Fidelity National Affirms 2007 Earnings Target

Posted by P. Jackson on Jan 14th, 2008
2008
Jan 14

Given the uncertainty facing many mortgage-related businesses this earnings season, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. on Monday affirmed its full-year outlook for 2007 earnings.

“Consistent with its previous guidance issued October 24, 2007, FIS anticipates full year 2007 adjusted net earnings of approximately $1.90 per diluted share, and adjusted cash earnings of approximately $2.44 per diluted share,” the company said in a press statement.

“These expectations are based on a preliminary review of the Company’s unaudited full year and fourth quarter 2007 results, and are subject to adjustments arising in the course of completing the fourth quarter and year end financial closing process.”

FIS stock jumped on the affirmation, rising more than 3 percent to $38.40 when this post was published.

For more information, visit http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com.

Disclosure: The author held no positions in FIS when this post was originally published.

Originations Expected to Fall 16 Percent in 2008: MBA

Posted by P. Jackson on Jan 14th, 2008
2008
Jan 14

Total mortgage production is predicted to drop 16 percent in 2008 to $1.96 trillion, according to a forecast by the Mortgage Bankers Association — if it happens, it will be the first time since 2000 that total production has fallen below $2 trillion.

Residential purchase mortgage originations are predicted to decline further, falling an expected 18 percent in 2008 to $955 billion from a projected $1.16 trillion in 2007, the MBA said.

“The principal concern of the current credit crisis lies in the possibility that banks will eventually run out of capital,” said MBA chief economist Doug Duncan. “Banks are running up against capital limits as they write down the value of assets at the same time they are putting loans on their balance sheets because the markets for securitized products are essentially closed.”

Duncan’s at least partly right; the flip side of securitization’s big freeze, however, goes further than just putting assets on the balance sheet. It’s also exposing so-called “hidden leverage” on a bank’s balance sheet at the precise time more traditional debt financing is needed. I don’t know that many have really grasped how the securitization machine both enables greater leverage while simultaneously reducing capital requirements — although I’m certain that every CFO at every financial institution, mortgage insurer and bond insurer is painfully aware of this fact right about now. (I’ll expound more on this in a coming post, still in draft form, that looks at the future of securitization in a changed mortgage industry.)

As for the housing market, the MBA said that it expects housing starts and home sales to continue to trend down and reach bottom around the end of the 3rd quarter 2008. Total existing home sales for 2008 are predicted to decline by about 13 percent from 2007 to 4.94 million units, while new home sales will decline by about 15 percent in 2008 from 2007 to 666,000 units, the MBA said.

The trade association also said that it expects the national median home price to decline by roughly two percent this year, then increasing by roughly that same amount in 2009.

The MBA also said it expects origination volume to continue to fall in 2009, as well, falling another 4 percent from 2008’s projected level to $1.88 trillion.

For more information, visit http://www.mortgagebankers.org.

Downey Financial: Accounting Rules Suck

Posted by P. Jackson on Jan 14th, 2008
2008
Jan 14

Downey Financial — perhaps the best known of the option-ARM specialists, although there are others — put out a press release today that said the bank’s auditors, KPMG, are forcing them to book loan modifications as part of reported non-performing assets.

It turns out that Downey has been running after a good chunk of its option ARM-holding borrowers, trying (desperately?) to modify their loans into an adjustable-rate mortgage that doesn’t permit negative amortization. Not that you could blame them, although I get the sense this is exactly the sort of thing Downey wishes hadn’t been made public.

The problem here is that there’s a meddlesome accounting rule known as SFAS 114 that governs just this sort of thing — you know, just in case a financial institution wanted to, say, start modifying loans for current borrowers that it obviously thinks are at high risk of defaulting.

The result is a press release that reads like a kindergartener complaining about the teacher. Witness the verbosity of Rick McGill, Downey’s president:

“During December 2007, KPMG advised us that upon further review of the modification program, it was likely the loan modifications should be recorded as troubled debt restructurings. After reassessing our initial analysis, we determined these modified loans should be accounted for as troubled debt restructurings. This conclusion was reached because in the current interpretation of GAAP, especially in the current housing market, there is a rebuttable presumption that if the interest rate is lowered in a loan modification, the modification is deemed to be a troubled debt restructuring unless the modified loan can be proved to be at a market rate of interest based upon new underwriting, including an updated property valuation, credit report and income analysis. We did not perform these additional steps since borrowers who qualified for our retention program were current and we were trying to streamline the process for qualified borrowers to modify their loans at interest rates no less than that being offered to new borrowers.”

In other words, Downey has been modifying option ARMs as fast as it can, and isn’t bothering to wait for things like a new appraisal, running credit or even determining whether the borrower can afford the restructured loan.

