Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TBTF: Such a Deal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TBTF: Such a Deal



    Interest rates on mortgages and refinancing are at record lows, giving borrowers plenty to celebrate. But the bigger winners are the banks making the loans.

    Banks are making unusually large gains on mortgages because they are taking profits far higher than the historical norm, analysts say. That 3.55 percent rate for a 30-year mortgage could be closer to 3.05 percent if banks were satisfied with the profit margins of just a few years ago. The lower rate would save a borrower about $30,000 in interest payments over the life of a $300,000 mortgage.

    "The banks may say, 'We are offering you record low interest rates, so you should be as happy as a clam,' " said Guy D. Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a home loan publication. "But borrowers could be getting them cheaper."

    the ready made excuse . . . stiffer regulations

    "There is a much higher cost to originating mortgages relative to a few years ago," said Jay Brinkmann, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association, a group that represents the interests of mortgage lenders.

    As a result of more stringent conditions since the housing bust, bankers are required to be more diligent in approving loan applications. The banks say this requires better-trained employees and other added expenses.

    peeking behind the veil of the gummit made us do it . . .

    Mortgage lenders may also be benefiting from less competition. The upheaval of the financial crisis of 2008 has led to the concentration of mortgage lending in the hands of a few big banks, primarily Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and U.S. Bancorp.

    further concentration is good and like all oligopolies, prices are fixed . . .

    "Fewer players in the mortgage origination business means higher profit margins for the remaining ones," said Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, director of the Center for Real Estate Finance Research at New York University.

    shake well the magic elixir of 90 proof private & public and voila . . .

    The jump in revenue for the banks is not coming from charging consumers higher fees. Instead, it comes from the their role as middlemen. Banks make their money from taking the mortgages and bundling them into bonds that they then sell to investors, like pensions and mutual funds. The higher the mortgage rate paid by homeowners and the lower the interest paid on the bonds, the bigger the profit for the bank.


    "One of the reasons that the banks charge more is that they can," said Thomas Lawler, a former chief economist of Fannie Mae and founder of Lawler Economic and Housing Consulting, a housing analysis firm.

    The banks are well positioned to profit because of their role in the mortgage market. After they bundle the mortgages into bonds, the banks transfer nearly all of the loans to government-controlled entities like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The entities, in turn, guarantee the bond investors a steady stream of payments.

    The banks that originated the loans take the guaranteed bonds, called mortgage-backed securities, and sell them to investors.

    The mortgage industry has a yardstick for measuring the size of those profits. It compares the mortgage rates paid by borrowers and the interest rate on the mortgage bond - a difference known in the industry as the spread.

    For example, a bank may lend money to homeowners at a 3.6 percent interest rate. After bundling those mortgages, the bank may then sell them in bonds that have an interest rate of 2.8 percent. The lower interest rate on the bond shows that the banks are effectively able to sell the mortgages to investors for a gain.

    The banks pocket that markup when they sell the bonds. The bigger the spread between the mortgage rate and the bond rate, the bigger the markup for the banks.

    Mortgage analysts who track this difference say it has been historically high in recent months. They contend that if the market were functioning properly, the recent drop in the bond rates should have led to a larger decline in mortgage rates for consumers than has actually occurred. .

    Instead, the difference between the two rates is increasing: mortgage rates are falling much more slowly than the bond interest rates.

    In the six months through June, the average difference between the two rates was 1.1 percent, and at the start of this month it was 1.26 percent. From 2000 to 2010, it was about 0.5 percent.

    If banks offered mortgages with an interest rate that was half a percentage point lower - a move that would leave their mortgage gains closer to the historical levels of 0.5 percent - borrowers would see real savings.

    Regulators, who are loath to dictate business practices, are unlikely to force banks to lower mortgage rates.

    always leave 'em laughing (if you're not already) . . .

    "The only way we can effectively grow our business and deliver great service to customers is by offering market competitive rates."

    Mary Eshet, a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/...age-profit/?hp

  • #2
    Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

    Something seems to be missing from this article.

    When a 30 year mortgage is refinanced at a lower interest rate it means that the old mortgage is eliminated, and the creditor that extended that mortgage is repaid early. But wouldn't that creditor likely have hedged the risk of extending that credit in some way by matching the 30 year mortgage term with a longer term (emulating 30 years) source of funds? (the dearth of sources of funds of that duration is the main reason 30 year mortgages are unheard of in Canada) If so, wouldn't the early repayment of the mortgage entail a cost for that creditor? (Because if the full cost of retiring the mortgage early was borne by the mortgagor they would never have an incentive to refinance). So who covers the cost of that "loss"?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

      Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
      Something seems to be missing from this article.

