Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Insight - Yellen feared housing bust but did not raise public alarm

By Marilyn W. Thompson, Ann Saphir and Alister Bull

REUTERS - When Janet Yellen became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in June 2004, a massive real estate bubble was building in the vast nine-state area that it oversees.

Her staff alerted her that banks were overinvesting in speculative commercial real estate at a time when housing prices in the region were ballooning.

But as chief regulator in the Federal Reserve's largest district, Yellen conveyed two starkly different messages.

In public remarks across the Western region's nine states, she downplayed risks that were building in the financial sector, reporting positive economic signs even as warning signals began to emerge.

Behind the scenes at the Fed, she contends that she and her staff were "pleading with Washington" to issue supervisory guidance that would enable bank examiners to take a tougher line on risky real estate lending.

Yellen, who was nominated earlier in October to be the next chair of the U.S. central bank, played a little-examined role at the Fed in expressing unease about what she dubbed the "600-pound gorilla" - her reference at a Fed meeting in June 2007 to the real estate bubble and signs it could turn into a bust. When the bust came it led directly to the financial crisis.

The difference between her public remarks and internal Fed role could draw scrutiny when the Senate Banking Committee holds a hearing on her nomination in mid-November.

Yellen declined to comment for this article when contacted through the Fed.

FRONT ROW

She certainly had a front row seat on the real estate bubble.

Yellen's region included three of the four states hardest hit by foreclosures - Nevada, Arizona and California. The same states also led the nation in the percentage of consumer bankruptcies.

Eight banks supervised by her team failed, the second-highest number among the Fed's 12 regional banks. A big culprit was unchecked investments in real estate, including speculative land development loans.

But Yellen confronted the limits of quietly leaning on Washington for corrective action.

As she later told a panel probing the roots of the crisis, she felt one Fed action - an advisory opinion in 2007 that asked banks to control commercial real estate lending - was worthless. One could "rip it up and throw it in the garbage can," she said. "It wasn't a tool that was of any use to us in controlling this risk."

Yellen, 67, has been credited with seeing signs of the crisis before many other Fed officials.

When she landed the regional Fed job after teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, housing prices were climbing to alarming levels.

In Los Angeles and San Diego, home prices more than doubled between the beginning of 2000 and when Yellen took on the job in the summer of 2004, according to Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index data. In Las Vegas, they jumped 50 percent in the previous year alone. And in San Francisco, prices had risen nearly 40 percent since the dot-com crash of 2000-2001.

GROCERY CART

The 54 banks under the San Francisco Fed's supervision were leveraging too much of their capital in real estate, Yellen later observed.

The San Francisco Fed kept thick case files on the banks it supervised; she described reviewing a grocery cart full of records when she first came on the job. But regulatory policy was set by the central bank's board in Washington, and the role of the regional Fed banks was to enforce it.

Yellen later told the financial crisis panel that in dealing with the Fed's board, she privately urged clear guidance.

"As worried as we were, we never simply went into banks and said, 'We insist you've got to have a higher capital requirement.' Did we have the power to do that? I think we felt we did not," she told the commission.

Stephen Hoffman, the officer in charge of bank supervision at the San Francisco Fed during Yellen's tenure and now a managing director at consulting firm Promontory Financial Group, corroborated Yellen's account.

"Was she going in and pounding on the table somewhere? No. But she was clearly making people aware that things were building and that there was a risk there, that if things went wrong there could have been significant challenges," he said.

The Fed did not issue an advisory to banks about commercial loans until January 2007 and it stopped short of a full-fledged order.

By then, recalled Bruce Norris, president of California real estate investment firm The Norris Group, some experts were questioning if regulators were asleep on the job.

"Yellen had a lot of company," he told Reuters. "I just could never figure out why they weren't more concerned until it was too late."

THE BUBBLE

If a crisis was looming, Yellen gave little hint of it as she traveled around her district speaking to banking and business groups. She reassured audiences that there were nuanced but optimistic signs even as recession closed in.

In 2004, the new president told risk managers in San Francisco that closer supervision had "made our financial system far more resilient to shocks." In Phoenix that year, she reported "more positive signs in the economy."

She flagged real estate as a concern in March 2005, telling a banking group in Hawaii that her staff was examining commercial lending and was concerned about the "easing of credit standards and terms on loans" for home mortgages.

But Yellen ended optimistically, concluding that "we don't think widespread problems are likely" and that "industry conditions in many respects are stronger now than they've ever been."

By October 2005, real estate experts debated whether the Fed needed to intervene to control the surging "bubble" in home prices by raising interest rates.

