July 10, 2009


July 10, 2009


Government spending

July 10, 2009

Fraud and waste are acknowledged byproducts of government handling of money. This story on spelling errors in Obama press releases wildly misses the real story:

After misspelling the president’s name as “Barak Obama” yesterday on an official document sent to reporters, the General Services Administration messed up another message when announcing it had awarded an $18 million contract to redesign the website keeping track of spent stimulus dollars.

“Recvoery.gov Version 2.0 $18 Million Contract Awarded,” the release’s subject line read. (”Recovery” was spelled correctly in the body of the email.)

An $18 million contract to redesign a website?! We could build the current recovery.gov website for $2,000 using US programmers. That means there is close to $18 million dollars worth of fraud in this one tiny project.

So will this stimulate anything? The owner of the company doing the work will have very low expenses to redesign this website so almost the entire $18 million will be profit for him/her. So the rich get all of the benefit and the workers get to hang on for one more day paying for their over priced homes. Concentration of money in a small number of hands wont provide a stimulus.


U.S. mortgage fraud ‘rampant’ and growing-FBI

July 8, 2009

U.S. mortgage fraud reports jumped 36 percent last year as desperate homeowners and industry professionals tried to maintain their standard of living from the boom years, the FBI said on Tuesday.

Suspicious activity reports rose to 63,713 in fiscal year 2008, which ended last September, from 46,717 the year before. California and Florida, centers of the housing bust, had the highest numbers of suspicious reports as foreclosures jumped, the stock market dropped and credit dried up.

“These combined factors uncovered and fueled a rampant mortgage fraud climate fraught with opportunistic participants desperate to maintain or increase their current standard of living,” the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in its report.

“Industry employees sought to maintain the high standard of living they enjoyed during the boom years of the real estate market and overextended mortgage holders were often desperate to reduce or eliminate their bloated mortgage payments,” it said.

Reports filed through March put fraud reports on track to top 70,000 in the current fiscal year, the agency said.


“Extend and pretend”

July 6, 2009

Regulate CDS as insurance

July 6, 2009

This is a well thought out article by Rolfe Winkler in his new job at Reuters.

The only obvious flaw is confusing volume with liquidity. If you have capital of $100 and borrow $1,000 it is easy to make the mistake that you are providing liquidity of $1,100. As has been proved ad nauseum in the history of finance the only real part of this transaction is the $100. There is always a mechanism whereby the $1,000 gets called on by the lender and this always happens.

Goldman Sachs demand for collateral from AIG is a recent example. AIG could not meet the call as the money did not exist – it was a fiction agreed to between GS and AIG.

Credit default swaps nearly brought down the world financial system last fall when it was discovered that AIG Financial Products had written hundreds of billions of dollars worth of credit protection without setting aside sufficient reserves. Yet since then, pathetically little has been done to get this corner of the derivatives market under control. There’s a simple way to fix the problem. Regulate CDS as insurance. That could happen if some state insurance legislators get their way.

Treating these financial weapons of mass destruction as insurance instead of as merely swaps would subject them to sensible regulation. But Wall Street is fighting the idea because it would hammer profits and, more importantly, force them to reduce leverage.

Are credit default swaps insurance? As with insurance contracts, the seller of credit protection promises to reimburse the buyer’s losses in case his creditor defaults. If that sounds like an insurance policy, that’s because it is.

I recently attended a conference on derivatives regulation where a trader argued that CDS aren’t insurance. Asked to describe their precise function, he struggled mightily for the correct infinitive, finally settling on “to insure.”

Why the obfuscation? For one thing, to pump up the real estate bubble Wall Street needed a cheap way to hide risk, for securities they marketed to investors and for their own balance sheet. Toxic CDOs “wrapped” by an AIG insurance policy were suddenly marketable as AAA-rated investments. Risky assets retained on Wall Street’s collective balance sheet could be “hedged” with CDS in lieu of holding actual capital.

