlinked with the rest of the economy, actions to strengthen financial markets and the broader economy are important ways to address housing issues. By the same token, steps that stabilize the housing market will help stabilize the economy as well.
In this regard, reducing the number of preventable foreclosures would not only help families stay in their homes, it would confer much wider benefits. Significant efforts have been taken in this direction, but more can be done. Today I have briefly discussed a few promising options, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As we as a country consider ways to address our financial and economic challenges, policy initiatives to reduce the number of preventable foreclosures should be high on the agenda.
Footnotes
1. Estimates for specific metropolitan areas are based on Case-Shiller Home Price Indexes. Return to text
2. See Kristopher Gerardi, Andreas Lehnert, Shane Sherlund, and Paul Willen (forthcoming), "Making Sense of the Subprime Crisis," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Washington: Brookings Institution Press). Also see Chris Mayer, Karen Pence, and Shane Sherlund (2008), "The Rise in Mortgage Defaults," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2008-59 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November). Return to text
3. Estimates of delinquencies are based on data from the Mortgage Bankers Association and from First American LoanPerformance. Return to text
4. Foreclosure starts are based on data from the Mortgage Bankers Association, adjusted to reflect the limited coverage of their sample. Historically, about half of foreclosure starts resulted in the borrower losing the home, but recent rates appear higher. Return to text
5. For evidence that concentrations of foreclosures lead to lower house prices throughout the neighborhood, see, for example, William C. Apgar, Mark Duda, and Rochelle Nawrocki Gorey (2005), "The Municipal Cost of Foreclosures: A Chicago Case Study," Housing Finance Policy Research Paper 2005-1 (Minneapolis, Minn.: Homeownership Preservation Foundation, February), www.995hope.org/content/pdf/Apgar_Duda_Study_Full_Version.pdf; and John P. Harding, Eric Rosenblatt, and Yao Vincent (2008), "The Contagion Effect of Foreclosed Properties," Social Science Research Network working paper 1160354 (July). Return to text
6. To be sure, policy should not attempt to keep house prices from falling sufficiently to stabilize the demand for housing. But preventing avoidable foreclosures does not block necessary adjustments. Indeed, failing to prevent such foreclosures may heighten the risk that house prices will move lower than they would otherwise need to go. Return to text
7. See J.P. Morgan (2008), "SOS--Summary of Subprime, Alt-A, Prime Jumbo," Global Structured Finance Research (November 2); and Credit Suisse (2008), "Deep Dive into Subprime Mortgage Severity," Fixed Income Research Report (June 19). Return to text
8. See "Deep Dive," note 8. Return to text
9. Servicers of mortgages in securitized pools must abide by the pooling and servicing agreements, which state what modifications may be prohibited but provide limited guidance about what types of modifications investors would consider to be appropriate. See Larry Cordell, Karen Dynan, Andreas Lehnert, Nellie Liang, and Eileen Mauskopf (2008), "The Incentives of Mortgage Servicers: Myths and Realities," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2008-46 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November). Return to text
10. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision (2008), "Interagency Statement on Meeting the Needs of Creditworthy Borrowers," joint press release, November 12. Return to text
11. In addition, Hope Now has been an important source of data on loss-mitigation activity. The loan-level data that they plan to provide in the future will be useful for analyzing the relative effectiveness of alternative strategies for loan modifications. Return to text
12. Studies tend to find that equity positions matter most for default rates when they interact with other contributing factors; for example, numerous studies have found that borrowers are more likely to default when house prices have fallen and incomes decline. At the household level, such "double triggers" may induce defaults because of cash flow constraints or because continuing to make payments on a mortgage whose balance significantly exceeds the value of the house is more difficult to justify when the family budget is strained. See Shane Sherlund (forthcoming), "The Past, Present, and Future of Subprime Mortgages," Finance and Economics Discussion Series (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System); Kristopher Gerardi, Christopher L. Foote, and Paul S. Willen (2008), "Negative Equity and Foreclosure: Theory and Evidence (354 KB PDF)," Public Policy Discussion Papers 08-3 (Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, June); and Haughwout, Andrew, Richard Peach, and Joseph Tracy (forthcoming), "Juvenile Delinquent Mortgages: Bad Credit or Bad Economy?" Journal of Urban Economics. Return to text
13. The original plan would have had the government share half of any loss incurred by the lender, regardless of how far underwater the loan might have already been by the time of modification. The latest version of the plan modifies this provision by offering lower loss-sharing rates for loans that have loan-to-value (LTV) ratios above 100 percent at the time of the modification. Under the modified plan, the loss-sharing rate declines from 50 percent on a loan with an LTV of 100 percent at the time of modification to 20 percent on a loan with a LTV of 150 percent. Loans with LTVs of more than 150 percent at the time of modification do not qualify for loss-sharing. An alternative way to address this concern would be to base the amount of the government insurance payment on the loss in value relative to the appraised value of the property at the time of the loan modification. Return to text
Return to top
| 2008
Summary of Commentary on
Current Economic Conditions
by Federal Reserve District
Commonly known as the Beige Book, this report is published eight times per year. Each Federal Reserve Bank gathers anecdotal information on current economic conditions in its District through reports from Bank and Branch directors and interviews with key business contacts, economists, market experts, and other sources. The Beige Book summarizes this information by District and sector. An overall summary of the twelve district reports is prepared by a designated Federal Reserve Bank on a rotating basis.