Yellen said her staff had begun to realize by then that "there might well be a bubble." But as she concluded in an October 2005 speech, "the arguments against trying to deflate a bubble outweigh those in favor of it."

"My bottom line is that monetary policy should react to rising prices for houses or other assets only insofar as they affect the central bank's goal variables - output, employment, and inflation," she said.

Yellen's views have not changed dramatically. Earlier this year, she expressed a "strong preference" to use regulation as the main defense against bubbles. But she no longer unequivocally rules out the use of monetary policy.

THE CRASH

U.S. home prices peaked in July 2006.

In California, the median price of a previously owned home reached $556,430 in 2006, about nine times the annual median income; the national median price was just $221,900, or about four times median income.

Yellen, however, still saw cause for optimism.

In March 2006, she spoke via satellite to Australian economists and noted that "overall the economy has shown considerable resilience."

At that point, the economy was buoyant. After a hit from Hurricane Katrina in late 2005, growth spiked to a 4.9 percent annual rate in the first quarter, though it slipped back to 1.3 percent over the next three months. The unemployment rate in March stood at a low 4.7 percent, with muted price pressures.

Yellen emphasized that a housing boom reversal "could have a very restrictive impact." But she concluded optimistically: "While we face a great deal of uncertainty, the economy appears to be approaching a highly desirable glide path."

A month later, Yellen noted that Bay area home prices were six times higher than they were in 1982. She urged monitoring of what she termed "highlights and shadows" in forecasts.

In a 2006 speech to bankers in California's agricultural belt, she encouraged banks to reach out to immigrants and other underserved populations, touting programs like one that encouraged home ownership for low-income families. A few years later, the farming area would be particularly hard hit by mortgage foreclosures.

But it wasn't until early 2007 that the national housing market began crashing. That March, prices and sales recorded their steepest drops since the savings and loan scandal in 1989.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, later pinpointed the beginning of California's recession as May 2007. The entire nation would tip into recession in December that year.

Home price declines were not the only warning signs.

In February 2007, HSBC Group, one of the world's largest banks, said it would book a bad debt charge of $10.6 billion because of a big spike in delinquencies on subprime loans. Four months later, two hedge funds operated by Bear Stearns warned of major losses, and both collapsed within weeks.

When France's largest bank, BNP-Paribas, froze assets on three funds with big exposure to the U.S. mortgage market in August 2007, global central bankers realized markets were at risk of freezing up.

THE RESPONSE

But when the Fed's monetary policy panel met in June 2007, officials generally felt the economy was weathering the storm despite Yellen's concerns about housing.

"In terms of risks to the outlook for growth, I still feel the presence of a 600-pound gorilla in the room, and that is the housing sector," she said, according to the transcript of that meeting, adding: "The risk for further significant deterioration in the housing market, with house prices falling and mortgage delinquencies rising further, causes me appreciable angst."

At the time, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was playing down the systemic risk of weakening real estate prices. Worried about inflation risks, Fed officials stood pat at the meeting, unanimously voting to hold interest rates steady, and they did the same at the August 7 meeting. Yellen was a non-voting participant at the two meetings.

Within three days, however, as the BNP-Paribas events roiled financial markets, officials held an emergency conference call to discuss strains building in credit markets and announced they were ready to provide liquidity to banks.

At their next scheduled meeting in September, they slashed overnight rates by a steep half of a percentage point, the first move in a dramatic series that took them to near zero by the end of 2008.

In an October 2008 speech, Yellen tackled head-on the question of how the Fed missed the warning signs. She described a miscalculation in the interplay of "key features of the financial system."

A RE-EXAMINATION

Under questioning by Republicans in 2010, after Obama nominated her to be Fed vice chair, Yellen said she and other regulators failed to "connect the dots" between loose lending practices and a overpriced housing market.

Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama asked about her region's "breakdown of regulatory oversight."

When Yellen at first defended the San Francisco Fed's supervision as "careful and appropriate," Shelby shot back, calling it "lax and inappropriate."

She ended by citing lessons learned. "What we have learned in hindsight is it was very hard for all of the regulators involved to take away the punch bowl in a timely way." (Reporting by Marilyn W. Thompson and Alister Bull in Washington with Ann Saphir in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Jonathan Spicer; Editing by Tim Ahmann, Dan Burns and Tim Dobbyn)


View the original article here

Insight - Yellen feared housing bust but did not raise public alarm

By Marilyn W. Thompson, Ann Saphir and Alister Bull

REUTERS - When Janet Yellen became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in June 2004, a massive real estate bubble was building in the vast nine-state area that it oversees.

