1. Home (Free) on the Range

    You want stimulus? Well, how ’bout the chance to go almost 15 months without a house payment?

    Thanks to cottony-soft (and FedGov encouraged) accounting standards, banks are loathe to foreclose on underwater properties. As a bank, realizing five- and six-digit losses is no fun. It tends to leave ouchies on your balance sheet, and more importantly, has a negative effect on management bonuses.

    Cause, meet effect:

    Defaulted borrowers were spending an average of 469 days in their home after ceasing to make payments as of July 31, so the financial attraction of strategic defaults increases.

    Four hundred days with no house payment? A fellow could save up quite a stash in his piggy bank, going that long without sending a check to the mortgage company.

    In any case, that tantalizing little snippet comes from an article at AmericanBanker.com.

    And speaking of homeowner savings, just imagine all the dutiful home care and maintenance being performed by all these “living free for now” borrowers — borrowers who know that one day the bank will be coming to throw their La-Z-Boy on the lawn and Master Lock all the doors. The question isn’t if, but when.

    Oh, I’m sure that leaky roof will get fixed. Any day now.

    Yes, indeed. Delaying foreclosures (most econ-types refer to it as “extend and pretend”) with schemes like relaxed accounting standards and FedGov-initiated can-kickings (HAMP much?) should work out just fine.




     

     

  2. DTIs of HAMP Modification Recipients

    Because I have become very much a financial hardass in my old age, I’ve been against FedGov’s HAMP program from Day One. (To show that I am an Equal Opportunity Hardass, I am virulently against taxpayer funds going to banks or other corporate entities, as well.)

    Still, I keep up with HAMP results (or lack thereof) because train wrecks this large are just hard to ignore. And also because watching FedGov throw piles of good money after bad is better entertainment than most primetime TV (which isn’t saying much).

    So here we go with the July batch of HAMP results:

    Financialstability.gov: HAMP Servicer Report — July 2010

    In particular, I’d like to call reader attention to a chart on page three:

    Aside from the inherent irony in finding numbers like this at a site called “financialstability.gov,” and ignoring the brazen injustice done by allowing any U.S. dot-gov entity to even use said domain, you have to be amazed — really amazed — at the financial condition of HAMPsters at large.

    With Numbers This Bad…

    What we see here is that for folks who’ve had their mortgages modified via HAMP, the median debt-to-income (DTI) ratios are downright scary.

    Think about this: The median back-end DTI for successful HAMP applicants, before their mortgages were modified, was almost 80 percent.

    After mod, the median back-end DTI is still almost 64 percent.

    So, at the median, having 64 percent of their pre-tax income going to debt payments is an improvement.

    And since part of HAMP qualification is supposed to focus on whether or not the borrower actually has a shot at staying in the house, presumably making payments to the bank from now until pigs fly, then you have to wonder just how bad the non-approved applicants’ DTIs are. (Almost half of the people who’ve applied to HAMP have been bounced from the program, for various reasons.)

    If having a 60+ percent back-end DTI after a modification is seen as “affordable,” then I probably don’t want to what “unaffordable” is.

    Yeah. Mortgage modifications or not, these are still defaults looking for a place to happen.

    Get Ya Some

    I’d step up to the trough and request a modification for myself — hey, who doesn’t want a “more affordable” mortgage PLUS the opportunity to stick somebody else with the bill? — but somehow I doubt that my front- and back-end DTIs of roughly ten percent would allow me to qualify for any sweet HAMP action. (Since I have no non-mortgage debt, both of my DTIs are equal.)

    Darn the bad luck, anyway. Savers and responsible folk? Shut out from reaping taxpayer largesse once again.

    Instead, we just get to pay for it.




     

     

  3. The Bankless Among Us

    Well, here I am dithering on about my recent experiences with rewards checking accounts, and off goes USA Today to do a story on those folks who live bank-free lives, primarily due to necessity:

    USA Today: Many Shun Bank Accounts, But Pay More…

    Well, yes, those close to the poverty line have long been “left hanging” by standard Main Street banking institutions. Short of overdraft fees, where’s the profit in the bricks-and-mortar managing of checking accounts that’ll be lucky to see a $1k balance at any point during the month? (According to one 2004 study, 83 percent of “unbanked” families make less than $25k per year.)

