[HN Gopher] More Subprime Borrowers Are Missing Loan Payments ___________________________________________________________________ More Subprime Borrowers Are Missing Loan Payments Author : prostoalex Score : 134 points Date : 2022-05-19 15:33 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.wsj.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com) | yumraj wrote: | I was just thinking about this today. | | Given the very low interest rates in 21-22 and high prices, a | certain percentage of folks would have purchased with a | convertible mortgage. | | Assuming the standard 5-1 and the fact that rates are rising very | fast, should we expect a repeat of 2008 in 2026-2027? | dragonwriter wrote: | > Given the very low interest rates in 21-22 and high prices, a | certain percentage of folks would have purchased with a | convertible mortgage. | | Convertible mortgages became popular as an alternative to | either fixed or nonconvertible ARMs when rates were high as a | way to preserve the option of locking in on a rate drop without | going through a refi. Convertibles don't offer a lot when rates | are low--if you want to be able to lock in a low rate and rates | are already low, you get a fixed. | | Between that, changes in qualification rules, and memories of | the collapse leading into the Great Recession, ARMs of all | types have shrunk to a very small share (<5%, IIRC) of | residential mortgages, and newer ARMs tend to have rate caps. | | > Assuming the standard 5-1 and the fact that rates are rising | very fast, should we expect a repeat of 2008 in 2026-2027? | | Probably not because of adjustments on existing mortgages. If | there is sustained stagflation, then the fact that people can't | pay their _fixed-rate_ mortgages given other necessary expenses | may produce a similar collapse, though. | incomingpain wrote: | >Given the very low interest rates in 21-22 and high prices, a | certain percentage of folks would have purchased with a | convertible mortgage. | | The 'certain percentage' actually went over 50% of new | mortgages, excluding refinancing. | | >Assuming the standard 5-1 and the fact that rates are rising | very fast, should we expect a repeat of 2008 in 2026-2027? | | You would think so but no. We should expect it in 2022 | primarily harming the large cities. | x86_64Ubuntu wrote: | I thought 2008 was because 'D' grade mortgages were repackaged | into 'AAA' grade securities. When the 'D' grade folks missed | payments and defaulted, it brought everything down because | their securities had tainted so much of the landscape. | Finnucane wrote: | That was one factor. There was no single cause, but a fragile | interconnected web of factors. | | But yes, subprime loans were carved up and repacked in a way | to make them look like AAA bonds. The banks that created | these bonds knew that the loans in the bonds were crap; they | knowingly lied to investors about it. The ratings agencies | stamped all the bonds without any due diligence. Other banks | piled on more derivative products on top of those bonds, | essentially gambling on whether those bonds would go bad. | | There was a slime-trail of fraud, laziness, and greed all the | way back the original loan itself. | yardie wrote: | 2008 was a lot of 'AAA' grade securities not being able to | find a greater fool to keep the profit train running. A lot | of financial instruments were basically repacking and | reselling loans with a bit of interest on top. Once there | were no more new buyers it was a cascade of margin calls. | | Subprime was a very small cause of the GFC but it was the | tipping point that brought the house down. | UncleOxidant wrote: | I thought adjustable rate mortgages were pretty much dead after | '08? Why would anyone get an ARM when rates were in the 3% | range for a 30 year fixed mortgage (as they were for several | years until recently)? | bgirard wrote: | Say you take a 7 ARM at 2% instead of 3% for a 700k mortgage. | You're saving $50,000 in interest during the first 7 years. | That's 7% of your mortgage. Then 7 years of inflation can | knock down your principle further which might be pretty high | over the next 7 years. | | It can make sense if you're financially secure enough to take | on the risk. | Kerrick wrote: | Also worth noting: not all ARMs have a balloon payment. For | example, I bought most of my farm on a 20yr ARM with a 20yr | amortization. As interest rates rise I will have higher | payments, but there's no moment when the music stops and the | rest of the principle immediately comes due. | gnopgnip wrote: | Something like 60% of homeowners would come out ahead | financially with an ARM. You can save tens of thousands of | dollars in interest before the rates adjust. Many people sell | or refinance before the rates adjust, or soon after. The rate | early on is a little more important because that is when the | principal is highest, but in practice this isn't a huge | factor. Only about 35% of the original principal is paid off | after 10 years for a 5% mortgage. Even if rates go up and you | stay there for 15-30 years, you could come out ahead because | of how much lower the interest was for the first 5-7 years. | But it depends on how much rates go up. | | But the long tail is some people being priced out of their | home as their payment rises, and it could have been | prevented. So 90-95% of mortgages in the US are fixed rate. | lkjfdslkjf222 wrote: | Don't know numbers off hand but we had a <4% rate ARM because | it was the lowest rate and we liked the flexibility of paying | it off asap (or if something happened, paying it off over 30 | years) versus a 15-year fixed. | | Plenty of other reasons. Others have bad credit or otherwise | get significantly lower payments on an ARM compared to fixed. | | I guess there are other reasons, but ARMs are definitely not | dead. I don't know the numbers or where to get them though. | | What are more dead are the "balloon payment" residential | mortgages where they may amortize over 30 years but the | principal is due in 5 or 10 years. | paulmd wrote: | > Don't know numbers off hand but we had a <4% rate ARM | because it was the lowest rate and we liked the flexibility | of paying it off asap (or if something happened, paying it | off over 30 years) versus a 15-year fixed. | | you can pay off a 15-year mortgage in less than 15 years - | the lien will be released, etc whenever the principal is | paid. Everything depends on the specifics of your contract | of course but it would be extremely unusual to have a | mortgage where this is not allowed. | | fixed vs ARM purely depends on how the interest rate is | determined, that's it. In principle ARM should be a bit | lower than a fixed rate financed at the same time - but if | the prime rate goes up then your rate goes up too, where | with a fixed it's locked-in forever. Fixed will have a | higher interest rate because someone has to assume that | risk of an increase in the prime rate, where with an ARM | that someone is you. | | Taking an ARM vs a fixed is a bet on whether rates are | going