Federal Reserve losing control

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

v

Postby vigilant » Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:59 pm

At least for the time being, chalk one up for the poor home owners that got suckered into these loans. An Ohio judge has refused to let banks forclose on homes and kick out the occupants because they sold the loans and are no longer the legal owners of the property....




Foreclosures Hit a Snag for Lenders
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
November 15, 2007

A federal judge in Ohio has ruled against a longstanding foreclosure practice, potentially creating an obstacle for lenders trying to reclaim properties from troubled borrowers and raising questions about the legal standing of investors in mortgage securities pools.

Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Federal District Court in Cleveland dismissed 14 foreclosure cases brought on behalf of mortgage investors, ruling that they had failed to prove that they owned the properties they were trying to seize.

The pooling of home loans into securities has been practiced for decades and helped propel real estate prices in recent years as investors sought the higher yields that such mortgage trusts could provide. Some $6.5 trillion of securitized mortgage debt was outstanding at the end of 2006.

But as foreclosures have surged, the complex structure and disparate ownership of mortgage securities have made it harder for borrowers to work out troubled loans, in part because they cannot identify who holds the mortgage notes, consumer advocates say.

Now, the Ohio ruling indicates that the intricacies of the mortgage pools are starting to create problems for lenders as well. Lawyers for troubled homeowners are expected to seize upon the district judge’s opinion as a way to impede foreclosures across the country or force investors to settle with homeowners. And it may encourage judges in other courts to demand more documentation of ownership from lenders trying to foreclose.
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....
vigilant
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Back stage...
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:29 pm

.

vigilant, you're not reading the thread.
I've already covered that, in some depth, from before "GM" stole the story.

Start with this one from 13 November:
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 142#146142
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

v

Postby vigilant » Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:40 pm

Sorry for the repost then. I have been following the thread but it is getting long and I forgot it had already been addressed.....
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....
vigilant
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Back stage...
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: v

Postby antiaristo » Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:44 pm

vigilant wrote:Sorry for the repost then. I have been following the thread but it is getting long and I forgot it had already been addressed.....


Always the issue.
Start a new thread, with a more exact title....or keep the long one going as a general theme.

I dunno :)

Not sure what the headlines are, but there's real bad news on the mortgage front

Freddy Mac was over sixty a month ago.
It's now down to twenty six.

Fannie Mae was about sixty-seven at the start of October.
It's now down to twenty eight.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

How they do it

Postby antiaristo » Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:33 pm

.


Here is one of the techniques employed to hide the losses. this from Barron's:


ACA has long been a convenient dumping ground in which major subprime securitizers like Bear Stearns (BSC), Citigroup (C), Merrill Lynch (MER) and some 25 other prominent dealers could pitch billions of dollars of risky obligations for modest premiums. That let them gussy up their balance sheets and shift any potential mark-to-market hits to ACA.

If ACA Capital were to founder, more than $69 billion worth of CDOs, including the $25 billion in subprime paper, would come rumbling back to the Wall Street banks, and likely with heavy attendant losses.

That's why Wall Street has continued to do a brisk business with the beleaguered firm. In the third quarter, ACA insured some $7 billion of subprime collateralized-debt obligations. Even if the company survives for only another couple of quarters, that would stave off the recognition of billions of dollars of losses.


ACA is a joke.
It's share price is $1.10.
The TOTAL VALUE of the firm is $39 million.

Yes. Million. :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ACA


In the last quarter ACA insured $7 billion against loss. Here's the market values:


ABX-HE-AAA 07-2 7 2 76 0A08AHAD4 68.06 99.33 68.06

ABX-HE-AA 07-2 7 2 192 0A08AGAD6 36.78 97.00 36.78

ABX-HE-A 07-2 7 2 369 0A08AFAD8 24.69 81.94 24.69

ABX-HE-BBB 07-2 7 2 500 0A08AIAD2 20.19 56.61 20.19

ABX-HE-BBB- 07-2 7 2 500 0A08AOAD9 19.43

http://www.markit.com/information/products/abx.html


If all that $7B is AAA, it is worth 68.06 cents on the dollar

If all that $7B is BBB-, it is worth 19.43 cents on the dollar.

If it is spread equally it is worth an average of 33.83 cents on the dollar.

The loss is between $1.6 billion (AAA) and $4.0 billion (BBB-), with a modal value of $3.3 billion (equal spread).

Factor that up by about ten, to represent the whole $69 billion book.


The investment banks don't book this loss because they are insured by ACA (and its $39 million of market value).


ACA is about to default.

Whole story from here
http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... treet.html
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:36 pm

.

Some have wondered if the banks will close like in 1931. Today that took a step closer.

They have closed the European collateralised bond market.