    And savings accounts for these folks? Fuhgettaboudit.

    From the article:

    Nearly 8% of U.S. households, or about 17 million people, don’t have bank accounts, according to a 2009 study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. An additional 18% — 43 million people — are “underbanked,” which means they have bank accounts but occasionally use check-cashing companies, pawn shops, liquor stores or other alternatives to cash checks, pay bills and borrow money… .

    In an effort to bring more consumers into the financial mainstream, the board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is scheduled to vote today on a program to encourage banks to offer no-frills, low-cost checking and savings accounts. The FDIC’s model checking account would allow customers to open an account for as little as $10. While banks may decide to charge a low monthly maintenance fee, the accounts won’t have the kind of surprise fees — such as overdraft protection fees — that have led consumers to abandon banks, says FDIC Chair Sheila Bair.

    Hmmm. I really feel like this sort of banking program has been tried before, another pilot program of some kind, and with not-so-good results. Meaning that participation rates were low, and dropout rates high. But perhaps I’m imagining that.

    “While the majority of banks have offered free and low-cost checking accounts for many years, all banks will need to reconsider the feasibility of continuing to offer free accounts, given current economic and regulatory pressures,” Carol Kaplan, a spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association, said in a statement.

    A 2009 analysis by Novantas, a consulting firm, estimated that even in a “good” year, about half of checking accounts are unprofitable, and that regulatory and economic changes could raise that figure to 75%.

    Gotta love the American Bankers Association. Setting the rest of us up already for new fees and/or fee increases!




     

     

  4. Worst-Paying College Degrees

    Now here’s an interesting article from Yahoo. Apparently someone has taken the time to compile a list of the worst-paying college degrees out there:

    Yahoo: 20 Worst-Paying Degrees of 2010

    I get a kick out of lists like this — especially ones that reinforce my own views on the relative value (or lack thereof) of higher education. Which is that “higher education,” in and of itself, is very rarely the Ticket to Financial Success which society makes it out to be. (Check out this article in the Harvard Business Review; the difference between “knowledge” and “skills” is immense. The higher-ed conglomerate may disperse knowledge, but usually, what employers want are skills.)

    And oh yeah — if you take on lots of debt to get that higher ed, you can easily end up worse off — far worse off — than if you had no degree at all.

    Because I’m lazy, I won’t reprint the whole list here. However, the top five worst-paying degrees…

    College Degree Starting Pay Mid-Career Pay
    1. Child and Family Studies $29,500 $38,400
    2. Elementary Education $31,600 $44,400
    3. Social Work $31,800 $44,900
    4. Athletic Training $32,800 $45,700
    5. Culinary Arts $35,900 $50,600

    … are pretty much what I’d expect. (Wait — where is Underwater Basket Weaving?)

    I do, though, have to take issue with how the author finishes out her missive:

    If you’d rather end up with one of the best-paying college degrees, you’ll have to major in something that requires a lot of math classes.

    I’m not so sure about that. I mean, politicians seem to do pretty well financially. And it’s obvious that math was never a core requisite at any point in their lives.




     

     

  5. One Family’s Housing Woe

    A couple of weeks ago, in Ready to Own a Home?, I talked about some mistakes made by too-anxious homebuyers. Well, what do you know? The LA Times presents a fine example of just what I was talking about:

    LA Times: Undone By Their Dreams

    It’s one family’s tale of housing woe, to be sure.

    In 2006, Dawn and Michael Meenan found what they were looking for in Hesperia, in a community called Mission Crest. But they had declared bankruptcy four years earlier and were uncertain they could buy a house here. Then the phone rang.

    “Your loan has been approved.”

    Ah yes, the joys of housing bubbles … when folks four years removed from a BK can go out and borrow hundreds of thousands for a home in the desert.

    Dawn and Michael Meenan first explored Hesperia on Thanksgiving weekend in 2005. …They followed the signs and billboards to the subdivision, set off from the desert by a cinder-block wall. Six builders were showing model homes. A large red balloon soaring above one tract tugged at its anchor.