|
| 1970 - present (on the web site of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis) |
| Fannie Mae Announces 2009 Benchmark Securities® Issuance Calendar |
 |
 |
WASHINGTON, DC -- Fannie Mae (FNM/NYSE) today announced its 2009 Benchmark Securities® issuance calendar. The calendar is designed to assist investors and other market participants in incorporating Fannie Mae Benchmark Securities into their ongoing investing, trading, hedging and financing strategies.
Fannie Mae will continue to auction three- and six-month Benchmark Bills on a weekly basis and, from time to time, may auction one-year Benchmark Bills. The size of the offerings will be announced on Monday mornings eastern time. If Monday is a holiday, announcement will typically be made on the previous business day. Auctions will be open for bidding on Wednesdays between 9:00 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. eastern time.
The 2009 Benchmark Securities Calendar identifies the pre-defined monthly calendar dates for each Benchmark Notes announcement. On each announcement date, Fannie Mae will provide market participants with the maturity date of the issue, the dealer syndicate and an indication of deal size. Benchmark Notes transactions are generally expected to price within a few business days of the announcement date.
Fannie Mae may forego any scheduled Benchmark Bills or Benchmark Notes issuance. If Fannie Mae elects not to issue a scheduled Benchmark offering, it will provide notice of its election either prior to or on the scheduled announcement date.
|
|
Fannie Mae exists to expand affordable housing and bring global capital to local communities in order to serve the U.S. housing market. Fannie Mae has a federal charter and operates in America's secondary mortgage market to enhance the liquidity of the mortgage market by providing funds to mortgage bankers and other lenders so that they may lend to home buyers. In 2008, we mark our 70th year of service to America's housing market. Our job is to help those who house America.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
Fannie Mae Resource Center |
Telephone 1-800-7FANNIE
(1-800-732-6643)
|
|
 |
Economists Ponder Future of Home Prices
When will home prices go back up again?
Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal say that home prices won’t hit bottom until the second half of 2009 at the earliest and some say the downward trend will continue until 2011 or 2012. After that they may rise again, but not nearly as fast as they have in the last decade. Instead they will rise just a little faster than inflation and stay in line with increases in household income.
William Wheaton, a professor of economics and real estate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says he expects house prices to increase at a rate roughly 1-percentage point higher than inflation over the long term.
Celia Chen, director of housing economics at Moody’s Economy.com is more optimistic, expecting home values to rise an average of 4 percent per year over the next couple of decades.
Demographer William Frey predicts that growth will continue in coastal and Southern cities while populations in rustbelt areas like Michigan, Ohio, Western Pennsylvania and Upstate New York will continue to decline.
The great unknown is the impact aging baby boomers will have. While retirees in the past have often headed for warmer and suburban areas, boomers have tended to confound expectations. They could well show a propensity for staying put or moving to urban areas for the cultural life or to be near friends and family, shunning sun-dappled retirements communities.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, James R. Hagerty (12/02/2008)
Mortgage Applications Surge After Fed Action
Mortgage applications skyrocketed last week in response to the Federal Reserve’s announcement that it would buy debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Even with the shortened Thanksgiving week, the mortgage applications index increased 112.1 percent to 857.7 compared to 404.4 the previous week on a seasonally adjusted basis. On an unadjusted basis, the index increased 51.4 percent compared with the previous week, but was still down 21.9 percent compared with the same week a year ago.
Rates fell quickly, but they didn’t stay so low. “Many borrowers missed an opportunity to take advantage when rates dropped sharply for a brief period when [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] were placed under conservatorship,” said Orawin Velz, associate vice president of economic forecasting for MBA. Last week's announcement persuaded many of those on the sidelines to quickly jump in and take advantage of lower rates before they began to rebound, added Velz.
Nearly 70 percent of the applications were for refinances with the refinance index rising 203.3 percent compared to the previous week.
Mortgage rates declined dramatically, then rose toward the end of the week:
- 30-year fixed-rate mortgages decreased to 5.47 percent from 5.99 percent;
- 15-year fixed-rate mortgages decreased to 5.13 percent from 5.78 percent;
- 1-year ARMs decreased to 6.61 percent from 6.87 percent.
Source: Mortgage Bankers Association (12/03/2008)
Governor Randall S. Kroszner
At the Confronting Concentrated Poverty Policy Forum, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C.