There's something HUGE going on behind the scenes. And (as you know) I think I know what it is.:D:D:D


Europe Suspends Mortgage Bond Trading Between Banks (Update3)

By Esteban Duarte and Steve Rothwell

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- European banks agreed to suspend trading in the $2.8 trillion market for mortgage debt known as covered bonds to halt a slump that has closed the region's main source of financing for home lenders.

The European Covered Bond Council, an industry group that represents securities firms and borrowers, recommended banks withdraw from trades for the first time in its three-year history until Nov. 26. Banks are still obliged to provide prices to investors, according to the statement today.

Banks including Barclays Capital, HSBC Holdings Plc and UniCredit SpA took the step as investors shun bank debt on concern lenders face more mortgage-related losses than the $50 billion disclosed. Abbey National Plc, the U.K. lender owned by Banco Santander SA, became the third financial company to cancel a sale of covered bonds in a week as investors demanded banks pay the highest interest premiums on covered bonds in five years.

``We are in a deteriorating situation,'' Patrick Amat, chairman of the Brussels-based ECBC and chief financial officer of mortgage lender Credit Immobilier de France, said in a telephone interview. ``A single sale can be like a hot potato. If repeated, this can lead to an unacceptable spread widening and you end up with an absurd situation.''

bloomberg - more
http://tinyurl.com/22gbgm


`A single sale can be like a hot potato. If repeated, this can lead to an unacceptable spread widening and you end up with an absurd situation.''



Remember how I described the creation of the LMX Spiral earlier on this thread?

That's what they've got here.
So they've jumped in to stop it.

There's POLITICS behind this, not economics.

Maybe, at last, the truth is coming out.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:20 am

.

Robert Kuttner testified October 1 before the House Financial Services Committee:

A second parallel is what today we would call securitization of credit. Some people think this is a recent innovation, but in fact it was the core technique that made possible the dangerous practices of the 1920's. Banks would originate and repackage highly speculative loans, market them as securities through their retail networks, using the prestigious brand name of the bank -- e.g. Morgan or Chase -- as a proxy for the soundness of the security. It was this practice, and the ensuing collapse when so much of the paper went bad, that led Congress to enact the Glass-Steagall Act, requiring bankers to decide either to be commercial banks -- part of the monetary system, closely supervised and subject to reserve requirements, given deposit insurance, and access to the Fed's discount window; or investment banks that were not government guaranteed, but that were soon subjected to an extensive disclosure regime under the SEC.

Since repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto inroads, super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s -- lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn't paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by computers and automated formulas.



There's really nothing unexpected, unintended or unplanned about the destruction of America's finances, is there?

Hillary 2008! Yay!

Whole piece here:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... 9_and_2007
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:08 am

.

There's hardline fraud at Northern Rock.

Revealed: massive hole in Northern Rock's assets

Investigation shows £53bn of mortgages owned by off shore company
Ian Griffiths
The Guardian Friday November 23 2007

Fresh doubts emerged last night about Northern Rock's ability to repay the £23bn of taxpayers' money it has been loaned by the Bank of England.

A Guardian examination of Northern Rock's books has found that £53bn of mortgages - over 70% of its mortgage portfolio - is not owned by the beleaguered bank, but by a separate offshore company.

The same investigation reveals just how vulnerable the bank is to a cooling property market and demonstrates the scale of Northern Rock's exposure to mortgages where customers have borrowed heavily against their homes.

The mortgages are now owned by a Jersey-based trust company and have been used to underpin a series of bond issues to raise cash for Northern Rock. It means the pool of assets available to provide collateral for Northern Rock's creditors, including the Bank of England, is dramatically reduced, calling into question government claims that taxpayers' money is safe.

This week the chancellor, Alistair Darling, told parliament taxpayers' money was safeguarded. "Bank of England lending is secured against assets held by Northern Rock. These assets include high quality mortgages with a significant protection margin built in and high quality securities with the highest quality of credit rating," he said.

The first tranche of the Bank's emergency lending to Northern Rock in September has been secured against specific assets. But the second tranche is secured only by a more general floating charge, which would mean the Bank would be vying with other creditors for repayment if Northern Rock failed. It is not clear how much money was loaned in each tranche, but the emergency loans are thought to have been for about £11bn each.

A number of bidders have expressed an interest in buying Northern Rock but the offers have been below the stock market price of the shares suggesting there are concerns about the bank's underlying value. The Guardian's analysis of £58bn or 75% of Northern Rock's residential mortgage portfolio reveals the extent of exposure and suggests the company is suffering from rising arrears and repossessions.

Among the findings are:

· Mortgage loans of over 90% of the purchase price of a house have soared to £16bn, from £2.7bn, in the space of three years.

· Loans have exceeded the value of the property on nearly 2,500 mortgages, with a value of £263m. Three years ago, the figure was just £13m on 158 properties.

· 10,000 Northern Rock customers are a month or more in arrears on their mortgages, on loans worth nearly £1.2bn. At the end of 2003, there were only 2,500 in the same difficulties, with mortgages worth £168.8m.

