Disgraced Ex-Governor Eliot Spitzer Starting Real Estate ‘Vulture’ Fund

Do you want to profit from the housing crisis and the mortgage meltdown?

Disgraced ex-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer might have just the opportunity you’ve been looking for.

Spitzer is putting together a real estate “vulture fund” to buy and flip distressed property, envisioning projects valued between $100 million and $500 million.

According to the New York Sun, “Eliot Spitzer, in his first big business venture since he was shamed out of office by a prostitution scandal, is shopping around a plan to start a vulture fund that would scoop up distressed real estate assets around the country, revamp them, and flip the properties for a profit. Late last month, the former governor of New York gathered a group of high-level Washington, D.C.-based labor union officials in a conference room at the headquarters of his father’s real estate business in Manhattan and pitched them his idea for starting such a fund, a source said.”

Eliot Spitzer’s father is multi-millionaire Manhattan real estate developer Bernard Spitzer, known for building one of New York City’s largest real estate firms (one of his properties is The Corinthian, a spectacular 55-story, 1.1 million square foot apartment building), as well as for bank-rolling his son’s political career.  The ex-Governor has been working with his father’s firm since resigning last March.

The Sun stated that “In the half-hour meeting, Mr. Spitzer told the officials that he was determined to take his ailing father’s real estate company to ‘the next level’, the source said. Mr. Spitzer said he would lay out his business plan in greater detail at a later date, and would ask the labor officials to consider investing pension fund money under their control.”

“Mr. Spitzer is moving aggressively to occupy a niche created by the credit crunch, the subprime mortgage crisis, a surge in foreclosures, and a declining real estate market. He is looking to mine for riches in projects that banks are no longer willing to finance.”

Spitzer apparently believes that the prostitution scandal that cost him the Governor’s office (and a fast-track to even higher political office) was really a blessing in disguise:

“During the meeting, Mr. Spitzer expressed relief that he was no longer burdened with the frustrations of being governor, according to the source. And, in contrast to his repentant resignation speech that he delivered beside his tearful wife, Silda Wall, he took a more relaxed view of his indiscretions. He has told friends and associates that he is consoled by passersby who stop him on the city sidewalks and tell him that sex is ‘no big deal’ and that the disclosure that he frequented prostitutes was distorted out of proportion, the source said. Europeans, the former governor has noted, have been especially supportive of him and perplexed by the fallout from the scandal.”

Spitzer’s real estate dreams may have to be put on hold, however, as federal law enforcement authorities might force him to make other plans.

The New York Post reports that ” The noose appears to be tightening around sex-crazed ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer.”

According to The Post, “The federal case against him is so strong that prosecutors had no interest in striking cooperation agreements with the ringleader of Spitzer’s hooker-supplier, Emperors Club VIP, and his second in command, sources told The Post‘s Murray Weiss. Prosecutors have records of Spitzer’s transactions, phone records and taped conversations with Emperors Club, and are confident they need little more to nail him on charges that could include violating prostitution laws and money laundering, sources said. Probers are also said to be looking into whether he used campaign funds to pay for his pleasures.”

“The case against Spitzer includes the cooperation of curvy call girl Ashley ‘Kristen’ Dupre and a second hooker. Her old boss, Mark Brener, 62, will plead guilty Thursday without the sweetheart deal he was hoping for – he’ll have to serve up to 30 months in the slammer on money-laundering and prostitution-conspiracy charges.”

In addition, Temeka Lewis, who worked for Brener at the Emperor’s Club, pled guilty in a cooperation agreement that requires her to testify about Spitzer’s involvement with the prostitution ring and his alleged attempts to conceal payments for sex.

We think that a “vulture fund” meeting with Eliot Spitzer where he pitches cashing in on the foreclosure crisis doesn’t help improve the image of labor unions or union leaders.

We also think that anyone considering investing in Spitzer’s real estate project should think about whether the fund could do without the presence of the ex-Governor for several years while he stays at the Gray Bar Hotel.

 

Why Bank of America Won’t Acquire Countrywide

The New York Times reports today that Bank of America is still firmly committed to acquiring crippled mortgage giant Countrywide Financial. 

After reading the article, we’re convinced that the deal isn’t going to happen.

According to the Times, Bank of America’s chief executive Kenneth D. Lewis “confirmed his commitment to the Countrywide buyout, which is expected to close by the end of September. When asked about the fact that home prices have plummeted and loan defaults have soared since the deal was announced, Mr. Lewis defended it as ‘compelling’, with a ‘pretty nice’ upside. ‘We don’t have our heads in the sand,’ he said.”

