US subprime market disaster

kabhi_21 thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#1

Its one of the strongest financial disaster that has rocked the world making waves allover the last two weeks.... my boss told that it affected the real estate prices in Singapore by over 30% in 3 days time after the disaster was declared by fed....

I have not seen the topic on it but would surely like to have information on it discuss and debate....

I think its something to do with securitisation of the homeloans given to poorly credit rated people in subprime market....

It has also affected the stock markets around the world, where the affected institutes sold shares to book profit and recover losses in US subprime losses....

once i know the basics i would be able to debate more.... can someone from US enlighten me😊

Created

Last reply

Replies

8

Views

1.2k

Users

6

Frequent Posters

200467 thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#2

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

Its one of the strongest financial disaster that has rocked the world making waves allover the last two weeks.... my boss told that it affected the real estate prices in Singapore by over 30% in 3 days time after the disaster was declared by fed....

I have not seen the topic on it but would surely like to have information on it discuss and debate....

I think its something to do with securitisation of the homeloans given to poorly credit rated people in subprime market....

It has also affected the stock markets around the world, where the affected institutes sold shares to book profit and recover losses in US subprime losses....

once i know the basics i would be able to debate more.... can someone from US enlighten me😊

nice topic Abhi😊 will be back with comments later

Edited by Gauri_3 - 17 years ago
sareg thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#3
Sub-prime market means lending to someone who has past credit history issues or someone who would not have otherwise qualified for such a loans, can be a car loan, credit card loan or a home loan etc

Like suppose a person who is fresh in the country for a few months(now that is exaggeration, but still) and is trying to buy a home. The mortgage company will give him a loan. Now that is a huge risk that the person may not be able to sustain the job or payback in time etc. Conventional wisdom is you dont lend to these kind of folks. If these loans foreclose, well the mortgage company owns the home

During the boom of housing market a lot of loans of these types were given out. I think most of the people bought homes with ARMS, and this is about the time the 3-5 year ARMS are coming to an end.

now a lot of people are defaulting on their loans and this is absolutely a bad time for the mortgage company to start owning a lot of homes. B'cos now houses on the market are not moving

Answers your question?
ChameliKaYaar thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#4

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

Its one of the strongest financial disaster that has rocked the world making waves allover the last two weeks.... my boss told that it affected the real estate prices in Singapore by over 30% in 3 days time after the disaster was declared by fed....

I have not seen the topic on it but would surely like to have information on it discuss and debate....

I think its something to do with securitisation of the homeloans given to poorly credit rated people in subprime market....

It has also affected the stock markets around the world, where the affected institutes sold shares to book profit and recover losses in US subprime losses....

once i know the basics i would be able to debate more.... can someone from US enlighten me😊

I can add a few cents here😉..

It's long story so be patient...

Until 7 years back there were 3 things that lenders used to look for before giving a loan to any party.

1. LTV (Loan To Value) ratio <= 80%: Meaning that your upfront payment of the total property value must be >= 20%. The theory behind this hypothesis was to share the risk with the property owner. Meaning if the owner has 20% or more stake in property then chances of him/her defaulting/damaging the property is reduced.

2. Debit/Income ratio <= .36: Meaning your total large debit (house payment, Car payment, education payment etc.) should not exceed 36% of your total income.

3. FICO score >= 700: FICO is a credit rating system and ranges from 350 - 850. A score of 700+ indicates that you have a good credit history.

A combination of these 3 would entitle you to a prime loan (until 7 years back).

Then the real estate boom started around 2000 and the market was flooded with a horde of small lenders who started innovating new loan products (HELOC, ARM, Interest Only etc.). All these loans were riskier than the conventional 30/15 years loans. The single overriding theory behind all these risky loans was that....

REAL ESTATE MARKET WILL CONTINUE TO GO NORTH

!HUGE MISTAKE!

...meaning that if the prices continue to go north then even if the investors default and the mortgage company has to foreclose home and sell it, they will still make profit because the sell price of the house will likely exceed the original price.

Then in early 2006, Feds raised the interest rates multiple times. No effect still....because people who had ARM loans continued to enjoy the fixed 5 years/3 years rate. Come mid/late 2006, all of a sudden these ARM rates start maturing into the adjustable period. What it meant was that every year the interest rate would go up by a certain percent (usually >= 1%) until it reached the Fed's Treasury Bill rate.

