Fed lowers rates

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>Comments from Former Fed Governors... <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/20839663">http://www.cnbc.com/id/20839663</a></p>

<p>Warren Buffet interview on CNBC... <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/20837495/site/14081545">http://www.cnbc.com/id/20837495/site/14081545</a></p>

<p>Interesting day. I really don't know if any of this is going to change the housing market in the near term. But this can't be bad for all the buyers who have 20% downpayment ready, low DTI, and ready to make a purchase. Also, low interest rate or not, you still need good credit score, full-doc, and 20% to qualify for a mortgage. Let's see how many well educated families, w/ $140k household income, and $150k downpayment will line up and jump into the housing market in the next 6 months. Lowering the interest rate doesn't really change the demand, but maybe makes it more 'attractive' for the demand to 'jump in' the market.</p>

<p>As far as rescuing home owners who are stuck w/ 2/28's. I hope you have improved your income and credit score, because you're gonna need it to refi.</p>
 
<p>Marty,</p>

<p>I have to disagree with the mortgage rates lag the Fed rate cut theory. First mortgage bonds have shown signs of weakness for about a week now. This means that the 50bps was already priced in and the traders who thought only a 25bps cut would happen yanked out of bonds and moved to equities. This happens all the time. </p>

<p>Your theory worked in the days when banks held their loans and they could adjust mortgage rates down as they could borrow short term rates at a lower rate creating the profit spread that they needed. This is not applicable in today's market where the loans are packaged and sold to investors. There are several things that affect the pricing on mortgages. 1. Is demand which has all but evaporated. 2. The risk assessment hasn't been appropriately factored in for the last five or so years. If an investor can get a 5% or 6% return on something that will not vary your return due to defaults or loss of principal why would they invest in something at 6.5% that would have that risk? 3. As lendingmaestro said his bank is raising rates not just because of the market but because of profit margin. When a lender was doing $10bil a month and is now doing $5bil a month means even with staff adjustments they will have to up the profit margin. I can tell you his bank isn't the only one who is doing this.</p>

<p>I don't have access to as many lenders as I use to so even if a better rate can be found the rate for a 30 conforming fixed is 6.75% at par. This doesn't include any risk adjustments and at par would include a 1% origination. I'd bet lunch two months from now it will either be the same or higher. I will see if I can find jumbo rates but like I said many of my sources are no longer around.</p>
 
<p>You seem to suggest that the 50 bps cut was already priced into the bond market, but not the stock market. I have a hard time believing that the bond market is more efficient than the stock market.</p>

<p>I'm not in the trenches but everything I've read suggests that in today's market the loans are <strong>not</strong> being packaged and sold to investors. That's why Countrywide, among many other mortgage lenders, are facing liquidity problems.</p>

<p>As for the risk assessment, I think your numbers are off. I don't know of a risk-free investment that pays 5 or 6%. Despite the turmoil in the housing market, prime loans with proper LTVs are relatively riskless (default rates are under 1%). A 30 year conforming can be had for under 6.5%.</p>

<p>I can't claim to predict the future, but the Fed wouldn't have cut if they didn't think it would improve liquidity.</p>
 
<p>I found jumbo pricing from a local lender. I hope you all have strong stomachs because this will make you queasy.</p>

<p>For a 30 year fixed jumbo loan with a FICO greater than 720, 20% down and the loan has to be under $1mil will have a rate of 7.5%. Ouch! But I am not done you will have to pay 2.25% to the lender. And because I am a nice guy and I feel bad for you I will only charge a .50% origination and I would not be getting any YSP. So if you need a $500k loan it will cost you over $14k to get it. </p>
 
<p><em>Is there no one willing to stand up for what's right in this country anymore?</em></p>

<p>We are a debtor nation. We are a debtor nation with a insolvency problem. We're debtaholics. We are in denial.</p>

<p>The majority want the reckoning delayed as a long as possible, it means a change to their status of living, it will become worse, but worse in ten years or even three years, is better than today. </p>

