|
Oh Say Can You OCC? ...As you might know, the OCC (Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency and one of the chief banking system regulators) is set to hand
down guidelines regarding bank commercial and residential real estate landing
practices prior to year end. Given the fact that interagency discussions about
the initial draft of the guidelines has really only just begun, don't be surprised
if it's somewhere in 1Q 2006 that final guideline commentary is made public.
Nonetheless, it's clear to us from recent comments by the Comptroller himself
that in terms of residential real estate credit availability, the times they
are about to be a changin'. At least as far as the banks are concerned. For
the full version of his recent comments made on October 27th, just follow the link.
Of course we couldn't help but excerpt a few lines here and there from the
text that will give you the feel for the raised level of OCC concern regarding
recent bank real estate lending practices. It's absolutely clear to us that
these folks want to see "new era" residential mortgage lending products reigned
in rather meaningfully. And unless the US banks are desirous of unwanted audit
scrutiny, they're going to get in line with the guidelines. Here are just a
few unedited excerpts directly from the text we linked above that, if you will,
sets the tone in terms of the regulatory level of concern.
"But it's at the top of the credit cycle where stresses and weaknesses typically
appear, so what we are seeing today should not surprise anyone. With liquidity
pouring into the market, we would expect to see increased competition for
loan customers - and we are. With competition intensifying, we would expect
to see underwriting standards easing - and we are. And we would expect to
find emerging concentrations in some loan categories, such as commercial
and residential real estate. We are most definitely seeing that. One of the
striking findings in our 2005 underwriting survey was the breadth and extent
to which banks had relaxed their lending standards.
"But while the trend toward increased credit risk is visible across the
portfolio and across the country, it really stands out in two product areas.
The first is commercial real estate; the second, residential first mortgages.
"Such concentrations by themselves would warrant supervisory concern under
any circumstances. But in order to attract new business and sustain loan
volume, banks have made many compromises and concessions to borrowers along
the way, resulting in commercial real estate credits with structural weaknesses
that go beyond discounted pricing.
"It seems like only yesterday when a 5/1 ARM was considered a risky mortgage
product. And it was - but primarily for borrowers, who, in turn for lower
initial payments, assumed the interest rate risk that had previously been
borne by lenders. Today's non-traditional mortgage products - interest-only,
payment option ARMs, no doc and low-doc, and piggyback mortgages, to name
the most prominent examples - are a different species of product, with novel
and potentially risky features. I don't have to explain those features to
you, because these products have come to dominate the mortgage originations
that many of you look at every day.
"The dominance is increasingly reflected in the numbers. By some estimates,
interest-only products constituted approximately 50 percent of all mortgage
originations last year. In the first half of 2005, IOs started to decline
in favor of payment-option ARMs, which, according to one source, comprised
half of new mortgage originations. And roughly every other mortgage these
days is also a "piggyback" or reduced documentation mortgage, which points
to another development that concerns us: the trend toward "layering" of multiple
risks."
The charge of the OCC is to maintain a safe and sound banking system. There's
simply no question that in 2006, they will be carrying the banner of real estate
lending practice concern as they charge into US banks from sea to shining sea.
What will this do to the character of mortgage lending in the US broadly? Of
course that remains to be seen. The OCC is concerned with the banks. It's not
the regulator of subprime lenders such as New Century. After all, despite the
fact that NEW's stock price is down over 40% this year alone, New Century can
go right on making any kind of loans it chooses. Remember, as we've told you
many a time now, the largest source of mortgage credit creation in the US over
the last few years has been the asset backed markets. The ABS markets themselves
will ultimately dictate the terms of mortgage lending to the non-bank players
such as NEW. ABS investors will react when delinquencies spike and perhaps
defaults begin to occur. But for now, what's important in watching for change
in the residential real estate markets is to watch all sources of credit creation
and how the character of that lending changes ahead. For now, at least according
to the OCC, the US banking system is going to be taking one step back from
imbibing in "new age" mortgage lending practices of the last three to five
years. That's one small dent in the armor of overall credit availability. One
last comment. We're absolutely convinced that private capital, which supports
the asset backed securities markets, will turn the credit spigot off entirely
if default trouble begins to brew in residential mortgage lending land. Remember,
as we've told you ad nauseum over the last half decade at least, liquidity
is inherently a coward. There's always too much when it's least needed and
it's never around when it's needed most. (Admittedly, in the greater picture
of the moment, the FED may be changing this little rule, at least for now.)
At the moment, US banking system exposure to both commercial and residential
real estate is approximately 53% of total loans and leases outstanding. If
we include current HELOC (home equity line of credit) exposure, which is not
included in the chart below, the number below moves to just over 60%. And if
we include bank investments in mortgage backed paper, the numbers move even
higher. No wonder the folks at the OCC believe it's a topic of current interest.