    …Amid the imposing two-story designs, they settled on a modest single-story home — yet with 2,400 square feet, it was large enough for their growing family. The sales representatives told them that one would be available on Newport Street by midsummer, and if they put down a $3,000 deposit they could lock in the price at $365,000.

    Lesson One in Homebuyer Edumacation: When people use the word “modest” to describe a $365,000 home, with 2,400 square feet, much buyer heartache lurks down the road.

    They could barely scrape together the deposit, and they didn’t have a down payment for the mortgage. The sales representatives didn’t seem worried. Let’s see what we can do, they said, giving the Meenan children crayons to color with and taking notes on the couple’s credit history.

    Countrywide Financial Corp. turned them down. Freedom Plus Mortgage said yes. After signing the loan documents, the Meenans worried they would be overextended, but they told themselves that this was what first-time homebuyers do, especially when they’re in their 30s and their family is young.

    Now where have I heard that before?

    Given their bankruptcy, the Meenans qualified only for a subprime mortgage. Their first loan was fixed at 7.375% for three years and was then adjustable; their second was fixed at 11.625% for 30 years. The payments came to more than $2,500 a month.

    Both loans were two percentage points above market rates, and in 2036 they would have to make balloon payments totaling nearly $300,000. Then there were the property and the community taxes — nearly $3,000 twice a year.

    You just know this is going to end well, right?

    But they managed. When Dawn’s maternity leave was over, she went back to work as a bookkeeper for an Irwindale-based online company that sells vitamin supplements. Michael worked in the firm’s warehouse. Together they made nearly $95,000 a year.

    Wow. That’s a very, very nice salary — for any family NOT sucked into a piggybacked $365k deathtrap mortgage. For a family who DID take on the loan, though … ’tis a different story.

    And did I mention the home’s location required the Meenans to undertake a 1-hour commute every day?

    If it was a sacrifice, they told themselves, it was worthwhile. They were building equity. They were improving their credit scores. In time, their income would rise, and they could refinance. That was what the sales representatives had told them.

    In March 2007, Michael was laid off and had to take odd jobs. Three months later, Dawn’s employer gave her a chance to start her own bookkeeping business. She could work at home, and as she brought in clients, the family income climbed back to near six figures. She and Michael felt secure enough to landscape the backyard, put in a patio and plant a vegetable garden.

    Whew. For a minute there, I thought this whole setup might not work out as planned!

    The idyll proved brief. As the recession deepened, Dawn lost clients, and their income started to fall. In December 2008, they did not pay their property tax. They didn’t have the money. Besides, they rationalized, homes in the area had dropped almost $200,000 in value, and they’d be getting a reassessment and their taxes should go down.

    Then one day, as Dawn organized the bills, she saw how fast they were falling behind. She was paying the mortgage later each month, and in July the interest rate on the first loan would reset upward. It could cost them anywhere from $100 to $1,000 more each month.

    All completely unexpected, of course.

    Of course.

    They spoke to the bank but were told that they didn’t qualify for a loan modification, and in May they just couldn’t pay the mortgage anymore. Sad and angry, they stopped paying on the first loan — then, two months later, on the second.

    They contacted a real estate agent to list the house. They waited until after Michael’s birthday in August to put up the For Sale sign. They didn’t want to have to explain the situation to their family just yet.

    In October, the house was sold for $125,000. As the family waited in the car, Michael went inside for one last look. The sunlight streaming through the windows looked different without the curtains, but it still brought back a flood of memories. When he saw the stain on the carpet from one of the children’s spilled drinks, he cried.

    There might have been a time when I’d feel sympathy for these folks, but not any longer. I’ve long since tired of it. No matter what anyone tells you, bad choices have bad consequences. (Unless you’re a TBTF bank. If that’s the case, and you made this loan, good on you. Thanks for taking such a prudent risk. As always, we taxpayers got your back.)




     

     

  6. GM: Seeking More Loans

    Just when you thought GM’s “loan payoff” scheme couldn’t get any more pathetic:

    DetNews: GM Is Seeking $14.4b in DOE Loans

    According to the article, before GM even announced its miraculous ~$10b taxpayer-loan payoff (i.e., accounting smoke ‘n’ mirrors), it was hoping to get its hands on another $14.4 billion in loans from the Department of Energy:

    GM disclosed this week that it is seeking a total of $14.4 billion in retooling loans after acquiring part of Delphi Corp.’s business.

