Industrial and Multi-family Loans Drive Annual CRE Increase

The Mortgage Bankers Association
(MBA) reports that commercial and multifamily loan originations were down 7
percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to the third quarter but were 13
percent higher than originations in the fourth quarter a year earlier.  The year-over year change was driven by
originations for both industrial and multifamily properties which increased 43
percent and 31 percent respectively from Q4 2010.  On the negative side, retail loans were down
8 percent, loans for healthcare properties fell 24 percent, office properties
were down 29 percent and hotel originations decreased 44 percent.

Quarter over quarter results were
mixed.  There was a 153 percent jump in
originations for health care properties; industrial loans were up 51 percent
and multifamily properties increased 29 percent.  Originations for healthcare properties fell 52
percent, office properties were down 39 percent, and retail property loans
decreased 24 percent.

Looking at lending by investor groups,
commercial bank portfolios were up by 122 percent compared to the fourth
quarter of 2010 and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the GSEs) increased lending 17
percent.  Life insurance companies and
conduits for commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) decreased lending by
23 percent and 50 percent respectively.

 On a quarter-over-quarter basis only the GSEs
increased their loans, which rose 34 percent to an all time high.  Conduits for CMBS were down 26 percent, life
insurance companies decreased lending by 23 percent, and commercial bank
portfolios declined by 16 percent.  

“MBA’s Commercial/Multifamily
Mortgage Bankers Origination Index hit record levels for life insurance
companies in the second and third quarters of 2011,” said Jamie Woodwell,
MBA’s Vice President of Commercial Real Estate Research. “In the fourth
quarter, multifamily originations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hit a new
all-time high. While the CMBS market continued to be held back by broader
capital markets uncertainty during the past year, others – like the GSEs, life
companies and many bank portfolios – increased their appetite for commercial
and multifamily loans.”

Commercial/Multi-family
Originations by Investor Types

Investor
Type

Origination Volume Index*

% Chg

Q4-Q4

Average Loan Size ($millions)

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Conduits

42

31

-50

30.5

23.9

Commercial
Banks

169

143

122

11.8

7.8

Life
Insurance

282

216

-13

20.5

14.0

GSEs

176

236

17

13.8

14.3

Total

138

129

13

14,9

11.6

*2001 Ave. Quarter = 100

Commercial/Multi-family
Originations by Property Types

Investor
Type

Origination Volume Index*

% Chg

Q4-Q4

Average Loan Size ($millions)

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Multi-family

140

181

31

13.2

13.5

Office

91

56

-29

19.1

11.7

Retail

222

169

-8

20.9

12.3

Industrial

142

214

43

12.4

16.2

Hotel

231

110

-44

39.0

20.1

Health
Care

91

229

-24

7.2

12.4

*2001 Ave. Quarter = 100

…(read more)

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

Nearly 100 Metro Areas on Improving Market List

The list of Improving Housing Markets (IHM) maintained by
the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) took another big jump in
February, rising from 76 in January and more than doubling the 41 reported in
December.  There are now 98 metropolitan
areas
representing 36 states included on the list.

The IHM identifies metropolitan areas that have shown
improvement from their respective troughs on each of three metrics –
employment, housing permits, and home prices – for at least six consecutive
months.  NAHB uses data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, and Freddie Mac to measure
improved performance.

The additions to the February Index include some
metropolitan areas that had been particularly weak including Miami, Detroit,
Memphis, Kansas City, Missouri; Portland, Oregon, and Salt Lake City.  NAHB points out that inclusion in the Index
does not indicate strong recovery, merely that some of these troubled areas are
coming off of extreme lows.

Seven metro areas dropped off of the Index in February due
to softening housing prices.  One of
these was Washington, DC, one of the few areas that had continued to show
strong prices and sales through 2011. 

“While many of the markets on the February IMI are far from fully
recovered, the index points out where employment, home prices and housing
production are no longer retreating and have held above their lowest recession
troughs for six months or more,” said NAHB Chief Economist David Crowe.
“This is a sign that a large cross section of the country is starting to
turn the corner as local economic conditions stabilize.”