But the facts are that Countrywide has lost $2.5 billion in just the last three quarters. As the Times noted, in the first quarter of 2008, Countrywide’s total nonperforming assets hit $6 billion, almost five times that of the same period last year.

Countrywide has more than $95 billion in loans held for investments on its books, many of them adjustable-rate mortgages written on properties in California and Florida, where prices are still falling. Moreover, $34 billion of these loans are home equity lines of credit and second liens, which are riskier because they are more likely to generate losses when home values fall.

In addition, the Times said, “Countrywide has $15.6 billion in mortgages and related securities that it hopes to sell. Of these, $10.4 billion are so-called Level 2, and hard to value because the market for them is inactive. An additional $5.1 billion are valued on internal company models, not market prices.”

The Times quoted several analysts who think that the Countrywide deal is a bad move.

Paul J. Miller, managing director at the securities firm Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, which has published a report analysing the acquisition, called the purchase of Countrywide by Bank of America “a horrible deal.” 

Miller estimates that the deal will cost Bank of America an additional $10 billion to $15 billion above the $4 billion purchase price when a final accounting of losses is made.  Miller also said that Bank of America could face write-downs of up to $30 billion if goes ahead with buying Countrywide.

Instead, Miller think that Bank of America should  “completely walk away” from the deal.

Bloomberg News also points out the potential disaster awaiting Bank of America if it goes ahead with the Countrywide deal. 

Bloomberg observes that Bank of America stock has dropped 17 points since the deal was announced, and quotes Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics as saying that “If Ken Lewis pulls the trigger on Countrywide, he’s going to lose his job. It’s so early in the cycle of this housing downturn, you almost know that they are going to go wrong.”

Further, as the subprime mortgage industry collapsed and took much of the national economy with it, Countrywide and its executives have been hit with a barrage of criticism, investigations, and lawsuits, and could even face criminal charges. 

Even with its decision last week to jettison Countrywide COO David Sambol (who it had onced pledged to keep on board), Bank of America is likely to come under sharp criticism for its association with the Countrywide, which has become the poster-child for the greed, mismanagement, false advertising and outright fraud that led to the subprime meltdown.

As law professor Carl Tobias is quoted as saying, “there ought to be concern on Bank of America’s part as to reputation and what these bankruptcy trustees and judges are saying.”

There are some signs that the deal is falling apart even as the Federal Reserve gave the deal its blessing. Last month, Bank of America  said in a filing that it’s not promising to guarantee the debt of Countrywide.

Our guess is that the Times article is, in fact, part of an exit strategy by Bank of America, and that it will soon find a compelling reason to back out of the deal.

 UPDATE:

We were wrong here — Bank of America purchased Countrywide on July 1. 

According to Bank of America CEO Kenneth D. Lewis, “This purchase significantly increases Bank of America’s market share in consumer real estate, and as our companies combine, we believe Bank of America will benefit from excellent systems and a broad distribution network that will offer more ways to meet our customers’ credit needs.”

In a press release, Bank of America vowed to make changes in the way Countrywide operates its mortgage business and stressed a new approach meant to change the company’s image:

“Bank of America will pursue a new goal to lend and invest $1.5 trillion for community development over the next 10 years beginning in 2009. The goal will focus on affordable housing, economic development and consumer and small business lending and replace existing community development goals of both companies. Bank of America also previously announced a $35 million neighborhood preservation and foreclosure prevention package by both companies focusing on grants and low-cost loans to help local and national nonprofit organizations engaged in foreclosure prevention, and to purchase vacant single-family homes for neighborhood preservation. The combined company will modify or workout about $40 billion in troubled mortgage loans in the next two years and these efforts will keep an estimated 265,000 customers in their homes. The combined loss mitigation staffs will be maintained at the level of more than 3,900 for at least one year.”

But most analysts — and some major Bank of America shareholders — are still wondering what Lewis could be thinking in taking on Countrywide’s horrendous public image, its debt, and its expanding liability in numerous lawsuits.

A Bad Week for Countrywide’s David Sambol

This was not a good week for Countrywide president and COO David Sambol. 

First, a federal court refused to dismiss a shareholder suit against Sambol and other executives and directors of Countrywide.