Take an example:

I have a mortgage loan of $100,000 at 5/1 5% ARM. It means that for first 5 years I will pay a fixed 5% and then after that every year my rate would go up by a "minimum" 1%. For first 5 years I would $5000 per year. But next year I start paying 6000 or more and next year 7000 or more and so on...

A lot of low income people could not cope up with the increase in the rate and started defaulting. As Sareg explained, this hit the Sub-Prime market more because that market, by definition, consists of low income people with bad credit history. Foreclosure rates climbed and all of sudden there were a lot of houses available in the market.

The rising interest rates decreased the affordability of the people towards purchase of expensive homes.

The 2 factors combined to shake the confidence of the buyers and all of a sudden the seller's market turned into a buyer's market (less buyer's and more sellers). What does that result into? Declining house prices!! What does that do to all those innovative loan products? The very basis (Reemember: the basis was that the price would continue to go North) on which these loan products were invented shattered and the small real estate companies met their doomsday one after another because they could not recover their money from foreclosures.

Hope I answered some of your questions!😛

lighthouse thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#5

Originally posted by: sareg


Like suppose a person who is fresh in the country for a few months(now that is exaggeration, but still) and is trying to buy a home. The mortgage company will give him a loan. Now that is a huge risk that the person may not be able to sustain the job or payback in time etc. Conventional wisdom is you dont lend to these kind of folks. If these loans foreclose, well the mortgage company owns the home

My neighbor had this NINJA loan- No Income No Job or Asset. Unemployed but he still went ahead and bought $1m house betting on rising real estate market and manged to sell it for 60% profit in 4 months before going back to India. Many were not as lucky and defaulted with home prices going down and teaser rates ( of like 1% interest) going upto 6% on their mortgages. Rising real estate market coupled with low savings rate from the banks and low teaser mortgage rates drew a lot of unexperienced specualtors or flippers who were buying and selling rampantly and making 20-50% profit in months.

Also there were obvious glaring signs of impending market going south as every tom/dick and harry became mortgage consultant. Kind of reminiscent of the internet /IT market boom and bust in late 90's when every one wanted to be IT consultant.

The only good thing to come out of this is it becomes buyers market again.

200467 thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#6

allover the last two weeks.... my boss told that it affected the real estate prices in Singapore by over 30% in 3 days time after the disaster was declared by fed....


In the US, the real estate prices, especially the residential homes, are down by approx 20%. It is the buyer's market once again. Very bad time to sell your house right now.

I have not seen the topic on it but would surely like to have information on it discuss and debate....

As explained by Sareg and CKY, subprime mortgages allow people with high debt or poor credit to buy a house or refinance a loan at a higher interest rate than people with better credit or less debt.

Subprime mortgages were sold with the promise of low initial payments. After the low introductory period expired, lenders are cranking up the adjustable rates to eventually exceed mortgages rates, in the 6 to 7 percent range, paid by homeowners with good credit.

Why would a lender loan money to someone with a poor credit rating/ already existing huge debt and/or insufficient income – because Brokers and lenders profit on the deal through loan fees and interest payments (before the buyer defaulted on the loan, they did collect fair amount in interest pmts). They can also securitize this loan and transfer the risk on others.

Why would a buyer go for Subprime mortgage and take risks associated with whole bunch of "fine print" in the contract – instant gratification and need to fulfill that American dream of owning one's own house knowing very well that regular mortgage is out of their reach due to bad credit rating, insufficient income, or already existing huge debts in their name.

What are some of the catches for buyers in subprime mortgages…a deal that is too good to be true -

negative amortization payment: It doesn't even cover the interest on the loan. Instead of gaining equity, buyer's debt actually grows, with unpaid interest tacked onto the principal every month.

interest-only payments: buyers pay only the interest due on their mortgage every month. Principal stays the same. In current times of declining residential property values, it's hard to build equity with regular mortgages too as the house value keeps on going down, In this scenario, interest only mortgages leave you with an asset that wouldn't even pay for the outstanding loan if you were to sell it today!

Teasers with very low interest rates for initial few months/years (ARMS): Adjusted rate mortgages…Vinit explained them in his post.