to stay the same or decrease, vs increase. And boy if | you thought 2020-2021 rates weren't going to increase at | some point in the future, uh... it's not every day you have | a once-in-a-century pandemic that nukes the economy and | drives demand for money almost to zero. | | I'm not quite sure what you're saying about balloon | payments either, the balloon payment happens at the end of | a balloon mortgage, with the intention that values will | have gone up so you can refinance at that point - but of | course, what if they don't? | fdjjjkffkk2 wrote: | Eh, I think we're talking past each other because none of | what you said really applies to what I think I'm saying. | | A 30year ARM gives you a lot more flexibility then a | 15-year anything. I mean, you can pay off the 30 year in | 30 years or 15 years or 5. | | Regarding the balloon payment-- not sure what you're | missing here. Residential mortgages with balloon payments | aren't really offered any more because of huge risk of | default when the balloon payment is due. | addaon wrote: | > Taking an ARM vs a fixed is a bet on whether rates are | going to stay the same or decrease, vs increase | | It's also taking a bet on how long you're going to keep | the mortgage. When a bank offers a lower rate for a 7 ARM | vs 30 fixed, they're assuming that you will keep the | mortgage for more than 7 years. If you pay it off fully | before then, you win the bet. | bluGill wrote: | He wasn't worried about paying off the 15 year mortgage | in 10 years. He was worried about getting a 15 year | mortgage and then sometime happening so he couldn't | afford to pay it off in 15 years. With a ARM you get the | flexibility of lowering your payments to the minimum - | which will pay it off in 30 years if bad times happen, | while getting the lower interest rates of a 15 year loan | (for the first X years, then who knows), and if you may | the 15 year loan payment it is paid off in 15, while if | bad times come you drop to the 30 year repayment amount | and have more money to deal with whatever. | | It can be a very good idea for someone who plans to pay | off their mortgage early. If all goes well it is no worse | than a 15 year mortgage, but when (really, if is | unlikely) something bad happens you have more | flexibility. Of course if interest rates go up you will | get burned, which is why I go with a 30 year fixed rate | that I pay off. I could probably afford payments on a 15 | year loan, but I'm not willing to risk it. | grahamperich wrote: | With rates climbing to 5%+ in the last couple months, a 3% | ARM (with the hope they could refi to a low interest 30yr | fixed before the ARM becomes adjustable) may have been | attractive for some.. | dmitrygr wrote: | Because ARMS were in the 2.x% range. | | I talked a number of people out of ARMs in '21 and '22 by | explaining 2008 to them (they were 7-8 years old at the time, | so do not remember). It is scary how bad most people are at | understanding exponential growth and just how much worse 5% | is than 3% | bgirard wrote: | It's not exponential. And even though 5% is 66% higher than | 3%, the monthly payment is $5,368 instead of $4,216 on 1m | which is 27% higher. Sure you pay twice as much interest | over 30 years. | sokoloff wrote: | How is a compounding loan (such as a mortgage) not | exponential? | karpierz wrote: | Because you're paying it off faster than it grows. It | would be exponential if you were allowed to simply let it | sit without paying it down, but that would break the | contract and get you foreclosed. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | It's absolutely exponential - it's just that the base is | barely over one and the exponents involved are not very | large. | caeril wrote: | Same reason very intelligent fund managers are buying 10y | TSYs yielding 2.8% despite inflation giving them a NEGATIVE | 5.2% real yield: | | Everyone thinks that 5 years out, everything will be rosy. | The metalworker saving 0.6% on a 5/1 ARM vs a fixed 30yr is | using the same mental gymnastics that J. Poindexter on | Goldman's bond desk is, that central banks are omniscient, | omnipotent, and will always magic away the risk inherent in | our decisions. | mgkimsal wrote: | I went through 2 ARMs between 2013 and 2021. In both cases | the 7 year ARM was at least 1.5 % below the traditional 30 | year I could get. Between lender rebates and such, in both | cases we had essentially $0 out of pocket and in both cases a | moderately. In the last couple years, the ARMs I looked at | were less than a single % from a traditional 30 year. I had | last 3% ARM was adjusting in mid 2023, and I refi'd to a 30 | year @ 2.75% last October. Holy tamole things have changed | since then! | scarface74 wrote: | Alternate anecdote: I refinanced our house in 2020 and | financed points and my interest rate is fixed at 1.87% for | 15 years. | bogomipz wrote: | Why would someone have opted for for an adjustable rate | mortgage that adjusts after 5-7 years when they could have | locked in a historic low rate for 30 years? | localhost wrote: | In my case it's because I don't anticipate being in the house | longer than the rate lock period | bogomipz wrote: | Out of curiosity did you get a 5 o 7 year? What was the | differential between adjustable and fixed? | fundad wrote: | The article's subhead lists everything but mortgage: car loans, | personal loans and credit card debt. That's where the growth | has been. I remember hearing about 7 year car loans being a | risky way to sell more more car loan for the same monthly | budget. | | There was also record high amounts paid back in 2020. I'd like | to know if they adjust for that or just more fear-mongering by | big banks, admitedly I'm too cheap to read further to find out. | treis wrote: | ARMs were not the problem in 08. The problem in 08 was interest | only loans and/or balloon payments. Borrowers were intending to | refinance before those deadlines hit but got stuck once values | stopped rising. So they faced payments of 10s of thousands | and/or their monthly payment was going to double or triple once | they had to start paying principle down. | | In contrast, if your arm resets from 3% to 7% it's like a 50% | increase in mortgage payments. That sucks, but manageable given | that your salary likely inflated along with your payment. | hbosch wrote: | >That sucks, but manageable given that your salary likely | inflated along with your payment. | | Can I reside in a world where my salary doubles if my | mortgage rate doubles? It sounds very nice. | sokoloff wrote: | That's not the most analogous comparison; the most | analogous comparison would be "where my rate of salary | increase follows the changing interest rate on my | mortgage". | | It's not that your $100K salary should go to $200K if your | mortgage goes from 3% to 6%, but rather that your $100K | salary should go to $106K instead of just $103K if your | mortgage goes from 3% to 6%. | | Similarly, if your mortgage fell from 3% to 2%, you'd be | pretty close to even if next year's salary went to $102K | and likely in bad shape if it instead went to $67K. | ziddoap wrote: | > _but manageable given that your salary likely inflated | along with your payment._ | | Which, anecdotally, has not been true for myself or any of my | colleagues (barring the ol' job switch raise). Wage | stagnation is an extremely common problem in many countries | and industries. Those that have gotten or negotiated for | raises aren't getting raises that account for the record- | setting inflation (at least in my country, which is seeing | the highest rates of inflation in 30+ years) | vmception wrote: | 2008 was an accounting and leverage problem. | | Every product in 2008 was completely viable which is why the | Federal Reserve bought everything. | | Only 7% of the borrowers defaulted by then, there wasnt mass | irresponsibility on the people with mortgages as suggested, | this alone blew up some institutions because they were | leveraged nearly 50x and one month of missed mortgage payments | would cause a massive drawdown on their portfolio. | | Without leverage, a portfolio where 93% is going to pay a lot | in interest over 5-30 years is a good portfolio. | | So there is no reason to get uncomfortable or anxious by seeing | the words "subprime" "CDOs" or more, as it comes down to | whether the accounting is done properly and the leverage is | low. Which, I believe is being done. The "big crash" always | comes from a different and unexpected (or less expected) angle, | where some completely different sector has too much leverage | and flimsy accounting. | tootie wrote: | And as much as Dodd-Frank was watered down, the orderly | liquidation provisions survived and that means regulators | have full authority to stop a situation like Bear Sterns or | Lehman collapsing and taking down a sector of the economy | with them. | jjoonathan wrote: | Yes, a disappointing fraction of armchair generals are | fighting the last war. | | What are the big speculative candidates for next crash? | Contagion from the Chinese real estate market? | sveme wrote: | As suggested in that famous substack post [1], a venture | capital crisis? I guess everyone on this site is fucked | then. | | [1]https://pivotal.substack.com/p/minsky-moments-in- | venture-cap... | SkyMarshal wrote: | Good article but weird chart, "Bond Markets Over Time". | Both axes are reversed to make it look like something is | increasing (y-axis) over the size of the opportunity | (x-axis), when instead he's making the point that Alpha | (y) decreases as size of opportunity (x) increases. | brazzy wrote: | Cryptocurrencies. | | In the runup to the 2008 crisis, a commonly heard mantra | was "yeah, subprime lending is fucked up, but it's a small | fraction of the economy, it can't cause that much damage". | Turned out that it could, via the CDO shenanigans. | | I would not at all be surprised if someone has already | cooked up a similar leveraged dependency from the "real | economy" to crypto markets. | SkyMarshal wrote: | It depends entirely on how much cryptocurrencies are | being used as collateral for leverage, which was the main | factor that amplified the GFC. MBS's and MBS-based CDO's | were used as collateral for massive amounts of leverage | (up to 30:1 for the commercial banks, and 100:1 for | Fannie & Freddie). Since the housing market had never | crashed, that collateral was considered reliable enough | for significant amounts of leverage. Turns out it wasn't. | | But cryptos have never been considered remotely that | reliable by the broader financial system. Thus there is | probably little to no leverage using cryptos as | collateral. Crypto is currently crashing, but it will | only take down itself and not 30 to 100 times as much | leverage with it. | komaromy wrote: | I'd be more open to this if we hadn't already seen wild | swings in the crypto market (BTC is down ~50% from its | 12-month peak) without much in the way of broader | implications. | vmception wrote: | Yeah the contagion is important and it also needs to be | several trillion dollars in value. | | Given that the Federal Reserve wants unemployment numbers | to rise, they're specifically trying to make share capital | worth less, and borrowing capabilities cost more, making | revenue-poor corporations stop being so optimistic. so I | would just expect lower valuations with much lower revenue | multiples (or price to equity ratios), for that reason | alone. | | Slowed growth in China is always a threat because thats a | key revenue driver for many large western companies. Then | sure, there is the leverage and accountability problem with | Chinese real estate, but I don't get the impression that | contagion is that big because nobody thinks that is a safe | bet and also avoid too much exposure to the domestic | chinese lenders involved. The rumors behind Tether just | aren't big enough to matter for this, could only be a | slight sting to the commercial paper market and a moderate | "finally" for the crypto market as a tether implosion would | probably increase confidence there after steep selloffs. | | Oil/gas volatility is probably going to have some | casualties. | jjoonathan wrote: | Yeah, the commodities markets are opaque to me and | between food and energy it sounds like they have a major | test on the way this winter. | | Re: Chinese real estate, the contagion mechanism I've | heard the most about isn't West->East investment, it's | East->West investment that gets pulled to survive a bear | market. I have no idea if it's big enough to matter. | mywittyname wrote: | > Oil/gas volatility is probably going to have some | casualties. | | The Oil Glut of the 2010s killed off all but the | strongest players in this sector. So I doubt it will be a | pillar that collapses. If anything, they will probably do | very well in the near-term. | vmception wrote: | the producers won't have the issue, I was thinking just | speculators that have over/unexpected exposure to the | wrong direction of the oil/gas derivatives market | r00fus wrote: | The last war is continuing to be fought by big finance to | remove any of the (even partial/basic) regulations and | remediations that were put in place. | antisthenes wrote: | Generally speaking there aren't fears of a hard crash. | | The main concern is stagflation due to rising energy | prices. It seems like the market is now finally starting to | price in the externalities of abating climate change, which | results in higher energy prices across the board (which in | turn raises prices of everything else, with inflation due | to QE piled on top of it). | | This means that output roughly stays the same, but there | are more dollars competing for it. | dv_dt wrote: | imho, labor shortages and productivity drops due to a Covid | policy causing mass long Covid cases. | bitwize wrote: | Quasi-on-topic anecdote: Amazon used to (and may still) sell | these DVD bundles, like 8-12 movies to a pack. There would be a | few classics (Ghostbusters or something) mixed in with arrant | garbage. The hope was you'd buy the pack for the classics and | maybe watch the