 MSA  Permits Trough Date Growth From Trough Prices Trough Date Growth From Trough Employment Trough Date Growth From Trough
1 Florence, AL 03/31/09 2.6% 02/28/11 0.6% 07/31/09 3.9%
2 Tuscaloosa, AL 05/31/11 8.8% 02/28/11 3.6% 06/30/09 1.7%
3 Fayetteville, AR 03/31/09 1.2% 02/28/11 1.0% 02/28/10 3.0%
4 Napa, CA 06/30/11 31.2% 02/28/11 0.3% 02/28/11 3.3%
5 Boulder, CO 11/30/09 11.6% 01/31/11 6.2% 01/31/10 2.7%
6 Denver, CO 03/31/09 2.8% 02/28/11 2.1% 01/31/10 1.4%
7 Fort Collins, CO 03/31/09 4.5% 12/31/10 4.6% 12/31/09 3.5%
8 Greeley, CO 11/30/10 8.1% 02/28/11 3.3% 12/31/09 0.1%
9 Bridgeport, CT 03/31/09 1.2% 02/28/11 4.5% 01/31/10 1.4%
10 New Haven, CT 04/30/11 26.0% 02/28/11 0.0% 02/28/10 2.1%
11 Cape Coral, FL 03/31/09 3.1% 02/28/11 8.1% 01/31/11 1.7%
12 Deltona, FL 03/31/11 2.6% 03/31/11 15.1% 01/31/11 3.3%
13 Jacksonville, FL 04/30/09 1.4% 02/28/11 1.5% 02/28/10 2.3%
14 Miami, FL 04/30/09 7.3% 03/31/11 2.6% 03/31/10 1.7%
15 North Port, FL 01/31/09 2.7% 02/28/11 6.2% 06/30/11 1.2%
16 Punta Gorda, FL 01/31/09 1.6% 02/28/11 11.5% 06/30/09 3.5%
17 Tampa, FL 03/31/09 1.7% 03/31/11 3.8% 12/31/09 2.6%
18 Athens, GA 03/31/11 4.2% 01/31/11 2.7% 01/31/10 0.8%
19 Augusta, GA 12/31/08 1.7% 03/31/11 3.0% 05/31/11 0.0%
20 Honolulu, HI 12/31/08 0.4% 01/31/11 3.4% 08/31/10 3.1%
21 Ames, IA 07/31/10 7.4% 02/28/11 6.3% 05/31/11 2.4%
22 Davenport, IA 05/31/09 1.8% 12/31/10 4.1% 01/31/10 0.7%
23 Des Moines, IA 02/28/09 4.5% 01/31/11 2.6% 05/31/11 1.5%
24 Dubuque, IA 12/31/08 5.0% 02/28/11 3.1% 04/30/09 5.8%
25 Waterloo, IA 03/31/09 1.4% 11/30/10 0.9% 07/31/09 4.1%
26 Elkhart, IN 04/30/09 2.2% 02/28/11 1.5% 08/31/09 10.4%
27 Indianapolis, IN 01/31/09 0.4% 02/28/11 3.0% 10/31/09 0.6%
28 Lafayette, IN 01/31/09 15.7% 02/28/11 5.4% 07/31/09 4.0%
29 Muncie, IN 04/30/11 11.1% 02/28/10 3.4% 02/28/11 2.7%
30 Lake Charles, LA 04/30/11 6.2% 02/28/11 0.9% 11/30/10 3.6%
31 Monroe, LA 03/31/09 3.3% 05/31/10 3.6% 03/31/11 1.3%
32 Shreveport, LA 01/31/09 1.9% 03/31/11 5.6% 10/31/09 3.2%