December 3, 2008
The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis
Good morning. I am pleased to welcome you to the Board and even more pleased to introduce today's discussion of the study conducted by the Federal Reserve System's Community Affairs program in partnership with The Brookings Institution, The Enduring Challenge of Concentrated Poverty in America: Case Studies from Communities across the U.S.1
As you have heard, this report represents an extraordinary and comprehensive effort by staff in all 12 Reserve Banks and at the Board of Governors to explore the problem of concentrated poverty. The 16 case studies in the report represent urban and rural areas, immigrant and Native American communities, as well as older "weak" market cities and newer "strong" market areas. By covering a wide variety of communities, the report adds depth and texture to the existing literature on poverty and offers important insights regarding the relationship between public services and private investment.
For those who may not be familiar with the Federal Reserve System's Community Affairs function, this report illustrates one of the many ways in which it supports the System's objectives for economic growth by promoting community development and fair and impartial access to credit. The System's strength in research, together with its unique structure, makes it particularly well suited to pursue this kind of work.
The Community Affairs program takes advantage of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks located in different regions of the country to gather information on local conditions and to conduct outreach and education efforts through regular contact with financial institutions and market intermediaries. The System's network of Community Affairs staff works with lenders, community organizations, and local governments to identify trends and issues affecting low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. This communication with both financial markets and communities allows the Federal Reserve to act as a bridge between the private and public sectors.
The System's reputation for high-quality research, outreach, and analysis and its regional presence made these 16 case studies and the comparative analysis possible. This report makes an important contribution to the literature on the dynamics of poor people living in poor communities by recognizing the existence and persistence of concentrations of poverty beyond the urban areas where it has been well documented. Indeed, the study confirms that poverty persists in places, such as rural and suburban communities, where it is not so easily seen.
The report also identifies the existing avenues for bringing poor people and communities into the economic mainstream. This topic is at the center of today's discussions. The Federal Reserve, together with the other federal financial regulatory agencies, has had some experience in addressing the credit needs of underserved communities, using the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) as our guide. CRA encourages financial institutions not only to extend mortgage, small business, and other types of credit to lower-income neighborhoods and households, but also to provide investments and services to lower-income areas and people as part of an overall effort to build the capacity necessary for these places to thrive.
Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices. In the remainder of my remarks, I will discuss some of our experiences with the CRA. I will also discuss the findings of a recent analysis of mortgage-related data by Federal Reserve staff that runs counter to the charge that the CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way, to the current subprime crisis.
Regulatory Efforts to Meet Credit Needs in Underserved Markets
In the 1970s, when banking was still a local enterprise, the Congress enacted the CRA. The act required the banking regulators to encourage insured depository institutions--that is, commercial banks and thrifts--to help meet the credit needs of their entire community, including low- and moderate-income areas. The CRA does not stipulate minimum targets or goals for lending, investments, or services. Rather, the law provides incentives for financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income people and areas, consistent with safe and sound banking practices, and commensurately provides them favorable CRA consideration for those activities. By requiring regulators to make CRA performance ratings and evaluations public and to consider those ratings when reviewing applications for mergers, acquisitions, and branches, the Congress created an unusual set of incentives to promote interaction between lenders and community organizations.
Given the incentives of the CRA, bankers have pursued lines of business that had not been previously tapped by forming partnerships with community organizations and other stakeholders to identify and help meet the credit needs of underserved communities. This experimentation in lending, often combined with financial education and counseling and consideration of nontraditional measures of creditworthiness, expanded the markets for safe lending in underserved communities and demonstrated its viability; as a result, these actions attracted competition from other financial services providers, many of whom were not covered by the CRA. There are many fine examples of community development lending and investment activities designed to address needs in the poorest of areas, including many of those highlighted by the case studies in this report.
During trips to the regional Federal Reserve Banks and Branches, I have spent a lot of time visiting areas with high concentrations of poverty. For many years, the Fed has promoted community banking services for the unbanked and underbanked population. It was gratifying for me to find that financial services were accessible in, for example, central Cleveland, thanks to the efforts of one local bank that offers check-cashing services at much lower rates than competing nonbank check cashers. Similarly, in the Little Haiti neighborhood in Miami, another case-study community that I had the opportunity to visit last year, one banking institution has committed to serving the neighborhood's unbanked residents by hiring Creole-speaking staff to promote a prosperity campaign built around the Earned Income Tax Credit.
I am sure that today's luncheon speaker, Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee, could share similar observations about a local financial institution serving that case-study neighborhood by providing low-income residents complimentary electronic income tax filing combined with financial education seminars, innovative credit repair programs, and low-cost banking services. These services benefit lower-income customers by providing a simple means of accessing Earned Income and Homestead Tax Credits and the services necessary to maximize the benefits of these programs.
In addition to providing financial services to lower-income people, banks also provide critical community development loans and investments to address affordable housing and economic development needs. These activities are particularly effective because they leverage the resources available to communities from public subsidies and tax credit programs that are targeted to lower-income people. In just the past two years, banks have reported making over $120 billion in community development loans nationwide.2 This figure does not capture the full extent of such lending, because smaller institutions are not required to report community development loans to their regulators.
Evidence on CRA and the Subprime Crisis
Over the years, the Federal Reserve has prepared two reports for the Congress that provide information on the performance of lending to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods--populations that are the focus of the CRA.3 These studies found that lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions. Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses. Rather, the law has encouraged banks to be aware of lending opportunities in all segments of their local communities as well as to learn how to undertake such lending in a safe and sound manner.