In properly regulated insurance markets, when insurers ramp up risk, their regulators force them to increase reserves. As risks rise, so does the cost of insurance. Had credit protection been properly regulated, it would have been too expensive to enable the fiction that subprime risk, wherever held, was somehow free. Consequently, it’s likely that risk wouldn’t have been manufactured in the first place.

Another reason to confuse the issue is that Wall Street makes markets trading CDS, a far more profitable business than selling insurance policies.

Selling insurance is pretty boring thanks to regulations that date back to 18th-century England. In a recently published paper in the Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, Arthur Kimball-Stanley argues that, in its earliest days, insurance policies were often used to gamble. Policies could be purchased for items that weren’t yours, and for amounts greater than the insured property was worth. The moral hazard is obvious: Unregulated insurance gave speculators incentives to destroy property.

Are CDS speculators actively destroying property? Take Delphi Corp. When the auto-parts maker filed bankruptcy last fall, investors held $20 billion worth of CDS that referenced only $2.0 billion worth of bonds. If CDS were subject to insurance laws, investors would be required to show an interest in the insured bonds. This would drastically reduce trading volumes, hammering Wall Street’s profits. It would also reduce systemic risk.

The bank lobby counters that regulating CDS as insurance would restrict liquidity. It would, but that’s a red herring. Wall Street is more concerned with the profitability of their trading desks and their ability to continue hiding risk. And in any case, markets functioned fine before CDS.

With no solutions coming out of Washington, state authorities are taking the first steps to restore order. This week the National Conference of Insurance Legislators, or NCOIL, will discuss model legislation for credit default insurance.

New York State Assemblyman Joseph Morelle, the chairman of the state’s Committee on Insurance, is leading NCOIL’s task force that drafted the legislation.

“Credit default insurance can provide a very valuable function in the market by protecting legitimate credit investors,” he argues. “But sacrificing fundamental business practices at the altar of liquidity is dangerous.”

And very expensive. The $183 billion needed so far to rescue AIG is but a fraction of the bill. To it must be added much of the cost of recapitalizing the entire financial sector, which grew ridiculously overleveraged thanks to unregulated CDS.

All of this could have been avoided by applying the same laws to CDS that we apply to other insurance markets. If we miss this opportunity to do so, expect banks to create new risks that will plunge the world back into the financial abyss.


Washington Post digs their integrity grave a little deeper

July 5, 2009

This article by Kenneth R. Harney in the Washington Post is an incredibly suspect piece of “journalism”. It looks like a direct press release from the NAR and has absolutely no pretense at balance.

With the recent news of WaPo trying to sell its journalists the question has to be asked whether this was the first time they did it or the first time they got caught.

Lowball Appraisals Spark Uproar

The issue involves lowballed appraisals and the new rules guiding appraisers in both price-depressed and rebounding markets. Consider these snapshots:

In San Diego, Steve Doyle, division president for Brookfield Homes, is trying to close out the final 20 houses of a 120-unit single-family subdivision. Prices range from $340,000 to $350,000. But recently there’s been a major hitch: Appraisers assigned by banks are coming in with valuations of $60,000 or more under Doyle’s selling prices. The appraisers, who Doyle says are inexperienced, unfamiliar with local market trends or both, are using distressed sales — foreclosures and short sales of existing houses — as their “comparables.” Some of the distressed properties are in poor condition, and all of them offer fewer amenities, Doyle says.

This issue was one of the major cruxes of housing boom. Without fraudulent appraisers (which is most of the industry despite their heated denials) loans wouldn’t have been issued for values that didn’t exist. Developers pressuring appraisers to “hit the number” is the current subject of class action lawsuits.

In Wilmington, N.C., a loan applicant with a house in excellent condition and an unblemished payment record sought to refinance into a 4.75 percent mortgage. She bought the property four years ago for $160,000 and made about $20,000 worth of improvements. Her loan application, according to Paul Skeens, president of Colonial Mortgage Group of Waldorf, was “a slam dunk — nothing to it.” The house was worth $180,000 to $200,000, according to a local realty estimate.