· In 2003 Northern Rock repossessed 80 properties. Last year more than 1,000 properties were repossessed. By the end of September this year 912 properties had already been repossessed.

A rising loan to value ratio leaves Northern Rock exposed to any slump in house prices. Any property market crash would also have an impact on the company's arrears position.

The Guardian analysis has also discovered that Northern Rock has admitted being in breach of the conditions of the securities it has sold through its Jersey-based Granite Master Issuer, the company which packages and sells mortgage backed securities, but it has decided to ignore the breach. The breach occurred in September when Fitch, one of the main ratings agencies, downgraded Northern Rock's long-term credit ratings.

Richard Murphy, a forensic accountant and director of Tax Research, who has followed the Northern Rock affair and scrutinised its relationship with Granite, is concerned that the division between Northern Rock and Granite has been blurred, creating uncertainty over its mortgage portfolio.

"This should be a concern for the Bank and the Treasury particularly if the emergency loans have actually been used to finance the activities of Granite rather than Northern Rock. It would be harder for the government to secure preferential treatment over other creditors if it is shown that the money was actually for Granite's benefit," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007 ... ndgovernor


And more here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007 ... editcrunch

Granite is actually a charitable trust, whose stated aim is to provide support for a charity in the North East.

The trouble is that the charity knows nothing about it (if you don't understand trusts ignore this).

Postman Patel has been exemplary in covering this over the past few months.

http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/


And just in case you thought the fraud was restricted to the private sector.....


QinetiQ sale made £107m for 10 top civil servants


· Managers' shares rose 20,000% on day of sale
· Ministry of Defence sold taxpayers short, NAO says

David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Friday November 23, 2007
The Guardian

MPs and trade unions will today condemn the Ministry of Defence for allowing 10 senior civil servants to make "mind boggling" profits from the flotation of its research arm, QinetiQ.

The full scale of payouts is revealed by the National Audit Office (NAO) in a report which shows that shares owned by the civil servants rose in value by 20,000% on the day they went on the stockmarket. Another 245 senior managers made 14,400% profits on their shares. Ordinary workers received free share options worth £80 on the day.

The scale of largesse revealed in the report shows the top 10 people between them invested £540,000 of their own money in the company and saw this rise to £107.45m on the day Qinetiq was floated last year. Sir John Chisholm, who is non-executive chairman, saw his investment of £130,000 rise to £25.97m; Graham Love, chief executive, saw a £110,000 investment rise to £21.35m; Hal Kruth, group commercial manager saw a £70,000 investment rise to £13.88m; and Brenda Jones, marketing director, saw a £60,000 investment rise to £11.18m.

The report reveals that the senior people were able to help devise the incentive scheme which later gave them huge returns, a practice the NAO said must be banned in any future privatisation.

The report says the Carlyle Group, the US private equity firm which had taken a part share in QinetiQ, made a 786% profit on its £42m stake, which became worth £374m on the day of the sale. The NAO said there was no evidence that Carlyle, which was able to purchase a share of the company at a low valuation, used political influence.

The NAO says the ministry did not get enough money for the taxpayer when it sold its first stake to Carlyle. The Ministry of Defence contests this. The minister for defence equipment, Baroness Taylor, told the NAO the sale had "delivered excellent value for money, generating more than £800m for the taxpayer, while protecting UK defence and security interests".

Unions and MPs disagreed. Edward Leigh, Tory chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said: "QinetiQ's top managers ... won the jackpot. They got a mind-boggling return of almost 20,000% on their investments. This is more alarming when you learn that these managers sold the idea of a PPP to the department and that they were then allowed to negotiate their own incentive scheme. Nice work if you can get it."

Vince Cable, acting Liberal Democrat leader, said: "This deal didn't sell the family silver; it gave it away."

David Luxton, national secretary, for the union Prospect, said: "The highly geared share incentives introduced by the Carlyle Group in 2003 provided rich pickings for a few, at minimal personal risk, on the back of the innovation of the hard working scientists and engineers ... This is the unacceptable face of privatisation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolit ... 06,00.html


Former Prime Minister John Major was European Managing Director for Carlyle.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby slimmouse » Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:08 am

antiaristo wrote:.



The first tranche of the Bank's emergency lending to Northern Rock in September has been secured against specific assets.But the second tranche is secured only by a more general floating charge, which would mean the Bank would be vying with other creditors for repayment if Northern Rock failed.


I think its also worth pointing out that , unless Im very much mistaken, that "The Bank of England" is of course itself essentially a privately owned corporation , who act "on behalf" of the Government - for the usual extortionate cut of course.

The owners of the said "Bank of England" are readily available to anyone wishing to do a search.