It'll Soon Shake Your Windows And Rattle Your Walls, For The Times They
Are A-Changin' ...There is absolutely no question at all that capital
extraction from home equity values has been meaningful to US consumers over
at least the last half decade. The super folks at Freddie Mac recently revealed
their cash out refi numbers for 3Q a while back. Again, we'll let the pictures
to the talking. As of the end of 3Q, the gang at Freddie was estimating that
happy US homeowners were currently on track to extract over $200 billion
in cash via only the cash-out refi mechanism in 2005 alone. If indeed this
comes to pass, it will be a record amount. And this is despite the fact that
refi activity in terms of specific volume count is not particularly vibrant
at the moment at all. As you'll see in just a minute, this magnitude of cash
extraction is really a function of folks yanking ever larger percentages
of "equity" out of the current values of their homes. After all, as the TV
commercials and assorted realtor community spokesfolks continue to remind
us in the media, anyone sitting on unused equity in their homes is simply
not maximizing investment opportunities, right? Apparently those individuals
doing refi's seem to be listening to that very message.

As we mentioned above, those undertaking refis at the moment are taking ever
larger percentage based "cash draws" relative to new loan amounts. 2005 up
to this point is another record.

Perhaps the most important chart of this little series lies directly below.
We've taken the numbers used to create the chart of cash outs over the years
in dollars (including the $200+ billion we mentioned for 2005) and looked at
them as a percentage of the year over year nominal dollar change in personal
disposable income. If you ask us, this is some meaningful stuff. Despite the
fact that we're well off the highs of a few years back, cash being extracted
from equity in residential real estate via the refi process alone continues
to exceed 20% of the year over year change in disposable personal income. Add
in HELOC loans and it becomes a much larger percentage number benchmarked against
changes in DPI. Just to keep ourselves honest, the 2005 disposable income number
we used for the denominator of the value in the chart below was indeed annualized.
We've kept this an apples to apples comparison across the board.