<p>Just one more hit off of the old credit card and we live in our fantasy world, watching the travel channel's Samantha Brown stay at $1000/night hotels on your 63 inch 1080p LCD we got with the house from Standard Pacific this weekend their take our debt mission possible dreaming of our living the high life as we schlep down to the corner Circle-K for a 40 and some lottery tickets.</p>

<p></bitterness></p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>My realtor 'friend' just called, asking me if I had heard about the rates being lowered by the Fed. He claims that this is the best time to buy, before home prices sky rocket with lower interest rates coming in the future.</p>
 
<p>Stolen from <a target="_blank" href="http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/">Mish</a>:</p>

<p><img alt="" src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/197438267-O.png" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>How, exactly, is this steepening going to help with affording a fixed rate mortgage? </p>
 
<em>"You seem to suggest that the 50 bps cut was already priced into the bond market, but not the stock market. I have a hard time believing that the bond market is more efficient than the stock market."</em>





With respect to interest rates, I would argue the bond market is more efficient than the stock market because bond valuations are <em>directly </em>dependent on interest rates whereas stocks are <em>indirectly </em>valued by interest rate expectations. Bond traders have to be much more nimble when reacting to interest rate changes.
 
I would suggest that they are testing the waters. Give a big cut now and see what the effects are. Also, it comes just in time to give a little more room on the credit card for the holidays.
 
Some words and facts from John Hussman:<p>


"There's no question that the Fed's decision will have a market impact. This is not because Federal Reserve operations matter, but because investors believe they matter. The total amount of U.S. bank reserves affected by FOMC operations is less than $45 billion, and only the ?excess? portion of that ? typically about $2 billion dollars ? is what determines the overnight Federal Funds Rate. Meanwhile, the total amount of borrowings through the ?discount window? ? though higher than in recent years ? still amounts to only about $3 billion.<p>




There is no well defined ?monetary transmission mechanism? by which these minuscule amounts affect bank lending. Yes, during periods of crisis, the Fed has an important role to play in providing day-to-day liquidity so banks can meet depositor withdrawals. But aside from this short-term variation in the monetary base (which we saw, for example, around the ?year 2000? turn), there is not even a slight relationship between bank reserves and total bank lending. Indeed, any remnant of that relationship was wiped out in the early 1990's, when reserve requirements were removed on all bank deposits other than checking accounts.<p>




To believe that the Fed operations matter, you have to believe that a $13 trillion economy is controlled by a few billion dollars of reserves and discount window borrowings, none of which vary materially from year to year.<p>




The notion of a powerful Fed is not knowledge born of analysis, but belief born of repetition. Stop to think about how you learned that the Fed controls the economy. Not that interest rates are important (which is certainly true), but specifically, that the Fed is important. I learned it in college, from the ?money multiplier? theory that links bank reserves and bank lending (obsolete since the early 1990's when reserve requirements were largely eliminated). Some investors learn it by hearing that the Fed ?controls interest rates? and by quietly equating ?interest rates? with ?Federal Reserve.? Some investors learn it by seeing economic outcomes that follow Fed moves ?with a long and variable lag? (as one would learn that the sun rises because the rooster crows).<p>




A few notes. The Federal Funds Rate is the overnight rate at which banks lend their excess reserves to other banks. Excess reserves are typically only about $2 billion of the roughly $45 billion in total reserves. Meanwhile the Discount Rate is the interest rate on funds lent by the Fed to U.S. banks. That amount is presently about $3 billion. These are the quantities and interest rates over which Wall Street is obsessing.<p>




The Federal Reserve controls one monetary aggregate ? the U.S. monetary base, the vast majority of which represents currency in circulation. In a nutshell, the Fed buys U.S. government debt and creates ?base money? in the form of either bank reserves or currency. Of the $552.4 billion in securities purchased by the Fed since 1990 to create new base money, $546.3 billion ? about 99% ? represents currency in circulation; the pieces of paper in your pocket that have ?Federal Reserve Note? printed on top.<p>