garbage later because you have it so why not. | | I used to call this sales strategy "Amazon Subprime". I still | think that's one of my cleverest jokes, but unfortunately you | might only laugh if you know how the 2008 housing crisis actually | started... and the people who do know that are not great in | number. | yardie wrote: | Most people believe 2008 was caused by single mothers (as an | example) "buying a home they couldn't afford." The reality is | it was the upper-middle class, non finance professionals just | thinking they were savvy. When your doctor, dentist, or general | contractor gives you financial advice you should run the other | way! | | I see this playing out now with cryptocurrency. Suddenly, | everyone is an expert on Bitcoin! | adamsmith143 wrote: | > The reality is it was the upper-middle class, non finance | professionals just thinking they were savvy. | | But also lots of highly educated Ivy League Finance folks who | thought they were smarter than the were. Hence Bear Stearns, | Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merill Lynch, etc. | mywittyname wrote: | These people bankrupted two long-time pillars of in | industry in a matter of months. That's impressive. | bee_rider wrote: | This fall into the class of pun that is both completely | perfect, and also incredibly situational. If I have a pun like | this, either the situation to use it will never come up, or if | it does I will become too excited and flub the delivery. | | Bravo getting this one out there. | quux wrote: | https://archive.ph/SL4Q4 | sbarbarian wrote: | The subprime space is really interesting vs mortgages. Like | others mention, the due diligence these providers run for these | is minimal. | | The business model has been so successful in recent years because | there have been such large numbers of applicants. Even though | they approve only a fraction, the sheer volume means their | business is booming. This all translates into not having to dig | any deeper than credit scores. | ryanSrich wrote: | How are people with a subprime score even getting a loan? When I | took out a mortgage in 2015 and then again in 2017 they | scrutinized my entire life. I have no idea how we've regressed | back to 2008 after years of very strict regulations. | yardie wrote: | From the article: car loans, credit, and person loans (payday | loans). Mortgages are highly regulated since 2008's financial | crisis. Those subprime lenders exited the mortgage business and | jumped into high interest used car loans. And I'm right there | with you on the anal probing I had to practically get to | qualify for a mortgage. | adrr wrote: | Wondering if it is hitting the installment tech companies | like Affirm and Afterpay. | [deleted] | nimbius wrote: | worth mentioning: the auto lending market in the US is a 1.6 | trillion dollar time bomb and has been ever since Cash for | Clunkers saw two rounds of federal funding. | | the average period for an auto loan in the US is over 64 | months. any disruption to the paycheck-to-paycheck living of | 64% of americans could have a catastrophic effect on the | ability to service this debt. | tmaly wrote: | Should federal reserve bailout the auto loan market? | avs733 wrote: | and the auto loan business is shady a.f. | | We ended up invovled with the state A.G.'s office | investigating our dealer. They 'accidentally' put a typo in | my wife's SSN when pulling the credit report. That | justified a higher interest rate - which they offered us | without explaining why. | | We weren't super worried because we were going to pay the | car off in a couple months anyways, we just wanted the | financing to shift some cap gains taxes to a different | year. Then we got a letter in the mail from the lender | explaining why our interest rate was so high. | | We called the dealer - and almost no questions asked they | offered to send us a check for the difference. Red flag | raised we filed a complaint with the state A.G., and it | turns out it was a common practice at that dealership. | driverdan wrote: | NEVER finance through a dealership. They will never give | you the best rates. Often they will get a rate and add | their own points on top or include additional fees. Even | promotional interest rates don't make sense because | they're always offered with an alternative discount. The | discount + a traditional loan works out cheaper than 0% | interest. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _NEVER finance through a dealership_ | | Never is a strong word. Dealerships make their money on | financing. Refinancing afterwards is straightforward. | Negotiating poorly on the dealership's financing, using | that to win points on other fronts ( _e.g._ price, | maintenance commitments, trade-in value, _et cetera_ ) | and then repaying the loan a month later, once you've | lined up your preferred financing, is perfectly | acceptable and often worth the time and trouble. | gigatexal wrote: | Agreed. And here credit unions are your friend. | brianwawok wrote: | Get a quote. Get multiple quotes. Several times in my | life the dealer had APRs of < 1% APR, which was better | then available elsewhere. | vlucas wrote: | Never say never. If you have great credit, you can get | some awesome manufacturer incentives. | | - I got a 0% APR loan on a new Ford via Ford Motor | Finance in 2016 and didn't even have to put much cash | down. | | - I got a 0% APR loan on a new Hyundai Palisade in 2021 | (yes, even after COVID!) by paying for almost half the | car in cash as a down payment. | | No other finance channel would have ever offered me 0% | APR. | gigatexal wrote: | You paid half the car off on the lot? That's not a great | use of cash. I mean in most markets. In most markets cars | depreciate not appreciate like they have and the stock | market rises not falls like it has. So I guess good move! | conductr wrote: | True but consider cars aren't a significant purchase for | many people. At least to justify the maneuvering to | maximize gains. Is it really opportunity cost if you | didn't have another use for the cash and could replenish | it fairly quick? | phkahler wrote: | >> NEVER finance through a dealership. | | They have this awesome thing called negative equity | financing. It might have a better name now, but they will | pay you X for your old car which is less than you owe and | then finance the difference with your new loan. In other | words, your loan balance on the new vehicle may be higher | than its value but this is glossed over by focusing | strictly on monthly payments and "what you can afford". | Re-read that, this is not a practice they'd use on people | with bad credit because to repo the car will not get them | their money back. It's a rip-off for people with good | credit and more dollars than sense. | troupe wrote: | That isn't always the case. After getting up to leave | several times when they said they couldn't sell it to me | for my offer, they got within $40. I was prepared to pay | cash for it. Then they offered 0.9% financing which I | took on the assumption