Recently, Federal Reserve staff has undertaken more specific analysis focusing on the potential relationship between the CRA and the current subprime crisis. This analysis was performed for the purpose of assessing claims that the CRA was a principal cause of the current mortgage market difficulties. For this analysis, the staff examined lending activity covering the period that corresponds to the height of the subprime boom.4
The research focused on two basic questions. First, we asked what share of originations for subprime loans is related to the CRA. The potential role of the CRA in the subprime crisis could either be large or small, depending on the answer to this question. We found that the loans that are the focus of the CRA represent a very small portion of the subprime lending market, casting considerable doubt on the potential contribution that the law could have made to the subprime mortgage crisis.
Second, we asked how CRA-related subprime loans performed relative to other loans. Once again, the potential role of the CRA could be large or small, depending on the answer to this question. We found that delinquency rates were high in all neighborhood income groups, and that CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans; as such, differences in performance between CRA-related subprime lending and other subprime lending cannot lie at the root of recent market turmoil.
In analyzing the available data, we focused on two distinct metrics: loan origination activity and loan performance. With respect to the first question concerning loan originations, we wanted to know which types of lending institutions made higher-priced loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what types of neighborhoods the loans were extended.5 This analysis allowed us to determine what fraction of subprime lending could be related to the CRA.
Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.6
Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.
Of course, loan originations are only one path that banking institutions can follow to meet their CRA obligations. They can also purchase loans from lenders not covered by the CRA, and in this way encourage more of this type of lending. The data also suggest that these types of transactions have not been a significant factor in the current crisis. Specifically, less than 2 percent of the higher-priced and CRA-credit-eligible mortgage originations sold by independent mortgage companies were purchased by CRA-covered institutions.
I now want to turn to the second question concerning how CRA-related subprime lending performed relative to other types of lending. To address this issue, we looked at data on subprime and alt-A mortgage delinquencies in lower-income neighborhoods and compared them with those in middle- and higher-income neighborhoods to see how CRA-related loans performed.7 An overall comparison revealed that the rates for all subprime and alt-A loans delinquent 90 days or more is high regardless of neighborhood income.8 This result casts further doubt on the view that the CRA could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.
Unfortunately, the available data on loan performance do not let us distinguish which specific loans in lower-income areas were related to the CRA. As noted earlier, institutions not covered by the CRA extended many loans to borrowers in lower-income areas. Also, some lower-income lending by institutions subject to the law was outside their local communities and unlikely to have been motivated by the CRA.
To learn more about the relative performance of CRA-related lending, we conducted more-detailed analyses to try to focus on performance differences that might truly arise as a consequence of the rule as opposed to other factors. Attempting to adjust for other relevant factors is challenging but worthwhile to try to assess the performance of CRA-related lending. In one such analysis, we compared loan delinquency rates in neighborhoods that are right above and right below the CRA neighborhood income eligibility threshold. In other words, we compared loan performance by borrowers in two groups of neighborhoods that should not be very different except for the fact that the lending in one group received special attention under the CRA.
When we conducted this analysis, we found essentially no difference in the performance of subprime loans in Zip codes that were just below or just above the income threshold for the CRA.9 The results of this analysis are not consistent with the contention that the CRA is at the root of the subprime crisis, because delinquency rates for subprime and alt-A loans in neighborhoods just below the CRA-eligibility threshold are very similar to delinquency rates on loans just above the threshold, hence not the subject of CRA lending.
To gain further insight into the potential relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis, we also compared the recent performance of subprime loans with mortgages originated and held in portfolio under the affordable lending programs operated by NeighborWorks America (NWA). As a member of the board of directors of the NWA, I am quite familiar with its lending activities. The NWA has partnered with many CRA-covered banking institutions to originate and hold mortgages made predominantly to lower-income borrowers and neighborhoods. So, to the extent that such loans are representative of CRA-lending programs in general, the performance of these loans is helpful in understanding the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis. We found that loans originated under the NWA program had a lower delinquency rate than subprime loans.10 Furthermore, the loans in the NWA affordable lending portfolio had a lower rate of foreclosure than prime loans. The result that the loans in the NWA portfolio performed better than subprime loans again casts doubt on the contention that the CRA has been a significant contributor to the subprime crisis.
The final analysis we undertook to investigate the likely effects of the CRA on the subprime crisis was to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income. We found that most foreclosure filings have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods; in fact, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.11
Two key points emerge from all of our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, as I stated earlier, we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
Conclusions
Our findings are important because neighborhoods and communities affected by the economic downturn will require the active participation of financial institutions. Considering the situation today, many neighborhoods that are not currently the focus of the CRA are also experiencing great difficulties. Our recent review of foreclosure data suggested that many middle-income areas currently have elevated rates of foreclosure filings and could face the prospect of falling into low-to-moderate income status. In fact, 13 percent of the middle-income Zip codes have had foreclosure-rate filings that are above the overall rate for lower-income areas.
