• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199

Banks are getting back into the business of building mortgage bonds, laying the groundwork for a market that stands to grow as the Trump administration tries to reduce the government's role in housing finance.

Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., and JPMorgan Chase & Co. over the past year have restarted or expanded the business of spinning fresh pools of mortgages into securities.

They are adding a jolt of energy to efforts to revive the so-called private-label market for mortgage bonds, which virtually disappeared after it blew up during the financial crisis of 2008. Smaller operators have long tried, but mostly failed, to rebuild what was once among the most significant businesses on Wall Street.
Last year, some $70 billion of mortgages ended up in private-label mortgage bonds, according to the Urban Institute. Though that is far below a peak of more than $1 trillion in precrisis years, it is the most since 2007. And this market could continue to grow if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shrink, traders and executives say, opening up more room for private players to take over this middleman role of packaging and selling mortgages. The Trump administration this month proposed privatizing the two government-sponsored mortgage giants, and the administration is expected to shrink them even if it can't return them to private hands.

The fact that many investors say they are once again getting comfortable buying these bonds also underscores the broader market's search for yield. Instead of viewing these bonds as toxic reminders of the financial crisis, many money managers see them as an opportunity to generate more income in a low-rate world.

Fannie and Freddie don't make loans. Instead, they buy mortgages, package them into securities and sell them to investors. Investors view these securities as safe because the government-backed mortgage giants assume much of the default risk. The bonds packaged and sold by the banks don't have the same protection, so investors demand higher yields to compensate them for taking on more risk.
While some banks never fully extricated themselves from the private-label market, they typically issued bonds in the years after the crisis only to package odds and ends, such as old loans that had defaulted and been modified in some way. Some deals were done to help out important clients. What is different now is that banks are also stepping into the role of buying loans from third parties and underwriting the securities they piece together. This more closely resembles the precrisis days when banks would bid on loans that were up for sale by the lenders that made them.
These are baby steps back into the market, to be sure. Largely gone are the complex derivatives once overlaid on these deals. And the market is tiny compared with precrisis days: In the first half of this year, 2.1% of mortgages went into private bonds. That is up from 2009, when private-label issuance was virtually nonexistent. But private bonds made up 41% of the market at a peak in 2005, according to the Urban Institute.

One problem with precrisis deals was that data about the underlying mortgages was often difficult to come by, even for the bankers originating the deals. In the Impac deal, Citigroup is working with startup dv01 Inc. to provide data to investors about the underlying mortgages, according to a report by ratings firm DBRS Inc.


While the situation is not the same as 2007 / 8, and the ability to get some data (interest rates, payment history, credit scores, etc.) of the mortgages is new, just give the banks some time to make the situation worse.
 
Last edited:

Abstrusity

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
if you tie bonuses to sales and yields, you'll get what happened back in 2007/8 again. It's wise to keep an eye on it even though it's not "as big as a problem" as it was.

The problem wasn't mortgage backed securities in and of themselves, it was bundling awful high risk high yield stuff with decent risk decent yield stuff in an effort to skew the average yield of entire packages of these things to make them look much better than they actually were, so they could sell them as safe investments, knowing few are going to look too deeply because 'why would anyone lie about that, it'll crater everything, least of which the bank's reputation.'

And the bank's reputation is the most expensive thing they had, so it stood to reason at the time that you could trust that these were what they are said to be.

Until we found out they weren't.
 

whytemyke

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
3,786
I mean bear in mind a lot of this will be things like jumbo mortgages. If you have someone taking a loan out for a $1.5mil house and they can only put about $300k down, that's a larger loan than Fannie or Freddie are going to back. Do you just not get a mortgage then? No, you take out a jumbo mortgage backed by a number of companies (Chase is the one that tends to back a lot of the ones I've seen, but there are private investment groups that do it as well.) These are generally the private mortgages that this article is referring to.

My point here is that this market growing isn't necessarily a guarantee that things go back to pre-crisis status. I personally look at it as well as a sign that home values have gone up (and don't get me started on how artificial I think the market is) at a quicker pace than institutions or, in some instances, even peoples incomes/savings have.

Here's how I describe it to people I know: If you see a sign that says "Cliff Ahead" when you're driving down the road, it doesn't automatically mean you're going to drive off a cliff. A smart person will slow down, pay more attention, and never go near the cliff. 2007 happened because there were about a hundred of those signs and everyone just floored it thinking that there was no cliff. Now we know better. That's not to say that it'll never happen again. Just that it's not a guarantee to happen again, and this stat in the article isn't really indicative of anything except that there's a cliff up ahead. :)
 

Baccus

Banned
Dec 4, 2018
5,307
I mean bear in mind a lot of this will be things like jumbo mortgages. If you have someone taking a loan out for a $1.5mil house and they can only put about $300k down, that's a larger loan than Fannie or Freddie are going to back. Do you just not get a mortgage then? No, you take out a jumbo mortgage backed by a number of companies (Chase is the one that tends to back a lot of the ones I've seen, but there are private investment groups that do it as well.) These are generally the private mortgages that this article is referring to.

My point here is that this market growing isn't necessarily a guarantee that things go back to pre-crisis status. I personally look at it as well as a sign that home values have gone up (and don't get me started on how artificial I think the market is) at a quicker pace than institutions or, in some instances, even peoples incomes/savings have.

Here's how I describe it to people I know: If you see a sign that says "Cliff Ahead" when you're driving down the road, it doesn't automatically mean you're going to drive off a cliff. A smart person will slow down, pay more attention, and never go near the cliff. 2007 happened because there were about a hundred of those signs and everyone just floored it thinking that there was no cliff. Now we know better. That's not to say that it'll never happen again. Just that it's not a guarantee to happen again, and this stat in the article isn't really indicative of anything except that there's a cliff up ahead. :)
Great post. You sound like me teacher. Thanks for the explanation.
 

docannon

Member
Oct 28, 2017
285
"Now we know better" describes about 0% of the people I know in finance, and sadly I know too many...
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,086
Arkansas, USA
A consequence of having low interest rates is that banks engage in riskier behavior. And since low interest rates are likely here to stay it's a persuasive reason to back separating investment and retail banks.
 

Xiao Hu

Chicken Chaser
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,497
God, I fucking hate the financial sector. It's a breeding ground for psychopaths, scam artists, and parasites...
 

MonoStable

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,052
Been following the mortgage bond industry for awhile now, the growth your seeing in the private sector is a direct result of fhfa head Calabria and previous director watt increasing the fee's Fannie and Freddie charge to make it so that private companies will step in. They want to reduce the footprint of the gse's.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
source.gif
 

Complicated

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,339
If something like 2008 happens again it's not likely to be due to the market making the same false assumptions about the same financial instrument mixed with a fair share of fraudulent fuckery from market institutions and government regulators. It will be something new that few saw coming.