Her staff alerted her that banks were overinvesting in speculative commercial real estate at a time when housing prices in the region were ballooning.

But as chief regulator in the Federal Reserve's largest district, Yellen conveyed two starkly different messages.

In public remarks across the Western region's nine states, she downplayed risks that were building in the financial sector, reporting positive economic signs even as warning signals began to emerge.

Behind the scenes at the Fed, she contends that she and her staff were "pleading with Washington" to issue supervisory guidance that would enable bank examiners to take a tougher line on risky real estate lending.

Yellen, who was nominated earlier in October to be the next chair of the U.S. central bank, played a little-examined role at the Fed in expressing unease about what she dubbed the "600-pound gorilla" - her reference at a Fed meeting in June 2007 to the real estate bubble and signs it could turn into a bust. When the bust came it led directly to the financial crisis.

The difference between her public remarks and internal Fed role could draw scrutiny when the Senate Banking Committee holds a hearing on her nomination in mid-November.

Yellen declined to comment for this article when contacted through the Fed.

FRONT ROW

She certainly had a front row seat on the real estate bubble.

Yellen's region included three of the four states hardest hit by foreclosures - Nevada, Arizona and California. The same states also led the nation in the percentage of consumer bankruptcies.

Eight banks supervised by her team failed, the second-highest number among the Fed's 12 regional banks. A big culprit was unchecked investments in real estate, including speculative land development loans.

But Yellen confronted the limits of quietly leaning on Washington for corrective action.

As she later told a panel probing the roots of the crisis, she felt one Fed action - an advisory opinion in 2007 that asked banks to control commercial real estate lending - was worthless. One could "rip it up and throw it in the garbage can," she said. "It wasn't a tool that was of any use to us in controlling this risk."

Yellen, 67, has been credited with seeing signs of the crisis before many other Fed officials.

When she landed the regional Fed job after teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, housing prices were climbing to alarming levels.

In Los Angeles and San Diego, home prices more than doubled between the beginning of 2000 and when Yellen took on the job in the summer of 2004, according to Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index data. In Las Vegas, they jumped 50 percent in the previous year alone. And in San Francisco, prices had risen nearly 40 percent since the dot-com crash of 2000-2001.

GROCERY CART

The 54 banks under the San Francisco Fed's supervision were leveraging too much of their capital in real estate, Yellen later observed.

The San Francisco Fed kept thick case files on the banks it supervised; she described reviewing a grocery cart full of records when she first came on the job. But regulatory policy was set by the central bank's board in Washington, and the role of the regional Fed banks was to enforce it.

Yellen later told the financial crisis panel that in dealing with the Fed's board, she privately urged clear guidance.

"As worried as we were, we never simply went into banks and said, 'We insist you've got to have a higher capital requirement.' Did we have the power to do that? I think we felt we did not," she told the commission.

Stephen Hoffman, the officer in charge of bank supervision at the San Francisco Fed during Yellen's tenure and now a managing director at consulting firm Promontory Financial Group, corroborated Yellen's account.

"Was she going in and pounding on the table somewhere? No. But she was clearly making people aware that things were building and that there was a risk there, that if things went wrong there could have been significant challenges," he said.

The Fed did not issue an advisory to banks about commercial loans until January 2007 and it stopped short of a full-fledged order.

By then, recalled Bruce Norris, president of California real estate investment firm The Norris Group, some experts were questioning if regulators were asleep on the job.

"Yellen had a lot of company," he told Reuters. "I just could never figure out why they weren't more concerned until it was too late."

THE BUBBLE

If a crisis was looming, Yellen gave little hint of it as she traveled around her district speaking to banking and business groups. She reassured audiences that there were nuanced but optimistic signs even as recession closed in.

In 2004, the new president told risk managers in San Francisco that closer supervision had "made our financial system far more resilient to shocks." In Phoenix that year, she reported "more positive signs in the economy."

She flagged real estate as a concern in March 2005, telling a banking group in Hawaii that her staff was examining commercial lending and was concerned about the "easing of credit standards and terms on loans" for home mortgages.

But Yellen ended optimistically, concluding that "we don't think widespread problems are likely" and that "industry conditions in many respects are stronger now than they've ever been."

By October 2005, real estate experts debated whether the Fed needed to intervene to control the surging "bubble" in home prices by raising interest rates.

Yellen said her staff had begun to realize by then that "there might well be a bubble." But as she concluded in an October 2005 speech, "the arguments against trying to deflate a bubble outweigh those in favor of it."

