Posts Tagged ‘residential market’

Federal Regulators Floating the Idea of 20 Percent Downpayment Mortgages

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Is a 20 percent downpayment on a house or condominium on the horizon?  If some federal regulators get their way, buyers may have to put down $60,000 on a $300,000 house to get the best possible mortgage interest rate.  Although this sets the bar high, regulators believe it will prevent the risky lending practices that ended in a rash of foreclosures.

Numerous groups immediately announced their opposition to the proposal, contending that a 20 percent downpayment is too burdensome for many working class would-be homebuyers.  If the proposal goes into effect in summer, it is not likely to have a major impact on the housing market for a while because the majority of mortgages are insured by federal agencies and are exempt from the rule.  John Taylor, chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, said “If we require 20 percent downpayments to get a loan, we will ensure broad swaths of working- and middle-class people will not be able to get a loan.”  According to Tom Deutsch, executive director of the American Securitization Forum, believes the 20 percent requirement will do little to encourage banks to make loans without federal backing.  “The extremely rigid proposals…will further prolong the U.S. government’s 95 percent market share of the credit risk of newly originated mortgages,” he said.

Sheila C. Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, disagrees.  “Properly aligned economic incentives are the best check against lax underwriting,” she said.  The Federal Reserve and Treasury Department also support the move, and other federal regulators are expected to get behind the new requirement.  The move comes as the Obama administration is working to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage companies, by reducing the competitive advantage they have over banks.  One proposal is to require the agencies to charge higher fees to draw private firms back into the mortgage market.

Mortgage Bankers Association CEO John Courson warns that the 20 percent downpayment requirement would further damage already sluggish housing demand.  “We believe that such a narrow construct of the risk retention exemption would limit mortgage opportunities for qualified borrowers more than it would reduce the number of problem loans,” Courson said.  Ron Phipps, president of the National Association of Realtors, said the new rules will further restrict mortgage credit and housing recovery overall.  “Adding unnecessarily high minimum downpayment requirements will only exclude hundreds of thousands of buyers from home ownership, despite their creditworthiness and proven ability to afford the monthly payment, because of the dramatic increase in the wealth required to purchase a home,” Phipps said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is leading the regulatory effort, said “Risk retention will help promote better standards for underwriting and securitizing mortgages, which is good for the long-term health of the housing market and for our nation’s economy.”  An element of the Dodd-Frank Act that impacts the residential market, known as “risk retention”, is a rule that requires that mortgage lenders and securitizers to invest a minimum of five percent of the risk on qualified residential mortgages. The rule will play a crucial role in determining how much risk banks have to retain from mortgages they originate or package into bonds known as mortgage backed securities (MBS) and then subsequently sell into the market.  “If this proposal goes through, the way it’s written, I think the housing market will not recover for years to come,” says Joe Murin, chairman of consulting firm The Collingwood Group.

Covered Bonds Could Be a Viable Alternative to CMBS

Monday, November 15th, 2010

A financing vehicle invested in Prussia in 1769 could be the solution to failed #CMBS.A financing vehicle that has been used in Europe since it was invented in Prussia in 1769 is finding its way to American shores as a replacement for commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS).  The vehicle is known as covered bonds, which is a securitized debt instrument backed by a pool of top-quality assets, primarily mortgages. What is different about covered bonds is that the assets – known as a cover pool – are maintained on the issuer’s balance sheet.  This acts as a safety measure because the issuer is less likely to underwrite loans that carry significant risk.

Currently, the United States has no established market for covered bonds, although they are a $3 trillion business in Europe.  In July, the House Financial Services Committee approved a bill that would establish a regulatory framework for covered bonds.  Although the bill just missed being included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform overhaul, the consensus is that the legislation could win House and Senate approval in 2011.

“We have seen the difficulties wrought by the complexity of securitizations,” said Bert Ely, a financial and monetary policy consultant.  “Covered bonds, on the other hand, are a very clean and simple tool.  A bank makes a loan, keeps the loan on its books, and issues a covered bond.  There is no sale and resale of mortgages.”  With a covered bond, several elements protect the bondholder.  All assets in the covered pool are subject to monthly monitoring by an independent third party.  If one of the loans becomes non-performing, the issuer must remove it and replace it with a loan that is performing.  Thanks to the safety features, the majority of covered bonds enjoy a triple-A rating.

Despite the fact that many in the investment community support covered bonds, the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) has some concerns about them.  Primary is the fact that the pools are over-collateralized – sometimes by as much as three times the bonds’ face value.  The FDIC wants access to these assets when a bankruptcy occurs.  The FDIC argues that if the cover pools protect the bulk of the banks’ assets from being claimed, the depositors are being asked to take on too much risk.  “We support covered bond legislation, but not at the expense of our obligation to protect the deposit insurance fund,” said the FDIC’s Michael H. Krimminger.

Wealthy Chicagoans Return to Purchasing Upscale Houses, Condos

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

High-end Chicago houses and condo sales are rising.High-end residential sales in Chicago rose – somewhat unexpectedly — during the first eight months of 2010. This is primarily a result of sellers reducing their asking prices and closings at some high-profile condominium developments.  Even with the uptick in sales, there’s still an excess of houses and condos on the market that likely will depress prices even more.

According to an analysis by Midwest Real Estate Data LLC, there were 452 single-family houses and 572 condominiums price at upwards of $1 million on the market as of August 31.  That represents an 18-month supply of houses and 21 months worth of condominiums.  James Kinney, Baird & Warner, Inc.’s vice president of luxury sales, said that a normal market is a six- to eight-month inventory.  “I think we’re in for many months of wading through inventory,” according to Kinney.  “The supply is going to continue to build until we see a turn in the job market.”

High-end single-family home sales rose approximately 24 percent in the first eight months of the year.  That totals 199 sales as opposed to 161 in the same time period of 2009.  Condominiums fared even better with sales rising 85 percent to 253 units, compared with just 137 a year ago.  Kinney said that the uptick can be attributed by the first closings at high-end developments like the Elysian Hotel and Private Residences and Ten East Delaware.

Even Jamie Dimon, CEO of J.P Morgan Chase & Company, has hopped on the bandwagon.  He recently cut the price of his tony Gold Coast mansion to $6.95 million – a 25 percent reduction from the previous $9.5 million.  Janet Owen, a broker at Sudler Sotheby’s International Realty who is the listing agent, said “They realize the market does pertain to their home, not just everyone else’s.  That’s why these properties are selling.”

Residential Sector Delivers Positive News

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

Residential market recovery appears to be steady as she goes.  The latest numbers on housing starts, new home sales and rising prices indicate that the residential recovery is for real.  Because the housing crash was a primary cause of the Great Recession, word that the sector is rebounding is good news.  Housing permits and starts have increased in the last several months, and new house sales increased in March.

Even though the Case-Shiller home price index showed mixed numbers for January and February, there was better news found in a recent government report on the producer price index for single-family residential construction through March.  This measure of the average change in the cost of materials for new home construction has risen three percent since last summer.  Economists are interested in the producer price index because it is a critical factor in the pricing of existing homes.  Inflation hawks may claim that this statistic is a portent of rising prices in the general economy.

According to Casey B. Mulligan, an economist at the University of Chicago, a little inflation is not a bad thing for housing.  “It’s quite possible that inflation-adjusted housing prices will not significantly increase, but even if a housing price increase resulted merely from general inflation, it would be welcome because anything that raises housing prices can help alleviate the extraordinary prevalence of foreclosures that derives largely from the fact that debt-strapped homeowners can no longer sell their homes for enough to cover their mortgage,” Mulligan said.