Stocks suffered an across-the-board decline on Monday as investors questioned whether banks can continue to post strong results amid signs that borrowers are still falling behind on their debts.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 289.60 points, or 3.6%, to 7841.73. It was the blue-chip measure's steepest one-day point loss since March 2 and its worst percentage decline since March 5. The slide broke a three-day winning streak for blue chips.
The Dow was hurt by a 24% slide in Bank of America. The bank said that its first-quarter net income more than tripled, with the company's recent Merrill Lynch acquisition contributing more than $3 billion to its bottom line, but net charge-offs rose and losses in its credit-card business ballooned.
The bank is still facing "extremely difficult challenges primarily from deteriorating credit quality driven by weakness in the economy and growing unemployment," said Chief Executive Ken Lewis.
Major bank stocks had rallied over the last month but fundamental questions linger for the sector. The industry's ability to extend credit is still constrained, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Treasury Department data. The Obama administration may also convert some of the preferred shares that it's obtained via bank bailouts into common stock once a round of stress testing is done next month, according to reports.
Such a move would give the administration added flexibility to provide further aid to the banks without allocating additional money, but would dilute existing shareholders of the firms' common stock.
The S&P 500 dropped 37.21 points, or 4.3%, to 832.39, led by an 11% slide in its financial sector. Goldman Sachs Group fell 4.6% and J.P. Morgan Chase fell 11%. Citigroup tumbled 19% after being cut to a "sell" rating from a "hold" by Argus Research. All three lenders posted better-than-expected first-quarter results last week.
"The bank earnings so far just seem to be smoke and mirrors and the other companies aren't reporting quality earnings. It's just reducing expenses and dipping into reserves," said Harry Rady, chief executive officer of Rady Asset Management.
The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index jumped more than 16%, a sign that nervousness among investors is again on the rise, though it remained below the 40 mark, well short of its peak near 80 last fall.
The technology-focused Nasdaq Composite Index slid 64.86 points, or 3.9%, to 1608.21. Oracle said that it plans to acquire Sun Microsystems for $7.4 billion. The deal followed the unraveling of Sun's talks to sell itself to International Business Machines. Sun's shares rose 37% while Oracle fell 1.3%. IBM, which reports earnings after the close on Monday, declined 0.8%.
Last week's sunny outlook at the start of earning season has since clouded over, as trepidation over the health of the banking sector crept into the market. Although Bank of America reported solid first-quarter profits, many traders say banks are enjoying a one-time bonanza thanks to the government's bailout package, says Peter McKay.
Some of the unease weighing on stocks rippled into the commodities markets as well. Crude oil for May delivery sank $4.45 per barrel, or 8.84%, to $45.88, the lowest settlement for a front-month contract since March 11.
Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank in Chicago warned clients on Monday that stock and bond markets are sending conflicting signals about the prospects for an economic recovery and stabilization of the financial system.
Mr. Ablin said he's concerned that the spread between yields on BBB-rated corporate debt and 10-year Treasurys has remained above five full percentage points since November, not budging even as the stock market posted a furious rally from its March lows.
That means bond investors are still charging companies a hefty premium to borrow, reflecting deep skepticism that risk has dissipated enough to justify lower borrowing costs. That message is at odds with that of the most bullish stock investors, who believe the crisis that struck last fall is now waning.
"Unfortunately, history tells us that it's the bond investors who are usually right in situations like this," said Mr. Ablin, who's maintaining a hold-steady approach on stocks for now.
Regarding the recent spate of first-quarter profits at banks, he said: "There's a lot of cynicism out there about these income statements. They're one-time gains, clearly."
Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts
April 20, 2009
March 8, 2009
Obama's Radicalism Killing Stocks
It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.
Martin Kozlowski
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).
Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.
Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.
As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.
Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.
The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.
The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.
A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.
The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.
Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.
New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.
From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.
Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.
On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.
Martin Kozlowski
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).
Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.
Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.
As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.
Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.
The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.
The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.
A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.
The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.
Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.
New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.
From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.
Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.
On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.
February 19, 2009
Breaking Down The Mortgage Bailout
President Obama yesterday announced his plan to prevent home foreclosures, saying he wanted to be "very clear about what this plan will not do: It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans . . . And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."
APWe really do wish he were right. In fact, the details released yesterday suggest the President's plan will do all of the above. The plan will help some struggling homeowners. But by investing in failure, the Administration will also prolong the housing downturn and make financing a home purchase more difficult for future borrowers. Meanwhile, the plan isn't likely to slow the continuing decline in housing prices.