The lawsuit that alleges that Sambol and the other defendants violated their fiduciary duties by lack of good faith and lack of oversight of Countrywide’s lending practices, improper financial reporting and internal controls, and the unlawful sale of over $848 million of Countrywide stock between 2004 and 2008 at inflated prices based on material inside information.

In refusing to dismiss the case, the judge said that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs “create[s] a cogent and compelling inference that the Individual Defendants misled the public with regard to the rigor of Countrywide’s loan origination process, the quality of its loans, and the Company’s financial situation – even as they realized that Countrywide had virtually abandoned its own loan underwriting practices.”

The plaintiffs are seeking millions of dollars in damages.

Second, Sambol was given the heave-ho by Bank of America, the new boss at Countrywide.

When Bank of America announced plans to take over Countrywide in January, CEO Ken Lewis said Sambol would continue to lead the entire mortgage business for B of A once the merger was complete. Sambol was even given a retention bonus of $1.9 million and 335,126 restricted stock units. 

Then in March, Bank of America agreed to set up a $20 million retention account for Sambol, plus $8 million in restricted stock.

But that was then. 

This is now:  

Bank of America announced this week that Sambol is being replaced by Barbara Desoer, B of A’s chief technology and operations officer.

One of the allegations in the shareholder suit is that Bank of America “bought” Sambol’s support for its takeover of Countrywide with extravagant remuneration offers and the promise that he would run the combined company’s consumer mortgage business.

Now it appears that Sambol, along with Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, are too tied to the subprime mortgage debacle and the foreclosure crisis  — and perhaps unlawful stock sales and other breaches of fiduciary duties — for Bank of America to keep around.

 

Judge Rules Mozilo and Countrywide Execs Must Face Multi-Million Dollar Federal Lawsuit

Angelo R. Mozilo, the perennially smiling and suntanned CEO of subprime giant Countrywide Financial Corp., may have finessed the recent Congressional hearingson the millions in compensation given to the executives of financially devastated subprime lenders even as their investors lost billions, but he hasn’t been able to escape a multi-million dollar shareholder lawsuit filed against him in federal court.

The shareholder derivative action was filed on behalf of Countrywide by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, the Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System, the Central Laborers Pension Fund, and the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System, against Mozilo and other senior Countrywide officers and the members of Countrywide’s board of directors.

The lawsuit alleges misconduct by the defendants and disregard for their fiduciary duties, including lack of good faith and lack of oversight of Countrywide’s lending practices, improper financial reporting and internal controls, as well as the unlawful sale by Citywide’s officers and directors of over $848 million of Countrywide stock between 2004 and 2008 at inflated prices while in possession of material inside information.

You can read the complaint here

Last week, Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer of Federal District Court in Los Angeles rejected the attempt by Mozilo and other defendants to dismiss the case and ruled that the case could go forward.

Judge Pfaelzer didn’t buy the arguments of Countrywide executives and directors that they were unaware of lax loan operations that led to ballooning defaults.  Instead, she found that confidential witness accounts in the shareholder complaint were credible and suggested “a widespread company culture that encouraged employees to push mortgages through without regard to underwriting standards.”

The judge found that the plaintiffs identified “numerous red flags” that should have warned directors of increasingly risky loans made by Countrywide.  “It defies reason, given the entirety of the allegations,” Judge Pfaelzer wrote, “that these committee members could be blind to widespread deviations from the underwriting policies and standards being committed by employees at all levels. At the same time, it does not appear that the committees took corrective action.”

In fact, rather than taking corrective action, the judge found that Countrywide executives made numerous public statements, proxy statements, and SEC filings that falsely stated both the financial condition of the company and the efforts being made to control potential loses.

The judge concluded that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs “create a cogent and compelling inference that the Individual Defendants misled the public with regard to the rigor of Countrywide’s loan origination process, the quality of its loans, and the Company’s financial situation – even as they realized that Countrywide had virtually abandoned its own loan underwriting practices.”

“During the relevant period, Plaintiffs assert that Countrywide began to approve even more risky loans that departed significantly from its established underwriting guidelines. While this increased the volume of loans originated by Countrywide and inflated its market share, this strategy also drastically lowered the quality of the loans and retained interests that Countrywide held for investment, as well as the quality of the mortgage-backed securities it sold into the secondary market. Plaintiffs contend that these low quality mortgages, many of which were approved with low or no documentation from the borrower, exposed Countrywide to a vast amount of undisclosed risk because loan quality is essential to virtually every facet of Countrywide’s business operations. Plaintiffs further assert that the Individual Defendants, due to their roles as members of certain Committees, proceeded with actual knowledge of these problems, or at least deliberate recklessness.”

