Skip to main content

Econorama - Sub prime mortgage

I've been playing with the math on sub prime. I can easily come up with $50 billion of total announced write-downs - and I'm sure that I don't have them all. However, I'm skeptical of two things: first, that the losses will really be this big; and second, that the losses are entirely related to mortgages.


If we assume that the typical sub-prime loan is $250,000, then 200,000 homeowners would have to default, pay nothing, and the houses sell for less than the disposal cost - i.e. - so that the bank receives none of its principal back, for the losses to be $5o billion.


I can see more than 200K homeowners defaulting, but it is harder to imagine that they (that is, the lenders) get zero proceeds from foreclosure sales. In researching this, one thing kept coming up - it isn't clear that all the loans that are being reserved are related to mortgages. The terms in the bank and security firm press releases and filings are more than a little murky. So, don't be surprised if it eventually comes out that some of these reserves actually covered other bad loans - e.g. LBO's etc.


Or, as the markets gradually recover over the next 2-3 years, that banks get to take some of this back into income. Not an unusual tactic: e.g. the stocks have already been hit; no matter what performance you as a bank CEO turn in, the market will overlook it because your group is out of favor, so take the biggest reserve you can justify. This will juice results in future periods because your reserves are so flush that you don't have to reserve as much, say, in 2008-2010, raising earnings in those years, and further, if those reserves prove unwarranted, release them back into earnings in a future year.....

If I'm right, then the beaten-down banks should be a good play - except that they are sourcing new capital at extraordinary costs. I'll post on that in a bit.

FD: I'm long JPM, MS, WB, and BAC.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: What Matters Now by Gary Hamel

Interview of Eric Schmidt by Gary Hamel at the MLab dinner tonight. Google's Marissa Mayer and Hal Varian also joined the open dialog about Google's culture and management style, from chaos to arrogance. The video just went up on YouTube. It's quite entertaining. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Cover of The Future of ManagementMy list of must-read business writers continues to expand.Gary Hamel, however, author of What Matters Now, with the very long subtitle of How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation, has been on the list for quite some time.Continuing his thesis on the need for a new approach to management introduced in his prior book The Future of Management, Hamel calls for a complete rethinking of how enterprises are run.

Fundamental to his recommendation is that the practice of management is ossified in a command and control system that is now generations old and needs to be replaced with something that reflects an educat…

Book Review- Stretch by Scott Sonenshein

Have you ever watched, or been involved in, a business failure, where, despite the best efforts of hardworking people, the business doesn’t survive? Scott Sonenshein lived through it, as he describes in the Introduction to his engrossing book Stretch.  (In some books, the reader can skip the intro- not this one; the introduction is a must-read part of the book.) He was hired by start-up Vividence in Silicon Valley at the very apex of the tech boom.  Despite prestige VC backers, top-tier hires and $50 million, Vividence didn’t make it. As his career continued, that experience led to an interest in why some well-funded operations don’t succeed, while other, more resource constrained, do. Peter Senge wrote about reinforcing cycles as part of his book The Fifth Discipline, which I consider one of the finest business books ever penned. In it, Senge describes the downward cycle that some companies fall into, and why it is so difficult to reverse. Sonenshein explores those cycles from diffe…

Tax Inversions

A savvy businessman once told me “it’s important to know what problem you are trying to solve”.
Let’s ignore for the moment whether or not Treasury or the IRS had the power to change the rules on so-called tax inversions without Congressional action. (The power they said they didn’t have only a few months ago.)
Rather, let’s focus on what problem we are trying to solve. That is, why is the greatest country on earth chasing companies away? Shouldn’t the U.S. be the place that companies want to locate their headquarters?
Imagine this: the U.S. legal structure and tax regime was so attractive that Mercedes, Toyota, Astra Zeneca, Samsung, Total, Singapore Air, Banco Santander, Petrobras, Fujitsu, Nokia, SAP, Audi, Tata Group, Lenovo, Pirelli, Deutsche Bank, Honda, LG, Hyundai, Roche, Credit Suisse, Four Seasons, Siemens, Phillips, Bridgestone, Anglo-America, DeBeers, Volkswagen, Canon,  L’OrĂ©al, Swatch, Armani, LVMH, Toshiba, H&M, Mahindra, Aldi, Kubota, Onex, Ducati, Pemex, Saudi-Ara…