Let's focus on the plan's effect on the individual borrower. Anyone with mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be able to refinance to lower rates if his mortgage is between 80% and 105% of the value of the home. This is a sweet deal that is not available, for example, to many renters looking to buy homes now. Sadly for those who deferred the gratification of homeownership, the 20% down payment has now become industry standard. But at least their taxes will allow other people to stay in homes they can't afford.
Existing borrowers who may not qualify for Fan/Fred refinancing can still receive loan modifications that move their mortgage payments down to 31% of monthly income. In either case, no effort will be made to verify that recipients of aid were truthful on their original mortgage applications. Given that mortgage fraud skyrocketed during the housing boom, and that the Obama Administration intends to assist up to nine million troubled borrowers, we can say with certainty that the unscrupulous will be among those rescued.
Going forward, it will be up to lenders to verify income. Getting this number correct is critical to the government's hopes for the plan. That's because, if pending Treasury guidelines follow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. model on which they are based, new modifications will forgo extensive underwriting. The FDIC believes that a lot of the normal research that goes into making a loan or a refinancing decision can be skipped as long as the mortgage-debt-to-income ratio can be moved, even if only for a few years, down to that magic number of 31%. So the government will pay loan servicers $1,000 for each mortgage modified, share the cost of lowering the monthly payments and pay other subsidies to lenders and borrowers -- adding up to $75 billion in taxpayer assistance for modifications. The government will then spend another $10 billion compensating lenders if the housing market continues to decline and some of these loans go bad again.
Will $10 billion be enough? The recent history of mortgage modifications isn't encouraging. According to the December report by the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, "The number of loans modified in the first quarter that were 30 or more days delinquent was 37 percent after three months and 55 percent after six months. The number of loans modified in the first quarter that were 60 or more days delinquent was 19 percent at three months and nearly 37 percent after six months."
Said Comptroller John Dugan, "One very troubling point is that, whether measured using 30-day or 60-day delinquencies, re-default rates increased each month and showed no signs of leveling off after six months and even eight months."
Those who favor Mr. Obama's plan say that many of these modifications haven't lowered monthly payments the way the new plan does. True, and the more taxpayer dollars are spent subsidizing a particular borrower, the more affordable a loan becomes. But in part to avoid putting an astronomical price tag on this plan, the Administration doesn't necessarily fix loans for the long term.
In fact, the program encourages mortgage servicers to keep the payments low only for five years, after which rates will rise. During the housing bubble, these were called "teaser" rates. Modifications also may extend the term of, say, a 30-year mortgage to 40 years, but still leave the borrower underwater. Research at Credit Suisse suggests that borrowers without equity are not a good bet to stay current. What research cannot answer is how many people will seek assistance when they are told that a new federal program is available to cut their mortgage bill.
Mr. Obama's mortgage plan is his third big economic rescue proposal in a month, and perhaps someone in the White House has noticed that financial markets haven't exactly cheered. Yesterday's end-of-day wrap from UBS put it this way: "Obama Speaks, Market Listens, Sells Off."
What investors, businesses and working Americans want to hear is a President with ideas to spur economic recovery. What they've been getting are plans for a long national Chapter 11 workout.
APWe really do wish he were right. In fact, the details released yesterday suggest the President's plan will do all of the above. The plan will help some struggling homeowners. But by investing in failure, the Administration will also prolong the housing downturn and make financing a home purchase more difficult for future borrowers. Meanwhile, the plan isn't likely to slow the continuing decline in housing prices.
Let's focus on the plan's effect on the individual borrower. Anyone with mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be able to refinance to lower rates if his mortgage is between 80% and 105% of the value of the home. This is a sweet deal that is not available, for example, to many renters looking to buy homes now. Sadly for those who deferred the gratification of homeownership, the 20% down payment has now become industry standard. But at least their taxes will allow other people to stay in homes they can't afford.
Existing borrowers who may not qualify for Fan/Fred refinancing can still receive loan modifications that move their mortgage payments down to 31% of monthly income. In either case, no effort will be made to verify that recipients of aid were truthful on their original mortgage applications. Given that mortgage fraud skyrocketed during the housing boom, and that the Obama Administration intends to assist up to nine million troubled borrowers, we can say with certainty that the unscrupulous will be among those rescued.