Again, it's important to remember that in the numbers above, we're only looking
at official refi activity and the cash extracted there from. What's important
to keep in mind is that current HELOC balances approximate $400 billion at
the moment. You'll remember that in the recent Greenspan co-authored Fed study
on MEW (mortgage equity withdrawal), he cited an annualized current number
of close to $600 billion. Greenspan was including both refi and home equity
line of credit activity in the study, just as he should have. Let's put it
this way, if the coming OCC actions are the beginnings of greater mortgage
credit restrictions across the entire US financial system, the now newly popular
term (as a result of the Greenspan study) "mortgage equity withdrawal" is about
to take on a whole new meaning.
At Your Financial Service ...Well, as you know by know, when the recent
FOMC minutes were released last week prior to the Thanksgiving holiday, the
mere intimation that future FOMC statement wording might be changed gave the
equity and bond markets reason to gobble even louder than they have been in
the post October equity market low period to date. Could it really be that
the Fed is about to draw their current rate tightening episode to a dramatic
conclusion? Well, after twelve measured blips up in the Fed Funds rate since
June of 2004, it's a darn good bet that we're closer to the end of the ride
than not on the pure basis of statistical chance, let alone predicated on some
change in statement wording. And as "everyone" knows, once a Fed rate tightening
cycle reaches its cyclical conclusion, there's only one thing to do - anticipate
the next rate easing cycle, right? If you've been watching the markets as of
late, you already know that the financial stocks have been one of the best
sector performers since mid-October. In other words, with the financials in
the lead, hasn't the market already been discounting the end of the
Fed rate tightening cycle at least a good month prior to the announcement of
a potential shift in forward Fed verbiage? For now, we believe it's very important
to keep a sharp eye on the financial sector. Why? Any disappointment in the
expectations being built into financial sector stocks driven by forward perceptions
regarding either inflation or the end of the monetary tightening cycle may
be a tell tale sign as to the mood of the broader market as we move forward.
The following are a few comments we hope are helpful.
A number of weeks back, the folks at the Fed released the Senior Bank Loan
Officer Survey for 4Q. We'd like to roll over just a few tidbits of the report
as the messages are broader than perhaps for just what's happening with the
banks. But before getting started, we hope this portion of the discussion is
meaningful in that a number of the financial related equity indices or benchmarks
have recently broken out to new price highs as of late. The NYK (the New York
Financial Index), the XLF (the financial sector ETF) and the BKX (the Philly
Bank Index) have all broken to new all time highs as the current rally has
progressed. Stepping back for just a second, financial sector upward price
breakouts have usually occurred most prominently under two scenarios. First
would be the beginning of a new bull market not only for equities, but really
reflective of an improving and accelerating broader economy. The second scenario
of noticeably higher financial stock prices would be in anticipation of a conclusion
to a Fed tightening cycle. Quite simplistically, what both discounting scenarios
have in common is a supposition that the financial sector as a whole would
be moving into an improved environment for lending and/or better interest rates
spreads (a steepening yield curve). That's the big ticket. Let's say the Fed
does stop dead in its monetary tightening tracks perhaps in January of next
year or at the very least verbally tells us that the end is near, so to speak.
Does a better lending environment automatically lie ahead based on a change
in FOMC statement wording? Let's say the economy is about to reaccelerate upward
in '06. Does that mean consumers and corporations are now ready to increase
their borrowing on a simple rate of change basis? Of course the reason we are
asking these questions is that during the recent recession of 2001 and into
the years that followed, credit expansion in the US never really turned down,
as it had exactly done in so many recessionary cycles past. So although the
historic knee jerk reaction of the equity markets to an end of a Fed tightening
cycle would be to buy the financials, is a much better fundamental environment
for lending volume or interest rate spreads really what's to play out ahead
in the current cycle? Or will this time be different (as have been so many
macro post recessionary experiences of the last four years)? As you'll see
directly below, the financials look like they are bolting from the starting
blocks. The key question being, is this a false-start? If so, we believe this
has much broader ramifications for the entirety of domestic financial markets.
One item to notice is the chart of the XLF (financial sector ETF). It's the
only one where we can capture volume data. And, as you'll see in the weekly
chart, over the past few years, volume has accelerated on sell offs and retreated
on advances. Not exactly a bull market pattern, now is it?



Let's take a quick look at recent rate of change patterns in broad credit
expansion and where the banks are, or where they say they are, in the lending
officer survey in terms of both consumer and corporate lending.
CONSUMER LENDING
You know from our prior discussions that the banks are top heavy in real estate
loans at the moment - both residential and commercial. These loans have really
been their bread and butter throughout this entire current lending cycle (since
the end of the last recession in 2001). In addition, home equity lines of credit
have become big business for the banks over the last two to three years. So
how do things look ahead? First, the chart below is the year over year rate
of change in household mortgage debt outstanding, not inclusive of home equity
lines. Although mortgage debt through the second quarter of this year is still
up 10% on a year over year basis, it's now trending lower from cyclical growth
rate highs seen late last year. We won't have the numbers for 3Q for a number
of weeks, but we'll update you when we do. As you know, this is where household
borrowing excesses reside in the current cycle. Can we really expect an all
new upcycle in lending to start so soon? Especially given the fact that it
sure looks like real estate prices and sales volume activity are cooling now
as never before in the current cycle, to mention nothing of the fact that affordability
indexes are pushing decade-plus lows and the OCC is about to lower the boom
on aggressive bank driven mortgage lending practices?

