Credit IO’s – Don’t Be a Slave to Your Data

In this blog we’re going to address a common complaint that we’ve seen users have: that when they’re putting together systems, too much automation creates a “black box” which then doesn’t permit the user to adjust the data in the manner in which they see fit.

Let’s face it, traders are on the front lines evaluating complex securities such as ABS bonds and the more you can permit users to take the data and create useful models that don’t “lock them into a particular view” of what’s being traded, the better it will be. Most often, traders build their own spreadsheets and, in general, do a great job. However, the lack of ability to dynamically communicate with a database of securities information can cause a great deal of trouble in the ABS market, if only when the next month’s data set comes out from trustees and they find themselves scrambling to manually update their spreadsheets.

Additionally, IT departments blanche at the thought of those overly flexible, manipulable spreadsheets that defy “systemization”. In this article we will discuss a specific example and how to satisfy the needs of both areas: IT and the Trading Desk.

Let’s take up the subject of “Credit IO’s”.

Definition: A Credit IO is an ABS bond which is sufficiently far down in the Capital Structure of an ABS deal that, based on the level of collateral defaults and loss severities that the market is currently experiencing, cause an investor to NOT expect any payment of principal.

Assumption: the bond’s principal WILL be written down to zero at some point. The investor expects NOT to get any principal back. However, until that point, the bond can earn interest cash flows therefore it’s an “Interest Only” bond.

Key Factor: Loss timing. Between now and precisely WHEN the bond is fully written down, the bond will be earning interest. Those monthly cash flows are worth something. The faster the bond will be written down, the less interest cash will be received. The longer the bond exists, the longer the bond will receive cash flows. The trick is to figure out when the losses will hit the bond. The timing of the losses will therefore have a dramatic effect on the price that an investor should be willing to pay for the bond. Less time until the fully-written down point = lower price.

So let’s take a look at some of the elements relating to the data side of this. Here are some of the relevant points:

1. Delinquencies

2. Foreclosure and REO timelines

3. Loss Severities to be used in determining how much of each loan will be lost due to defaults.

4. Credit Enhancements levels – primarily overcollateralization (OC) and each tranche’s current level of credit support (how much of the capital structure is supporting the particular tranche(s) we are evaluating).

On a Bloomberg you can bring up a simplistic method of evaluating this by typing an ABS cusip followed by the Mortgage key (F3) and then typing “MTCS” . This gives you the ability to take the deal’s current level of 60 day and 90 day delinquencies and apply a particular percentage of each that you expect to go through to default. The amounts of loans in Foreclosure (FC) and Real Estate Owned (REO) are assumed to be 100% in default. So we have as an example:

	%	% that will default	default amt
% of Deal 60+ Day Delinq	8%	60%	4.8%
% of Deal 90+ Day Delinq	5%	70%	3.5%
% of Deal in FC	3.5%	100%	3.5%
% of Deal in REO	2.5%	100%	2.5%

For a total of 14.3% that we expect to end up in full default and thereby experience a loss.

Sum those figures up (14.3%) and multiply by a single loss severity input and you will have the approx amount of the deal that you will experience as a loss. Let’s say we use 50% Loss Severity. That will give us 7.15% of the outstanding collateral balance in the deal that we expect to impact the deal’s capital structure in the form of losses. Compare that amount versus the particular bond’s credit support that you’re evaluating and if you have a ratio (called the “Coverage Ratio” on Bloomberg), that is less than 1.00, then that bond is likely to disappear completely because there is simply not enough support for the bond to survive. Anyone with access to a Bloomberg can do the above. The above doesn’t actually try to predict WHEN the losses will occur – only that they are expected to occur at some point in the future. It also does not let you consider future loans that are current on their mortgage payments or are 30 days delinquent that will come down the “pipeline” into the more severely delinquent states and finally into realized losses. It also doesn’t try to tell you what it all means in terms of a “price” that you might be willing to pay for the bond.

So let’s kick this up a notch.

Loan-Level Delinquency information

First of all, let’s assume that we have access to loan-level information and that we know, not only the current delinquency status of each loan but exactly when the loan entered that status. Intex provides good loan level data for deals from about 2006 and onwards. Loan Performance provides loan-level information for all deals – loan level information is generally what Loan Performance is known for (but they don’t have very good data about the capital structures nor can they do really good cash flows on the bonds as Intex does). The point is that loan-level delinquency information is available.

So let’s retrieve all the loans from a particular deal into a spreadsheet from our database of loan-level information. Ideally, this should be automated from within the spreadsheet so we can always refresh the data whenever we need to ensure that it is representative of the most current data in our database.

We now have our hands on which loans are in which delinquency condition. Now, if we simplistically project out maximum timelines that all the loans will experience in FC and REO before they hit their loss point, we can derive a table of months going forward and WHEN those losses will be experienced.

