How Much Mortgage Junk is Out There?

Why we have a long way to go: This will keep us busy in 07/08. Some large percentage of these homeowners were counting on a refi in 07 based on home price appreciation to get into a better product and will not be able to pay the reset payments. With flat/falling housing prices and tighter credit, this ain't happening and as people start to go delinquent over the next 12-15 months, the cycle will be self-sustaining.

And this year $1 trillion in adjustable-rate mortgages are due to reset before Dec. 31.

San Diego Union Tribune

And this will keep us busy in 08/09 since 2006 might have been the worst year of all and the fallout of these loans will go into late 08/09

In 2006, according to UBS, interest- only loans, 40-year mortgages and option-adjustable-rate mortgages comprised more than 75 percent of Alt-A issuance. These loans often have little documentation of a borrower's income and rack up higher mortgage debt against the value of the underlying collateral (i.e., the house). UBS said that 76 percent of adjustable-rate interest- only loans written in 2006 had low documentation, while 57 percent had loan-to-value ratios greater than 80 percent. No surprise, then, that 3.16 percent of these loans are already delinquent by two months or more.

From the IHT

And from CSFB, more exciting data on Alt-A

The overall share of prime conventional loans has declined from an estimated 66% of total purchase dollar originations in 2002 to 45% last year. The GSEs’ share loss has been largely attributed to the proliferation of “exotic” mortgage products such as high CLTV loans, low/no documentation mortgages and interest-only/negative amortization loans, which the GSEs have typically chosen to limit their exposure to given the high risk profiles of these products.

[T]he Alt-A market has expanded from just 5% of total originations in 2002 to approximately 20% in 2006. Although the credit profile of Alt-A borrowers is stronger than that of the subprime market (717 average FICO score for Alt-A borrowers versus 646 for subprime), we believe that there is considerable risk associated with the lax underwriting standards and exotic mortgage products utilized in this segment of the market in recent years, both in the form of continued credit deterioration and reduced incremental demand resulting from tightening lending standards.

• The combined loan to value on Alt-A purchase originations was 88% in 2006, with 55% of homebuyers taking out simultaneous seconds (piggybacks) at the time of purchase.

• Low/no documentation loans (stated income loans) represented a staggering 81% of total Alt-A purchase originations in 2006, up significantly from 64% just two years earlier. . . .

• Interest only and option ARM loans represented approximately 62% of Alt-A purchase originations in 2006.

• . . . 1-year hybrid ARMs represented approximately 28% of Alt-A purchase originations in 2006, setting the stage for considerable reset risk.

• Investors and second home buyers represented 22% of Alt-A purchase originations last year, which is the largest non-owner occupied share among the various segments of the mortgage market.

In the past five years, subprime purchase originations have more than doubled in share to approximately 20% of the total in 2006. Over this time period, subprime lenders eased underwriting standards in an effort to gain market share. . . . . In the third quarter of 2006, the Mortgage Bankers’ Association reported that 12.6% of subprime loans were delinquent.

• 2006 subprime purchase originations posted an alarming 94% combined loan-to-value, on an average loan price of nearly $200,000.

• Roughly 50% of all subprime borrowers in the past two years have provided limited documentation regarding their incomes.

• In 2006, 2/28 ARMs represented roughly 78% of all subprime purchase originations according to data from Loan Performance. According to our contacts, homebuyers were primarily qualified at the introductory teaser rate rather than the fully amortizing rate, which for many buyers was the main reason they were even qualified in the first place.

All from Calculated Risk

Posted on March 14, 2007 and filed under Finance.

Viacom Youtube Complaint

The Viacom YouTube complaint makes for good and unsurprising reading.

Here it is

It looks like they have been paying close atttention to Mark Cuban's blog.

The case law is untested, so who knows where a random court decision will come out, but my reading of the letter and definitely the spirit of the law are with Viacom.

Youtube claims protection under the DMCA as a hosting service which is borderline ridiculous. To qualify they have to not exercise control over the content, not financially benefit from it and take down copyright violations when made aware of them. They only do the latter.

With uploaded content, Youtube: a) asserts a license to redistribute b) redistributes with its logo on it c) sells advertising around the content

I host this website and others at Rackspace which actually is a hosting company. I am pretty sure if they did a, b or c noted above they would lose every legitimate hosting customer they have.

Maybe Google will get lucky or Viacom will fold, but they have enough money that they should stick this one out and not just settle for the better licensing contract that Google will come back with.

And to those like Henry Blodget who think the online video game is over and the media companies should just fold, well, he is being a bit short-sighted.

Internet is the future of video and we are about 24 months into its mass market existence. This is not yet the time to panic and surrender your crown jewels if you are a media company.

Just like Geocities was not the future of home pages, Youtube is likely not the end of the game in this space. Does anyone really believe that 10 years from now, we will be watching video online in anything that resembles the current Youtube?

Viacom-YouTube Complaint

Posted on March 13, 2007 and filed under Online Media.

The Increasing Power of Search Engines

Great mainstream article about the power of very obscure aspects of search engine algorithms and how they are impacting business. The highlighted company is topix.net which is changing their URL to topix.com. Managing the 301 redirects (technical term!) to make that switch as seamless as possible is a difficult and obscure search engine optimization (SEO) topic that I am honestly a bit surprised to see discussed in the WSJ this soon:

Money quote from the article here.

Such a simple change, Mr. Skrenta has discovered, could have disastrous short-term results. About 50% of visits to his news site come through a search engine -- and about 90% of the time, that is Google. Some companies say their sites have disappeared from top search results for weeks or months after making address switches, due to quirky rules Google and other search engines have adopted. So the same user who typed "Anna Nicole Smith news" into Google last week and saw Topix.net as a top result might not see it at all after the change to Topix.com.

Even if traffic to Topix, which gets about 10 million visitors a month, dropped just 10%, that would essentially be a 10% loss in ad revenue, Mr. Skrenta says. "Because of this little mechanical issue, it could be a catastrophe for us," he says.

Further frustrating him is that Google's response to Topix's plea for help was an email recommending that, if the switchover were to go badly, the company should post a message on an online user-support forum; a Google engineer might come along to help out. "This can't be the process," Mr. Skrenta says. "You're cast into this amusing, Kafkaesque world to run your business."

Things to keep in mind:

  • There will be increasing pressure on Google to be "fair" and explicit in their search rankings given its dominant role as a gateway to the internet. So far, legal challenges have failed on grounds of free speech. "This is Google's opinion of top sites about this topic. If you don't like it, post your own list" has been the courts' response so far.
  • That said, misguided legislation is always a possibility. What is likely to happen over time is some pressure on more transparency from Google. To date Google's position is that both its automated results and the manual exclusions or reinstatements of sites were "none-of-your-business".

    Inevitably as they grow, they will mess something up on the manual side and have to have some accountability or due process relating to how they are saying they are calculating search results and how they are actually calculating search results. PC Magazine maybe be perfectly entitled to do benchmark tests on PCs and release them but if each time, they spuriously have false performance data for, say, Dell, ultimately, I am sure they would have some liability.

    I am not saying that Google is deliberately giving poor or false results, but someday, something inappropriate will happen.

    Google does not believe that this is an issue for them now, but I am sure the little software company called Microsoft never thought the US government would move to break it into pieces, so we will see...

  • Make sure that you have additional routes to traffic except Google search results. Easier said than done.

Full article here, subscription required:

WSJ: How Search-Engine Rules Cause Sites to Go Missing

Posted on March 13, 2007 and filed under Online Media.