They wont have to worry about their money too much. The security offered by the Government to "The bank of England" is their revenues from taxation. And you can bet your bottom dollar, the agreement they will have with the state, will ensure that they are first in the queue when it comes to recouping any monies they get stung for by Northern Rock.

On Edit ; It would appear that I was wrong about who owns the bank - it was supposedly "nationalised" in 1946 - Except of course that this is itself little more than more smoke and mirrors, as is excellently surmised here;

http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/ ... /boe1.html

Nationalising the Bank of England in 1946, which might seem at first sight to be a far reaching measure, made little difference in practice.

Yet, the state did acquire all the shares in the Bank of England -- they now belong to the Treasury and are held in trust by the Treasury Solicitor.

However, the government had no money to pay for the shares, so instead of receiving money for their shares, the shareholders were issued with government stocks. Although the state now received the operating profits of the bank, this was offset by the fact that the government now had to pay interest on the new stocks it had issued to pay for the shares.

However, it is much more significant to note that whilst the Bank of England is now state-owned the fact is that our money supply is once again almost entirely in private hands, with 97% of it being in the form of interest bearing loans of one sort or another, created by private commercial banks.

Indeed this is now where the real power resides -- with commercial banking.
Last edited by slimmouse on Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

anti - if I'm reading this correctly...

Postby slow_dazzle » Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:19 am

...the fact that the government might not be given preferred creditor status means those creditors owed money might start seizing assets in the form of property held as collateral. We were talking about this yesterday. I received a frosty reply or two because I even suggested that people might find creditors seizing property if a bank was not able to raise capital to pay them off. Is this your take on what might happen if NR cannot satisfy the investors?
On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

John Perry Barlow - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
slow_dazzle
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: anti - if I'm reading this correctly...

Postby antiaristo » Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:18 am

slow_dazzle wrote:...the fact that the government might not be given preferred creditor status means those creditors owed money might start seizing assets in the form of property held as collateral. We were talking about this yesterday. I received a frosty reply or two because I even suggested that people might find creditors seizing property if a bank was not able to raise capital to pay them off. Is this your take on what might happen if NR cannot satisfy the investors?


Absolutely. Anything can happen.

There is only one rule:

"Possession is nine-tenths of the law."

Let me draw an analogy.

When Diana divorced "Prince Charming" she left the royal family. That is the law.

Yet when she died the Windsors grabbed her body. It was nothing to do with them, but Chirac handed her over.

By possessing the body they were able to thwart and frustrate the common law for ten years. The inquest was put in the hands of the first of a series of "royal coroners" - even though she was not royal. Poor old al Fayed was denied standing by these "royal coroners" for many years, even though his own son had died.

When the shit hits the fan the first ones in their grabbing everything will be the powerful, looking to make out like bandits.

Justice does not come into it at all.

The only thing they understand is force.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Stephen Morgan » Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:52 am

slimmouse wrote: On Edit ; It would appear that I was wrong about who owns the bank - it was supposedly "nationalised" in 1946 - Except of course that this is itself little more than more smoke and mirrors, as is excellently surmised here;

http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/ ... /boe1.html


They should have realised something was up when the Tories supported the nationalisation, but the government stock issue in exchange for ownership of the bank doesn't give control over the bank to anyone other than the government, it's the same ownership structure that was introduced for the nationalised railways. Blair and Brown made the Bank "independent", thereby returning it to its traditional control while retaining ownership.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Postby Sweejak » Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:45 pm

Here comes the hair in the soup. The Judge asked DB to show documents proving legal title to the 14 homes. DB could not. All DB attorneys could show was a document showing only an “intent to convey the rights in the mortgages.” They could not produce the actual mortgage, the heart of Western property rights since the Magna Charta of not longer.

Again why could Deutsche Bank not show the 14 mortgages on the 14 homes? Because they live in the exotic new world of “global securitization”, where banks like DB or Citigroup buy tens of thousands of mortgages from small local lending banks, “bundle” them into Jumbo new securities which then are rated by Moody’s or Standard & Poors or Fitch, and sell them as bonds to pension funds or other banks or private investors who naively believed they were buying bonds rated AAA, the highest, and never realized that their “bundle” of say 1,000 different home mortgages, contained maybe 20% or 200 mortgages rated “sub-prime,” i.e. of dubious credit quality.