For example, we can state the following:

A. Let’s say that a loan has been in FC for two months already: Let’s permit 6 months for the total “normal” amount of time that a loan is going to be in FC so that there are expected to be 4 months more of FC time for this particular loan. Then permit 6 months more for the full REO process. This means that month 10 is WHEN we expect the loss to hit.

B. Let’s say that a loan is currently in REO and has been so for 4 months. Permitting 6 months of complete REO time suggests that we have 2 more months to go. So 2 months from now is when we think we will realize a loss on this loan.

C. Let’s say that a loan has just become 90 days delinquent for the first time. They’re probably going to be in FC real soon, but maybe we feel that we should allow an additional month of being 90 days delinq. So we would have 1 more month of 90 days delinquency. A full 6 months of FC and 6 months of REO so that we expect the loss to hit in month 13.

We can continue to do the above for 60 days delinq loans and 30 day delinq loans. And possibly take some current loans based on the idea that some of these will also hit the skids.

Let’s assume an overall “Loss Severity” of 60%. According to some market participants 60% is getting more and more real. This means that, given a loan amount of $100,000 you are expecting to lose $60,000. Apply the loss severity input to each of the loan balances and sum those loss amounts up into each of the months you have projected into the future.

The result is that you end up with a table of months into the future within which losses can be summed up – month by month. At that point we have a relatively simplistic table giving us WHEN we expect the losses to hit. These losses will be applied to the bond’s outstanding balance and will eventually “amortize” the bond’s principal, via write-downs, down to zero. At each month, you calculate what amount of interest the bond should receive. Then we apply the loss amount for that month and decrease the bond’s outstanding principal balance so that in the next month there will, of course, be less interest earned. We keep doing this until the bond’s balance has been written down to zero, at which point you’re not earning any more interest on the bond. At that point, the bond has disappeared. Then sum up the interest payments that you received during the time when the bond was still “alive” and you have the amount of cash you’re going to receive on this bond. Divide that by the principal currently outstanding on the bond and you have the price that might be indicative of what you would be willing to pay. Notice that this last sentence is disregarding the time value of money. It can be an enhancement to “present value” (PV) those interest cash flows and then sum up the PV-ed cash flows to get a more accurate price.

It should be noted that if there is any “OC” remaining at the bottom of the capital structure in the deal, you have to allocate the loss amounts to the OC first before they start to impact the bond you’re evaluating. Likewise if there are any bonds BELOW the one you’re evaluating, because of the fact that losses are allocated from the bottom of the capital structure upwards, then each of those bonds below your bond each have to be written down to zero before the loss amounts start to impact your particular bond. The point being that your spreadsheet application must retrieve all of the bonds and any OC BELOW your bond and apply the loss amounts to EACH of their principal outstanding amounts BEFORE the losses start to impact your particular bond. Of course, this means that ALL of the bonds below the one you’re evaluating are also, each one, a “Credit IO” bond.

A few other observations

I want to emphasize that decreasing the FC and REO timelines in the model will have the impact of decreasing the amount of time that the bonds will survive thereby decreasing the length of time that the bonds will earn interest resulting in a lower price that one would be willing to pay for the bond. Obviously, if you’re buying you want to pay as low as possible so underestimating time lines will help you. If you’re selling, you’ll probably want to consider that the time lines are longer so that you can sell it for a higher price. These are the normal competitive sort of interests in the market place.

The above represents a simplistic model but one which gives a much greater degree of flexibility than the Bloomberg MTCS function. Done correctly, it also permits the user to adjust the time lines and severities to ones which they feel comfortable with when evaluating “Credit IO’s”.

Also, by keeping all of the above factors in mind, the user/trader can still perform the analysis in the way that they see fits best for the environment they’re in. They’re not “locked” into a “black box” which they can’t see inside of.

There are, of course, much more extensive features that can be built into such a model which are not within the scope of this blog.

Jack Broad is the CEO of Thetica, LLC. Thetica's ABS Trader Tools allows you to price bonds faster and easier. You can analyze data across many deals at once, from multiple vendors and run many scenarios at the same time with rapid results. Integrated into your own systems for easy and fast customizable access to the data you need.

Source: www.theticasystems.com

SEC Proposes New Disclosure Rules for Target-Date Funds

Securities and Exchange Commission

On the heels of the turmoil caused by the financial crisis, regulators are proposing new rules governing how target-date funds are named and marketed.

The rules, announced late Wednesday, are part of an effort to provide transparency for investors and guide investment decisions, the Securities and Exchange Commission said.

The SEC's proposals would require an allocation tagline next to a fund's name, stating the proportion of cash, stocks, and bonds in the portfolio, and more detailed disclosure on the types of investments made throughout the life of the fund.