"My bottom line is that monetary policy should react to rising prices for houses or other assets only insofar as they affect the central bank's goal variables - output, employment, and inflation," she said.

Yellen's views have not changed dramatically. Earlier this year, she expressed a "strong preference" to use regulation as the main defense against bubbles. But she no longer unequivocally rules out the use of monetary policy.

THE CRASH

U.S. home prices peaked in July 2006.

In California, the median price of a previously owned home reached $556,430 in 2006, about nine times the annual median income; the national median price was just $221,900, or about four times median income.

Yellen, however, still saw cause for optimism.

In March 2006, she spoke via satellite to Australian economists and noted that "overall the economy has shown considerable resilience."

At that point, the economy was buoyant. After a hit from Hurricane Katrina in late 2005, growth spiked to a 4.9 percent annual rate in the first quarter, though it slipped back to 1.3 percent over the next three months. The unemployment rate in March stood at a low 4.7 percent, with muted price pressures.

Yellen emphasized that a housing boom reversal "could have a very restrictive impact." But she concluded optimistically: "While we face a great deal of uncertainty, the economy appears to be approaching a highly desirable glide path."

A month later, Yellen noted that Bay area home prices were six times higher than they were in 1982. She urged monitoring of what she termed "highlights and shadows" in forecasts.

In a 2006 speech to bankers in California's agricultural belt, she encouraged banks to reach out to immigrants and other underserved populations, touting programs like one that encouraged home ownership for low-income families. A few years later, the farming area would be particularly hard hit by mortgage foreclosures.

But it wasn't until early 2007 that the national housing market began crashing. That March, prices and sales recorded their steepest drops since the savings and loan scandal in 1989.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, later pinpointed the beginning of California's recession as May 2007. The entire nation would tip into recession in December that year.

Home price declines were not the only warning signs.

In February 2007, HSBC Group, one of the world's largest banks, said it would book a bad debt charge of $10.6 billion because of a big spike in delinquencies on subprime loans. Four months later, two hedge funds operated by Bear Stearns warned of major losses, and both collapsed within weeks.

When France's largest bank, BNP-Paribas, froze assets on three funds with big exposure to the U.S. mortgage market in August 2007, global central bankers realized markets were at risk of freezing up.

THE RESPONSE

But when the Fed's monetary policy panel met in June 2007, officials generally felt the economy was weathering the storm despite Yellen's concerns about housing.

"In terms of risks to the outlook for growth, I still feel the presence of a 600-pound gorilla in the room, and that is the housing sector," she said, according to the transcript of that meeting, adding: "The risk for further significant deterioration in the housing market, with house prices falling and mortgage delinquencies rising further, causes me appreciable angst."

At the time, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was playing down the systemic risk of weakening real estate prices. Worried about inflation risks, Fed officials stood pat at the meeting, unanimously voting to hold interest rates steady, and they did the same at the August 7 meeting. Yellen was a non-voting participant at the two meetings.

Within three days, however, as the BNP-Paribas events roiled financial markets, officials held an emergency conference call to discuss strains building in credit markets and announced they were ready to provide liquidity to banks.

At their next scheduled meeting in September, they slashed overnight rates by a steep half of a percentage point, the first move in a dramatic series that took them to near zero by the end of 2008.

In an October 2008 speech, Yellen tackled head-on the question of how the Fed missed the warning signs. She described a miscalculation in the interplay of "key features of the financial system."

A RE-EXAMINATION

Under questioning by Republicans in 2010, after Obama nominated her to be Fed vice chair, Yellen said she and other regulators failed to "connect the dots" between loose lending practices and a overpriced housing market.

Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama asked about her region's "breakdown of regulatory oversight."

When Yellen at first defended the San Francisco Fed's supervision as "careful and appropriate," Shelby shot back, calling it "lax and inappropriate."

She ended by citing lessons learned. "What we have learned in hindsight is it was very hard for all of the regulators involved to take away the punch bowl in a timely way." (Reporting by Marilyn W. Thompson and Alister Bull in Washington with Ann Saphir in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Jonathan Spicer; Editing by Tim Ahmann, Dan Burns and Tim Dobbyn)


View the original article here

Saturday, 26 October 2013

JPMorgan in $5.1 billion deal with housing agency

By Aruna Viswanatha and David Henry

REUTERS - JPMorgan Chase & Co has agreed to pay $5.1 billion to settle claims that it and firms it bought misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about the quality of mortgage securities and home loans it sold to them during the housing boom.

The bank and the agencies' regulator said Friday evening that the settlement was expected to be part of a tentative $13 billion deal that JPMorgan is negotiating with federal and state agencies over its mortgage bond liabilities.