All the above type of payments free up cash buyer can invest elsewhere (which they seldom do), use to pay down debt (again, most seldom do), or just plain spend (that's what most of them actually do!!!).

It can all work, as long as nothing goes wrong, such as an illness or job loss or divorce, and if the house keeps appreciating in value. That way, even though the debt is actually growing, the home's value grows faster, so the borrowers can still come out ahead when they sell (see lighty's neighbor's example). That's the gamble, anyway and this time, the buyer did not come out to be the winner. Across the country, where home values are stalled or plummeting, lenders are watching loans turn upside down, with mortgages grown larger than property values.


think its something to do with securitisation of the homeloans given to poorly credit rated people in subprime market....

The Federal Reserve has been pumping new money into the U.S economy for decades. A lot of this new money, not surprisingly, has found its way into the mortgage markets. With Wall Street's "securitization" of the mortgage industry, close examination of mortgage borrowers disappeared. Banks and mortgage companies had incentives to originate mortgage loans, but since they sold the mortgages off (via securitization) they had no incentive to carefully weigh the risks of individual mortgages 'coz if some buyers default on their loan, it is not the bank's or mortgage company's money on the line there.
The same mortgage securities in the U.S. that are crumbling in value are a part of bigger holdings that banks from Japan to Germany bought in to because of low US interest rates and good returns until the mortgage holders started defaulting.

See the article posted in my next post. It explains how securitization of subprime loans leads to this disaster that we are discussing here.


It has also affected the stock markets around the world, where the affected institutes sold shares to book profit and recover losses in US subprime losses....

It is a ripple affect of americans failing to make their mortgage payments which is effecting the global banking and financial system.

The domino effect came in to play when the homeowners failed to pay their mortgages. The U.S. housing prices dropped. This coupled with a drop in the value of investments like mutual funds could leave U.S. consumers feeling poorer and less likely to spend on domestic and imported goods. The distress in the markets makes it harder and more expensive for businesses and consumers to get loans and cash. If companies can not get loans, they can not expand and they are forced to cut down on expenses typically through layoffs…which again starts this whole cycle!!!

The only way to stop this rippling and domino effect would be if the US government steps in to bail out the institutions, like it did in 1980s, that are loosing money as a result of subprime loan disaster. The problem, however, is that this time, it is not only the banks and mortgage companies that will be incurring the losses as most got rid of all these high risk mortgages thru securitization. On top of that, in past 20+ years, global interdependency has grown by leaps and bounds and outsourcing, crumbling trade barriers, and a revolution in financial markets have knit the world tightly together……..hence the rippling effect all across the globe.

once i know the basics i would be able to debate more.... can someone from US enlighten me

Hope I answered ALL of your questions😛

happy debating!

(post based on Google research combined with some finance related knowledge back from my school days and experience gained from auditing mortgage companies here in the U.S.😊)

Edited by Gauri_3 - 17 years ago
200467 thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#7

Behind the Subprime Crash
by Robert Wallach


DIGG THIS
Market volatility in recent days prompts one to ask, "Just what is going on here?"

The quick answer is that Federal Reserve manipulation of the money supply causes these crisis periods when previously available Fed money is no longer available.

The long answer requires a very winding explanation.

The Federal Reserve, however, still plays a major role in the long answer.
The Federal Reserve has been pumping new money into the economy for decades. A lot of this new money, not surprisingly, has found its way into the mortgage markets. With Wall Street's "securitization" of the mortgage industry, close examination of mortgage borrowers disappeared. Banks and mortgage companies had incentives to originate mortgage loans, but since they sold the mortgages off (via securitization) they had no incentive to carefully weigh the risks of individual mortgages.

If you had a warm body, banks and mortgage companies only had incentive to figure out how to get you a loan. Bad credit, no problem. Can't afford to make monthly interest rate payments, no problem. Thus, we had the era of "no docs" mortgages and "Adjustable rate" mortgages with early year rates set sometimes at zero often times at 1%.

On the buying end of these securitized mortgages were institutions with faulty economic models. These models were quantitative in nature. As Austrian economists have warned many times, economics is a qualitative science, not a quantitative science. This is so because the world of human action contains no constants, when you are dealing with humans everything is a variable. The models designed by these institutions must therefore assume that some variable is a constant, since an equation with all variables just can't be.

