<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Negative equity datapoint of the day</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/05/12/negative-equity-datapoint-of-the-day/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/05/12/negative-equity-datapoint-of-the-day/</link>
	<description>A slice of lime in the soda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 23:43:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: DanHess</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/05/12/negative-equity-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14752</link>
		<dc:creator>DanHess</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 23:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3827#comment-14752</guid>
		<description>Our real estate crash is very sooo yesterday.  The great China real estate crash of 2010 is on, baby!

&quot;Beijing Home Prices Plunge 31.4%&quot;
http://www.capitalvue.com/home/CE-news/inset/@10063/post/1185337

(hat tip MISH)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our real estate crash is very sooo yesterday.  The great China real estate crash of 2010 is on, baby!</p>
<p>&#8220;Beijing Home Prices Plunge 31.4%&#8221;<br />
<a href='http://www.capitalvue.com/home/CE-news/inset/@10063/post/1185337'>http://www.capitalvue.com/home/CE-news/i nset/@10063/post/1185337</a></p>
<p>(hat tip MISH)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AABender1</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/05/12/negative-equity-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14748</link>
		<dc:creator>AABender1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 19:36:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3827#comment-14748</guid>
		<description>The only mark-to-market on home loans that I have ever seen was for super jumbo loans ($1 million and up).

Bank regulators generally allow banks to aggregate reasonably-sized home loans into &quot;homogeneous risk pools.&quot; And rather than mark an individual performing home loan to market, they might insist that the bank create a provision for homogeneous pool losses.  Those provisions have tended to run anywhere from 0.25% to say 3.0% of the pool and are based on past loss history. Obviously looking in the rear view mirror these days doesn&#039;t help very much. Moreover, that percentage provision in the sand states is typically less than the legal and brokerage costs of a foreclosure sale. So this provisioning works if:(i) only a few mortgages in the pool default, and (ii) if the historical underwriting Loan-to-Values(LTVs) aren&#039;t breached by declining real estate values. But if the mortgages in these pools are highly correlated (which they are), then LTV-breaching declines in home values will create bank charge-offs that tend to look like a steep step function, e.g. a 3% historical charge-off rate goes right to say a 20%-30% OREO loss rate. 

So you are correct.  Many home loans may be paying for now but are significantly impaired.  Even if the average home loan underwriting at inception was a relatively conservative 70-80% LTV (which was the exception as the market got exuberant), loans in markets that have experienced 40%+ price declines (sand states)have significant unrecognized impairment losses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only mark-to-market on home loans that I have ever seen was for super jumbo loans ($1 million and up).</p>
<p>Bank regulators generally allow banks to aggregate reasonably-sized home loans into &#8220;homogeneous risk pools.&#8221; And rather than mark an individual performing home loan to market, they might insist that the bank create a provision for homogeneous pool losses.  Those provisions have tended to run anywhere from 0.25% to say 3.0% of the pool and are based on past loss history. Obviously looking in the rear view mirror these days doesn&#8217;t help very much. Moreover, that percentage provision in the sand states is typically less than the legal and brokerage costs of a foreclosure sale. So this provisioning works if:(i) only a few mortgages in the pool default, and (ii) if the historical underwriting Loan-to-Values(LTVs) aren&#8217;t breached by declining real estate values. But if the mortgages in these pools are highly correlated (which they are), then LTV-breaching declines in home values will create bank charge-offs that tend to look like a steep step function, e.g. a 3% historical charge-off rate goes right to say a 20%-30% OREO loss rate. </p>
<p>So you are correct.  Many home loans may be paying for now but are significantly impaired.  Even if the average home loan underwriting at inception was a relatively conservative 70-80% LTV (which was the exception as the market got exuberant), loans in markets that have experienced 40%+ price declines (sand states)have significant unrecognized impairment losses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KidDynamite</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/05/12/negative-equity-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14741</link>
		<dc:creator>KidDynamite</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 17:55:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3827#comment-14741</guid>
		<description>yes - there will be more writedowns - which is precisely why the Fed is pleased that BAC/JPM/C/GS had no losing trading days last quarter - that&#039;s exactly how it was designed -  so that they could extend and pretend on the mortgage paper marks, while they tried to earn the future, yet-to-be-taken writedowns back in advance!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yes &#8211; there will be more writedowns &#8211; which is precisely why the Fed is pleased that BAC/JPM/C/GS had no losing trading days last quarter &#8211; that&#8217;s exactly how it was designed &#8211;  so that they could extend and pretend on the mortgage paper marks, while they tried to earn the future, yet-to-be-taken writedowns back in advance!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