Helping to stabilize such areas not only benefits families in these areas but also provides spillover benefits to adjacent lower-income areas that are the traditional target of the CRA. Recognizing this, the Congress recently underscored the need for states and localities to undertake a comprehensive approach to stabilizing neighborhoods hard-hit by foreclosures through the enactment of the new Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The NSP permits targeting of federal funds to benefit families up to 120 percent of area median income in those areas experiencing rising foreclosures and falling home values.
In conclusion, I believe the CRA is an important model for designing incentives that motivate private-sector involvement to help meet community needs. The CRA has, in fact, been helpful in alleviating the financial isolation of many areas of concentrated poverty, but as our report illustrates, there is much more that could be done in these communities. Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market. Today's discussion is an important first step in the process of identifying other initiatives and areas of cooperation between government and the private sector that will effectively address the continuing challenge of poverty in the United States.
Footnotes
1. Federal Reserve System, Community Affairs Offices; and Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program (2008), The Enduring Challenge of Concentrated Poverty in America: Case Studies from Communities across the U.S. (Richmond, Va.: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond). Return to text
2. Data are from filings made by larger banking institutions to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council on CRA-related small business, small farm, and community development lending; for more information, see FFIEC website. Return to text
3. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1993), Report to the Congress on Community Development Lending by Depository Institutions (Washington: Board of Governors), pp. 1-69; and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2000), The Performance and Profitability of CRA-Related Lending (147 KB PDF) (Washington: Board of Governors, July), pp. 1-99. Return to text
4. The staff analysis focused on loans originated in 2005 and 2006. Return to text
5. Loan origination data are from information reported pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The HMDA data do not identify subprime loans directly, in part because there is not a single definition of which loans fall into this category. Rather, the HMDA data indicate which loans are categorized as higher priced, including subprime loans and some alt-A loans. The analysis of data includes first-lien conventional loans for home purchase or refinance related to site-built homes. It excludes business-related loans to the extent they could be identified. For more information on HMDA data and higher-priced lending, see Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner (2007), "The 2006 HMDA Data," Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 93. Return to text
6. About 17 percent of the higher-priced loan originations were made by CRA-covered lenders or their affiliates to lower-income populations in areas outside the banking institutions' local communities. Such lending is not the focus of the CRA and is frequently not considered in CRA performance evaluations. Return to text
7. Data are from First American Loan Performance (LP). For the analysis, Zip code delinquency data were classified by relative income in two different ways. First, the data were classified using information published by the U. S. Census Bureau on income at the Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) level of geography. Because the ZCTA data provide an income estimate for each Zip code, delinquency rates can be calculated directly from the LP data based on the Zip code location of the properties securing the loans. Second, delinquency rates for each relative income group (lower, middle, and higher) were calculated as the weighted sum of delinquencies divided by the weighted sum of mortgages, where the weights equal each Zip code's share of the population in census tracts of the particular relative income group. Relative income is based on the 2000 decennial census and is calculated as the median family income of the census tract divided by the median family income of its metropolitan statistical area or nonmetropolitan portion of the state. Both approaches yield virtually identical results. Return to text
8. The analysis focused on loans originated from January 2006 through April 2008 with performance measured as of August 2008. However, a virtually identical relationship in loan performance across neighborhood income groups is found if the pool of loans evaluated is expanded to cover those originated in 2004 or 2005. The only material difference is that the levels of delinquency are lower for the loans covering longer periods. Loans that are 90 days or more delinquent include those that end in foreclosure or as real estate owned.Delinquency rates were somewhat higher in the lower-income areas. However, the somewhat higher delinquency rates in lower-income areas is not a surprising result because lower-income borrowers tend to be more sensitive to economic shocks given that, among other things, they have fewer financial resources on which to draw in emergencies. Return to text
9. The CRA neighborhood income threshold is where the neighborhood median family income is 80 percent of the median family income of the broader area, such as a metropolitan statistical area or nonmetropolitan portion of a state, depending on the specific location of the neighborhood. Return to text
10. No information was available on the geographic distribution of the NeighborWorks America loans. The geographic pattern of lending can matter, as certain areas of the country are experiencing much more difficult conditions in their housing market than other areas. Return to text
11. Data are from RealtyTrac, covering foreclosures from January 2006 through August 2008. These data are reported at the Zip code level. Foreclosure filings have been consolidated at the property level, so separate filings on first- and subordinate-lien loans on the same property are counted as a single filing. Return to text
Return to top
Last update: December 3, 2008
Dress For Success
Looking good is important when you want to make a great impression, whether for a job interview or a social function. The same is true of a home that is on the market. When the "For Sale" sign goes up in front of your home, it should be "dressed" for the occasion.
Since the first impression will be of the front of the house, a well-groomed exterior is crucial, from the landscaping to the paint. The interior of your home should be clean and tastefully decorated. Take care of any minor cosmetic repairs that are needed, such as cracked plaster or peeling paint. A sparkling kitchen and shiny bathrooms, clean windows, and the absence of clutter will help your home "show well". Keeping your home looking good at all times is hard work, especially if you have children and are packing for a move. However, the dividends are impressive, because a home that looks well cared for has an excellent chance of selling quickly and for the best price.