that inflation would be greater | than 0.9%. Turned out to be a reasonable assumption. | scarface74 wrote: | I've always gotten better rates from the dealer. That's | after checking with the credit union and Capital One. | Thads both with CarMax (multiple times) and a new car | dealer. | tomrod wrote: | You can repossess a car a lot quicker than a house, so | there is less of an issue than mortgages. | cshokie wrote: | Widespread repossession and resale would probably damage | the resale value for all used cars. | abeyer wrote: | resale value for all used cars could use some damage | right now | jaywalk wrote: | Chill out, let me get mine traded in first before that | happens. | lazide wrote: | Sounds like the type of thinking that won't get you that | quarterly sales bonus! | | Seriously though, just like mortgage originations pre | '08, anyone who had qualms about that kind of thing left | that industry a long time ago, or never joined. | frumper wrote: | These lenders make money on bad and even failed loans. | Why sell a car once when you can sell it 3 or 4 times. | | "buyer of the 1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue at Auto World Auto | Sales in February. | | A 26-year-old single mother of three, she needed a car to | get to her new job as a home healthcare aide. She agreed | to pay $3,899 -- roughly double book value -- and put | down $1,200 cash on the deal. | | As the due date for her first installment approached, | Fields realized she'd need a few extra days to scrape | together the $220 payment. The dealership wouldn't wait. | It repossessed the car a week after the payment was due" | | https://www.latimes.com/business/la-xpm-2012-aug-15-la- | fi-bo... | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _auto lending market in the US is a 1.6 trillion dollar | time bomb_ | | It _was_ a time bomb. Cars are easier to seize than houses. | Given the present shortages, re-selling them at close to | the loan balance shouldn 't be an issue. | | It's still a tale of personal tragedy. I know people on the | new-car-every-two-years bandwagon who will get screwed when | they have an income interruption. But it's not a broader | risk, at least not at this time. | nimbius wrote: | while it seems that way initially the reality is more | complex. waves of repossession means waves of employees | who cant get to work anymore. repossessions arrive on | your credit history as a major blemish, meaning you cant | get credit for a new car. your credit card interest goes | up as a result, unemployment ticks steadily up as well | until the market reacts parasitically, and eventually the | car you picked up for loan balance cant go for even a | fraction of that because of the surprise 1.6 trillion | dollar recession you triggered. | | its more palatable to subsidize these dicey loans (as we | did in 2008) then come to jesus with the grim reality of | following the letter of the lender instead of the spirit | of the loan. | conductr wrote: | So you're saying it's all a house of cards? (/s ... kind | of) | adolph wrote: | > It was a time bomb. Cars are easier to seize than | houses. Given the present shortages, re-selling them at | close to the loan balance shouldn't be an issue. | | Will there still be vehicle shortages if a significant | number of cars are seized for resale and potentially a | significant number of would be buyers are not able to | obtain loans? | ActorNightly wrote: | Most likely yes, considering the major supply chain | interruptions with the craziness that is going on in | China, oil uncertainty with issues in Russia, e.t.c. | | There is also the issue of raw materials, which can be | reused. | zamadatix wrote: | I'll bite, what does 3 billion in federal funding for car | loans from more than two 64 month cycles ago have to do | with it? | dbreunig wrote: | It doesn't. Dude's riding his hobbyhorse into a wall. | | Most cars that left the road were the oldest and | heaviest. New cars bought under that program tended to be | economy cars and are already a decade+ old. To suggest | that it took inventory off the road affecting today's | markets doesn't hold water. | | The biggest issue is that car companies make more money | off reselling the loan than they do off the car. Years | ago we tried to buy a Subaru in the NYC metro area in all | cash and were continuously turned away. Dealers didn't | make money off the cash sale, they were spiff'ed off the | loan. We had to take the loan and then pay it off in | order to get the car. | | Since then it's gotten worse. Expensive cars (luxury, | trucks) are sold with 72 month loans and are underwater | shortly after purchase. It's been a race to the worst | terms and empowering the worst purchases to the worse | equipped buyers. I'm continuously amazed it's gone on as | long as it has. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >Most cars that left the road were the oldest and | heaviest. | | Pure fantasy. | | Old commuter cars and family haulers were what was | removed. Stuff like 90s Suburbans and F150s got turned in | at a much lower rate than things like Cavaliers and | Tauruses. | | Remember, times were not great back then, trucks and SUVs | are useful vehicles. You're not gonna get a lot of people | who have old ones trading them in on a Camry because | that's a net downgrade in capability. And the SUV craze | was new enough that the trucks and SUVs that had been | bought frivolously were still mostly worth enough to be | unaffected. | | >To suggest that it took inventory off the road affecting | today's markets doesn't hold water. | | It definitely put the used car market into a state it | could have not otherwise gotten into. Whether it ever | "recovered" is a matter of opinion. Many people say the | private party shitbox market has never been the same but | I personally think that's rose tinted glasses. | rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: | Ironically, luxury car dealerships will have no problem | taking your cash. There are lots of people that are rich | enough to insist upon buying a new car with cash, but | those people generally don't drive Subarus. | chucksta wrote: | There are no affordable used cars now, or at least not | nearly as many as there would have been, driving up price | and the need for a loan. | zamadatix wrote: | 72 million passenger cars have been sold in the US since | the program so I don't follow how the <0.7 million | scrapped in 2009 (valued to be worth less than 3 billion | dollars back then) for newer cars have a noticeable | impact on any of this 1.6 trillion dollar loan market 13 | years later. | woodruffw wrote: | Under 700k cars were exchanged as part of the "cash for | clunkers" program, or roughly one out of every 400 the | cars on American roads. Emphasis on _exchanged_ : most | people went out and bought new cars with the rebate. | | Plus, all of this was over a decade ago. It's irrelevant | on both axes. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | I agree it's not relevant today but "1/400" is a really | dishonest way of framing "removed the bottom of the | market" | | All the cheap beater cars that people just getting on | their financial feet would have bought evaporated | overnight. | pueblito wrote: | Only 28% of sales are to first time buys, and 25% of sales | are all-cash. Sales of affordable houses under $250k are down | 30% YoY | thebean11 wrote: | > Sales of affordable houses under $250k are down 30% YoY | | ..because those houses are selling for over $250k now? | arcticbull wrote: | In part because of continued pressure on prices because | of zoning, and in part because people commit chart crimes | not adjusting for inflation. | jimt1234 wrote: | Also, did the Trump Administration relax a bunch of | regulations around predatory loans? I recall the auto and | payday loan industries were very happy. | MAGZine wrote: | Part of Dodd-Frank, which was created in response to the 2008 | financial crisis, was repealed in 2018. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth,_Regulatory_Re... | vlozko wrote: | I'm not sure how that's directly related to the issue of | subprime borrowers but in my recollection this was a good | change. It was a regulation that was costly and difficult for | smaller banks to constantly adhere to while larger banks | already had the capability to do this. Much like how the | mortgage moratorium policy ended up forcing smaller landlords | to sell to larger property holding companies, this particular | bit of regulation was causing many smaller banks to sell | themselves to larger ones. | [deleted] | gernb wrote: | If you want to be depressed, go to Los Angeles and tune into a | radio station that caters to people living in poor | neighborhoods. Every 3rd or 4th ad is for a loan shark. | bregma wrote: | Because there is money to be made. | tootie wrote: | I got denied a mortgage despite have assets in excess of the | value of the house I wanted due to insufficient income (wasn't | working at the time). | giantg2 wrote: | The scrutiny may be higher, but the amounts they are approving | people for is insane. Like who thinks it's a good idea to | approve someone with an $80k income for a $450k mortgage? | scarface74 wrote: | I'm not aware of any mortgages that allow that debt to income | ratio for a mortgage. Unless it's a rental and then the down | payment requirements are insane. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | A little while ago, when 3% loans were still a thing, a | $450K loan over 30 years was a $1,900/month expense. An | income of $80K with a $1,900/month in debt is a 29% DTI | which is _comfortably_ below the DTI limits for a | conforming loan (43-45%). | | Even at 5.5%, it's still "only" 38% DTI ratio. | babypuncher wrote: | I was making $80k when I bought my house and was shocked when | my bank told me I could buy a $450k home. I bought something | for $260k instead. | giantg2 wrote: | That was my situation as well. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | The relevant ratio for mortgage underwriting is monthly | income to monthly payment obligations. This means that the | highest available mortgage amount depends on the interest | rate. You get a very different answer if rates are 2.5% | instead of 5.0%. That means a person with $80k is getting | approved for a much smaller loan today than six months ago. | | Rules of thumb like "mortgage amount should be less than 3x | income" don't make much sense because they ignore the | interest rate. | avs733 wrote: | those numbers have also been in use for quite a while and | have not adjusted for the inflation of other parts of basic | living expenses. | lazide wrote: | Also, do the math on what happens if interest rates do | anything but go down - it instantly means a huge swath of | buyers can't anymore and the market dries up. | giantg2 wrote: | "Rules of thumb like "mortgage amount should be less than | 3x income" don't make much sense because they ignore the | interest rate." | | They're fine as a _rule of thumb_. The individual should | still run their own numbers to see if _their_ limit is | higher or lower. | | Even at 2.5% interest, I have a hard time seeing anyone | being able to _responsibly_ buy a $450k house on $80k | income. They might be able to swing it, but they 'll be | screwed as soon as a large unexpected expense comes up. | Even a 2% property tax will eat close to 10% of their gross | income. There's no way they could save for an emergency | fund or _properly_ fund a retirement account. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | At 2.5% interest, the monthly payment on a 450k home is | $1,778. | | At 9% interest, the monthly payment on a 240k home is | $1,931. Mortgage interest rates were higher than this | throughout the 1980's. They got as high as 18% which | would yield a $3,617 monthly payment. | | This means that the person who followed the "3x your | income" rule in the 1980's has a harder time paying the | bills than the person who bought the home for 450k with a | low interest rate. | | This is a badly-formed rule because it ignores a key | variable - the interest rate. Sometimes, it will prevent | someone from buying a home they can afford. Other times, | it will cause them to buy a home they can't afford. | There's no need for such a rule, because mortgage payment | calculators that take into account the interest rate are | easily available. It's like picking a shoe size based on | how much you weigh instead of measuring how big your feet | are. If it gives you the right answer, that's out of | sheer luck. | | Of course, it's necessary to also take into account | factors like taxes and other expenses which vary from | place to place and person to person, but a simple | mortgage payment calculator is a good place to start. | giantg2 wrote: | And mortgage calculators can ignore many other variables, | or would require additional research to fill them in. | They also ignore a key factor - the person's income. It | calculates cost, not affordability. | lotsofpulp wrote: | >There's no way they could save for an emergency fund or | properly fund a retirement account. | | I assume that is simply the way 80%+ of people in the US | expect to live since it has been their reality for | decades. | carabiner wrote: | Margin loans. They let you bypass mortgage borrower | requirements and are behind many "cash offers" on houses. | Borrow and spend $400k in 45 minutes: | https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2021/01/29/margin-loan- | ibkr-.... | | Can't find a link to it, but someone on WSB wrote a long report | on how margin loans will be behind the next housing crash. | tedd4u wrote: | I think subprime just means you just get offered a higher | mortgage rate. You still have all the documentation mandates. | No more NINA or NINJA[1] loans. | | [1] | https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/cr... | jrumbut wrote: | The amounts that mortgage originators will hand out are still | pretty incredible. | | I bought a house a few months ago. The mortgage payment is | right around what the more conservative rules of thumb | suggest is