Going forward, it will be up to lenders to verify income. Getting this number correct is critical to the government's hopes for the plan. That's because, if pending Treasury guidelines follow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. model on which they are based, new modifications will forgo extensive underwriting. The FDIC believes that a lot of the normal research that goes into making a loan or a refinancing decision can be skipped as long as the mortgage-debt-to-income ratio can be moved, even if only for a few years, down to that magic number of 31%. So the government will pay loan servicers $1,000 for each mortgage modified, share the cost of lowering the monthly payments and pay other subsidies to lenders and borrowers -- adding up to $75 billion in taxpayer assistance for modifications. The government will then spend another $10 billion compensating lenders if the housing market continues to decline and some of these loans go bad again.
Will $10 billion be enough? The recent history of mortgage modifications isn't encouraging. According to the December report by the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, "The number of loans modified in the first quarter that were 30 or more days delinquent was 37 percent after three months and 55 percent after six months. The number of loans modified in the first quarter that were 60 or more days delinquent was 19 percent at three months and nearly 37 percent after six months."
Said Comptroller John Dugan, "One very troubling point is that, whether measured using 30-day or 60-day delinquencies, re-default rates increased each month and showed no signs of leveling off after six months and even eight months."
Those who favor Mr. Obama's plan say that many of these modifications haven't lowered monthly payments the way the new plan does. True, and the more taxpayer dollars are spent subsidizing a particular borrower, the more affordable a loan becomes. But in part to avoid putting an astronomical price tag on this plan, the Administration doesn't necessarily fix loans for the long term.
In fact, the program encourages mortgage servicers to keep the payments low only for five years, after which rates will rise. During the housing bubble, these were called "teaser" rates. Modifications also may extend the term of, say, a 30-year mortgage to 40 years, but still leave the borrower underwater. Research at Credit Suisse suggests that borrowers without equity are not a good bet to stay current. What research cannot answer is how many people will seek assistance when they are told that a new federal program is available to cut their mortgage bill.
Mr. Obama's mortgage plan is his third big economic rescue proposal in a month, and perhaps someone in the White House has noticed that financial markets haven't exactly cheered. Yesterday's end-of-day wrap from UBS put it this way: "Obama Speaks, Market Listens, Sells Off."
What investors, businesses and working Americans want to hear is a President with ideas to spur economic recovery. What they've been getting are plans for a long national Chapter 11 workout.
February 18, 2009
Obama's New Plan For Troubled Homeowners-With Comments
Obama’s Plan Aimed at Helping Troubled Homeowners
Here’s the summary of the Obama administration’s plan aimed at helping Distressed Homeowners
Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan
Executive Summary
The deep contraction in the economy and in the housing market has created devastating consequences for homeowners and communities throughout the country.
· Millions of responsible families who make their monthly payments and fulfill their obligations have seen their property values fall, and are now unable to refinance at lower mortgage rates.
· Millions of workers have lost their jobs or had their hours cut back, are now struggling to stay current on their mortgage payments – with nearly 6 million households facing possible foreclosure.
· Neighborhoods are struggling, as each foreclosed home reduces nearby property values by as much as 9 percent.
1. Refinancing for Up to 4 to 5 Million Responsible Homeowners to Make Their Mortgages More Affortdable
2. A $75 Billion Homeowner Stability Initiative to Reach Up to 3 to 4 Million At-Risk Homeowners
3. Supporting Low Mortgage Rages by Strengthening Confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan is part of the President’s broad, comprehensive strategy to get the economy back on track. The plan will help up to 7 to 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages to avoid foreclosure. In doing so, the plan not only helps responsible homeowners on the verge of defaulting, but prevents neighborhoods and communities from being pulled over the edge too, as defaults and foreclosures contribute to falling home values, failing local businesses, and lost jobs. The key components of the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan are:
1. Affordability: Provide Access to Low-Cost Refinancing for Responsible Homeowners Suffering From Falling Home Prices
· Enabling Up to 4 to 5 Million Responsible Homeowners to Refinance: Mortgage rates are currently at historically low levels, providing homeowners with the opportunity to reduce their monthly payments by refinancing. But under current rules, most families who owe more than 80 percent of the value of their homes have a difficult time refinancing. Yet millions of responsible homeowners who put money down and made their mortgage payments on time have – through no fault of their own – seen the value of their homes drop low enough to make them unable to access these lower rates. As a result, the Obama Administration is announcing a new program that will help as many as 4 to 5 million responsible homeowners who took out conforming loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to refinance through those two institutions.