It is expected that Mozilo’s $474 million in stock sales between 2004 and 2007 will get particular attention because he repeatedly changed the terms of his 10b5-1 prearranged stock-sale program to allow more shares to be sold. “Mozilo’s actions,” the judge wrote, “appear to defeat the very purpose of 10b5-1 plans.”

In addition to Mozilo, the defendants include David Sambol (Countrywide Director since Sept. 2007, President and Chief Operating Officer, and various other executive positions), Jeffrey M. Cunningham Director since 1998), Robert J. Donato (Director since 1993), Martin R. Melone (Director since 2003), Robert T. Parry (Director since 2004), Oscar P. Robertson (Director since 2000), Keith P. Russell Director since 2003), Harley W. Snyder (Director since 1991), Henry G. Cisneros (Director from 2001-Oct. 2007), Michael E. Dougherty (Director from 1998-Jun. 2007), Stanford M. Kurland (President and Chief Operating Officer until 2006, and various other executive positions), Carlos M. Garcia (several executive positions and former Chief Financial Officer), and Eric P. Sieracki (Chief Financial Officer and Executive Managing Director).

One of the defendants, Countrywide Director Henry G. Cisneros, has had a particularly shaddy record since being forced to resign as President Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 1997. Cisneros pled guilty to making false statements to federal officials in an investigation of illegal payments he made to his mistress. He was pardoned by Clinton in January 2001.

You can read the judge’s decision here.

UPDATE:

Read about Bank of America’s firing of David Sambol, Countrywide’s president and COO (and a principal defendant in the shareholder lawsuit).

 

One of Charles Head’s “Operation Homewrecker” Scammers Still Listed as Broker on Reverse Mortgage Website

Keith Brotemarkle, one of the people indicted with Charles Head in an alleged “equity stripping” scheme called Operation Homewrecker, was also involved in a reverse mortgage company called Reverse Mortgage Resources.

The company’s website “invites qualified brokers to become Approved Reverse Mortgage Advisors” with Reverse Mortgage Resources.  It asks potential affiliated brokers ” Who did you speak with at Reverse Mortgage Resources?” 

One of the brokers listed as being at Reverse Mortgage Resources is Keith Brotemarkle.

Brotemarkle was allegedly a participant in Charles Head’s “equity stripping” scheme that netted approximately $5.9 million in stolen equity from 68 homeowners in states across the nation. Targeting distressed homeowners and defrauding mortgage lenders through the use of straw buyers, Head would receive approximately 97 percent of the stolen equity, while the other defendants received either the remaining 3 percent of equity or a salary from the fraudulently-obtained funding. The defendants used referrals from mortgage brokers to identify and solicit new victim homeowners, and also sent “blast faxes” to mortgage brokers throughout the country and mass emails to potential victims. Through misrepresentations and omissions, desperate homeowners would be offered what appeared to be their last best chance to save their homes. Victims were left without their homes, equity, or credit.

The FBI has recently announced that it has begun an investigation to the misuse of reverse mortgages.  Reverse mortgages release the equity in a property to the homeowner in one lump sum or multiple payments. The homeowner’s obligation to repay the loan is deferred until the owner dies, the home is sold, or the owner leaves the home.  In the U.S., reverse mortgages are available for people 62 years old or older. Reverse mortgages are typically used to finance retirement or pay unexpected medical bills.  While reverse mortgages can make sense for seniors, the FBI is concerned about possible abusive sales practices that prey on seniors, such as aggressive and untruthful marketing and excessive fees.

Reverse Mortgage Resources is run by mortgage broker Don Marginson.  Its website states that it is located in Ranch Bernardo, California, and that it is “expanding again with offices to cover the Southeast and Northeast United States.”

We have no reason to believe that Reverse Mortgage Resources is not legitimate, and we would not want to assume that it is illegitimate simply because of its association with Brotemarkle.

But we would suggest that they remove Brotemarkle’s name from its website.

 

 

N.Y. Times Editorial Calls for Foreclosure Prevention Legislation Before the Next Mortgage Meltdown

The New York Times entered into the politics of the foreclosure crisis with an explosive editorial today accusing the Bush administration of failing to protect the economy and instead “sowing confusion and delay” in the face of the mortgage meltdown.