Some of these variables will indeed over very long periods of time "act" like constants in their relationship with other factors and not change much. These are the variables that econometricians plug in as constants to design their equations. Every once and awhile one of these pseudo-constants begins to act up and act like a variable again. At such time, the variable will blow up the misplaced belief in the equation and quite possibly blow up an investment portfolio or even an entire economy. The designers and money managers who believe in these equations are in fact playing "Equation Roulette." The blow-ups can occur at any time.

The collapse of funds like Long Term Capital Management (Equations designed by Nobel Prize winning econometricians!) and the current hedge fund blow-ups (because of subprime mortgage investments held) always collapse because variables start to dance. In the subprime mortgage arena, the variables are dancing.

The equations used as the data points of how mortgages would perform come from the data from the decades of the 1980's and 1990's, before securitization. So the models did not take into account the change in the way banks and mortgage firms would change the types of mortgages they would originate if they did not have to worry about the risk.

Thus, a market of nutty mortgages, with no docs and, goofy ARM's structures, developed, one that only an econometrician with nutty equations in hand would buy – encouraged by a Fed pumping money in so that real estate flippers could hide the fact the mortgages were nutty.

Along this happy road of Equation Roulette, before the subprime crisis started to bloom, the government stepped in with small changes in some regulations as to who could get mortgage financing. Naturally, the econometricians in their models didn't include for a change in regulations, but this change in regulations started the subprime crisis. At the margin, these regulation changes took out some of the real estate flippers. For the first time in decades, there was a small decline in the true number of real estate buyers.

The few smart, more detailed oriented, buyers of subprime paper picked this trend up and stopped buying the subprime paper. The Fed was still printing money, it was just starting to be re-directed. The smarter players just started to put their money into LBO's and private equity deals instead of mortgage securities.

The decline in subprime paper buyers, coupled with the regulation changes, formed the start of the subprime crisis in near perfect storm timing, since these factors dovetailed with the first zero percent and 1% ARM mortgages coming due for readjustment and the Fed notching interest rates up a bit.

This was a formula for disaster. Equation roulette was about to blow up another batch of econometricians. As default rates climbed, more and more subprime paper buyers backed away from the subprime market, until we have reached the point today where there is near zero liquidity in the subprime market.

The near zero liquidity of these highly leveraged funds has resulted in margin calls, panic, and some of these funds being forced to sell positions in other sectors of the market. But, this crisis is near over. The Fed has come to the "rescue." Just today it has pumped $19 billion in new reserves into the banking system by buying mortgage securities. My rough calculation suggests that over the last two days the Federal Reserve has pumped in enough new reserves to increase the money supply by somewhere between 10% and 15%.

This is a stunning number. The money supply in a year rarely grows by 10%, for it to do so in 48 hours is mind-boggling. Yes, the Fed has come to the rescue by further pushing the dollar on the road to collapse. While most eyes are on the current mortgage crisis, the bigger danger is the potential collapse of the dollar on foreign exchange markets. The dollar has been slowly falling in value against most currencies for a while. It is at multi-decade lows in some cases. I have feared a further major collapse of the dollar even before the Fed's moves over the last two days.

The mortgage crisis will pass. The Fed will print its way out of this crisis. But, the dollar crisis is ahead and the Fed won't be able to print its way out of that since it's been Fed money printing that is the cause of the world being flooded with dollars.

From the outrageous money printing that fueled the mortgage "boom" to the Fed "rescue," the Fed step by step is setting up the economy for inflation and a crash of the dollar that won't just affect mortgage holders and hedge funds, but anyone holding deteriorating dollars in their bank accounts and wallets.

Edited by Gauri_3 - 17 years ago
Dabulls23 thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 17 years ago
#8
Did any one watch CNBC this morning interview with CEO of Countrywide Mr. Mozilo? How B Of A is helping Coutrywide with 1.5 or 2 bil $ worth of stock investment. Thanks to creative financing in RE-Mortgage arena we are seeing this day. It will even get worse IMHO.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/20408981
Edited by Dabulls23 - 17 years ago
kabhi_21 thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#9

thanks for the info.....Here is what i derive from the information:

1. Sub-prime lending market: As per my knowledge, a prime lending market is the one directly from the banks and financial institutions to the consumer, and sub-prime lending is having a middlemen in between who borrows from the prime lenders and then lends it to the consumer...

2. benefits for the consumer from sub-prime lending.... Mostly the risk at subprime lenders is high because only the people with following features go to them.... others can easily go for prime lending which is not expensive enough

a. Less documentation
b. poor credit ranking
c. non-tedious process

3. Securitisation: the sub prime lenders lend to this consumers for home loans, car loans etc. and make a pool of assets called underlying assets and securitise them in financial instruments which are sold in the market. The money from this is paid back to the prime lender to borrow more for further subprime lending. The purchaser of the securitised instruments get returns from the monthly EMIs received from underlying instruments... Since interest rate on underlying instruments is higher, the return looks lucrative... the distribution, acquisition of defaulted properties and selling them is looks after by Asset management company (a middlemen again generally another company of subprime lender??)

4. Time zone: As i could see from articles and CKy's post, the real estate inflation in USA started around 2000, when this activities started and ran smoothly till 2006 when many started defaulting as initial period of fixed interest rate had finished for the first batch....

Now see who lost the money??

1. the banker: No he already realised money along with interest

2. The subprime lender: not yet but may be in future as now he may not be able to securitise the loans so easily

3. the consumer: the defaulters were anyways losing earlier or now... they knew what they were capable of... and if they went in for specualtion, well its always risky

4. The investor: If i consider this year, yes they may be in loss because the value of the underlying assets has reduced.... lets take example of investments:

Securitised in 2000: very cheap cost value gone up twice and now went down by 20%, no loss (may be even sold in market and booked profits already)

Securitised in 2001: still it was cheap cost as most of the inflation is after 2004 prices went up 1.9 times now went down by 20%, no loss (brackets same as above)

Securitised in 2002: Inflation picking up but still cheap cost, prices went up by 1.7 times now down by 20%, no loss

Securitised in 2003: Again inflation picking up, prices went up by 1.4 times now down by 20%, no loss

Securitised in 2004: inflation picking up fast, prices gone up by 100%, now down by 20%, no loss

Securitised in 2005 Inflation at pick, prices gone up 20%, now down by 20%, Loss

Securitised in 2006: prices start going down in second half pure loss

2007: many defaulters in market, securitisation not possible, the people who went ahead incurred losses....

So truly speaking not all the underlying assets are in losses or not all investors incurred losses....

Where the problem lies???

The problem lied in the rules and regulations and administration. As has been told, the subprime lenders lend the money to people who may not even have sufficient sources to pay it back... Its a logic that a person can not pay you at higher interest rate what he can not pay to prime lender....

Another problem lied in the regular credit rating of underlying assets or even the credit rating at the time of securitisation. as someone pointed out the bankers and subprime lender lose interest in rating the assets as they no more reflect in their balance sheet... At the time of securitisation, the credit rating of the underlying assets by an approved credit rating agency is a must and a minimum credit rating for safe investment is also fixed... If the credit rating of this securitisation pools was lower, then the investor took the risk knowing the credit ratings of his investment and has no right to blame the government.

As CKY pointed out, there are basic ratios and rules that need to be confirmed before lending money to someone for any purpose.... people borrowed money under such schemes mostly because of the speculation more than owning their own house... as they knew they cant afford the house... they must have thought lets sell after 2-3 years and make money out of it... it was kinda lottery for them.... it was the duty of the organisations to see the health of their assets... 80% criteria can be changed to 85% 36% of income can be changed to 40% but not beyond that.... its a basic that if a good credit rating person can not pay with more than 36% income criteria and above 80% criteria for lending ideally, how can one with poor rating can...

this issue came up because it was on larger scale in america... however in india we have faced such losses on micro scale with co-operative banks, which took no consideration of admin flaws in lending money...

Last but not the least, are this financial instruments dangerous... all the blame for this losses has been put by the media people on this new tool of securitisation... no its not dangerous, but we should not abuse any financial tool... we have to use the financial tools very diligently to reep benefits out of them... and it was abuse of this financial instruments and financial ratios that led to this disaster....

its just my opinion... would like to know others😊

Edited by kabhi_21 - 17 years ago

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".