· Reducing Monthly Payments: For many families, a low-cost refinancing could reduce mortgage payments by thousands of dollars per year:
o Consider a family that took out a 30-year fixed rate mortgage of $207,000 with an interest rate of 6.50% on a house worth $260,000 at the time. Today, that family has about $200,000 remaining on their mortgage, but the value of that home has fallen 15 percent to $221,000 – making them ineligible for today’s low interest rates that now generally require the borrower to have 20 percent home equity. Under this refinancing plan, that family could refinance to a rate near 5.16% – reducing their annual payments by over $2,300.
2. Stability: Create A $75 Billion Homeowner Stability Initiative to Reach Up to 3 to 4 Million At-Risk Homeowners
· Helping Hard-Pressed Homeowners Stay in their Homes: This initiative is intended to reach millions of responsible homeowners who are struggling to afford their mortgage payments because of the current recession, yet cannot sell their homes because prices have fallen so significantly. Millions of hard-working families have seen their mortgage payments rise to 40 or even 50 percent of their monthly income – particularly those who received subprime and exotic loans with exploding terms and hidden fees. The Homeowner Stability Initiative helps those who commit to make reasonable monthly mortgage payments to stay in their homes – providing families with security and neighborhoods with stability.
· No Aid for Speculators: This initiative will go solely to helping homeowners who commit to make payments to stay in their home – it will not aid speculators or house flippers.
· Protecting Neighborhoods: This plan will also help to stabilize home prices for all homeowners in a neighborhood. When a home goes into foreclosure, the entire neighborhood is hurt. The average homeowner could see his or her home value stabilized against declines in price by as much as $6,000 relative to what it would otherwise be absent the Homeowner Stability Initiative.
· Providing Support for Responsible Homeowners: Because loan modifications are more likely to succeed if they are made before a borrower misses a payment, the plan will include households at risk of imminent default despite being current on their mortgage payments.
· Providing Loan Modifications to Bring Monthly Payments to Sustainable Levels: The Homeowner Stability Initiative has a simple goal: reduce the amount homeowners owe per month to sustainable levels. Using money allocated under the Financial Stability Plan and the full strength of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this program has several key components:
§ A Shared Effort to Reduce Monthly Payments: For a sample household with payments adding up to 43 percent of his monthly income, the lender would first be responsible for bringing down interest rates so that the borrower’s monthly mortgage payment is no more than 38 percent of his or her income. Next, the initiative would match further reductions in interest payments dollar-for-dollar with the lender to bring that ratio down to 31 percent. If that borrower had a $220,000 mortgage, that could mean a reduction in monthly payments by over $400. That lower interest rate must be kept in place for five years, after which it could gradually be stepped up to the conforming loan rate in place at the time of the modification. Lenders will also be able to bring down monthly payments by reducing the principal owed on the mortgage, with Treasury sharing in the costs.
§ “Pay for Success” Incentives to Servicers: Servicers will receive an up-front fee of $1,000 for each eligible modification meeting guidelines established under this initiative. They will also receive “pay for success” fees – awarded monthly as long as the borrower stays current on the loan – of up to $1,000 each year for three years.
§ Incentives to Help Borrowers Stay Current: To provide an extra incentive for borrowers to keep paying on time, the initiative will provide a monthly balance reduction payment that goes straight towards reducing the principal balance of the mortgage loan. As long as a borrower stays current on his or her loan, he or she can get up to $1,000 each year for five years.
§ Reaching Borrowers Early: To keep lenders focused on reaching borrowers who are trying their best to stay current on their mortgages, an incentive payment of $500 will be paid to servicers, and an incentive payment of $1,500 will be paid to mortgage holders, if they modify at-risk loans before the borrower falls behind.
§ Home Price Decline Reserve Payments: To encourage lenders to modify more mortgages and enable more families to keep their homes, the Administration — together with the FDIC — has developed an innovative partial guarantee initiative. The insurance fund – to be created by the Treasury Department at a size of up to $10 billion – will be designed to discourage lenders from opting to foreclose on mortgages that could be viable now out of fear that home prices will fall even further later on. Holders of mortgages modified under the program would be provided with an additional insurance payment on each modified loan, linked to declines in the home price index.