Here’s what the Times said:

“The housing bust is feeding on itself: price declines provoke foreclosures, which provoke more price declines. And the problem is not limited to subprime mortgages. There is an entirely different category of risky loans whose impact has yet to be felt — loans made to creditworthy borrowers but with tricky terms and interest rates that will start climbing next year.”

“Yet the Senate Banking Committee goes on talking. It has failed as yet to produce a bill to aid borrowers at risk of foreclosure, with the panel’s ranking Republican, Richard Shelby of Alabama, raising objections. In the House, a foreclosure aid measure passed recently, but with the support of only 39 Republicans. The White House has yet to articulate a coherent way forward, sowing confusion and delay.”

“[I]f house prices fall more than expected — a peak-to-trough decline of 20 percent to 25 percent is the rough consensus, with the low point in mid-2009 — financial losses and economic pain could extend well into 2011.”

“That is because a category of risky adjustable-rate loans — dubbed Alt-A, for alternative to grade-A prime loans — is scheduled to reset to higher payments starting in 2009, with losses mounting into 2010 and 2011. Distinct from subprime loans, Alt-A loans were made to generally creditworthy borrowers, but often without verification of income or assets and on tricky terms, including the option to pay only the interest due each month. Some loans allow borrowers to pay even less than the interest due monthly, and add the unpaid portion to the loan balance. Every payment increases the amount owed.”

“In coming years, if price declines are in line with expectations, Alt-A losses are projected to total about $150 billion, an amount the financial system could probably absorb. But until investors are sure that price declines will hew to the consensus, the financial system will not regain a sure footing. And if declines are worse than expected, losses will also be worse and the turmoil in the financial system will resume.”

“There’s a way to avert that calamity. It’s called foreclosure prevention. There is no excuse for delay.”

We agree with the Times that effective foreclosure prevention legislation is long overdue.  As the Times pointed out, unless Congress acts fast, it is likely that the economic consequences of the bursting of the housing bubble will be even more serious and widespread.

Even Fed Chair Ben Bernanke — who could not be called an advocate of government intervention in the markets — has stated that “High rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets, and the broader economy” and that what is at stake is not merely the homes of borrowers, but “the stability of the financial system.” 

We also can not imagine a more self-defeating political strategy than that of the Republicans who have opposed foreclosure prevention legislation. 

We’ve already written about Senator Richard Shelby’s close ties to the apartment owners industry, which has aggressively opposed federal aid to homeowners in, or near, default.

Surely, with the presidential election only months away and their party in trouble, more Republicans — including Senator McCain — should see the need for coming to terms with the economic, and political, realities of the foreclosure crisis, even if it requires ideological compromise.

 

Has the Credit Market Thawed? Is it Freezing Up Again? And Are You Still Out in the Cold?

We’ve written before about the failure of the Fed’s policy of cutting short-term interest rates — seven times since September 2007 — to spur liquidity in the credit market. 

The good news today is that there is “significant improvement in the credit markets since late March,” according to the Wall St. Journal.

The bad news, also reported by the Wall St. Journal, is that this recent thaw in the credit market is not expected to last:

“‘Most of us are anticipating two steps forward, one step back and carefully watching where the markets can handle deals,’ said Tyler Dickson, who oversees capital raising at Citigroup.”

“‘There’s no question the tone in the market is getting better,’ says Jim Casey, co-head of leveraged finance at J.P. Morgan Chase.  He adds, however, that ‘there is some concern that this might be a short-term window of opportunity for issuers, since investors are still very focused on default rates and the potential severity of a recession.'”

“‘Risk tolerance is still pretty low,’ says Daniel Toscano, a managing director of leveraged and acquisition finance at HSBC Securities in New York.”

“Banks and debt investors are treading carefully,” the article said. “Investment banks, which incurred big losses after selling a lot of buyout debt at heavily discounted prices, are committing only to deals they can underwrite at a profit. And investors don’t want to be caught wrong-footed if corporate defaults spike.”

We think that the report of a credit thaw is premature.  For most businesses and individuals, the credit market is still frozen solid. 

Blackstone Group LP President Tony James appears to agree with us.  James told Bloomberg News that banks are mistaken if they think credit markets have begun a sustained recovery. 

Rather than a real break in the dismal credit forecast, James said that this little patch of sunshine may be “the eye of the hurricane.”