33 Boston, MA 02/28/09 1.1% 03/31/11 0.7% 07/31/09 2.9%
34 Springfield, MA 04/30/11 3.8% 03/31/11 2.5% 08/31/09 2.6%
35 Cumberland, MD 05/31/10 3.1% 01/31/11 6.2% 06/30/11 6.5%
36 Lewiston, ME 06/30/11 16.1% 01/31/11 1.4% 06/30/11 3.8%
37 Ann Arbor, MI 05/31/09 0.1% 12/31/10 4.5% 07/31/09 3.0%
38 Detroit, MI 04/30/09 8.6% 03/31/11 6.8% 06/30/09 2.4%
39 Grand Rapids, MI 04/30/09 2.9% 02/28/11 7.7% 07/31/09 5.0%
40 Lansing, MI 05/31/09 4.4% 02/28/11 10.6% 08/31/09 2.7%
41 Monroe, MI 12/31/09 2.7% 02/28/11 7.6% 10/31/09 2.5%
42 Muskegon, MI 11/30/09 0.2% 01/31/11 6.1% 12/31/10 1.6%
43 Duluth, MN 05/31/11 2.9% 03/31/11 4.6% 09/30/09 0.6%
44 Minneapolis, MN 03/31/09 1.8% 02/28/11 2.5% 09/30/09 1.5%
45 Rochester, MN 03/31/09 0.7% 02/28/11 2.4% 12/31/10 1.5%
46 Columbia, MO 11/30/08 1.7% 02/28/11 1.5% 08/31/09 3.6%
47 Jefferson City, MO 08/31/10 1.0% 03/31/11 3.9% 02/28/10 2.1%
48 Joplin, MO 02/28/11 5.0% 02/28/11 15.4% 08/31/09 1.2%
49 Kansas City, MO 03/31/09 3.2% 02/28/11 5.2% 06/30/11 1.2%
50 Hattiesburg, MS 01/31/11 2.2% 03/31/11 4.1% 04/30/11 3.6%
51 Fayetteville, NC 12/31/08 2.1% 01/31/10 0.3% 10/31/10 3.2%
52 Winston-Salem, NC 03/31/09 1.9% 11/30/10 0.1% 01/31/11 2.4%
53 Bismarck, ND 03/31/09 15.3% 02/28/10 8.8% 12/31/07 8.8%
54 Fargo, ND 04/30/09 4.9% 02/28/11 3.0% 07/31/09 4.2%
55 Grand Forks, ND 04/30/09 3.0% 12/31/10 7.7% 09/30/10 4.2%
56 Lincoln, NE 01/31/09 1.6% 01/31/11 4.2% 07/31/10 3.2%
57 Omaha, NE 07/31/10 4.5% 03/31/11 2.7% 02/28/10 2.6%
58 Manchester, NH 02/28/11 2.1% 02/28/11 0.5% 01/31/10 1.8%
59 Ocean City, NJ 03/31/09 1.0% 03/31/11 6.3% 05/31/11 5.7%
60 Syracuse, NY 03/31/11 2.9% 03/31/11 10.2% 08/31/10 1.5%
61 Cincinnati, OH 01/31/09 0.2% 02/28/11 2.1% 12/31/10 1.6%
62 Springfield, OH 01/31/11 13.4% 03/31/11 2.5% 01/31/10 3.5%
63 Toledo, OH 05/31/09 1.4% 01/31/11 0.6% 06/30/09 3.4%
64 Youngstown, OH 06/30/11 5.2% 02/28/11 3.9% 06/30/09 4.0%
65 Oklahoma City, OK 05/31/09 0.6% 02/28/11 1.0% 01/31/10 4.0%