· Institute Clear and Consistent Guidelines for Loan Modifications: Treasury will develop uniform guidance for loan modifications across the mortgage industry, working closely with the bank agencies and building on the FDIC’s pioneering work. The Guidelines will be used for the Administration’s new foreclosure prevention plan. Moreover, all financial institutions receiving Financial Stability Plan financial assistance going forward will be required to implement loan modification plans consistent with Treasury Guidance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will use these guidelines for loans that they own or guarantee, and the Administration will work with regulators and other federal and state agencies to implement these guidelines across the entire mortgage market. The agencies will seek to apply these guidelines when permissible and appropriate to all loans owned or guaranteed by the federal government, including those owned or guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing Administration, Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Agriculture.
· Other Comprehensive Measures to Reduce Foreclosure and Strengthen Communities
§ Require Strong Oversight, Reporting and Quarterly Meetings with Treasury, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve and HUD to Monitor Performance
§ Allow Judicial Modifications of Home Mortgages During Bankruptcy for Borrowers Who Have Run Out of Options
§ Provide $1.5 Billion in Relocation and Other Forms of Assistance to Renters Displaced by Foreclosure and $2 Billion in Neighborhood Stabilization Funds
§ Improve the Flexibility of Hope for Homeowners and Other FHA Programs to Modify and Refinance At-Risk Borrowers
3. Supporting Low Mortgage Rates By Strengthening Confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
· Ensuring Strength and Security of the Mortgage Market: Today, using funds already authorized in 2008 by Congress for this purpose, the Treasury Department is increasing its funding commitment to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure the strength and security of the mortgage market and to help maintain mortgage affordability.
o Provide Forward-Looking Confidence: The increased funding will enable Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out ambitious efforts to ensure mortgage affordability for responsible homeowners, and provide forward-looking confidence in the mortgage market.
o Treasury is increasing its Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements to $200 billion each from their original level of $100 billion each.
· Promoting Stability and Liquidity: In addition, the Treasury Department will continue to purchase Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage-backed securities to promote stability and liquidity in the marketplace.
· Increasing The Size of Mortgage Portfolios: To ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can continue to provide assistance in addressing problems in the housing market, Treasury will also be increasing the size of the GSEs’ retained mortgage portfolios allowed under the agreements – by $50 billion to $900 billion – along with corresponding increases in the allowable debt outstanding.
· Support State Housing Finance Agencies: The Administration will work with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to support state housing finance agencies in serving homebuyers.
· No EESA or Financial Stability Plan Money: The $200 billion in funding commitments are being made under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act and do not use any money from the Financial Stability Plan or Emergency Economic Stabilization Act/TARP.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/18/obamas-plan-aimed-at-helping-troubled-homeowners/trackback/
Save & Share: Share on Facebook | Del.icio.us | Digg this | Email This | Print
Read more: Global
Comments
Report offensive comments to washwire@wsj.com
For my own situation, if I may. What happens to someone, like me, who bought a home 3 years ago on a 5 year adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) and now because all the equity I had in my home ($130,000) is gone.. in less than 2 years I will be forced to foreclose because I am upside in my mortgage and no one will touch me for a refinance??
Comment by Peter V Hoelen - February 18, 2009 at 9:56 am
So let me see if I have this correct: I (the taxpayer who was not greedy enough to get suckered into over-extending myself on debt) will be paying on the equity for millions of those folks who did get themselves into trouble. So now they can own their own home faster than I can own mine, because they’re also using my money — and it will now be harder to pay my own bills since I’ll be paying much higher taxes. How fair and equitable can you get?
Comment by Old School - February 18, 2009 at 10:14 am
What happens to someone who bought a stock portfolio three years ago with floating rate financing and 20% haircut and now due to stock prices falling is upside down on the portfolio and cannot get refinancing for the portfolio?
Comment by AKS - February 18, 2009 at 10:15 am
Well, that’s a tough call Peter. However, what about people like me? I have been renting a place for the past 5 years and saving dilligently because I knew I could not afford a house. Now, the government takes my money and helps someone who has been living in a mansion they could not afford. Government says that this will help communities but how does it really help me? My rent stays the same no matter what and I do not care if all houses are worth $10. Renters and responsible savers are being screwed the most on this deal.
Comment by Mike - February 18, 2009 at 10:15 am
What about retirees who have lost half their savings in the market, and want to refinance to lower their mortgage payment, even if they aren’t in imminent danger of default….
Are we going to raise our taxes to pay for all of this too?