      When a 30 year mortgage is refinanced at a lower interest rate it means that the old mortgage is eliminated, and the creditor that extended that mortgage is repaid early. But wouldn't that creditor likely have hedged the risk of extending that credit in some way by matching the 30 year mortgage term with a longer term (emulating 30 years) source of funds? (the dearth of sources of funds of that duration is the main reason 30 year mortgages are unheard of in Canada) If so, wouldn't the early repayment of the mortgage entail a cost for that creditor? (Because if the full cost of retiring the mortgage early was borne by the mortgagor they would never have an incentive to refinance). So who covers the cost of that "loss"?
      does this point to an answer . . .

      After they bundle the mortgages into bonds, the banks transfer nearly all of the loans to government-controlled entities like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The entities, in turn, guarantee the bond investors a steady stream of payments.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

        Originally posted by don View Post
        does this point to an answer . . .

        HAhahahahahahahahahahahaha!

        While there may be different channels, it seems the answer always comes up to "taxpayer" (you know those middle class chumps who don't know how to avoid paying taxes or really hedge against currency depreciation. "Socialize the loss" captures the concept welll.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

          The risk of prepayment loss is (theoretically) priced in by the lenders, resulting in mortgage rates that are higher than they would be if borrowers didn't have the option to refinance at a cheaper rate whenever rates decline.

          Selling the 30-year mortgages to Fannie or Freddie not only allows the banks to make fee income but also to offload this interest rate risk to the investors who buy the resulting securities from Fannie or Freddie. 30-year fixed-rate mortgages would probably go away pretty quickly if banks were forced to retain those loans, since hedging that kind of asymetric risk is so expensive as to be impractical (and sometimes hedges don't quite work as planned, as certain TBTFs recently learned).

          Many of the ultimate buyers of these mortgage-backed securities aren't really concerned with their own funding costs - they just have excess dollars to put to use and are looking for the highest-yielding "risk-free" investment that they can find (e.g., foreign central banks with large dollar reserves, pension funds, mortgage-focused mutual funds).

          Eventually, the US will probably move more toward adjustable-rate mortgages with larger prepayment penalties, as in Canada, where much more of the interest rate risk is passed through to the borrower.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

            Originally posted by mmr View Post
            The risk of prepayment loss is (theoretically) priced in by the lenders, resulting in mortgage rates that are higher than they would be if borrowers didn't have the option to refinance at a cheaper rate whenever rates decline...
            Bingo! As interest rates have swooned in recent years, waves of refinancings have hit the lenders. The higher interest rates they are now charging must be in part to cover the increasing prepayment risk. But the posted article that started this thread conveniently ignored that aspect...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
              Bingo! As interest rates have swooned in recent years, waves of refinancings have hit the lenders. The higher interest rates they are now charging must be in part to cover the increasing prepayment risk. But the posted article that started this thread conveniently ignored that aspect...
              Where are the pre-payment risks when the loans are "handed off" to Fannie and Freddie? That conveniently ignores the key component of this FIRE maneuver . . .

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

                The end buyers of the securities (pension funds, etc.) take the prepayment risk. Fannie and Freddie just guarantee that the end buyers will receive their principal in full, not when they'll receive it. In exchange for the credit guarantee, Fannie and Freddie receive a 0.25% annual guarantee fee on average, which is part of the difference between the rate that the borrower pays and the rate that the MBS investors earn.

                Since Fannie and Freddie are basically just government agencies at this point, the fee really just functions as a mortgage tax - if they didn't recover part of their costs that way, the Federal treasury would have to borrow from or tax someone else to make up the difference.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

                  Question:

                  After dumping off the loans on Freddie and Fanny, the same banks are selling Fanny and Freddie's bonds?

                  The banks that originated the loans take the guaranteed bonds, called mortgage-backed securities, and sell them to investors.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

                    Fannie and Freddie buy the mortgages from the banks, package a group of them together, and sell them to investors as mortgage-backed securities.

                    The Wall Street banks (not necessarily the same banks that sold the mortgages to Fannie and Freddie) receive underwriting fees for lining up investors to buy those MBS from Fannie and Freddie.

                    In some cases, banks may buy MBS which might even be backed by the same mortgages that they sold to Fannie and Freddie. Simplifying quite a bit, rather than owning someone's 3.5% mortgage but having some risk that the borrower could default, the bank would own a security paying only 2.8% backed by the same mortgage but with government insurance against a borrower default.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: TBTF: Such a Deal

                      that would explain . . .

                      The banks pocket that markup when they sell the bonds. The bigger the spread between the mortgage rate and the bond rate, the bigger the markup for the banks.
                      closing the circle . . . .

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X