66 Tulsa, OK 10/31/10 0.8% 02/28/11 4.4% 02/28/10 3.1%
67 Corvallis, OR 04/30/11 5.7% 02/28/11 4.3% 07/31/09 4.9%
68 Portland, OR 03/31/09 2.6% 03/31/11 3.7% 11/30/09 2.0%
69 Erie, PA 03/31/11 4.6% 02/28/11 3.1% 02/28/10 3.9%
70 Philadelphia, PA 03/31/09 0.7% 02/28/11 2.9% 02/28/10 0.5%
71 Pittsburgh, PA 02/28/09 1.6% 01/31/10 6.5% 02/28/10 4.1%
72 Williamsport, PA 03/31/11 46.3% 02/28/10 8.5% 12/31/09 3.9%
73 Chattanooga, TN 05/31/11 2.6% 02/28/11 4.0% 08/31/09 3.2%
74 Clarksville, TN 01/31/09 2.7% 02/28/11 1.3% 08/31/09 5.1%
75 Kingsport, TN 02/28/11 0.4% 01/31/11 1.6% 02/28/10 2.8%
76 Memphis, TN 04/30/09 2.8% 03/31/11 1.1% 09/30/10 3.1%
77 Nashville, TN 03/31/09 1.6% 02/28/11 1.4% 09/30/09 3.7%
78 Amarillo, TX 10/31/08 1.7% 01/31/10 3.2% 04/30/10 4.6%
79 College Station, TX 10/31/10 5.5% 02/28/11 10.2% 12/31/07 3.6%
80 Corpus Christi, TX 01/31/11 5.1% 12/31/10 4.3% 11/30/09 6.0%
81 Dallas, TX 05/31/09 0.9% 02/28/11 0.5% 12/31/09 3.6%
82 Laredo, TX 12/31/08 1.3% 01/31/10 2.9% 09/30/09 7.1%
83 Longview, TX 04/30/09 3.2% 03/31/11 5.9% 10/31/09 7.9%
84 McAllen, TX 01/31/09 0.4% 11/30/10 1.9% 12/31/07 5.2%
85 Midland, TX 04/30/09 3.6% 01/31/10 8.7% 08/31/09 10.0%
86 Odessa, TX 02/28/09 24.5% 11/30/10 8.9% 08/31/09 9.0%
87 Tyler, TX 03/31/09 0.4% 12/31/10 0.8% 07/31/10 5.3%
88 Victoria, TX 09/30/10 4.2% 02/28/11 6.2% 11/30/09 4.8%
89 Provo, UT 02/28/09 2.7% 03/31/11 1.1% 12/31/09 4.6%
90 Salt Lake City, UT 03/31/09 2.3% 03/31/11 0.4% 02/28/10 3.6%
91 Danville, VA 03/31/09 1.8% 11/30/10 11.4% 11/30/09 2.9%
92 Winchester, VA 04/30/11 7.9% 10/31/10 8.4% 08/31/09 5.4%
93 Burlington, VT 03/31/11 6.1% 01/31/10 1.3% 09/30/09 4.5%
94 Bellingham, WA 04/30/11 2.7% 03/31/11 0.2% 06/30/11 0.4%
95 Kennewick, WA 03/31/09 4.2% 03/31/11 0.3% 12/31/07 4.4%
96 Madison, WI 01/31/09 1.3% 02/28/11 0.8% 08/31/09 2.1%
97 Casper, WY 11/30/10 7.0% 01/31/10 3.2% 12/31/09 8.5%
98 Cheyenne, WY 12/31/08 6.0% 12/31/10 3.0% 01/31/10 2.8%