Comment by Reality - February 18, 2009 at 10:15 am
Hey Old School…
You’re not going to be paying for it. You tax dollars (even the future payments) have already been spent. It’s your kids and grandkids that will be on the hook for this one.
Comment by Sucker - February 18, 2009 at 10:18 am
I couldn’t afford a home for the past 5 years so I did not buy. Now I am supposed to pay for all those who did buy but could not afford? Lies and corruption.
Comment by neal - February 18, 2009 at 10:18 am
That’s a tad over $8,000 per borrower. Just about the same amount as the first time homebuyer credit. Nice symmetry.
So, if someone bought a $250,000 house with a $250,000 mortgage with a payment adjusted down to the borrowers 28% income ratio based upon an annual income of say $43,000 for the first 3 years then even after the negative amortization the government could subsidize the fully amortizing new payment of about $400 for about 20 months in hopes that the borrowers income grows to a level that could support the full payment or the value of the house increases to a level above the original price to allow it to be sold at breakeven.
So, we have about 20 months of reprieve.
Audacious Hope. Mine as well.
Martin
Comment by Martin - February 18, 2009 at 10:19 am
Say goodbye to the middle class.Thanks Obama!
Comment by Dan - February 18, 2009 at 10:22 am
Here’s the summary of the Obama administration’s plan aimed at helping Distressed Homeowners
Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan
Executive Summary
The deep contraction in the economy and in the housing market has created devastating consequences for homeowners and communities throughout the country.
· Millions of responsible families who make their monthly payments and fulfill their obligations have seen their property values fall, and are now unable to refinance at lower mortgage rates.
· Millions of workers have lost their jobs or had their hours cut back, are now struggling to stay current on their mortgage payments – with nearly 6 million households facing possible foreclosure.
· Neighborhoods are struggling, as each foreclosed home reduces nearby property values by as much as 9 percent.
1. Refinancing for Up to 4 to 5 Million Responsible Homeowners to Make Their Mortgages More Affortdable
2. A $75 Billion Homeowner Stability Initiative to Reach Up to 3 to 4 Million At-Risk Homeowners
3. Supporting Low Mortgage Rages by Strengthening Confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan is part of the President’s broad, comprehensive strategy to get the economy back on track. The plan will help up to 7 to 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages to avoid foreclosure. In doing so, the plan not only helps responsible homeowners on the verge of defaulting, but prevents neighborhoods and communities from being pulled over the edge too, as defaults and foreclosures contribute to falling home values, failing local businesses, and lost jobs. The key components of the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan are:
1. Affordability: Provide Access to Low-Cost Refinancing for Responsible Homeowners Suffering From Falling Home Prices
· Enabling Up to 4 to 5 Million Responsible Homeowners to Refinance: Mortgage rates are currently at historically low levels, providing homeowners with the opportunity to reduce their monthly payments by refinancing. But under current rules, most families who owe more than 80 percent of the value of their homes have a difficult time refinancing. Yet millions of responsible homeowners who put money down and made their mortgage payments on time have – through no fault of their own – seen the value of their homes drop low enough to make them unable to access these lower rates. As a result, the Obama Administration is announcing a new program that will help as many as 4 to 5 million responsible homeowners who took out conforming loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to refinance through those two institutions.
· Reducing Monthly Payments: For many families, a low-cost refinancing could reduce mortgage payments by thousands of dollars per year:
o Consider a family that took out a 30-year fixed rate mortgage of $207,000 with an interest rate of 6.50% on a house worth $260,000 at the time. Today, that family has about $200,000 remaining on their mortgage, but the value of that home has fallen 15 percent to $221,000 – making them ineligible for today’s low interest rates that now generally require the borrower to have 20 percent home equity. Under this refinancing plan, that family could refinance to a rate near 5.16% – reducing their annual payments by over $2,300.
2. Stability: Create A $75 Billion Homeowner Stability Initiative to Reach Up to 3 to 4 Million At-Risk Homeowners
· Helping Hard-Pressed Homeowners Stay in their Homes: This initiative is intended to reach millions of responsible homeowners who are struggling to afford their mortgage payments because of the current recession, yet cannot sell their homes because prices have fallen so significantly. Millions of hard-working families have seen their mortgage payments rise to 40 or even 50 percent of their monthly income – particularly those who received subprime and exotic loans with exploding terms and hidden fees. The Homeowner Stability Initiative helps those who commit to make reasonable monthly mortgage payments to stay in their homes – providing families with security and neighborhoods with stability.