Full Disclosure
If you are about to list a home that you have lived there for many years, you know that it is not perfect. For example, there might be a leak in the basement that is noticeable only after a heavy rain. Your garage door might stick, and the dishwasher may be prone to work stoppages.
Every home has a few quirks. When it is time to sell your home, you have a choice of either making the necessary repairs or letting the buyers know about the problems. Material defects must be fully disclosed. Some buyers will order a structural inspection in order to learn exactly what they will be getting. Even if the buyers don't ask for an expert to look at the house, it is the seller's responsibility to disclose any known defects in the property. The seller's agent will provide the disclosure form, wherein the seller may itemize any problems. Sellers may avoid any real estate lawsuits over undisclosed defects by making repairs before the sale or agreeing to a price adjustment during the transaction if defects are discovered.
Open House
If your home has been on the market for a few weeks, your real estate agent may suggest an "open house." Your agent puts up signs, gives you some pointers about how to prepare your home for showing and shows up early on Sunday morning. You may be tempted to stay around, but the best advice is to leave while your home is being shown!
When sellers are present at an open house, they can hamper the sales professional's ability to cultivate interested buyers, and can even squelch a sale. What would your response be, for instance, if someone strolls into your kitchen and says, "What awful wallpaper!" If prospective buyers know that you as the owner are present, they might feel reluctant to express their objections and concerns openly and directly to your agent. If your objective is to get your home SOLD, the best thing to do is to get out of the way and let the sales professional do the job.
Your Selling Strategy
Have your housing needs expanded along with your income? Are you are thinking about selling your property and looking for a new home? The transition can be accomplished smoothly by using a systematic approach.
As part of your selling strategy, it is advantageous to have your present house under contract before you begin a serious search for a new home. This will make you attractive to sellers in two ways. You won't have to include a contingency in your offer to cover the sale of your present home. You will strengthen your negotiating position by improving your financial circumstance with an accepted offer. In a situation where there are multiple offers on the new home, the chances of your offer being accepted are better if it isn't dependent on selling another house before you can make a move.
The Best Real Estate Agents
The best real estate agents in today's marketplace are becoming even better about marketing the homes they list to the public, as well as to other agents who have potential buyers.
When you are interviewing prospective real estate agents to help you sell your home, ask how they find buyers. In the past, a "For Sale" sign would go into the ground, the basic information went into the Multiple Listing Service, and then there was an occasional Sunday classified ad and an "open house". If the house did not sell right away, the agent might recommend a price reduction.
Agents today are much more sophisticated and pro-active about getting people into their homes. They rely on computers, direct mail, telemarketing, and just plain clever ideas that no one else has tried. Ask prospective listing agents for two things--a written analysis of what is happening with housing prices in your area and a marketing plan which outlines how they would get your home from "For Sale" to "Sold".
FREDDIE MAC ADVISES NYSE OF INTENT TO MEET CONTINUED LISTING STANDARD
McLean, VA – Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) today reported in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the company has notified the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) that it intends to bring the share price of its common stock and the average share price of its common stock for 30 consecutive trading days above $1.00 by no later than May 18, 2009.
Freddie Mac is currently working with its conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), to determine the specific action or actions that Freddie Mac will take to cure the deficiency. If necessary to bring its share price and its average share price for 30 consecutive trading days above $1.00, and subject to the approval of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Freddie Mac has advised the NYSE that it may undertake a reverse stock split in order to cure the deficiency by the May 18, 2009 date. Freddie Mac expects to determine the actual number of shares that will produce one share of common stock as a result of any reverse stock split based on both the market price of Freddie Mac's common stock prior to announcement of the split and additional input from FHFA and Treasury.
Under applicable NYSE rules, Freddie Mac now has until May 18, 2009, subject to supervision by the NYSE, to bring its share price and its average share price for 30 consecutive trading days above $1.00. If it fails to do so, the NYSE will initiate suspension and delisting procedures.
Freddie Mac's common stock and each of the company's listed series of preferred stock continue to trade on the exchange's main platform under the symbol or prefix "FRE," but with the addition of a ".BC" to indicate to investors that the company is not currently in compliance with the exchange's continued listing standards.
Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.
###
FREDDIE MAC PRICES $1 BILLION REOPENING OF 4.125% FIVE-YEAR REFERENCE NOTES® SECURITY
McLean, VA – Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) announced today that it auctioned a $1 billion reopening of its 4.125% five-year USD Reference Notes® security that matures on September 27, 2013. The stop yield for the issue, CUSIP number 3137EABS7, was 2.861%, priced at 105.645626 or approximately 104.5 basis points more than five-year U.S. Treasury Notes. The bid-to-cover ratio was 2.69 to 1.
After the reopening, which was conducted via an Internet-based auction, the total outstanding size of the 4.125% five-year Reference Notes security will be $6 billion. The issue will settle on Tuesday, December 2, 2008. The issue is listed on the Euro MTF market of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange.