There is clearly no de-icing of the credit market that would significantly impact the housing crisis or allow Fed Chair Ben Bernanke to sleep without getting the chills at night.

 

 

Who is Still Against Federal Foreclosure Legislation?

As the Congress comes closer to passing legislation to help homeowners facing foreclosure, it is worth taking a look at the opposition to federal foreclosure aid.

Of course, there are those who strictly oppose nearly all forms of government intervention in the economy.  Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul and his free market libertarian supporters would be among this group.

Then are those who are opposed to market interventions in general, but will support some government interventions when the stability of the market is at stake.  Most Republicans fit into this group — including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke.

That’s why it was significant that it was Bernanke who last week made the most convincing argument from a free market perspective for federal aid to homeowners facing foreclosure.

As we noted in an earlier post, Bernanke told an audience at the Columbia Business School that the foreclosure crisis posed the clear and present danger of wreaking economic havoc far beyond the housing market. “High rates of delinquency and foreclosure,” Bernanke said, “can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets, and the broader economy.”

What is at stake, according to Bernanke, is not merely the homes and financial well-being of hundreds of thousands of borrowers, but “the stability of the financial system.”  In this extreme circumstance, even staunch free market advocates, such as Bernanke himself, recognize the need for the government to intervene in the market.

We think, then, that the overwhelming vote in the House of Representives in favor of government intervention to stop the rising tide of foreclosures — legislation that now has the support of many free market Republicans — was rooted at least as much in the economic reality of averting catastrophe as the political expediency of government largess in an election year.

Who then is still opposed to foreclosure aid?

The answer is the apartment owners.

Behind any legislative process is a power struggle of conflicting interests, and very often these interests are economic.  In the case of foreclosure aid, there this now a growing consensus that the foreclosure crisis threatens not merely the borrowers and the lenders, but the economy as a whole and hence the economic interests of almost every sector of the economy.

Except apartment owners.

The National Multi-Housing Council (NMHC) and the National Apartment Association (NAA) have consistently argued that the blame for the foreclosure crisis is what they have called the “misguided” national policy of “home ownership at any cost” and that “People were enticed into houses they could not afford and the rarely spoken truth that there is such a thing as too much homeownership was forgotten.”

The fact is that in sharp contrast to other sectors of the real estate market, the apartment industry has not suffered as a result of the current housing crisis.  Rather, as we’ve noted before, the real estate crisis is forcing the lower end of the single-family housing market back into multi-family rental apartments.  People have to live somewhere — if they can’t afford to live in a house that they own, they will be forced to live in a house that someone else owns, such as multi-family apartment units. As homeowners suffer, apartment owners benefit.

The apartment industry has some very powerful supporters in Congress, including Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.   Senator Shelby,  who has opposed federal intervention to stop foreclosures, has made millions as a landlord and is the owner of a 124-unit apartment complex in Tuscaloosa called the Yorktown Commons. 

“I want the market to work if it can, and most of the time it will, but not without some pain,”  Senator Shelby has said.

This time, the pain appears to be too great, too wide-spread, and too dangerous, for most other members of Congress, as well as most important players in the economy, to allow it to continue unabated.

Indeed, Shelby has already signaled that he would support a version of the legislation — and that the White House would sign the bill into law.

“I think if we reach a compromise,” Shelby said, “it would be acceptable to the White House because, as a Republican and former chairman of the committee, I’m going to do everything I can, work with the administration, to make sure that the program works for those it’s intended to do and make sure we can afford it as a nation.”

In this crisis, even Senator Shelby has other, larger, and more important economic interests at stake than helping the apartment industry.

 

 

Fed Chair Bernanke Warns Foreclosures Could Sink US Economy — Is He Threatening Lenders?

In a speech today at the Columbia Business School, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke issued his strongest warning to date about the danger of the rising tide of home foreclosures sinking the US economy.

“High rates of delinquency and foreclosure,” Bernanke said, “can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets, and the broader economy.”

Bernanke began by detailing some of the nasty numbers of the foreclosure crisis:

• About one quarter of subprime adjustable-rate mortgages are currently 90 days or more delinquent or in foreclosure.
• Foreclosure proceedings were initiated on some 1.5 million U.S. homes during 2007, up 53 percent from 2006.
• The rate of foreclosure starts is likely to be even higher in 2008.
• Delinquency rates have increased in the prime and near-prime segments of the mortgage market.