· No Aid for Speculators: This initiative will go solely to helping homeowners who commit to make payments to stay in their home – it will not aid speculators or house flippers.
· Protecting Neighborhoods: This plan will also help to stabilize home prices for all homeowners in a neighborhood. When a home goes into foreclosure, the entire neighborhood is hurt. The average homeowner could see his or her home value stabilized against declines in price by as much as $6,000 relative to what it would otherwise be absent the Homeowner Stability Initiative.
· Providing Support for Responsible Homeowners: Because loan modifications are more likely to succeed if they are made before a borrower misses a payment, the plan will include households at risk of imminent default despite being current on their mortgage payments.
· Providing Loan Modifications to Bring Monthly Payments to Sustainable Levels: The Homeowner Stability Initiative has a simple goal: reduce the amount homeowners owe per month to sustainable levels. Using money allocated under the Financial Stability Plan and the full strength of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this program has several key components:
§ A Shared Effort to Reduce Monthly Payments: For a sample household with payments adding up to 43 percent of his monthly income, the lender would first be responsible for bringing down interest rates so that the borrower’s monthly mortgage payment is no more than 38 percent of his or her income. Next, the initiative would match further reductions in interest payments dollar-for-dollar with the lender to bring that ratio down to 31 percent. If that borrower had a $220,000 mortgage, that could mean a reduction in monthly payments by over $400. That lower interest rate must be kept in place for five years, after which it could gradually be stepped up to the conforming loan rate in place at the time of the modification. Lenders will also be able to bring down monthly payments by reducing the principal owed on the mortgage, with Treasury sharing in the costs.
§ “Pay for Success” Incentives to Servicers: Servicers will receive an up-front fee of $1,000 for each eligible modification meeting guidelines established under this initiative. They will also receive “pay for success” fees – awarded monthly as long as the borrower stays current on the loan – of up to $1,000 each year for three years.
§ Incentives to Help Borrowers Stay Current: To provide an extra incentive for borrowers to keep paying on time, the initiative will provide a monthly balance reduction payment that goes straight towards reducing the principal balance of the mortgage loan. As long as a borrower stays current on his or her loan, he or she can get up to $1,000 each year for five years.
§ Reaching Borrowers Early: To keep lenders focused on reaching borrowers who are trying their best to stay current on their mortgages, an incentive payment of $500 will be paid to servicers, and an incentive payment of $1,500 will be paid to mortgage holders, if they modify at-risk loans before the borrower falls behind.
§ Home Price Decline Reserve Payments: To encourage lenders to modify more mortgages and enable more families to keep their homes, the Administration — together with the FDIC — has developed an innovative partial guarantee initiative. The insurance fund – to be created by the Treasury Department at a size of up to $10 billion – will be designed to discourage lenders from opting to foreclose on mortgages that could be viable now out of fear that home prices will fall even further later on. Holders of mortgages modified under the program would be provided with an additional insurance payment on each modified loan, linked to declines in the home price index.
· Institute Clear and Consistent Guidelines for Loan Modifications: Treasury will develop uniform guidance for loan modifications across the mortgage industry, working closely with the bank agencies and building on the FDIC’s pioneering work. The Guidelines will be used for the Administration’s new foreclosure prevention plan. Moreover, all financial institutions receiving Financial Stability Plan financial assistance going forward will be required to implement loan modification plans consistent with Treasury Guidance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will use these guidelines for loans that they own or guarantee, and the Administration will work with regulators and other federal and state agencies to implement these guidelines across the entire mortgage market. The agencies will seek to apply these guidelines when permissible and appropriate to all loans owned or guaranteed by the federal government, including those owned or guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing Administration, Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Agriculture.
· Other Comprehensive Measures to Reduce Foreclosure and Strengthen Communities
§ Require Strong Oversight, Reporting and Quarterly Meetings with Treasury, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve and HUD to Monitor Performance
§ Allow Judicial Modifications of Home Mortgages During Bankruptcy for Borrowers Who Have Run Out of Options
§ Provide $1.5 Billion in Relocation and Other Forms of Assistance to Renters Displaced by Foreclosure and $2 Billion in Neighborhood Stabilization Funds
§ Improve the Flexibility of Hope for Homeowners and Other FHA Programs to Modify and Refinance At-Risk Borrowers
3. Supporting Low Mortgage Rates By Strengthening Confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
· Ensuring Strength and Security of the Mortgage Market: Today, using funds already authorized in 2008 by Congress for this purpose, the Treasury Department is increasing its funding commitment to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure the strength and security of the mortgage market and to help maintain mortgage affordability.
o Provide Forward-Looking Confidence: The increased funding will enable Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out ambitious efforts to ensure mortgage affordability for responsible homeowners, and provide forward-looking confidence in the mortgage market.
o Treasury is increasing its Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements to $200 billion each from their original level of $100 billion each.