Including today's offerings, Freddie Mac has issued $49 billion of Reference Notes securities during 2008 and has approximately $255 billion in Reference Notes and Reference Bonds® securities outstanding.
This announcement is not an offer to sell any Freddie Mac securities. Offers for any given security are made only through applicable offering circulars and related supplements, which incorporate Freddie Mac's proxy statement, its Registration Statement on Form 10 dated July 18, 2008 and all documents that Freddie Mac files with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) pursuant to Section 13(a), 13(c) or 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Freddie Mac's press releases sometimes contain forward-looking statements. A description of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in these and other forward-looking statements can be found in the company's Registration Statement on Form 10 dated July 18, 2008 and its reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, filed with the SEC and available on the Investor Relations page of the company's Web site at www.FreddieMac.com/investors and the SEC's Web site at www.sec.gov.
Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.
NATIONAL HOME-VALUE DROP ACCELERATES IN THIRD QUARTER
Home Values In Every Region, Led By Losses In Pacific State
McLean, VA – Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) announced today that its Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index (CMHPI) Purchase-Only Series registered a 7.3 percent annualized decline in U.S. house prices during the third quarter of 2008, following a downward revised 0.9 percent annualized drop in the second quarter. Over the four quarters ending with the third quarter of 2008, home sales prices fell an average of 7.2 percent in the CMHPI Purchase-Only Series – the largest annual fall in values over the 39-year history of the series.
“The disruptions in the credit markets during the latter part of the third quarter have likely weakened housing demand and contributed to further declines in house prices,” said Frank Nothaft, Freddie Mac vice president and chief economist. “With the unemployment rate having risen to 6.5 percent in October, there will likely be further weakening in housing demand, which could push the market bottom in home sales and housing starts out at least until middle to late next year and result in further declines in house prices. Our November forecast has the CMHPI purchase-only index declining 4.3 percent over the course of 2009.
“For the first time in the CMHPI series we saw every region of the nation experience declining home values over the quarter. There is significant variation in the degree of the declines, ranging from a very small 0.1 percent annualized drop in values in the West South Central region to a 20 percent annualized loss in home values in Pacific states. Some areas have been fortunate not to feel the full sting of the credit crunch or the foreclosure storm, but unfortunately they are no longer immune from the effects of falling home values.”
The CMHPI Purchase-Only Series excludes all refinancings in its calculation. Freddie Mac also produces a CMHPI Classic Series that includes data from both home purchase transactions and mortgage refinancings, with the latter values based on appraisals. Generally, because appraisals are backwards looking through the use of recent comparable property transactions, the Classic Series will lag changes in the Purchase-Only series when the market reaches a peak or trough turning point. The CMHPI Classic Series indicated that home values fell 11.9 percent nationally during the third quarter on an annualized basis, the steepest quarterly decline since the index began in 1970. Over the year ending with the third quarter, home values depreciated 5.6 percent on average in the Classic Series, the sharpest annual drop in this index over the 39 years spanned by the series.
Seventeen states registered modest price gains over the past year, and five states had increases in the third quarter, according to the CMHPI Classic Series. Annual price gains of 2 to 4 percent occurred in Alabama, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas, which have benefited from stronger local economies led in part by the petroleum, natural gas and ethanol industries. Annual drops of more than 14 percent occurred in Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada, which have borne the brunt of the housing market woes.
The Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index (Purchase-Only) Series shows the following regional performances:
West South Central Division (AR, LA, OK, TX): dipped 0.03 percent (–0.1 percent, annualized) in the third quarter of 2008. Over the last 12 months, home values increased 0.5 percent, and during the last five years, home values increased 25.9 percent.
Middle Atlantic Division (NJ, NY, PA): decreased 0.1 percent (–0.3 percent, annualized) in the third quarter of 2008. Over the last 12 months, home values decreased 2.2 percent, and during the last five years, home values increased 33.4 percent.
West North Central Division (IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD): decreased 0.5 percent (–1.8 percent, annualized) in the third quarter of 2008. Over the last 12 months, home values decreased 2.6 percent; over the last five years, home values increased 12.7 percent.
East South Central Division (AL, KY, MS, TN): fell 1.1 percent (–4.2 percent, annualized) in the third quarter of 2008. Over the last 12 months, home values decreased 1.3 percent, and during the last five years, home values increased 23.6 percent.
New England Division (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT): dropped 1.1 percent (–4.2 percent, annualized) in the third quarter of 2008. Over the last 12 months, home values decreased 5.1 percent, and during the last five years, home values increased 13.9 percent.
East North Central Division (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI): decreased 1.2 percent (–4.6 percent, annualized) in the third quarter of 2008. Over the last 12 months, home values decreased 3.9 percent, and during the last five years, home values increased 5.7 percent.
South Atlantic Division (DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, NC, SC, VA, WV): fell 2.1 percent (–8.1 percent, annualized) in the third quarter of 2008. Over the last 12 months, home values decreased 6.8 percent, and during the last five years, home values increased 27.6 percent.
