FHFA: House Prices Rose 1% in November

The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA)
Home Price Index (HPI) rose 1.0 percent from October to November reflecting an
increase in U.S. housing prices on a seasonally adjusted basis. As can be seen
in the figure below, the there is little difference between seasonally adjusted
and unadjusted FHFA figures.  The estimated
figure for October was revised down from a -0.2 change as first reported to -0.7.
 The current index is 183.8 a drop of 1.8
percent from November 2010 when the index was at 187.3. 

The current HPI is 18.8 percent below
the peak it reached in April 2007 and indicates that prices have returned to
roughly the same range as existed in February 2004.

The HPI is calculated using purchase
prices of houses with mortgages that have been sold to or guaranteed by Freddie
Mac or Fannie Mac.  The index is based on
100 representing prices for homes in the first quarter of 1991.

The HPI rose for all regions
except the Middle Atlantic division (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) which
fell 0.2 percent.  The biggest increase
was in the West South Central Division (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana)
which rose 2.1 percent.  West South
Central and West North Central (North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri) were the only regions to increase on a
year-over-year basis.

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.

Credit Defaults Increase, Led by Mortgage Markets

Bank cards were the only type of
consumer debt to see a decline in defaults during December according to data
released today by S&P Indices and Experian. 
The S&P Experian Consumer Credit Default Indices showed increased
defaults in both first and second mortgages and in auto loans.  Driven primarily by the increase in mortgage
defaults, the national composite index rose from 2.22 percent in November to
2.24 percent in December, the highest rate since April of 2011.  In December 2010 the Index stood at 3.01
percent.

The default rate for second mortgages increased
from 1.26 percent to 1.33 percent, auto loan defaults rose to 1.27 percent from
1.17 percent and first mortgage defaults increased to 2.19 percent from 2.17
percent.  The default rate for bank cards
however dropped from 4.91 percent to 4.60 percent.  All rates have improved from those of one
year earlier when the default rate for second mortgages was 1.74 percent; first
mortgages, 2.93 percent; auto loans, 1.69 percent; and bank cards, 6.73
percent.

“Led by the
mortgage markets, the second half of 2011 saw a slight reversal of the two-year
downward trend in consumer credit default rates,” says David M. Blitzer,
Managing Director and Chairman of the Index Committee for S&P Indices.
“First mortgage default rates rose for the fourth consecutive month, as did the
composite. Since August, first mortgage default rates have risen from 1.92% to
the 2.19%. The composite also rose those months, from 2.04% to 2.24%.  The
recent weakness seen in home prices is reflected in these data.  Bank card
default rates, on the other hand, were favorable, falling to 4.6% in December.
This is more than a full percentage point below the 5.64% we saw as recently as
July 2011.

S&P Experian data highlighted
five Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). 
Three of the five showed increases in default rates for the month: Miami
increased from 4.47 percent to 4.73 percent; Dallas from 1.38 percent to 1.56
percent, and Los Angeles to 2.54 percent from 2.53 percent.  Chicago was unchanged at 2.84 percent and New
York decreased from 2.21 percent n November to 2.13 percent in December. 

Blitzer said
of the MSA data, “Given what we know about the mortgage markets, it is likely
that these cities are seeing this recent weakness because their housing markets
have still not stabilized.”


 

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.

CoreLogic: Home Prices Show Third Consecutive Monthly Increase

Home prices were up for the third
consecutive month
in May as measured by CoreLogic’s Home Price Index
(HPI.)  The three months of increases were
noted for both annual and month-over-month numbers.

The HPI increased by 1.8 percent
compared to April figures and was 2.0 percent higher in May 2012 than in May
2011.  Those numbers are for all home
sales including those of distressed homes, both short sales and real estate
owned (REO) transactions.

When distressed sales are removed from
the calculation home prices were up year-over-year by 2.7 percent and were 2.3
percent higher in May than in April. 
This is the fourth consecutive month-over-month increase.

CoreLogic’s forward-looking Pending HPI
which is based on Multiple Listing Service data measuring price changes in the
most recent month indicates that house prices, including distressed sales, will
rise by at least 1.4 percent from May to June and by 2.0 percent if distressed
sales are not included.

“The recent upward trend in
U.S. home prices is an encouraging signal that we may be seeing a bottoming of
the housing down cycle,” said Anand Nallathambi, president and chief
executive officer of CoreLogic. “Tighter inventory is contributing to
broad, but modest, price gains nationwide and more significant gains in the
harder-hit markets, like Phoenix.”

“Home price appreciation in the
lower-priced segment of the market is rebounding more quickly than in the upper
end,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic. “Home prices
below 75 percent of the national median increased 5.7 percent from a year ago,
compared to only a 1.8 percent increase for prices 125 percent or more of the
median.”

Since home prices peaked in April
2006 the national HPI including all sales has fallen 30.1 percent and non-distressed
sale prices are down 22.2 percent.