· Promoting Stability and Liquidity: In addition, the Treasury Department will continue to purchase Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage-backed securities to promote stability and liquidity in the marketplace.
· Increasing The Size of Mortgage Portfolios: To ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can continue to provide assistance in addressing problems in the housing market, Treasury will also be increasing the size of the GSEs’ retained mortgage portfolios allowed under the agreements – by $50 billion to $900 billion – along with corresponding increases in the allowable debt outstanding.
· Support State Housing Finance Agencies: The Administration will work with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to support state housing finance agencies in serving homebuyers.
· No EESA or Financial Stability Plan Money: The $200 billion in funding commitments are being made under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act and do not use any money from the Financial Stability Plan or Emergency Economic Stabilization Act/TARP.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/18/obamas-plan-aimed-at-helping-troubled-homeowners/trackback/
Save & Share: Share on Facebook | Del.icio.us | Digg this | Email This | Print
Read more: Global
Comments
Report offensive comments to washwire@wsj.com
For my own situation, if I may. What happens to someone, like me, who bought a home 3 years ago on a 5 year adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) and now because all the equity I had in my home ($130,000) is gone.. in less than 2 years I will be forced to foreclose because I am upside in my mortgage and no one will touch me for a refinance??
Comment by Peter V Hoelen - February 18, 2009 at 9:56 am
So let me see if I have this correct: I (the taxpayer who was not greedy enough to get suckered into over-extending myself on debt) will be paying on the equity for millions of those folks who did get themselves into trouble. So now they can own their own home faster than I can own mine, because they’re also using my money — and it will now be harder to pay my own bills since I’ll be paying much higher taxes. How fair and equitable can you get?
Comment by Old School - February 18, 2009 at 10:14 am
What happens to someone who bought a stock portfolio three years ago with floating rate financing and 20% haircut and now due to stock prices falling is upside down on the portfolio and cannot get refinancing for the portfolio?
Comment by AKS - February 18, 2009 at 10:15 am
Well, that’s a tough call Peter. However, what about people like me? I have been renting a place for the past 5 years and saving dilligently because I knew I could not afford a house. Now, the government takes my money and helps someone who has been living in a mansion they could not afford. Government says that this will help communities but how does it really help me? My rent stays the same no matter what and I do not care if all houses are worth $10. Renters and responsible savers are being screwed the most on this deal.
Comment by Mike - February 18, 2009 at 10:15 am
What about retirees who have lost half their savings in the market, and want to refinance to lower their mortgage payment, even if they aren’t in imminent danger of default….
Are we going to raise our taxes to pay for all of this too?
Comment by Reality - February 18, 2009 at 10:15 am
Hey Old School…
You’re not going to be paying for it. You tax dollars (even the future payments) have already been spent. It’s your kids and grandkids that will be on the hook for this one.
Comment by Sucker - February 18, 2009 at 10:18 am
I couldn’t afford a home for the past 5 years so I did not buy. Now I am supposed to pay for all those who did buy but could not afford? Lies and corruption.
Comment by neal - February 18, 2009 at 10:18 am
That’s a tad over $8,000 per borrower. Just about the same amount as the first time homebuyer credit. Nice symmetry.
So, if someone bought a $250,000 house with a $250,000 mortgage with a payment adjusted down to the borrowers 28% income ratio based upon an annual income of say $43,000 for the first 3 years then even after the negative amortization the government could subsidize the fully amortizing new payment of about $400 for about 20 months in hopes that the borrowers income grows to a level that could support the full payment or the value of the house increases to a level above the original price to allow it to be sold at breakeven.
So, we have about 20 months of reprieve.
Audacious Hope. Mine as well.
Martin
Comment by Martin - February 18, 2009 at 10:19 am
Say goodbye to the middle class.Thanks Obama!
Comment by Dan - February 18, 2009 at 10:22 am
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