    GM’s expanded request includes Delphi’s application for money to retool plants to improve electric power steering systems for better fuel efficiency.

    The article’s “last updated” mark is April 9, 2010. While GM’s not alone in seeking to get its hands on this Dept. of Energy (read: taxpayer) largesse — heck, with Chrysler in there vying for cash, GM’s not even the only fresh-out-of-BK company in the mix — it knew it was already requesting even more government loans before it began its craptacular “Hey taxpayers! We paid you back!” PR and advertising spree on April 21 or thereabouts.

    Anybody else feel like slinging four-letter words?




     

     

  7. GM’s Loan Payoff: Utter BS

    By now, of course you’ve read the news: GM has paid back its government loans.

    You’ve heard the radio, TV, and internet ads:

    I’m Ed Whitacre from General Motors. A lot of Americans didn’t agree with giving GM a second chance. Quite frankly, I can respect that. We want to make this a company all Americans can be proud of again. That’s why I’m here to announce that we have repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule. But there’s still more to do. Our goal is to exceed every expectation you set for us…

    The major media outlets are pumping this to no end, as is GM. (And I would know: GM’s dealer portal had a cheerful, “We paid back our loans!” message waiting for us early Wednesday morning.) GM has gone so far as to purchase Google Adwords ads to highlight the occasion:

    Adwords: GM Repayment

    And politicians — themselves connoisseurs of PR stunts and accounting chicanery — are wasting no chance to tout this “huge accomplishment.”

    It’s a testament to my cynicism, I suppose. When I first heard the news of GM’s “payoff,” I was dubious. How does a company that hasn’t earned a profit since 2004, and which has lost $4.3 billion since it emerged from bankruptcy (July to December 2009), manage to “pay back” its taxpayer-funded loans, in full, far earlier than anyone expected?

    Did they shaft some other creditor to come up with the money?

    Did they sell some of their diamond-studded corporate assets?

    Or was it … something else?

    Yeah. Knowing GM as I do, this whole story reeked of 350-horsepower shenanigans.

    GM and Loans “Paid Back”

    I turn here to the nattily-attired folks in the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, who lately held hearings regarding proposed financial reforms and the performance of the TARP program to date. In particular, I call attention to Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General charged with oversight of the TARP program. At roughly the 43-minute mark of the following video…

    Senate Finance Committee: TARP Hearings, April 20, 2010

    …we hear Mr. Barofsky respond to a question posed by Senator Thomas Carper. And that’s when GM’s smoke-and-mirrors PR stunt is shown for what it is:

    SENATOR THOMAS CARPER: Do I understand that GM recently paid back a billion dollars of its obligation to the Treasury?

    NEIL BAROFSKY: GM has paid a billion dollars, and I think they’ve announced that they’re going to be paying back the debt portion, which is about — I think there’s about six billion dollars left — in its entirety very shortly. We need to be a little bit cautious about that, because the way that that payment’s going to be made is by drawing down an equity facility of other TARP money. So it’s good news, in that they’re reducing their debt, but they’re doing it by taking other available TARP money to repay the TARP. It’s good news because it means that money, which was going to be available for future problems with GM, that there’s been a determination that they don’t need it. But we should caution that it’s not necessarily being generated out of earnings, but out of other TARP funds.

    SENATOR CARPER: When do you think we’ll have “really” good news from GM?

    NEIL BAROFSKY: Um, I don’t have that crystal ball, Senator.

    Look: The fact that GM is talking about paying back any sort of government assistance “in full” is disingenuous at best, and a straight-up lie at worst. They’ve been handed roughly $50 billion of U.S. taxpayer money in total; GMAC has snagged another $13 billion or so. During bankruptcy, the government reduced GM’s “$50 billion in loans” to “$6.7 billion in loans,” and converted the rest to company stock.

    So, on behalf of the taxpayer, Treasury traded debt (a legal right to repayment) for company equity (shares of ownership whose value is determined by the whims of the market).

    According to Senator Charles Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, that’s pretty much what happened here, too.