Sure sounds like loss mitigation to me.

The result of forcing these modifications onto the books is a pretty significant spike in non-performing assets — expected now to be 7.8 percent of total assets at year’s end, when Downey had previously reported 3.65 percent worth of NPAs one month earlier, in November.

Reported NPAs jumped for previous periods as well. The originally-reported 3.65 percent for November 2007 was restated to 5.77 percent — note that even with the restatement, NPAs are skyrocketing at Downey. If the numbers hold when Q4 results are released, that means non-performing assets will have jumped 35 percent in just one month between November and December of last year.

The rest of the restated numbers:

Date Prior reported NPA Revised NPA
July 31, 2007 1.77% 1.81%
August 31, 2007 1.96% 2.27%
Sept. 30, 2007 2.25% 2.94%
Oct. 31, 2007 2.74% 3.86%
Nov. 31, 2007 3.65% 5.77%

 

Disclosure: At the time this post was published, the author held no positions in DSL.

Mortgage News on the Run - Follow Me on Twitter

Posted by Morgan on Jan 14th, 2008
2008
Jan 14

As if you haven’t noticed lately I’ve eschewed rapid-fire news updates in favor of less frequent, more in-depth thought pieces.  I figure you can read the news anywhere; but maybe I have a gem or two in my head that may add some color to the landscape.

However, I have a nagging urge to report the news as it breaks.  I feel I owe it to you all.  I just don’t have the time to review, quote and comment here now or in the foreseeable future.

Enter Twitter.  If you are unfamiliar with Twitter ask your kids.  They’ll tell you that it’s the latest in short-form communication that’s been hot with the Web 2.0 crowd for the last year.

If you want a stream of news updates on the mortgage industry (and some random thoughts from yours truly) follow me on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/morganb

You’ll get the links to the top headlines with a few words of thought.  Much better than nothing.

WARNING: You’ll get some random football updates, thoughts on Facebook and more but primarily mortgage stuff will be flowing your way.

Hat tip to Brian Brady for the idea.

Share This

Sovereign Bank Warns on $1.58 Billion

Posted by P. Jackson on Jan 14th, 2008
2008
Jan 14

Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. said Monday that it will take an eye-popping total of $1.58 billion in fourth-quarter charges, citing “continued volatility in the financial markets and deterioration in the credit environment.”

The bulk of the charges will come in the form of goodwill impairments at the nation’s 18th largest bank, with Sovereign recording a $600 million charge related to automobile financing and an $800 million charge related to one of the company’s banking subsidiaries.

From the press statement:

A combination of a weakening consumer credit market, lower valuations for banking companies, and Sovereign’s decision to stop originating automobile loans in the Southeast and Southwest resulted in the goodwill impairment for the Consumer segment.

The New York Metro segment’s goodwill relates primarily to Sovereign’s June 2006 acquisition of Independence Community Bancorp. Earnings for this segment have been negatively impacted by the current operating environment. Consequently, revenue and deposit growth have been less than expected.

But perhaps the most interesting tidbit here is a disclosure that the bank will write off $180 million of its $950 million portfolio of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock. Citing widening credit spreads, Sovereign said that it recorded the loss because it “cannot predict whether the market value of the securities will recover in the near-term from recent significant value impairment.”

That’s eye-opening. Or, at least, it should be.

Other write-offs
Sovereign also said that it expected to boost its loan loss provision to $148 million, while writing off $27 million in what it called “financings” provided to two unnamed mortgage companies.

I’m assuming “financings” refers to losses in either warehouse or correspondent funding, although the company didn’t specify. Both losses are, of course, being attributed to “adverse developments in the real estate market.”

“Given industry conditions, Sovereign is rigorously reviewing its business lines to ensure their contributions to our profitability and strategic goals,” said president and CEO Joseph Campanelli. “As a result, we have discontinued our automobile lending originations in the Southeast and Southwest. We do not expect further actions within our core business and are comfortable with the composition of our platform and franchise.”

Sovereign Bank operates primarily in the Northeastern U.S., and boasts $87 billion in assets.

For more information, visit http://www.sovereignbank.com.

Disclosure: When this post was published, the author held no positions in SOV.

Fremont Unloads Portion of Servicing Operation

Posted by P. Jackson on Jan 14th, 2008
2008
Jan 14

Former subprime lending giant Fremont Investment & Loan said Monday that it had sold its Irving, Texas loan servicing facility to an as-of-yet unnamed buyer; HW was attempting to track down the purchaser when this post was originally published.