Mountain Division (AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, UT, WY): declined 2.3 percent (–8.9 percent, annualized) in the third quarter of 2008. In the last 12 months, home values decreased 7.6 percent; during the last five years, home values increased 33.1 percent.
Pacific Division (AK, CA, HI, OR, WA): decreased 5.4 percent (–19.9 percent, annualized) in the third quarter of 2008. Over the last 12 months, home values decreased 20.2 percent, and during the last five years, home values have increased 18.0 percent.
Unlike other home price indexes based on mean or median values of homes sold during a given period, the Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index is constructed, using regression techniques, from observations of actual sales prices or appraised values of the same homes over time. The street addresses of properties that serve as collateral for mortgages funded by the two secondary mortgage market firms are second processed using software certified by the United States Postal Service to create a uniform address format and are then matched to identify consecutive transactions on the same property. There are currently more than 36.6 million records in the repeat-transactions database used to construct the classic Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index – this database includes transactions on one-unit detached and single-family townhome properties serving as collateral on loans originated through the third quarter of 2008 and purchased by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by October 31, 2008.
Freddie Mac publishes the Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index each quarter. Index values and growth rates for the nation as a whole as well as for the nine Census divisions, the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and 392 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and metropolitan divisions under the classic series of the CMHPI are available and the purchase-transaction only series is available for the nation and nine Census divisions. All of the CMHPI series can be found on Freddie Mac’s web site, www.freddiemac.com/finance/cmhpi/.
Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible for one in six homebuyers and more than five million renters.
| Purchase-Only Transactions Series* |
| Q3 2008 Release |
| All Entries Are Percent Changes |
New England |
Middle Atlantic |
South Atlantic |
East South Central |
West South Central |
West North Central |
East North Central |
Mountain |
Pacific |
The United States |
| |
Quarterly Change
Q2 2008-Q3 2008 |
-1.1 |
-0.1 |
-2.1 |
-1.1 |
0.0 |
-0.5 |
-1.2 |
-2.3 |
-5.4 |
-1.9 |
| |
Annualized
Quarterly Change
Q2 2008-Q3 2008 |
-4.2 |
-0.3 |
-8.1 |
-4.2 |
-0.1 |
-1.8 |
-4.6 |
-8.9 |
-19.9 |
-7.3 |
| |
Annual Change
Q3 2007-Q3 2008 |
-5.1 |
-2.2 |
-6.8 |
-1.3 |
0.5 |
-2.6 |
-3.9 |
-7.6 |
-20.2 |
-7.2 |
| |
5-Year Change
Q3 2003-Q3 2008 |
13.9 |
33.4 |
27.6 |
23.6 |
25.9 |
12.7 |
5.7 |
33.1 |
18.0 |
20.5 |
| |
Annualized
5-Year Change
Q3 2003-Q3 2008 |
2.6 |
5.9 |
5.0 |
4.3 |
4.7 |
2.4 |
1.1 |
5.9 |
3.4 |
3.8 |
Notes: *These indices rely on data from only home-purchase transactions.
| Classic CMHPI Series |
| Q3 2008 Release |
| All Entries Are Percent Changes |
New England |
Middle Atlantic |
South Atlantic |
East South Central |
West South Central |
West North Central |
East North Central |
Mountain |
Pacific |
The United States |
| |
Quarterly Change
Q2 2008-Q3 2008 |
-2.8 |
-1.9 |
-2.6 |
-0.4 |
0.2 |
-1.6 |
-3.0 |
-3.3 |
-7.5 |
-3.1 |
| |
Annualized
Quarterly Change
Q2 2008-Q3 2008 |
-10.6 |
-7.5 |
-10.0 |
-1.8 |
0.7 |
-6.3 |
-11.5 |
-12.5 |
-26.6 |
-11.9 |
| |
Annual Change
Q3 2007-Q3 2008 |
-4.2 |
-2.4 |
-5.3 |
1.7 |
2.4 |
-1.1 |
-2.7 |
-5.2 |
-17.0 |
-5.6 |
| |
5-Year Change
Q3 2003-Q3 2008 |
23.0 |
42.2 |
40.3 |
28.4 |
28.7 |
19.9 |
13.2 |
39.1 |
32.7 |
29.6 |
| |
Annualized
5-Year Change
Q3 2003-Q3 2008 |
4.2 |
7.3 |
7.0 |
5.1 |
5.2 |
3.7 |
2.5 |
6.8 |
5.8 |
5.3 |
Send comments and questions to chief_economist@freddiemac.com. These data are available at www.freddiemac.com/news/finance/
Although Freddie Mac attempts to provide reliable, useful information in this document, Freddie Mac does not guarantee that the information is accurate, current or suitable for any particular purpose. Estimates contained in this document are those of Freddie Mac currently and are subject to change without notice.
Information from this document may be used with proper attribution. Alteration of this document is strictly prohibited. © 2008 by Freddie Mac.
Thomas Jefferson Quotes
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe . Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of | |