affordable. | | After the lender had all my information I asked, out of | curiosity, what was the maximum they'd lend me. They came | back with a number that was more than triple what I ended up | borrowing and suggested there was room to go higher if that | was something I was interested in. | | Perhaps subprime borrowers face lower limits but it's still | possible to take a risk stretching your budget to buy a | house. That may be OK or even good but I'm concerned the | perception is that lenders won't approve a mortgage that will | be very difficult to keep up with when they absolutely will. | scarface74 wrote: | Why is everyone talking about mortgages when the article talks | about everything _but_ mortgages? | | > _Borrowers with limited or troubled credit histories are | defaulting on credit cards, car loans and personal loans_ | wmeredith wrote: | Because people see the word "subprime" and think of mortgages. | aaroninsf wrote: | Comment on "ARMs did not cause the 2008 crash." | | Absolutely true; the question about whether they may cause an | imminent one is still a good question. Rhymes-not-echoes, etc. | | Google cruft suggests that the number of ARMs was < 5% five years | ago but has climbed recently, e.g. | | https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/adjustable-ra... | | from April says: "The adjustable-rate mortgage share of | applications last week was over 9 percent by loan count and 17 | percent based on dollar volume." | | I would welcome informed comment on what the total outstanding % | of loans by count and total volume data looks like, | | and in particular, insight as to whether the amounts are likely | to trigger market disequilibrium... | 2Gkashmiri wrote: | so....... good time to wait for the next crash and buy the dip? | adamsmith143 wrote: | Time in the market beats timing the market. You almost | certainly aren't going to buy back in at the right time. | bluGill wrote: | Who knows? If you want predictions of the future you need to | talk to a religious leader: they are the ones who deal in | confident predictions of the unknowable future. | | There are signs anyone can read about the future, but nobody | really knows exactly what they mean or how it will work out. If | house prices continue to increase, but at half the rate of | inflation: get in now. If house prices go down then wait. Just | to make this more difficult, where are you living now: unless | you can continue to live rent free in your parent's basement | (I'm sure someone reading this is actually doing that), then | you need to consider the cost of rent while waiting: even if a | house goes down in value, it may still be worthwhile as an | investment because most of the payment is coming from rent. | Then there is the cost of maintenance which might be | significant. There is the cost of moving: if you rent you can | break the contract and leave a lot faster than if you have to | sell a house in a now bad location first. | | If you think I covered even half of the considerations in a | couple short paragraphs you are very naive. | lkjfdslkjf222 wrote: | With what? Dollars that are dipping 8% a year? | 2Gkashmiri wrote: | interestingly US $ to indian rupee is growing more wider at | around 77.8 INR to 1 US$. by that projection, indian rupee is | falling so either invest in gold or US$ to beat "indian | inflation"... does that make sense? | newaccount2021 wrote: | vmception wrote: | Yes exactly. You can handle inflation for 6 months to 2 years | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | If the hypothesis is that home prices are going down - then | dollars are not going down the same amount WRT house prices. | ryanSrich wrote: | Home prices are not going down. The math just doesn't work. | The demand outweighs the inventory by several orders of | magnitude the last time I checked. Rate hikes and inflation | won't have much of an impact. | lazide wrote: | Demand is driven by ability to finance. People buy the | maximum home they can 'afford' (really, that they'll be | loaned most of the time). | | That is determined mostly by loan servicing costs to | income ratios. What happens when interest rates go up? | | Hint: what people can 'afford' changes. And it doesn't | get better. | | Prices on the market of course won't dip right away, | because most sellers don't have to sell right away, and | most owners won't have to sell at all. It takes inventory | backlogging and houses sitting on the market a few years | (usually) before sellers get desperate and start being | willing to compete on price. Short sales and foreclosures | can force the issue sometimes, but since people REALLY | want to avoid those, they also tend to be lagging. | | In rich neighborhoods, often the sellers will just pull | the listing and wait, both to avoid drops in nearby | property values based on comps (neighbors will hate them, | and that matters in places like that), and because they | have the capital to wait out a downturn and don't want to | take the haircut. | | The poor/shitty areas though, once the dam breaks it is | quite impressive. I've watched it happen a few times now. | | This is why real estate is often considered illiquid and | hard to value. | sokoloff wrote: | There are 100 buyers for every home (charitably assuming | "several" is only 2) or 1000 buyers for every home (a | more reasonable reading that "several" is minimum of 3)? | That doesn't sound right at all. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | There are only 409k homes for sale: | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUUS | | The home ownership rate is ~65%: | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N | | Theoretically, there are close to 30M HH that want to own | a home, but don't. | | That's close to 100:1. | | More practically, probably only a 1/3rd of them are | remotely qualified to buy something they'd want to own, | and only a 1/3rd probably actually want to own & are | currently interested in houses at this price. | | That could still be >10 buyers for every house. | rory wrote: | Several base 2 orders of magnitude :) | drzoltar wrote: | Actually, I'm worried about techies specifically. It's (was) | surprisingly easy to count RSUs as income collateral, especially | since the last 5 years have shown such a consistent source of | income. Now that many RSUs are in the gutter, combined with an | ARM, I don't get how some techies will make ends meet especially | in places like the Bay Area. Anyone know the actual magnitude of | this problem though? | nkingsy wrote: | I was explicitly told by a mortgage broker in January that | RSU's don't count in income calculations. | | Made the difference between me qualifying and not (for a 10% | down jumbo, which was admittedly a stretch). | drzoltar wrote: | To clarify I'm not sure it counts directly to income, but it | starts to be taken into account when there is substantial | salary and other investment funds, especially if you are | right on the border of the salary/loan ratio. Someone else | mentioned it's more like collateral | desmosxxx wrote: | Probably depends on the broker and market. We bought in the | bay area and RSU were counted as income (and fairly certain | 1:1 by some lenders). And in some other areas they wont look | at them at all is my understanding. | Androider wrote: | For mortgages, lenders will entirely or heavily discount RSUs | for income calculations. | | However not discouraged by that fact, some tech folks are known | to instead have taken out regular non-mortgage variable rate | loans with their RSUs as collateral. So there are folks, who | bought a house "all cash" with loans backed by stock collateral | that is now worth much less. Those types of loans also have a | double-digit APR, which might have been fine if you thought you | could flip your house for 30-100% in the near future. In the | current housing marking it is like putting everything on black | at a casino, it might work out, but it might be also be a | complete catastrophe. | arcticbull wrote: | > Those types of loans also have a double-digit APR, which | might have been fine if you tought you could flip your house | for 30-100% in the near future. | | Nah not all of them. Margin loans were as low as 0.5% APR, | and currently not much higher than that. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _lenders will entirely or heavily discount RSUs for income | calculations_ | | Multiple lenders, when I was shopping for a mortgage in | October, encouraged me to take a variable-rate ARM with a | balloon payment when I mentioned my options. (I declined, | opting for a 15-year standard instead.) For the lender, as | long as you can refinance in 5 years, the risk is minimal. | For a borrower, this structure could easily wipe out one's | savings. | dhosek wrote: | Those of us who've lived through more than a few years of | working life value stock options and RSUs and anything else at | zero until it's transformed into cash. | scarface74 wrote: | I've had to go through the mortgage process three times in the | last two years when my income was based on a prorated two year | signing bonus and a back heavy RSU vesting schedule over 4 | years [1]. | | The first time for a refinance and the second time for HELOC. | Both times they would only consider my base. Luckily I lived in | a relatively low cost of living area and we weren't talking | about that much by todays standards - a $300K refinance and a | $160K HELOC a so my base pay was enough. | | The third time when I tried to get an investment property, my | DTI was too high to qualify based on solely my base. If they | had counted my RSU grants even considering the 30%+ YTD | decline, it would have been more than enough. I ended up doing | a no income documentation loan and paying down the loan by a | point. I also had to put 30% down. | | For the second one, they still questioned why my stated income | for 2022 was much lower than my actual income for 2021. I had | to re-explain my compensation structure. | | [1] How do you say which BigTech company you work for without | saying which BigTech company you work for. | ActorNightly wrote: | Techies have zero excuse for any sort of financial trouble. Not | only has the job market has been insane (and still is for the | most part), the amount of money you make, even with previous | RSU distributions should allow anyone in the field to save | enough money to ride out a recession. | | There is however a definite problem of people across all income | levels living way above their means. | notyourwork wrote: | > It's surprisingly easy to count RSUs as income | | This is irresponsible in my opinion. (I'm sure some disagree.) | Personally, I took the conservative approach where during my | home purchase we made sure our income could afford a mortgage. | Our RSU's are a bonus and when they come we can pay down our | mortgage faster, go on fun vacations, or do all sorts of other | things. | | Currently, I'm on pace to pay off my 30-year mortgage in 8-10 | years by putting half of my RSU's towards my mortgage on top of | the monthly payments. | arcticbull wrote: | > Currently, I'm on pace to pay off my 30-year mortgage in | 8-10 years by putting half of my RSU's towards my mortgage on | top of the monthly payments. | | This is not a great idea if you have a 30-year fixed mortgage | with an APR below inflation. You're better off not paying it | off, and instead setting aside the cash you would have used. | Even in like a Series I bond which is currently paying 9% | APR. | | Money loses value every year, and it's losing value faster | than your mortgage is going up in cost. Therefore, why would | you pay it off today using money that's worth more, when you | can pay it off in the future using money that's worth less? | | Especially if you can park your money in something that | tracks inflation. | | Paying off your mortgage early is one of those things folks | are always told is good - it's really not. | | That's a free 9%+ return on capital. You're giving up free | double-digit returns by paying off your mortgage early. | notyourwork wrote: | You're sort of ignoring the point which is I get to chose | how to allocate my money by not factoring my RSU's into my | upper limit for what I can afford. I can keep my RSU's as | they vest, or I can pay ahead on my mortgage or a | combination of things. | | If you're in tech and paying your mortgage depends on your | salary and your RSU's you are not being financially | responsible. | arcticbull wrote: | Now all that I'm with you on! | danans wrote: | > Paying off your mortgage early is one of those things | folks are always told is good - it's really not. | | It only makes sense if there is a legitimate fear that | someone might otherwise waste the money on frivolities - | for many people saving and the self control it requires is | very challenging. | digisign wrote: | It was great in the old days of high interest rates, not | so much at low ones. | [deleted] | wanda wrote: | Article is essentially paywalled, I'm not in finance and I'm not | well-informed (and by my own admission I don't go out of my way | to _be_ well-informed), so forgive me if these questions are | covered or stupid, but my questions when reading the headline | are: | | 1. Are these subprime loans packaged in CDOs or any other kind of | highly-rated derivative instruments? | | 2. If so, how exposed are the banks this time? What are current | leverage limits? | | 3. Are there swaps on these instruments, and if so, are these | positions being taken by the banks that are selling the CDOs? | | 4. If so, how exposed are the insurance firms? | | In short, are the conditions in place for a similar event to | 07/08? Has any meaningful regulation been introduced that extends | beyond the mortgage market? | | Looking beyond conventional lending, what is the scale of | cryptocurrency lending? As I understand it, there's not much in | the way of regulation when it comes to cryptocurrency, and I feel | like that's probably a recipe for disaster somewhere in the | future. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-19 23:02 UTC)