He then warned that the catastrophic effects of these millions of foreclosure proceedings will extend far beyond the parties to the mortgage:

“It is important to recognize,” Bernanke said, “that the costs of foreclosure may extend well beyond those borne directly by the borrower and the lender.  Clusters of foreclosures can destabilize communities, reduce the property values of nearby homes, and lower municipal tax revenues.  At both the local and national levels, foreclosures add to the stock of homes for sale, increasing downward pressure on home prices in general.” 

“In the current environment, more-rapid declines in house prices may have an adverse impact on the broader economy and, through their effects on the valuation of mortgage-related assets, on the stability of the financial system.”

The real threat that the foreclosure crisis posed to the overall economy, Bernanke said, was “the declines in home values, which reduce homeowners’ equity and may consequently affect their ability or incentive to make the financial sacrifices necessary to stay in their homes.”

The responses to the foreclosure crisis specifically endorsed by Bernanke were nothing new —  working with community groups trying to acquire and restore vacant properties; encouraging lenders and mortgage servicers to work with at-risk borrowers; developing new lending standards to prevent abusive lending practices; working with the Bush administration’s Hope Now Alliance; expanding the use of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to address problems in mortgage markets.

But we think that the tone and perspective of his speech signaled that he was far more ready than the current administration to endorse a wide-ranging federal program to aid homeowners who are in default.

Bernanke came close to saying as much:  “Realistic public and private-sector policies must take into account the fact that traditional foreclosure avoidance strategies may not always work well in the current environment.”

We think by “traditional foreclosure avoidance strategies” Bernanke meant voluntary procedures undertaken by the financial market itself; the “non-traditional foreclosure avoidance strategies” that Bernanke suggested might be necessary would then be mandatory procedures imposed on the market.

We therefore think that Bernanke’s speech contained a threat to the very financial institutions that the Fed has been so generous toward for the past six months.

So far, lenders have been asked to voluntarily help stem the foreclosure crisis by working with homeowners.  Now it appears that Bernanke may be close to supporting mandatory restraints on foreclosures.

We think Bernanke may have been saying this to the lenders and the leaders of the financial market: “We’ve made billions of cheap dollars available to you, so that you could stay afloat and so that you could make this money available for new borrowing and refinancing to prevent foreclosures.  You have not kept your end of the bargain.  If you don’t move much further along this path soon,  it is in the interest of the US economy overall to force you to do so.”

The lenders and financial institutions haven’t listened to threats from Congressional Democrats like Barney Frank or taken the voluntary actions requested by the Bush administration.

Maybe they’ll listen to today’s warning by Ben Bernanke.

We think they’d better.

 

 

The Fed Nears the End of the Rate-Cutting Line — Now its the Banks’ Move

After the Federal Reserve cut short-term interest rates on Wednesday for the seventh time since September 2007 — lowering the federal funds rate to 2 percent, from 2.25 percent, the lowest level since November 2004 — most analysts observed that the Fed’s move showed that it was more concerned with preventing recession than halting inflation.

We’re not so sure that it is a question of recession verses inflation that’s driving the Fed.

We think that the Fed’s real concern right now is neither inflation nor recession, at least not directly, but the lack of liquidity in the financial markets and the lack of funds that financial institutions are making available to borrowers.

So far, the Fed has pumped more than $400 billion into major U.S. financial institutions in the hope that these institutions would make this money available to borrowers. 

And, so far, they haven’t done so, and liquidity conditions in the credit markets have continued to deteriorate. 

Despite the Fed’s inceasing generosity for the past six months, it has been harder, not easier, for businesses (and individuals) to borrow money.

The Fed is nearing the end of its rate-cutting line.  If the financial spigot does not loosen for borrowers based on the latest cuts, there may be no more that the Fed can do, especially since, with rising fuel and food prices, fears of inflation are already starting to overtake fears of recession, in America’s living rooms as well as its Board rooms.

Two members of the Fed’s Open Market Commitee  — Richard W. Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed, and Charles I. Plosser, president of the Philadelphia Fed — which is charged under federal law with overseeing national monetary policy — voted against lowering the rates this time.  And the criticism of the Fed’s policy of lowering interest rates and providing cheap money for the banks is getting broader, louder and more influential.

The banks and major lending institutions have been waiting for the Fed to cut interest rates as far as it possibly would before they start lending.

That moment has probably arrived.

Now it’s the financial market’s turn to make a move.