In general, "injections" of base money by the Federal Reserve into the banking system don't stay in the banking system at all. The vast majority of base money created by the Fed is not used for new bank lending, but to provide a reasonably steady $30-50 billion a year in new currency that predictably gets drawn out of the banking system and stays there.<p>




Total U.S. bank reserves have grown by only $3.1 billion since 1990, to a total of $44.9 billion. Again, it is the day-to-day trading between banks of this amount (and actually, only of ?excess reserves? ? typically about $2 billion dollars) that determines the Federal Funds rate.<p>




The Federal Reserve lowered the ?discount rate? and opened the ?discount window? a few weeks ago. Total borrowings from the Fed have increased from about $360 million in July, to $3.2 billion currently. While some analysts have breathlessly noted that ?borrowings from the Fed have soared to the highest level in years,? the total amount of this ?fresh liquidity? is about the same as the total assets of the Strategic Growth Fund.<p>




In contrast to about $2 billion in excess reserves that is the basis for the Federal Funds Rate, and about $3 billion that is currently being lent at the Discount Rate, the U.S. banking system presently carries about $3.4 trillion in real estate loans, and $6.3 trillion in total loans. Gross domestic product is currently about $13.8 trillion.
 
<p>More are coming for sure. The housing numbers are coming out next week, and then September's sales will coming out in October. September is the first full month after the credit chaos. October is also generally a down month in the stock market.</p>

<p>I don't see energy prices coming down at all given that we are heading into the fall/winter months. If the FED cut today, then they will most certainly continue to cut as more bad news comes out.</p>
 
<p>i would say this is a one - off emergency measure plus insurance policy...there are many areas of inflation pressure. Business in general is doing very well other than RE related areas. GE CFO just said this pm that they are doing well - remember GE is an diversified holding company with consumer goods / svs to industrial goods and svs. I am in the energy industry, commodity price, and labor costs are increasing in relatively large pace. </p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Well, I think Bernanke is going to find himself in dastardly waters that he isn't ready for. </p>

<p>Increasing prices and decreasing employment and economic output. Yes, the bad old days of stagflation are coming back.</p>

<p>Cutting rates to boost the economy will have the effect of decreasing the dollar's value which in turn will make everything we import, oil and the majority of stuff we buy, more expensive.</p>
 
Interesting divergence of opinions.





I wonder if when we look back on this cut if it will signal the start of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation">stagflation</a>, or if it will be remembered as heading off a depression -- or both...
 
And my own comments:<p>


On Monday, yesterday, $140 bil of asset backed securites came due. I don't know of the results, but I do know that the market for ABS has been beyond poor. Do you know what happens if the ABS's don't rollover, (or resell)? Large multinational banks "insure" these securities by extending a line of credit to the corporations writing the paper, and if the paper is not picked up in the open market, the banks must loan based on the line of credit.<p>


Ok, right about now you may be asking, "So what! Who cares? What does this have to do with me?"<p>


The answer is everything. Those lines of credit are the banks liabilites. This is the credit squeeze you have been hearing about, and it has 100 times more influence on the credit market, (read mortgage market), than the Fed funds rate. It is the reason the large banks have been resistant, or more accurately, refusing to buy CMOs, CLOs, CDOs, CDSs, or anything related to mortgages and ABSs. And the effective Fed funds rate that these large banks have been using for the last week or so has been closer to 4.85% to 4.90%. Do you think it matters one iota to the large banks what Bernanke just lowered the supposed rate to?
 
<p>Here's a question? Why don't they regulate the futures market and get speculators out of there. Why don't they limit trading to institutions directly involved with the production, manufcaturing, and selling of that product? Why does some tool-box in NYC have control over what I am paying for a loaf of bread?</p>

<p>If you want to speculate, go play in the options market and stop jacking up oil over $80 a barrel!!</p>
 
Back
Top