The sale includes both the actual servicing center as well as the employees that work there, according to a press statement by the company. Fremont said that employees at the affected facility are expected to be offered employment by the purchaser, and that both parties would work to ensure a “smooth transition.”

Fremont will maintain its primary servicing operations in Ontario, California, it said.

The sale does not include any transfer of existing mortgage servicing rights, and is expected to close in the first quarter of 2008. Fremont expects to realize $12 million in annual savings by reducing its servicing footprint, according to company officials.

Fremont exited the subprime mortgage business in March 2007 after receiving a cease-and-desist order from the FDIC.

Disclosure: When this post was published, the author held no positions in FMT.

Western Alliance Warns on Mortgage Losses

Posted by P. Jackson on Jan 14th, 2008
2008
Jan 14

Western Alliance Bancorporation said Monday morning that it expected net income to drop nearly 75 percent as the regional banking operation increases its loan loss reserves. Net income for the fourth quarter is expected to be $0.09 per share, compared to earnings of $0.35 per share reported for the third quarter of 2007.

The bank holding company operates various banking franchises in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and California, totalling $4.7 billion in assets.

In a brief press statement, the company said it would hike its loan loss provision to $13.9 million while absorbing $4.5 million in fourth quarter charge-offs. Western Alliance also said it would write down the value of its portfolio of subprime-backed securities from $9.5 million to $4.9 million during the fourth quarter.

No details regarding the nature of charge-offs, or what portfolio exposure led to the increase in reserves, was provided.

For more information, visit http://www.westernalliancebancorp.com.

Disclosure: The author held no positions in WAL when this post was originally published.

2008
Jan 14

Key markets in Florida and California are expected to be among the nation’s weakest in 2008, with some areas absorbing 15 percent price drops over the next 12 months.

California’s Inland Empire, including Riverside and San Bernardino, are expected to see 15 percent price declines, according to a report released Monday by risk management firm Veros Real Estate Solutions.

us-map_sm.gif

Modesto, Calif. is expected to see a 15 percent price decline, according to the report, while the cities of Palm Bay, Melbourne and Titusville in Florida are expected to drop 14 percent. Rounding out the worst housing markets in the nation, Veros said that it expects both Cape Coral and Ft. Myers in Florida and Sacramento in California to register 13 and 12 percent price declines, respectively.

The predicted five strongest markets are Wichita, Kansas, up four percent; Raleigh/Cary, North Carolina; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Fargo, North Dakota; and Tulsa, Oklahoma, all up three percent.

“The central part of the nation has thus far been largely unaffected by the rapid price appreciations that were seen in many other geographic areas,” the company said in a press statement. “Consequently, this region is moving forward without distress from the depreciation felt elsewhere and is experiencing minor growth.”

For more information, visit http://www.veros.com.

With permission, I’ve done some number crunching on an actual deal that actually closed.  These borrowers were not risky, AAA+ borrowers, low LTV on  great house here in central Ohio.  Over the summer, they chose to refinance.  Since they were strong borrowers, the loan was clear to close before locking.  We chose to close their 15 year fixed loan at 6.375, which was a decent rate at the time.   Our price was 102.8 on a $270,000 loan.  We used our some of this to pay closing costs, and the rest was profit.

This means that the lender we used paid us $7,560 in real money to close this loan for the clients.   They had the original 6.375 loan for 138 days.  This means that ALL the interest that was collected was $6507.  They paid me to do this loan, and lost $1,053 for the privilege of having this loan for a while. 

Right now, I can offer these people a similar deal at 5.75.  This is paying 2.69% from one of my carriers, or another $7263.00.    The second I saw an opportunity to improve their situation (and make a good fee), I told them I can do a no closing costs deal for them at this price.  They are closing next week. 

I am paying all of their closing costs, ALL of them…on the new loan. I’m fronting for the appraisal.  I’ll still wind up with 1.5% after all costs and fees are paid, and we’re not increasing the loan amount.  There’s still good money for negligible work (60% LTV 819 credit score 14% back end ratios).  The first bank paid $1000, never made a profit on the loan and it was paid off because it benefited the customer.

The very best customers, the lowest risks, don’t stay with their banks long enough to make a return.  There’s no upside for a big Midwest bank to fund someone (in this case, the bank was Tom’s employer), because I took them away. I feel like I have an obligation to watch my customers portfolio, and that outweighs any obligation I may have to the Bank.

Now, there is nothing in our agreements that recapture any of our money past 120 days.  So, Bank A has lost money because of this "great" transaction. Bank "B" will lose money if the rates improve because I will have my eye on the ball and ensure that my clients are always in the best interest rate that makes sense.  Banks are–to me–fungible.  So, my question is what incentive do they have to stay in the game when they have massive downside, limited upside, and no relationship with their customers?