As you know, home equity lines are most often tied to the prime rate. With
a 300 basis point increase in the Fed Funds rate, and a commensurate move up
in prime (with more to come on December 13 and probably beyond), is it really
any wonder the following chart looks like it does? Again, without a large and
immediate drop in the Fed Funds rate and a coincident prime rate decline, can
we really expect another meaningful upcycle to get under way for HELOC lending
as the financial sector stocks seem to be broadly suggesting?

What about straight out non-mortgage related consumer credit? It just so happens
that in the month of September, we saw the month over month outstanding card
debt in the US actually contract. A rare occurrence these days. Certainly a
part of the reason as to why were lower car sales (non-revolving credit). But
as you'll see in the chart below, as of September, the year over year rate
of change in consumer credit (cards) was up only 3.6%. This is the lowest number
experienced since 1993 (and that was during an improving economy with credit
use on the upswing, not the downswing). Could it be that consumers are coming
to grips with the changes in the bankruptcy laws that are now in place?

Moreover, in the recent bank lending officer survey, the banks themselves
are telling us that they are less willing to make consumer loans at the moment.
And this is despite the fact that it theoretically should be easier for them
to ultimately collect ahead with the recent change in the bankruptcy law.

The banks are telling us that they are less willing to make consumer loans
and the real world is showing us that the rate of change in demand for consumer
lending is slowing. These are the facts. We have to ask ourselves with these
facts in front of us, just what the heck are the financial stocks discounting
as of late? Again, is some change in FOMC statement wording about to reverse
growth rates of consumer credit trends in general? In our minds, we've already
done that over the last five years. An encore performance at this point of
significant credit expansion in the face of continuing negative real wage growth
and a stalling in the housing market in the US is going to be a very tough
act to pull off. The Fed under the new Bernanke regime may indeed stand ready
to flood the markets with liquidity at any time, but will consumers be ready
to automatically accelerate their borrowing of that "liquidity" so soon after
gorging themselves on cheap credit of the last half decade? That's the issue
plain and simple for the real economy. And at least as of now, consumer credit
trends are headed in the opposite direction on a rate of change basis.
COMMERCIAL LENDING
In the 4Q Fed bank lending survey, the lending officers told us that they
are seeing less demand for both large company and small company demand for
commercial loans. The history of this portion of the survey lies below. (We're
only showing you the large company C&I lending survey results. Trust us,
the small company survey results and history are virtually identical.)

Is this really a drop off in commercial loan activity? Or is this response
more reflective of the fact that corporations in general are flush with cash
these days and don't really need to borrow? Well, it just so happens that the
directional year over year rate of change in nonresidential fixed investment
(a broad proxy for corporate capital spending) very closely mirrors what has
been seen over time in terms of bank lending officer responses to commercial
lending demand in the Fed survey. In other words, the banks are corroborating
the rate of change slowdown in corporate cap spending as of late.

So although the financial stocks have been heading higher, perhaps on hopes
that the Fed is near done for this cycle or that the US economy is about to
improve in a big way, the facts of the real world also reflected in the responses
of bank lending officers tell a different story. They tell a story of a rate
of change decline in the demand for credit both at the household and corporate
level. Here's a case where near term price volatility (in this case to the
upside) does not seem to be corresponding with current facts and circumstances.
Is this just a case of hedge and proprietary desk trading activity on a short
term basis reallocating speculative investment capital to a sector that has
been underperforming for some time (the financial sector)? Or is there simply
an incredible amount of pent up demand for additional credit expansion in the
US that is about to explode higher on the first hint that the Fed may halt
its assault on short term interest rates? Which do you think it is? Watch the
financials. They have led the current rally up. If this is a new bull market
and the beginning of a new and ever greater magnitude of credit expansion stateside,
the financials will continue to lead. They have led in almost ever cyclical
bull episode for equities over the last two-plus decades. Alternatively, if
the financials turn tail and head south post the knee-jerk "Fed is done" reaction
rally, it's a good bet they're going to have some broader sector company on
the way back down. As we've mentioned many a time, the financials continue
as the largest sector weight in the S&P by a good measure. Don't take your
eyes off of them as we round the turn into 2006.
|