The market turmoil in 2008 revealed many investors' misunderstanding of how target-date funds managed their money. In some cases, investors in funds close to maturity were shocked to discover the high proportion of stocks in their portfolios. For example, Oppenheimer Transition 2010 /quotes/comstock/10r!ottnx (OTTNX 7.47, +0.02, +0.27%) lost 41% in 2008.

The market meltdown showed that target-date funds could lose money and perform in ways investors did not expect, SEC Chairman Mary Shapiro told The Wall Street Journal.

The SEC worried that the retirement year, which is a part of the fund name, led investors to believe the fund's performance depended solely on this factor. While there is one date, risk levels vary widely depending on asset allocation.

The proposals would see target-date fund marketing materials provide more detail on investment mixes through the course of the fund. Both print and electronic brochures would need to include graphics that depict the asset allocation and clearly noting that the mix changes over time.

Disclaimer text would also be revised to realign investor expectations. Marketing materials would have to encourage investors to consider their own risk tolerance and the fact that the fund may be in the red, even at the target date.

"Together these rule amendments are designed to foster investor understanding of target-date funds and reduce the possibility that investor will be confused or misled," Shapiro said in a statement.

The SEC will seek public comment on the amendments for a 60-day period following publication in the Federal Register.

Created in the mid-1990s, target-date funds offer an all-in-one investment choice, letting holders choose an approximate retirement date as the fund automatically changes the mix of cash, stocks, and bonds to more conservative balances as the date approaches.

Since their inception, target-date funds have grown quickly and are a popular choices in 401(k) plans. According to the SEC, assets held in target-date funds total about $270 billion.

Source: www.marketwatch.com

Reverse Mortgage Pools Keep AAA Rating says Fitch

The Ratings Outlook of HECM Trusts backed by reverse mortgage loans continue to hold their AAA rating said a statement from Fitch Ratings. The classes confirmed consist of a pool of reverse mortgages mortgages (HECM) insured by the Federal Housing Administration and their ratings outlook remains stable.

During the review Fitch compared the actual pay-down performance of the classes to its own cash flow projections and found that there have been no trigger events.

“Taken as a whole, reverse mortgage securitizations are definitely performing better than most other non-agency residential mortgage securitizations of the same vintage,” said Joe Kelly, Partner at New View Advisors, a capital markets and investment bank specializing in the reverse mortgage sector. “The bonds secured by reverse mortgage securitizations have not experienced the downgrades and write-downs so widespread in other sectors of the securitization market.”

However, Kelly said that with any HECM investment vehicle, the issue of taxes and insurance defaults affect the deals. “Some of the HECM loans in these securitizations have defaulted and some of these trusts now own REO properties. Of course, the role of the servicer is very important here, so it is significant that Fitch recently upgraded Financial Freedom’s servicer rating.”

Even with the T&I issues, Kelly added, “generally speaking the reverse mortgage securitization sector is performing well under difficult economic conditions, and Fitch’s recent ratings affirmations attest to that.”

Source: www.reversemortgagedaily.com

Owners Stop Paying Mortgage ... And Stop Fretting About It

For Alex Pemberton and Susan Reboyras, foreclosure is becoming a way of life — something they did not want but are in no hurry to get out of.

Foreclosure has allowed them to stabilize the family business. Go to Outback occasionally for a steak. Take their gas-guzzling airboat out for the weekend. Visit the Hard Rock Casino.

“Instead of the house dragging us down, it’s become a life raft,” said Mr. Pemberton, who stopped paying the mortgage on their house here last summer. “It’s really been a blessing.”

A growing number of the people whose homes are in foreclosure are refusing to slink away in shame. They are fashioning a sort of homemade mortgage modification, one that brings their payments all the way down to zero. They use the money they save to get back on their feet or just get by.

This type of modification does not beg for a lender’s permission but is delivered as an ultimatum: Force me out if you can. Any moral qualms are overshadowed by a conviction that the banks created the crisis by snookering homeowners with loans that got them in over their heads.

“I tried to explain my situation to the lender, but they wouldn’t help,” said Mr. Pemberton’s mother, Wendy Pemberton, herself in foreclosure on a small house a few blocks away from her son’s. She stopped paying her mortgage two years ago after a bout with lung cancer. “They’re all crooks.”

Foreclosure procedures have been initiated against 1.7 million of the nation’s households. The pace of resolving these problem loans is slow and getting slower because of legal challenges, foreclosure moratoriums, government pressure to offer modifications and the inability of the lenders to cope with so many souring mortgages.

The average borrower in foreclosure has been delinquent for 438 days before actually being evicted, up from 251 days in January 2008, according to LPS Applied Analytics.

While there are no firm figures on how many households are following the Pemberton-Reboyras path of passive resistance, real estate agents and other experts say the number of overextended borrowers taking the “free rent” approach is on the rise.