But the unusually timed announcement, which appeared to catch other parties involved in the negotiations by surprise, covered not only $4 billion that was expected as part of the larger deal but also an additional $1.15 billion to cover separate issues over home loans.

The $4 billion portion of the payment, which was agreed on several weeks ago according to people familiar with the negotiations, resolves a 2-year-old lawsuit in which the regulator accused JPMorgan of overstating the quality of loans in mortgage securities in sold to Fannie and Freddie.

The agency became impatient waiting for the larger settlement and wanted to move on to resolving similar lawsuits it brought against other banks, one person said.

The additional $1.1 million resolves claims that JPMorgan breached the representations it made about the quality of single-family mortgages it sold the government-sponsored entities, the regulator said.

Negotiations on the final terms of the larger settlement are continuing, people familiar with discussions said on Friday.

While the parties have agreed to the framework of the deal, talks have slowed over whether JPMorgan can shift onto the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp liabilities of Washington Mutual, a failed lender which JPMorgan took over during the financial crisis.

The FHFA settlement leaves open the possibility for JPMorgan to recoup payments related to Washington Mutual. The Justice Department, which is leading the larger negotiations, is seeking a provision in the larger settlement that bars JPMorgan from seeking to push the claims onto FDIC, according to one of the people familiar with the talks.

It is unclear if the FDIC will be part of the larger settlement. FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray declined to comment.

The $13 billion settlement is also expected to include a $2 billion enforcement penalty for JPMorgan's mortgage securities sales which are being investigated by federal prosecutors in California; $4 billion of consumer debt relief; and $3 billion of assorted payments and compensation sought by other government agencies.

"This is a significant step as the government and J.P. Morgan Chase move to address outstanding mortgage-related issues," FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco said in a statement.

The bank, the largest in the United States, said the deal was "an important step towards a broader resolution" of the firms mortgage-related issues with government agencies. (Reporting by David Henry in New York and Aruna Viswanatha in Washington; Editing by Richard Chang)


View the original article here

Monday, 21 October 2013

JPMorgan in $4 billion deal with U.S. housing agency

By Aruna Viswanatha and David Henry

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co has reached a tentative $4 billion deal with the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency to settle claims that the bank misled government-sponsored mortgage agencies about the quality of mortgages it sold them during the housing boom, according to a person familiar with the matter.

JPMorgan and the FHFA, which is pursuing claims on behalf of finance agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have agreed on the amount as a tentative part of a potential $11 billion global settlement with government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice.

The $4 billion figure was first reported on Friday by the Wall Street Journal.

A spokesman for JPMorgan declined to comment as did a spokeswoman for the FHFA.

The bank and the Department of Justice have discussed a broader deal under which JPMorgan would pay $7 billion of cash and $4 billion of consumer relief, to cover claims from the FHFA and other government agencies.

JPMorgan is seeking a single settlement to resolve all claims from federal and state agencies over its mortgage-related liabilities stemming from the bust in house prices.

Baring a complete breakdown in talks with the Department of Justice, a final deal between the bank and the FHFA is unlikely to happen outside of a broader pact, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters on Friday.

Earlier this week, others familiar with the talks said negotiations continued between the Justice Department and JPMorgan, with the bank circulating several proposals.

The FHFA has sued JPMorgan over mortgage loans totaling some $33 billion. A $4 billion deal would amount to about 12 cents on the dollar, less than the 20-cent rate under an earlier settlement by Switzerland-based bank UBS AG , said Josh Rosner, managing director of Graham Fisher & Co, a New York research consultancy.

At first glance, the tentative settlement looks like "a great deal for JPMorgan," Rosner said. He cautioned that it is unclear how comparable the deals are because the loans at issue have different origins and differences between the balances owed are not known.

CEO Jamie Dimon went to Washington to meet with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on September 26 to advance those discussions, but a deal has not been forthcoming.

Though Dimon is intent on getting the legal issues behind the bank, a sore spot with him and other JPMorgan directors has been how much the company will have to pay for bad mortgage deals done by Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns, two troubled institutions that JPMorgan took over during the financial crisis with the encouragement from bank regulators.

JPMorgan reported its first quarterly loss under Dimon on Friday as the company recorded a $7.2 billion hit from litigation expenses largely to build its reserves to settle lawsuits over mortgages. The bank said all of its legal reserves now amount to $23 billion.

(Reporting by David Henry and Karen Freifeld in New York and Aruna Viswanatha in Washington; Editing by Gary Hill and Leslie Gevirtz)


View the original article here