Here is where the Ohio court decision guarantees that the next phase of the US mortgage crisis will assume Tsunami dimension. If the Ohio Deutsche Bank precedent holds in the appeal to the Supreme Court, millions of homes will be in default but the banks prevented from seizing them as collateral assets to resell. Robert Shiller of Yale, the controversial and often correct author of the book, Irrational Exuberance, predicting the 2001-2 Dot.com stock crash, estimates US housing prices could fall as much as 50% in some areas given how home prices have diverged relative to rents.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=7413
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Byrne » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:18 pm

(Emphasis mine)

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7413]The Financial Tsunami:
Sub-Prime Mortgage Debt is but the Tip of the Iceberg[/url]


by F. William Engdahl

Global Research, November 23, 2007

Part 1: Deutsche Bank’s painful lesson

Even experienced banker friends tell me that they think the worst of the US banking troubles are over and that things are slowly getting back to normal. What is lacking in their rosy optimism is the realization of the scale of the ongoing deterioration in credit markets globally, centered in the American asset-backed securities market, and especially in the market for CDO’s—Collateralized Debt Obligations and CMO’s—Collateralized Mortgage Obligations. By now every serious reader has heard the term “It’s a crisis in Sub-Prime US home mortgage debt.” What almost no one I know understands is that the Sub-Prime problem is but the tip of a colossal iceberg that is in a slow meltdown. I offer one recent example to illustrate my point that the “Financial Tsunami” is only beginning.

Deutsche Bank got a hard shock a few days ago when a judge in the state of Ohio in the USA made a ruling that the bank had no legal right to foreclose on 14 homes whose owners had failed to keep current in their monthly mortgage payments. Now this might sound like small beer for Deutsche Bank, one of the world’s largest banks with over €1.1 trillion (Billionen) in assets worldwide. As Hilmar Kopper used to say, “peanuts.” It’s not at all peanuts, however, for the Anglo-Saxon banking world and its European allies like Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Barclays Bank, HSBC or others. Why?

A US Federal Judge, C.A. Boyko in Federal District Court in Cleveland Ohio ruled to dismiss a claim by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. DB’s US subsidiary was seeking to take possession of 14 homes from Cleveland residents living in them, in order to claim the assets.

Here comes the hair in the soup. The Judge asked DB to show documents proving legal title to the 14 homes. DB could not. All DB attorneys could show was a document showing only an “intent to convey the rights in the mortgages.” They could not produce the actual mortgage, the heart of Western property rights since the Magna Charta of not longer.

Again why could Deutsche Bank not show the 14 mortgages on the 14 homes? Because they live in the exotic new world of “global securitization”, where banks like DB or Citigroup buy tens of thousands of mortgages from small local lending banks, “bundle” them into Jumbo new securities which then are rated by Moody’s or Standard & Poors or Fitch, and sell them as bonds to pension funds or other banks or private investors who naively believed they were buying bonds rated AAA, the highest, and never realized that their “bundle” of say 1,000 different home mortgages, contained maybe 20% or 200 mortgages rated “sub-prime,” i.e. of dubious credit quality.

Indeed the profits being earned in the past seven years by the world’s largest financial players from Goldman Sachs to Morgan Stanley to HSBC, Chase, and yes, Deutsche Bank, were so staggering, few bothered to open the risk models used by the professionals who bundled the mortgages. Certainly not the Big Three rating companies who had a criminal conflict of interest in giving top debt ratings. That changed abruptly last August and since then the major banks have issued one after another report of disastrous “sub-prime” losses.

A new unexpected factor

The Ohio ruling that dismissed DB’s claim to foreclose and take back the 14 homes for non-payment, is far more than bad luck for the bank of Josef Ackermann. It is an earth-shaking precedent for all banks holding what they had thought were collateral in form of real estate property.

How this? Because of the complex structure of asset-backed securities and the widely dispersed ownership of mortgage securities (not actual mortgages but the securities based on same) no one is yet able to identify who precisely holds the physical mortgage document. Oops! A tiny legal detail our Wall Street Rocket Scientist derivatives experts ignored when they were bundling and issuing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CMO’s in the past six or seven years. As of January 2007 some $6.5 trillion of securitized mortgage debt was outstanding in the United States. That’s a lot by any measure!

In the Ohio case Deutsche Bank is acting as “Trustee” for “securitization pools” or groups of disparate investors who may reside anywhere. But the Trustee never got the legal document known as the mortgage. Judge Boyko ordered DB to prove they were the owners of the mortgages or notes and they could not. DB could only argue that the banks had foreclosed on such cases for years without challenge. The Judge then declared that the banks “seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test,” the Judge concluded, “their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate.” Deutsche Bank has refused comment.

What next?

As news of this legal precedent spreads across the USA like a California brushfire, hundreds of thousands of struggling homeowners who took the bait in times of historically low interest rates to buy a home with often, no money paid down, and the first 2 years with extremely low interest rate in what are known as “interest only” Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs), now face exploding mortgage monthly payments at just the point the US economy is sinking into severe recession. (I regret the plethora of abbreviations used here but it is the fault of Wall Street bankers not this author).

The peak period of the US real estate bubble which began in about 2002 when Alan Greenspan began the most aggressive series of rate cuts in Federal Reserve history was 2005-2006. Greenspan’s intent, as he admitted at the time, was to replace the Dot.com internet stock bubble with a real estate home investment and lending bubble. He argued that was the only way to keep the US economy from deep recession. In retrospect a recession in 2002 would have been far milder and less damaging than what we now face.