But when the bank sent in an appraiser with little local knowledge, he chose as comparables two short-sale properties that had both closed in the mid-$140,000 range and one inheritance sale around $155,000. The last property was “in horrible condition,” Skeens said. “I’d call it dog meat.” The deal-paralyzing appraised value that came in for the slam-dunk refi: $149,000.

So this North Carolina property has appreciated since the height of the boom according to the loan salesman quoted. I bet a lot of people wish they had a magic house like that.

The idea that local appraisers provide some extra insight into specific markets is a straw man. All appraisers use recent comps to arrive at a value for a property. This is done online. Why you need to be next door to a property to look something up on the internet is a question not answered here. The idea of appraisers going out to a property and measuring the windows and checking the quality of the garden is mostly a myth.

In the suburbs near Cleveland, Enzo Perfetto, manager of Enzoco Homes, builds custom houses on clients’ lots. Recently, he said, banks have begun assigning appraisers from far outside the area to value lots as part of mortgage packages on new homes. Some of the comparables they use are in foreclosure situations, and that depresses land valuations. A young couple who paid $75,000 for their lot recently had it valued at just $30,000 by an out-of-area appraiser who looked only at online data, according to Perfetto — discouraging the couple from proceeding.

Now we are getting an argument that bare land can’t be valued from outside the area?! The argument that foreclosure prices for a piece of bare land are different to the plot next to it that isn’t being foreclosed on is the height of stupidity. This argument is commonly used by delusional homeowners who argue that because the identical house next door sold for $350k their place is still worth $600k because the next door property was a foreclosure.

Fraudulent sales on the way up were accepted by everyone as comps but real prices on the way down are derided as fake sales.


July 5, 2009


Chase wants its money back

July 4, 2009

Van Nuys resident Richard Levinson figured he was getting a pretty sweet deal when JPMorgan Chase & Co. offered to charge an average 4.5% in interest if he’d transfer his outstanding credit card debt to the bank.

Levinson, 54, a musician, planned to use the Chase account as a rainy-day fund that would cost relatively little to maintain.

“I work in an industry where I can never be sure of my income,” he told me. “This provided me with cash at an interest rate that was guaranteed for the life of the loan.”

Now Levinson finds himself among about 1 million Chase cardholders who have been notified that their monthly minimum payment will more than double in August to 5% from 2%

Burbank resident Shant Istamboulian, 29, said his mother recently received notice from Chase that her monthly minimum would rise to about $365 from $149.

“She’s barely making ends meet,” he said. “She charges groceries on her credit card. She pays her insurance with her credit card. This higher minimum payment will kill her.”



Oil

July 4, 2009

For eight straight months, oil supplies have been running about 2 million barrels a day higher than the global demand of 83 million barrels a day, Verleger said. Eventually, he and others predicted, suppliers will tire of paying to store all of the surplus oil and flood the market.

“That is the largest and longest continuous glut of supply that I have seen in 30 years of following energy prices,” Verleger said. “It’s a huge surplus. There has never been anything like it.”

The market will eventually correct itself, pushing prices down, Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst for Oppenheimer & Co., wrote in a note to investors. “Excessive speculation and a weak dollar have lifted oil prices to levels not sustainable by market fundamentals,” Gheit wrote.

With so much oil available and so little need for that amount, investors, oil companies and even some banks have bought and stored surplus oil everywhere they can. By one estimate, before oil surged to its high this year of $73.38 a barrel in June, as many as 67 supertankers — each capable of carrying 2 million barrels of oil — were being used as floating storage.

Verleger said it represented a largely risk-free investment for those who could sell that oil for huge profits on the futures markets.

But the glut has gone on for so long, he said, that the cost of all of that storage is bound to rise. When it rises enough, some suppliers will refuse to pay and a lot of that oil will be dumped onto the market.