The End of Wall Street's Boom

Expaticus_IHB

New member
A must-read. http://www.portfolio.com/news-marke...folio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom



Midway through the article are great anecdotes about subprime lending practices:



<em>"And short Eisman did?then he tried to get his mind around what he?d just done so he could do it better. He?d call over to a big firm and ask for a list of mortgage bonds from all over the country. The juiciest shorts?the bonds ultimately backed by the mortgages most likely to default?had several characteristics. They?d be in what Wall Street people were now calling the sand states: Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada. The loans would have been made by one of the more dubious mortgage lenders; Long Beach Financial, wholly owned by Washington Mutual, was a great example. Long Beach Financial was moving money out the door as fast as it could, few questions asked, in loans built to self-destruct. It specialized in asking home?owners with bad credit and no proof of income to put no money down and defer interest payments for as long as possible. In Bakersfield, California, a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of $14,000 and no English was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $720,000.



More generally, the subprime market tapped a tranche of the American public that did not typically have anything to do with Wall Street. Lenders were making loans to people who, based on their credit ratings, were less creditworthy than 71 percent of the population. Eisman knew some of these people. One day, his housekeeper, a South American woman, told him that she was planning to buy a townhouse in Queens. ?The price was absurd, and they were giving her a low-down-payment option-ARM,? says Eisman, who talked her into taking out a conventional fixed-rate mortgage. Next, the baby nurse he?d hired back in 1997 to take care of his newborn twin daughters phoned him. ?She was this lovely woman from Jamaica,? he says. ?One day she calls me and says she and her sister own five townhouses in Queens. I said, ?How did that happen???? It happened because after they bought the first one and its value rose, the lenders came and suggested they refinance and take out $250,000, which they used to buy another one. Then the price of that one rose too, and they repeated the experiment. ?By the time they were done,? Eisman says, ?they owned five of them, the market was falling, and they couldn?t make any of the payments.?</em>
 
While Citi's stupidity for assuming that there was no risk of real estate prices dropping is widely reported, the scope of the damage to include responsible lenders was surprising to many. How could a responsible lender who made fixed rate loans to people with good credit ratings and 20% down go wrong? Because the irresponsible lenders (and in some places, straight fraud) were running up the prices far above fundamentals. Then, even with good borrowers and honest appraisers, market values were 30% above where they should be in nonbubble areas, and more than twice where they should be in bubble zones.



When prices came tumbling down, other factors caused trouble for responsible lenders. 1. The glut of foreclosures caused a real risk of prices overshooting fundamental values on the way down. 2. The bank's ability to sell off and package any loans which weren't Fannie Mae qualified virtually disappeared. This is a big problem for responsible lenders in jumbo areas. 3. Their borrowers often loaded up on home equity loans after their purchase, and couldn't handle the combined cost. 4. The general credit crisis ran up the default rate due to unemployment.
 
Back
Top