 Chris Johnson closes loans for Realtors in ten days or less at Tendayteam.com

Share This

2008
Jan 14

With arguably the most important event in recent mortgage banking history taking place this past week, I thought I’d replace this week’s usual market roundup with a look at five key points to know about the Countrywide/Bank of America engagement:

1. We don’t have all the details, but this isn’t a merger. For all of the attention the announced deal has gotten this past week — and rightfully so — we still don’t know exactly how this will work. There is still a chance that certain aspects of Countrywide’s business aren’t part of the deal or are carved out and sold as part of the purchase once BofA digs into the details. There are some parts of Countrywide’s business that will be absorbed into existing operations at BofA; there are other parts that will not.

I’ve read plenty of commentary on the merits of the deal in the past few days, but much of that speculation is just that — speculation — until it becomes clearer just how Bank of America intends to swallow its prey. Which brings up another point: this isn’t a merger. This is a stronger financial institution swallowing a weaker financial institution.

I’d expect we’ll see plenty of this sort of consolidation going forward in 2008. Some unconfirmed sources have suggested that officials at the FDIC are allegedly ramping up for what they expect to be a larger spate of bank failures in 2008 and 2009, which suggests there will be plenty of wounded ducks waiting to be swept up.

One such deal, JPMorgan’s interest in Washington Mutual, HW covered on Friday. I wouldn’t expect to see any deal, however, until WaMu is sufficiently wounded by its mortgage holdings; that’s M&A 101. First day, first lesson.

2. Countrywide will exit wholesale operations. For all of the hand-wringing I’ve seen from brokers in the past few days — and rightfully so — all you need to know here is what BofA CEO Kenneth Lewis said in January 2007 when the BofA/Countrywide rumors first surfaced:

“We’re not particularly interested in the wholesale and correspondent business …”

The only thing Lewis feigned at that time was his lack of interest in Countrywide; the rest, I’ve been told, is exactly spot on. This is a change that will clearly be felt throughout the entire mortgage industry when it happens, but I don’t think anyone should be surprised when it does.

Numerous industry sources have suggested that Bank of America’s interest in Countrywide can be summed in up three words: servicing and retail. And in that order, too.

3. Countrywide’s capital markets division will cease to exist. BofA doesn’t need to duplicate something it essentially already has; it will likely take what it needs from CCM and shutter the rest.

This is just a guess, of course, but given the dearth of activity in the private-label secondary market right now — and the fact that other outfits like WaMu have already shuttered their capital markets operations — I don’t see this sort of decision as a reach.

4. Industry effects will be felt throughout, and often where few are looking. I heard from an industry source at The First American Corporation over the weekend, musing on how the deal may impact First American’s own business. That source noted that First American handles a majority of processing for BofA, but not for Countrywide — which gets us to the nuts-and-bolts of this deal.

Irrespective of any consumer-facing branding decisions that are made, which are essentially window dressing, there are going to be some important operational decisions that need to be made behind-the-scenes in regards to two very different mortgage banking businesses.

Most of the commentary I’ve seen is taking the view that BofA and Countrywide will remain separate servicing entities; that may be true in the short-run, but I don’t think you take the kind of risk that BofA is taking without figuring out how to best integrate wherever you can. Especially so in loan servicing, which is essentially a volume business.

Those with experience in mortgage servicing know how critical some vendor relationships are; something that won’t be reported anywhere else (but will be covered here at HW) is how the acquisition changes the vendor landscape for servicing and default management. There are some vendors that have staked their entire name and most of their revenue on the business they receive from Countrywide; those firms now find themselves wondering if they’ll have lost their largest client by 2009.

Other smaller firms may have been working with BofA in the past, and now face the prospect of seeing business ramp up very quickly. On the default management side of the business, I can think of at least five major examples of this off-hand.

5. Countrywide’s loan portfolio will hurt BofA. It probably goes without saying that the largest reason Countrywide was in trouble was because of its loan portfolio. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, out of nearly $80 billion in loans held for investment, 75 percent are second-lien HELs and option ARMs.

Calculated Risk does a dynamite job covering the likely pain this could cause BofA in the short run, suggesting portfolio losses could approach $10 billion.

The question, of course, is whether the long-term benefits justify what most expect to be short-term pain for BofA.

Next week kicks off the Q4 earnings season in earnest — sure to be a wild ride — and HW will cover what matters most for those in the mortgage finance industry, along with highlighting the best insight and analysis from across the Web.

See you Monday.

Disclosure: At the time this commentary was published, the author held various put option contracts on WM; no positions in any other companies mentioned.