The highest price appreciation
including distressed sales was seen in Arizona (12.0 percent), Idaho (9.2
percent) and South Dakota (8.7 percent). 
When distressed sales are excluded the greatest appreciation was noted
in Montana (9.1 percent), South Dakota (8.5 percent), and Arizona (7.3
percent).

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.

OIG Finds FHLBanks Corrected Foreign Credit Exposure, more Supervision Needed

The Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a report this morning
that was mildly critical of the FHFA’s oversight of Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks)
granting of unsecured credit to European banks.   OIG said that extensions of unsecured credit
in general increased by the FHLBanks during the 2010-2011 period, even as the
risks for doing so were intensifying.

FHFA regulates the FHLBanks and has
critical responsibilities to ensure that they operate in a safe and sound
manner.  FHFA’s OIG initiated an
evaluation to assess the regulator’s oversight of the Banks unsecured credit
risk management practices.

Unsecured credit extensions to European
institutions
and others grew from $66 billion at the end of 2008 to more than
$120 billion by early 2011 before declining to $57 billion by the end of that
year as the European sovereign debt crisis intensified.  During this period extensions of unsecured
credit to domestic borrowers remained relatively static but extensions to
foreign financial institutions fluctuated in a pattern that mirrored the
FHLBanks’ total unsecured lending.  That
is, it more than doubled from about $48 billion at the end of 2008 to $101
billion as of April 2011 before falling by 59 percent to slightly more than $41
billion by the end of 2011.

FHFA OIG also found that certain
FHLBanks had large exposures to particular financial institutions and the
increasing credit and other risks associated with such lending.   For example, one FHLBank extended more than
$1 billion to a European bank despite the fact that the bank’s credit rating
was downgraded and it later suffered a multibillion dollar loss.

During the time period in question OIG
found there was an inverse relationship between the trends in lending to
foreign financial institutions and the Banks advances to their own members.  Since mid-2011 the extensions to foreign
institutions have declined sharply but the advances have continued their
longstanding decline.  OIG said it
appears that some FHLBanks extended the unsecured credit to foreign
institutions to offset the decline in advance demand and that they curtailed
those unsecured extensions as they began to fully appreciate the associated
risks.

At the peak of the unsecured lending,
about 70 percent of the FHLBank System’s $101 billion in unsecured credit to
foreign borrowers was made to European financial institutions and 44 percent
were to institutions within the Eurozone. 
About 8 percent of unsecured debt ($6 billion) was to institutions in
Spain, considered by S&P to be even riskier than the Eurozone as a whole.

Some banks within the FHL System had
extremely high levels of unsecured credit extended to foreign borrowers.  The Seattle Bank’s exposure to foreign
borrowers as a percentage of its regulatory capital was more than 340 percent
in March 2011; Boston was at 300 percent, and Topeka 360 percent.  All three had declined substantially by the
end of 2011 but Seattle and Topeka remained above 100 percent.

OIG said that the vast majority of the
Banks’ extensions of unsecured credit appeared to be within current regulatory
limits (although OIG said these limits may be outdated and overly permissive),
some banks did exceed the limits and OIG found the three banks (which for some
reason it treated anonymously) definitely did so and blamed that on a lack of
adequate controls of systems to ensure compliance.

OIG reviewed a variety of FHFA internal
documents during the 2010-2011 period during which it found the Agency had
expressed growing concern about the Banks’ unsecured exposures to foreign
financial institutions.  But, even though
FHFA identified the unsecured credit extensions as an increasing risk in early
2010, it did not prioritize it in its examination process due to its focus on
greater financial risks then facing the FHLBank system especially their private
label mortgage-backed securities portfolios. 
In 2011, however, FHFA initiated a range of oversight measures focusing
on and prioritizing the credit extensions in the supervisory process and
increasing the frequency with which the Banks had to report on that part of
their portfolios.

OIG believes that FHFA’s recent initiatives
contributed to the significant decline in the amount of unsecured credit being
extended by the end of 2011.

The final findings issued by OIG in its
report are:

  1. Although
    FHFA did not initially prioritize FHLBank unsecured credit risks, it has
    recently developed an increasingly proactive approach to oversight in this
    area.
  2. FHFA
    did not actively pursue evidence of potential FHLBank violations of the limits
    on unsecured exposures contained in its regulations.
  3. FHFA’s
    current regulations governing unsecured lending may be outdated and overly
    permissive.

To correct
these deficiencies, OIG recommends that the Agency:

  • Follow up on any potential evidence of violations of
    the existing regulatory limits and take action as warranted;
  • Determine the extent to which inadequate systems and
    controls may compromise the Banks’ capacity to comply with regulatory limits;
  • Strengthen the regulatory framework by establishing
    maximum exposure limits; lowering existing individual counterparty limits; and
    ensuring that the unsecured exposure limits are consistent with the System’s
    housing mission.

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.