    Fox News: Grassley Questions GM Payback

    Detroit Free Press: Two From GOP Criticize Aid

    “The taxpayers are still on the hook,” Grassley wrote in a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, “and whether TARP funds are ultimately recovered depends entirely on the government’s ability to sell GM stock in the future. Treasury has merely exchanged a legal right to repayment for an uncertain hope of sharing in the future growth of GM. A debt-for-equity swap is not a repayment.”

    Another fun snippet from the letter:

    The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were “repaid” with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the Administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials. When these criticisms were put to GM’s Vice Chairman Stephen Girsky in a television interview yesterday, he admitted that the criticisms were valid:

    Question: Are you just paying the government back with government money?

    Mr. Girsky: Well listen, that is in effect true, but a year ago nobody thought we’d
    be able to pay this back.

    And my coworkers wonder how it is that I’ve become so cynical.

    And just as a point of reinforcement, Mr. Barofsky reiterated his oh-so-telling Senate committee comments shortly thereafter:

    I think the one thing that a lot of people overlook with this is where they got the money to pay back the loan. And it isn’t from earnings. It’s actually from another pool of TARP money that they’ve already received. …I don’t think we should exaggerate it too much. Remember that the source of this money is just other TARP money.

    Accounting games: The only thing America is good at any longer.

    Trust? Pride? Is This Guy Serious?

    I keep going back to watch the GM “Repayment” PR video. I’ll post it again, because it staggers me that any self-respecting CEO could stand in front of the cameras and spew this stuff (note the U.S. taxpayers seated in the background):

    I’m Ed Whitacre from General Motors. A lot of Americans didn’t agree with giving GM a second chance. Quite frankly, I can respect that. We want to make this a company all Americans can be proud of again. That’s why I’m here to announce that we have repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule. But there’s still more to do. Our goal is to exceed every expectation you set for us…

    Exceed every expectation, huh?

    What if my expectation is for you to just tell the truth? (Crazy, I know.)

    What if my expectation is for you to leave all the left-hand-pays-the-right-hand accounting schemes to Wall Street banks and assorted other street hustlers? (And the government. Oh wait — you’re learning from them first-hand already.)

    What if my expectation is for you to have at least a modicum of respect for U.S. taxpayers and consumers, and to NOT use crappy accounting schemes as a basis for national PR campaigns?

    Or how about this: How about you just carry yourselves in a manner that doesn’t make me embarrassed to be associated with you?

    Ah, no matter. I’ve had astoundingly low expectations for GM for a long, long time now.

    And somehow … somehow … they can’t overcome even the lowest of bars.

    (EDIT: Turns out GM was asking for more loans, even before this “payoff.”)




     

     

  8. Food Stamps Buy What?

    During an early-evening visit to our corner grocery store a few evenings ago, I snapped this pic:

    Buy It With Food Stamps!

    Anybody care to guess what that bright orange stamp says?

    If you said, “FOOD STAMPABLE” you were correct.

    That’s right, Oklahomans: This Easter season, feel free to use your food-stamp (“Access Oklahoma”) card to buy a crappy plastic basket full of crappy plastic grass, a crappy plastic doll, and a few packages of crappy colored sugar crappiness.

    Pretty neat, given that a record-high 450,057 Oklahomans were enrolled in the food stamp program as of March.

    Should be enough to cause any maker of crappy plastic Easter baskets to become downright giddy at the thought of this untapped market segment.

    Because I’m the curious sort, I surfed to the Oklahoma Department of Human Services website to see what sort of guidelines applied to food-stamp use. Here’s a snippet from the FAQ page:

    A person may buy only eligible foods with their food stamp benefits. Eligible foods include plants and seeds that can be used to grow food. You cannot buy the following items with food stamp benefits:

    Paper goods
    Cleaning products
    Household items
    Personal care items like toothpaste
    Alcoholic beverages
    Tobacco products
    Vitamins or medicine
    Foods prepared to be eaten in the store
    Hot food prepared in the store to be “carried out” and eaten

    Hmmm. Nothing in there about Easter baskets.

    I don’t know about you, but I have a big problem with my state allowing their oh-so-gracious $3.40/day (thanks for that recent bump, Stimulus Fairies!) of public food assistance to be used to buy fringe “food” items like Easter baskets.

    Who knew the Easter bunny needed public assistance?