Of course, Greenspan has since safely retired, written his memoirs and handed the control (and blame) of the mess over to a young ex-Princeton professor, Ben Bernanke. As a Princeton graduate, I can say I would never trust monetary policy for the world’s most powerful central bank in the hands of a Princeton economics professor. Keep them in their ivy-covered towers.

Now the last phase of every speculative bubble is the one where the animal juices get the most excited. This has been the case with every major speculative bubble since the Holland Tulip speculation of the 1630’s to the South Sea Bubble of 1720 to the 1929 Wall Street crash. It was true as well with the US 2002-2007 Real Estate bubble. In the last two years of the boom in selling real estate loans, banks were convinced they could resell the mortgage loans to a Wall Street financial house who would bundle it with thousands of good better and worse quality mortgage loans and resell them as Collateralized Mortgage Obligation bonds. In the flush of greed, banks became increasingly reckless of the credit worthiness of the prospective home owners. In many cases they did not even bother to check if the person was employed. Who cares? It will be resold and securitized and the risk of mortgage default was historically low.

That was in 2005. The most Sub-prime mortgages written with Adjustable Rate Mortgage contracts were written between 2005-2006, the last and most furious phase of the US bubble. Now a whole new wave of mortgage defaults is about to explode onto the scene beginning January 2008. Between December 2007 and July 1, 2008 more than $690 Billion in mortgages will face an interest rate jump according to the contract terms of the ARMs written two years before. That means market interest rates for those mortgages will explode monthly payments just as recession drives incomes down. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners will be forced to do the last resort of any homeowner: stop monthly mortgage payments.

Here is where the Ohio court decision guarantees that the next phase of the US mortgage crisis will assume Tsunami dimension. If the Ohio Deutsche Bank precedent holds in the appeal to the Supreme Court, millions of homes will be in default but the banks prevented from seizing them as collateral assets to resell. Robert Shiller of Yale, the controversial and often correct author of the book, Irrational Exuberance, predicting the 2001-2 Dot.com stock crash, estimates US housing prices could fall as much as 50% in some areas given how home prices have diverged relative to rents.

The $690 billion worth of “interest only” ARMs due for interest rate hike between now and July 2008 are by and large not Sub-prime but a little higher quality, but only just. There are a total of $1.4 trillion in “interest only” ARMs according to the US research firm, First American Loan Performance. A recent study calculates that, as these ARMs face staggering higher interest costs in the next 9 months, more than $325 billion of the loans will default leaving 1 million property owners in technical mortgage default. But if banks are unable to reclaim the homes as assets to offset the non-performing mortgages, the US banking system and a chunk of the global banking system faces a financial gridlock that will make events to date truly “peanuts” by comparison. We will discuss the global geo-political implications of this in our next report, The Financial Tsunami: Part 2.

F. William Engdahl is the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). His most recent book, which has just been released by Global Research is Seeds of Destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:11 pm

.

I found this helpful, and I'm sure many will feel the same.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2007
The Money/Credit Cycle....

I'm going to "spend" my ticker today talking about something that you're not taught in school, yet is critical to understanding where we are - and where we're headed in the markets.

That is the money and credit cycle.

Let us think for a moment about what money really is. Gold is often called "real money", with the implication that other things used as money aren't "real".

Yet money, in the simplest (and most correct) definition is simply "a medium of exchange."

Through the years feathers, bones, foodstuffs and jewels have been used as money.

But - how is money created? Clearly, money must be controlled somehow, right? Otherwise you could walk over to your closest copier and run some off for yourself..... as much as you'd like. That would anger people, don't you think?

The first thing to get your mind around is that money, credit and debt are all interchangeable. In the world of economists these are known as "fungible" - that is, interchangeable without limit.

Today, when you go to the store and swipe your debit card, you are actually spending credit.

Let's say you walk into a restaurant and eat lunch. At the instant you order, you are in debt for $10 - the cost of the lunch. When you pay with your debit card, you settle that debt by moving $10 worth of credit from your account at the bank to the account at the restaurant.

So far so good.

But - where did the $10 you spent come from?

It was created through credit - that is, debt!

Let's start with a world where there is no money but some people own land. With land I can grow a crop to feed my family, but I first must acquire some seeds. Joe down the street has seeds, but he does not have land. We would both like to eat.

Therefore, I issue a debt to Joe in exchange for some seeds; I create money! I give him a promise to pay him part of my crop if he will give me some seed. He does; what he holds in his hands is, in fact, money. I have created it out of thin air by putting myself in debt.

Now what's the problem with that? Well, what happens to Joe if there is a drought? He has given up his seeds, but there is no crop! He loses. That's called risk.

Because of this risk, he will charge me "interest". That is, he wants somewhat more than the value of his seeds to cover the chance that I will in fact produce nothing with them.