There is no question, though, that for some borrowers in default, foreclosure is only a theoretical threat for a long time.

More than 650,000 households had not paid in 18 months, LPS calculated earlier this year. With 19 percent of those homes, the lender had not even begun to take action to repossess the property — double the rate of a year earlier.

In some states, including California and Texas, lenders can pursue foreclosures outside of the courts. With the lender in control, the pace can be brisk. But in Florida, New York and 19 other states, judicial foreclosure is the rule, which slows the process substantially.

In Pinellas and Pasco counties, which include St. Petersburg and the suburbs to the north, there are 34,000 open foreclosure cases, said J. Thomas McGrady, chief judge of the Pinellas-Pasco Circuit. Ten years ago, the average was about 4,000. “The volume is killing us,” Judge McGrady said.

Mr. Pemberton and Ms. Reboyras decided to stop paying because their business, which restores attics that have been invaded by pests, was on the verge of failing. Scrambling to get by, their credit already shot, they had little to lose.

“We could pay the mortgage company way more than the house is worth and starve to death,” said Mr. Pemberton, 43. “Or we could pay ourselves so our business could sustain us and people who work for us over a long period of time. It may sound very horrible, but it comes down to a self-preservation thing.”

They used the $1,837 a month that they were not paying their lender to publicize A Plus Restorations, first with print ads, then local television. Word apparently got around, because the business is recovering.

The couple owe $280,000 on the house, where they live with Ms. Reboyras’s two daughters, their two dogs and a very round pet raccoon named Roxanne. The house is worth less than half that amount — which they say would be their starting point in future negotiations with their lender.

“If they took the house from us, that’s all they would end up getting for it anyway,” said Ms. Reboyras, 46.

One reason the house is worth so much less than the debt is because of the real estate crash. But the couple also refinanced at the height of the market, taking out cash to buy a truck they used as a contest prize for their hired animal trappers.

It was a stupid move by their lender, according to Mr. Pemberton. “They went outside their own guidelines on debt to income,” he said. “And when they did, they put themselves in jeopardy.”

His mother, Wendy Pemberton, who has been cutting hair at the same barber shop for 30 years, has been in default since spring 2008. Mrs. Pemberton, 68, refinanced several times during the boom but says she benefited only once, when she got enough money for a new roof. The other times, she said, unscrupulous salesmen promised her lower rates but simply charged her high fees.

Even without the burden of paying $938 a month for her decaying house, Mrs. Pemberton is having a tough time. Most of her customers are senior citizens who pay only $8 for a cut, and they are spacing out their visits.

“The longer I’m in foreclosure, the better,” she said.

In Florida, the average property spends 518 days in foreclosure, second only to New York’s 561 days. Defense attorneys stress they can keep this number high.

Both generations of Pembertons have hired a local lawyer, Mark P. Stopa. He sends out letters — 1,700 in a recent week — to Floridians who have had a foreclosure suit filed against them by a lender.

Even if you have “no defenses,” the form letter says, “you may be able to keep living in your home for weeks, months or even years without paying your mortgage.”

About 10 new clients a week sign up, according to Mr. Stopa, who says he now has 350 clients in foreclosure, each of whom pays $1,500 a year for a maximum of six hours of attorney time. “I just do as much as needs to be done to force the bank to prove its case,” Mr. Stopa said.

Many mortgages were sold by the original lender, a circumstance that homeowners’ lawyers try to exploit by asking them to prove they own the loan. In Mrs. Pemberton’s case, Mr. Stopa filed a motion to dismiss on March 17, 2009, and the case has not moved since then. He filed a similar motion in her son’s case last December.

From the lenders’ standpoint, people who stay in their homes without paying the mortgage or actively trying to work out some other solution, like selling it, are “milking the process,” said Kyle Lundstedt, managing director of Lender Processing Service’s analytics group. LPS provides technology, services and data to the mortgage industry.

These “free riders” are “the unintended and unfortunate consequence” of lenders struggling to work out a solution, Mr. Lundstedt said. “These people are playing a dangerous game. There are processes in many states to go after folks who have substantial assets postforeclosure.”

But for borrowers like Jim Tsiogas, the benefits of not paying now outweigh any worries about the future.

“I stopped paying in August 2008,” said Mr. Tsiogas, who is in foreclosure on his house and two rental properties. “I told the lady at the bank, ‘I can’t afford $2,500. I can only afford $1,300.’ ”

Mr. Tsiogas, who lives on the coast south of St. Petersburg, blames his lenders for being unwilling to help when the crash began and his properties needed shoring up.

Their attitude seems to have changed since he went into foreclosure. Now their letters say things like “we’re willing to work with you.” But Mr. Tsiogas feels little urge to respond.

“I need another year,” he said, “and I’m going to be pretty comfortable.”

Source: www.finance.yahoo.com