…(read more)

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

Housing Assistance 2012: Another Herculean Task for the FHA

Beginning the 37th month of his presidency, the Obama Administration today announced a laundry list of new programs to help struggling homeowners, crack down on abusive lending practices, make mortgage documents easier to read, convert REO to rental, and other assorted initiatives.  Some require Congressional approval; others are a work in progress, and a couple can begin quickly.
 
At the heart of the announcement is a broad new refinance program with the venerable FHA stepping in (once again) to help save the mortgage market by offering current but underwater non-FHA borrowers another lifeline.
 
Concurrently, the Administration appears to be on the verge of a broad-based “REO-to-Rental” initiative by announcing a pilot project to be led by FHFA, HUD, and Treasury.  I think the Administration is smart to move this initiative forward as they certainly have the political cover through last year’s RFI process.  They asked for comments and suggestions and reportedly received thousands of responses.  They can now say we are implementing what America said they wanted.   Of course, we do not yet know exactly how it will work.
 
Lawmakers and mortgage industry professionals have previously questioned whether or not FHA can handle yet another herculean task.  Recall in 2007 when the mortgage market sputtered and into 2008 when new higher loan limits were unveiled, FHA saw its share of the mortgage market jump exponentially in a matter of months. What was a $350 billion book of business in 2005 has today mushroomed to $1 trillion with more than 7.4 million homes with FHA insurance.
 
Since presumably these would be riskier borrowers (higher LTVs and underwater) it remains to be seen:

  1. If Congress will give FHA the authority to increase its current LTV caps.
  2. How OMB will “score” the proposal thus dictating the mortgage insurance pricing?
  3. Will proposed new bank fees and presumably higher premium revenue off-set the expected “cost” to FHA?

FHA is reportedly considering placing these loans in an insurance fund separate from its current Single Family books of business, but could ultimately require the FHA to invoke its “permanent indefinite” budget authority to keep it afloat (as opposed to the self-sustaining Mutual Mortgage Insurance fund).
 
That said, the Administration indicated the cost of these programs will “not add a dime to the deficit” and will be off-set by a fee on the “Largest Financial Institutions.”  (Note: Congress might have an opinion here.)
 
Since FHA has not in recent memory refinanced borrowers with LTVs in the 120-140 range (presumably one of the groups targeted by the Administration), I think it will be difficult to estimate the performance of these loans over time and thus their impact on FHA’s actuarial foundation regardless of which fund they place them in.  While the FHA “short re-finance” program announced in 2010 allowed a 115% CLTV, it has had very little participation thus making it difficult to gauge performance relative to what could be even higher LTV participants.
 
It should be noted that the Administration is targeting borrowers who have made 12 consecutive payments so one could argue that despite the fact they are underwater they have been able to afford their mortgage payments – presumably in some cases for several years.  So does that mitigate some of the potential risk meaning that they will certainly be able to afford reduced monthly payments?  But again, given FHA’s limited experience with borrowers outside their established guidelines and requirements predicting their performance with any degree of certainty is difficult at best.
 
And assuming those previously non-FHA borrowers default on their new FHA loan, who do you think will now be at-risk with an underwater property?  Again, the Administration stated these programs “will not add a dime to the deficit” – I hope they are right.
 
FHA’s actuarial soundness has been rocked by the on-going erosion of house prices nationwide which has led to three consecutive years of declines in their capital reserve ratio.  The best medicine for FHA is house price appreciation and the positive ripple effect of increased value to their housing portfolio.  But they have been waiting three years for that to happen.
 
Welcomed news as part of this new refinance program is they would be removed from an FHA lender’s compare ratio within Neighborhood Watch (FHA’s public database of lender’s default rates compared to its peers in a given geographic region).  That said, I suspect FHA will establish a separate category of compare ratios for this book of business, as it did for Negative Equity Refinances and the Hope For Homeowner (H4H) program.
 
So while this action will remove a potential barrier to participation, lenders should be cautioned that performance will still matter and they should stand ready for increased scrutiny especially by the HUD OIG.
 
I give the Administration credit for launching another round of housing assistance as too many homeowners continue to struggle.  Putting politics aside on the surface it appears to be the right and proper thing to do, however it remains to be seen the level of participation (and degree of Congressional acceptance) and ultimately what cost, if any, to the taxpayers – most of which have grown weary of the nagging housing crisis.
 
Note: We will continue to follow this initiative with keen interest as it makes its way through Congress and will offer periodic updates as developments warrant.

…(read more)

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

D.R. Horton Swings to Profit

D.R. Horton swung to the black in its fiscal first quarter on a double-digit jump in home-building revenue and showed optimism for the spring selling season.

New home sales jump 7.6% in May

The housing market got some good news on Monday, as the government reported that sales of new homes rose 7.6% in May.