And from this - risk - we sow the seeds of what ultimately causes headaches for the monetary system.

Let's say that today you wish to buy a car. You go into a bank and get them to agree to issue you a loan to buy that car. Let's say the loan is for $20,000. You sign a contract promising to pay back the $20,000 plus a rate of interest, which is charged so that the bank is covered for the risk that you won't pay them, and the value of the car at that time might not be as much as you owe. The car is the "security" for the loan - if you fail to pay, they will come and repossess it.

You now have $20,000 in your pocket, and you purchase the car. (We'll get back to how the $20,000 came to be in a minute.)

If these were the only two transactions in the world, you would soon recognize a serious problem - there is only $20,000 in money in the world, but you owe more than $20,000! The interest you must pay means that you somehow must acquire more money than exists in the world over the life of that loan in order to pay it back.

There is only one solution to this problem - the amount of money in the world must increase.

So the government will just print some more, right? After all, the can do anything they want.

Uh, no. If the government were to do that then the value of all the money currently in existence would go down by the exact amount that they printed. You could pay your debt but the bank would be in serious trouble because the money they got paid back with would not be worth as much as the money they gave you!

So where did the money come from?

It was created by the bank because some people trusted THEIR wealth to the bank to "hold" it for them - that is, they deposited some funds with the bank, and through the system of fractional reserve banking, the bank was thus able to "create" a certain amount of credit for each dollar on deposit.

If that system was short-circuited by a "raw printing" of money by the government, this would result in everyone "upstream" of you being hosed!

This of course is not acceptable to anyone (except you!) - the bank and auto manufacturer, along with the bank's depositors, specifically, would shortly say "no way!" and remove their funds from that system, choosing instead to do something else with it.

While many people believe that raw printing of currency is how governments respond to the need for "more money" or "more liquidity", with the exception of dictatorships this simply doesn't happen.

Instead, more money is created not through direct inflation, but rather through the pledging of more assets - that is, the creation of more credit/debt!

If the government wants to spend more it issues more debt (Treasury Bills/Bonds) which are then sold into the market - with interest attached. Due to fractional reserve banking once those bonds are purchased the funds can then be lent out at a multiple of the money received.

But wait a minute........

Isn't there a limit to this?

Ah, now there's the rub.

THERE IS!

See, there are only so many assets available to pledge. While human industry creates more over time - that is, we get better productivity through innovation and technology - there is a natural limit to the pledging of assets.

What's worse, the growth of money required to be able to meet interest and principal demand is an ever-increasing function. The "power" of compound rates of return is the damnation of compound interest, and in this case, its working against the system as a whole.

When the limit is reached - that is, there are insufficient remaining owners of credit-worthy assets who will (or can!) pledge them in return for more credit (money) being issued to them the system will fail and reset.

This is what happened in the 1930s.

It should have happened after the Tech Wreck in 2000.

But it did not, because when the velocity of money slowed precipitously in the tech wreck and Greenspan followed that velocity down by cutting Fed Funds to 1%, he managed to entice homeowners into pledging their HOUSES as collateral for yet another round of "reflation" in credit!

So the "reset" was avoided - for a while.

But - you saw what happened.

House prices exploded upwards as credit standards were thrown out and anyone who had a pulse qualified for a huge mortgage. The house was thought of as "security", making the loan cheap.

Or was it?

What did the mortgage companies and banks that made these loans know?

Well, what do you think they knew? They sold those loans off into the marketplace, keeping only a little - or none - of the risk for themselves.

Why?

Because they know what likely lies ahead - a monetary system "reset"!

This "last phase" marks a desperate reach for one more group of "suckers."

It is this phase which precedes the reset as debt merchants realize that they are in fact granting credit (creating money) to people who do not really qualify for it and have a high risk of default. As a consequence they will do everything in their power to collect as much of the "spread" (interest) as they are able, but lay off as much of the risk of the "reset" (default) as they can.

"Securitization" can be an element of misleading people into funding debt that will never be repaid because it allows yet another cycle of "credit reflation" while the risk is laid off on those unwitting market participants.

While "securitization" has its place in the credit cycle, when regulation is intentionally ducked by the government or worse, lending limits such as the existing "23A" exemptions are used like heroin given to an addict, the depth of the "reset" to come is grossly enhanced and the number of individuals and organizations that take the pain from the default cycle to come is significantly increased.

Unfortunately the ever-growing interest payment monster is now running into the hard reality that we're just about out of pledgable assets to put behind more credit.

WE ARE NOW FACING A "RESET" IN THE SYSTEM!

What happens in a "reset"?

The rate of credit creation slows precipitously as the list of assets that can be pledged dwindles down.
The interest and principal payments due on existing debt get close to and ultimately exceed the amount of money in the system, as the rate of credit (money) creation slows.
Those who detect this while they still have money pay off their debts, (correctly) deducing that a "reset" is about to take place - and that cash (assets) will have value, while debt will be a millstone that will drag you underwater.
Those who are unable to pay off their debts will find that a contracting credit (money) supply leaves them with insufficient funds to pay their debts. Debt defaults at a rapidly increasing rate.
The creditors (who granted the credit) will repossess the assets pledged for the debt in lieu of payment, while the debtors are financially destroyed.
The destruction of outstanding credit via default shrinks the money supply further, and we go back to #1.
This continues until equilibrium is reestablished, and the cycle begins anew.

Does this sounds kinda like what's going on?

It should - because it is.

Housing loans are defaulting. This is not "contained" to subprime and cannot be. As these loans default at a rate far beyond what was originally envisioned they contract the total amount of money in the system. This then forces defaults in other classes of debt - credit cards, automobiles, and various sorts of commercial credit as the money in the system is insufficient to service the debt that is owed.

This cycle will continue until equilibrium is restored. The depths to which we must go before equilibrium is reached, and exactly when it will initiate, is not possible to know in advance, but that we absolutely are going to undergo this process is known with certainty!

Creditors will end up with all the assets that are pledged on debts that default. Debtors will end up broke.

This is a natural cycle and cannot be prevented; it is an inherent and necessary function of any financial system which involves return for risk (commonly known as interest), and it is not possible to have a lending system that does not compensate for risk!

Whether you're on a gold standard or not is IMMATERIAL, whether there is a Federal Reserve is IMMATERIAL.

This is not taught in school, but it damn well should be.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BASIC MATHEMATICS HERE.

Mathematics is the only TRUE science AND IT DOES NOT LIE.

How do you deal with this as a PRUDENT individual?

Bluntly, you should avoid debt to the maximum extent possible, especially long-term debt, because it is not possible to predict exactly when a "reset" will occur - but that resets WILL happen is a mathematical certainty.

For most people, avoiding all debt is simply unreasonable. But when you start to live your life in such a fashion that you are financing your standard of living with long-term obligations you are at severe risk of being bankrupted outright when a "monetary reset" occurs - and odds are, there will be one at some point during each of our lifetimes.

Obviously, governments desire to prevent "resets", because they are terribly disruptive to the economy. They destroy those who have chosen to employ leverage in their financial lives, both corporate and personal, almost without exception. They contract GDP severely as the monetary velocity slows precipitously, and cause huge ramps in unemployment. In extreme cases they can lead to civil unrest or even radical changes in the form of government in a nation (e.g. the rise of Adolph Hitler), especially if the government mismanages the reset process or attempts to bail people out through "direct" monetary inflation.

By the way, before you believe that the government will simply "print money", should that be attempted (or some resemblance of it - e.g. government issues Ts, The Fed buys them and injects the money) the response in the market will be an instantaneous shutdown of private (and outside-US) buyers of debt, as the demand for yields will go parabolic to a degree that the government will be effectively priced out. Since the government needs debt market access to be able to continue to operate, this idea is a non-starter and the government knows it.

The sad reality is that each attempt to prevent a "reset" through meddling in the markets simply makes the ultimate event worse, as the amount of credit that must default to restore equilibrium ratchets higher with each new intervention.

We avoided the "Reset" in 2001/2003, but in doing so we insured that an even bigger one would occur.

Are we now in the beginning of the next "big" reset after the 1930s?

It is not possible to know until we are in the depths of it whether the snowball will gain enough momentum so that it smashes attempts at intervention. Once you can identify with certainty that a "reset" is underway it is too late to position yourself for it.

The risks of this event are now higher than they have been at any time in the previous 50 years.

To believe that we will avoid this event, you have to figure out where the next set of assets will come from that can be pledged for another cycle of credit relfation.

Without that new, unencumbered set of assets, the process of the monetary reset is assured.

Oh, in the news of the day Paulson outlined his "plan" to try to avert foreclosures. Two things:

It won't work. Basically everyone who is in trouble is in trouble because they were sold loans that the originators knew they couldn't afford. There is no fix for this; they are due to get a personal "reset." This scheme of giving money to anyone who has a pulse is how the credit expansion was played for "one more round" after 2000; that can't be fixed.
Trying to finance this with tax-free munis is a non-starter. Among other things, the coupon required to float those will be obscene, which will kill it right there (you can't loan for less than you pay.)
Oh by the way, Paulson knows about the Credit/Money Cycle. He's NOT stupid.

You won't hear him talk about it, because if was to do so he would be quickly backed into a corner where he'd be forced to either dissemble or admit that indeed, we are very likely facing that very "reset" that he claims he has a way to avoid.


http://market-ticker.denninger.net/


He sounds right to me.

But there is one additional source of wealth that could be employed to give another twist to the credit cycle.

Social Security.

Now you know why the Candidates are so keen to talk about "problems" in Social Security.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests