By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

The horses, pigs, cows, goats, sheep, llamas, ostriches, dromedaries and rhinos have all left the barn, yet the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) still thinks it should be minding the door.

In light of its woeful inability to perform even the simplest of tasks — like making sure the biggest hedge fund in the world, I don’t know, makes a trade once every 13 years — the Obama administration is looking to strip the SEC of certain regulatory responsibilities.

And rightly so.

According to Bloomberg, plans could be announced as early as next week outlining just how watered down the SEC’s role in the new Obama regulatory regime could be. It’s expected the Federal Reserve may take over the SEC’s oversight of firms deemed “too big to fail.” Keeping tabs on mutual-fund operations could become the domain of certain banking regulators.

The SEC, for its part, under the new leadership of 20-year veteran of the agency, Mary Schapiro, is fighting back. Shapiro says she’s frustrated the SEC isn’t more involved in high-level negotiations with financial firms like Citigroup (C), Bank of America (BAC) and Goldman Sachs (GS), and is making great strides in repairing the regulator’s tattered image.

Commendable, but too little too late.

The SEC is widely viewed as having committed the biggest regulatory bonk in modern financial history, turning a blind eye to Bernie Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme, and failing to, even in the remotest way, protect investors from the implosion of the market for mortgage-backed securities and other structured financial products stemming from rampant fraud, scant disclosure and blatant conflicts of interest.

Oh, and just days before Bear Stearns collapsed into the waiting arms of JPMorgan Chase (JPM), then SEC Chairman Chris Cox went on national television, assuring the country Bear was in good shape. Oops.

The SEC is a case study in regulation gone bad. It’s one thing to have openly unregulated markets, where participants understand there’s no one guarding the hen house. But when markets are purportedly policed by a powerful government body, investors assume some level of basic integrity and honesty.

By violating this trust, the SEC proved that weak regulation — and more specifically, weak regulators — do more harm than any amount of deregulation could ever do.

The looming restructuring of the financial regulatory complex will be a messy, political, imperfect process. But if the first step is dismantling the SEC’s web of incompetence, then we’re off on the right foot.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

Remember the good old days? Back when you and the credit crunch were young, and only those “subprime” people over on the other side of town — you know, the ones living wildly beyond their means, dependent on credit for the very necessities of life — had to deal with the harsh reality of life without free and easy credit?

Those happier times are long since passed, as the malaise continues to seep its way up the economic spectrum. Now, even the most creditworthy consumers who haven’t missed a payment in years are seeing credit lines cut, interest rates raised and finding it increasingly difficult to get a mortgage. They’d better get used to it – the free lunch is over.

Up in Washington, where economic rationale and populist rhetoric seem to be more mutually exclusive than ever these days, the Senate is voting on a widely debated new set of rules for the credit card industry.

According to the New York Times, although the legislation doesn’t cap the rates companies like Capital One (COF) and American Express (AXP) can charge their customers, they’ll be forced to up rates more slowly — and with more disclosure — meanwhile making it tougher to impose late fees on borrowers that can’t keep up. This will reduce lenders’ earning power, not to mention their inclination to give out credit lines to questionable borrowers.

While risky borrowers will bear the brunt of late fees, over-limit charges and slashed credit lines, the well-to-do are in for the biggest shock. Banks are considering curtailing or doing away entirely with rewards programs, grace periods before interest charges kick in and accounts without annual fees. Gone are the days when paying your bills on time was a path to free credit.

The country’s biggest banks, JPMorgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and Citigroup (C) have already told Congress the new rules will force them to limit credit availability and increase fees. While this may bode well for profit margins in the near term, not so for the broader economy.

In light of the financial implosion wrought by too much debt supported by not enough real income, it’s hard to argue credit card companies shouldn’t be a bit less free-wheeling when handing out plastic. But analysts are quick to point out that paring down consumer credit will have a dastardly effect on our consumption-based economy.

For a country whose economy is two-thirds consumer spending, and whose consumer is (still) addicted to credit, the new legislation is like pumping the economy full of Xanex – everything will just slow down.

And while in the long run, less dependence on cheap and easy credit will help prevent the sorts of credit crisis like the one we’re experiencing right now, we’ll likely look back with 20/20 hindsight and say this legislation went too far, constricted credit too much. This is a shame, since before Congress even cooked up the idea of the new rules, the natural deleveraging cycle was already restricting credit on its own.

Debt isn’t in and of itself, bad. As Minyanville’s Kevin Depew wrote today, “real lending and economic activity will only improve when real savers see real value at the right level of risk. That will only occur in the short-run with vastly lower prices, or in the long run with stagnant prices and the benefit of time.” Indeed.

Credit allows a transfer of risk from those who want to take it, but can’t, to those who can take it, but need to be appropriately compensated for putting their cash on the line. This can foster healthy economic growth – when used properly.

That day will come again, but that day isn’t today.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

Despite Herculean efforts, the Federal Reserve is losing its battle to keep mortgage rates at all-time lows.

As fear that we’re headed for imminent collapse slowly wanes, investors’ appetite for risk is coming back. This renewed confidence has helped buoy stocks, and the major equity indices have rallied more than 30% from their March lows. The shift, however, has come at the expense of the Treasury market, which has been in a 7-week slump.

According to Bloomberg, big money managers like Blackrock (BLK) are betting the Fed will step in to support the Treasury market (again), as regulators hope renewed Treasury purchases will push down mortgage rates (again).

Bond prices and yields move in opposite directions. When investor demand falls, so do prices, pushing up yields. And as investors shun the safety — but relatively low return — of government-backed debt, the impacts are felt throughout the credit markets. Of concern to the Fed, and what has led Chairman Ben Bernanke to increase Treasury purchases in the past, is the effect this dynamic has on mortgage rates.

A mortgage is nothing more than a long term bond, given to a borrower to purchase a home. So when lenders get fearful they’re not being compensated for tying up money for as long as 30 years, they increase rates. Further, as the specter of inflation rises, lenders demand bigger interest payments to keep up with higher prices. In other words, when dollars in the future are worth less than dollars today, banks demand higher payments to make up the difference.

Keeping mortgage rates low has been a cornerstone of Washington’s efforts to jump start the flagging housing market. But with rates at the highest level since April, the “smart money” is betting the Fed may return to the Treasury market en masse.

Paradoxically, even as the Fed tries to keep interest rates low — which are rising in part due to the expectation that higher prices loom in the years ahead — its actions increase the likelihood of future inflation. Running its printing presses around the clock has consequences, even if Fed officials are loathe to admit it.

Minyanville’s Mr. Practical often discusses the fallacy that credit markets are improving. As he points out, only in corners of the market where the government has stepped in to support lending is any so-called “normalcy” returning.

So too in the mortgage market.

Loans backed by Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE) and the Federal Housing Administration account for the lion share of mortgages currently being issued in this country. Aside from the occasional jumbo loan written by banks like JPMorgan (JPM) or Wells Fargo (WFC), government mortgages are the only game in town. Coupled with the Troubled Asset Lending Facility (or TALF), which funnels money into the market for mortgage-backed securities, the home-loan market remains completely dependent on government support.

This is one reason recent “strength” in the housing market will provide transitory. There’s a limit on how much government can control markets, as evidenced by mortgage rates that move persistently higher every time the Fed eases its aggressive intervention. Fundamentals, not subsidies, will provide a true floor in prices.

And as banks prepare to unleash a firestorm of foreclosure inventory into the market, fundamentals will remain pointed south, thereby pushing down prices. And as foreclosures continue to infect higher end real-estate markets, these price declines will be felt by a growing — and more prosperous — segment of the population.

Mortgage rates, left to their own devices, would be far, far higher without government support. This is the message of the market – one bureaucrats in Washington seem unwilling to learn.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

As a growing number of economists, pundits and real-estate professionals assure us the housing market’s worst days are over, prospective home buyers need a trusted advocate to make sure they don’t end up on the wrong side of someone else’s trade.

More often than not, that person will come in the form of a real-estate professional working on the buyer’s behalf and earning a commission for their trouble. Below are 5 simple questions you can ask to gauge whether a given candidate is looking out for your best interests – or his or her own.

But first, a word on terminology.

The terms “agent,” “broker” and “realtor” are often thrown around interchangeably. This isn’t exactly right. While laws differ from state to state, acquiring a broker’s license typically requires a series of courses on real estate practices, principals, finance, law, appraisal and the escrow process. A broker can use his license to form a brokerage, and the company can then perform services as a licensed entity.

In many states (like California) a licensed broker can not only conduct real estate transactions, but earn commissions for arranging mortgages and other types of real estate-related loans. For this reason, a brokers license offers the holder huge potential earnings power.

An agent is a step below a broker. While requiring a license, an agent is normally treated as an employee of the broker and thus the broker is responsible for the actions of the agents under his charge. If an agent screws up, his reputation (and license) as well as his broker’s is on the line. Agents can typically conduct the same transactions as a broker, but must do so under the supervision of their boss.

Finally, the term “Realtor” is used to specifically identify a real estate broker or agent who is a member of the National Association of Realtors, or NAR. The NAR is a nationwide trade group that collects member dues, lobbies in Washington and runs marketing campaigns urging Americans to buy homes. The NAR is conspicuous in its role as national housing cheerleader, as it’s chief economist Lawrence Yun has been predicting an imminent bottom in prices since early 2006.

1. Is it a good time to buy?

Of any question a buyer is likely to ask his broker (or agent), this may be the first. And the most important. The answer itself isn’t nearly as important as how the broker responds.

Any broker that says definitely that yes, this is a great time to buy, should be eyed with skepticism. Without knowing a buyer’s specific circumstances, understanding localized market trends and the underlying value of a specific home, saying it is a great time to buy is a sales pitch, pure and simple.

Brokers will often cite low interest rates, high levels of affordability, low replacement costs and home prices that have fallen precipitously from their peaks as reasons its never been a better time to buy. But ask yourself, all those conditions were true six months ago — was it a great time to buy then?

The proper response to this question from a responsible broker is to answer the question with a question, or questions. How much money have you saved? How long do you plan on owning the home? How much money do you make? How much is your other debt service? What are your contingencies if you lose your job? How is your credit? What are your other motivations for wanting to buy?

Only armed with answers to these and other questions can a broker — or a buyer for that matter — determine whether its the right time to buy.

2. Are home prices near a bottom?

As with the previous question, the answer should be in the form of a question. Where and when are you looking to buy? Do you want a move in ready home or one that needs some work?

While there is no crystal ball as to the direction of home prices in the near or long term, a broker should have a clear understanding of the dynamics effecting his or her local market. I hear ad nauseum here in California that home prices are stabilizing because demand is up, prices are down and homes are receiving multiple bids. But those are external symptoms of market machinations underneath the surface.

Foreclosure moratoriums put in place late last year limited the number of bank owned homes dumped onto the market. This constricted supply, and coupled with tax incentives, low interest rates and aggressive marketing from the NAR, led to a situation where in some areas, for some homes, demand outweighs supply. But that doesn’t mean the situation will persist — in fact, the smart money is betting it won’t.

This dynamic is far from ubiquitous, as most high end markets remain illiquid with prices tumbling into an apparent vacuum.

Real estate is, and will always remain, local.

3. How do you determine which homes to show me?

Not to beat a dead horse, but this question should be met with yet another series of questions. What size home are you looking for? Are schools important to you? How close do you want to be to public transportation? Do you care about being within walking distance to shops and restaurants? What style of home do you like? Do you want a yard?

A good real estate broker should be a blank slate, absorbing your preferences, desires and reasons for buying without injecting his own bias. Just because your agent loves a certain home and thinks its a great buy, doesn’t mean it fits your criteria. Don’t be afraid to tell your broker that you don’t like a particular home.

Brokers should show you a variety of homes, below, within and above your price range, to give you a sense of what is out there on the market. With prices still coming down in most areas, you may walk inside your dream house and decide its worth it to keep renting — and saving — for another year until prices fall to something you can afford.

Until you feel comfortable your broker is showing you everything that may fit your criteria, perform your own searches on the myriad free websites out there. Redfin.com is a great resource for the metropolitan areas it covers, while Trulia.com, ziprealty.com and even Realtor.com have excellent free search features.

4. What are my financing options? How much can I afford?

While real-estate brokers are often legally allowed to arrange loans, more often than not its a dicey legal proposition for the broker to sell you a house as well as a mortgage.

Nevertheless, brokers should be well-versed in available financing, rates, qualification requirements and whether sellers require a mortgage pre-approval letter to accompany any offer (these days, most do). If your broker doesn’t know the answer to a certain question, that’s OK as the rules change almost daily, but he should actively pursue the answer and report his findings back without too much delay.

Shopping around for the best loan terms can be a time consuming and confusing process, but it must be done. Gone are the days where Wells Fargo (WFC) always gave you the best rate, or your buddy down at Chase (JPM) could get you a great deal. Keep in mind most loans these days are originated to Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) guidelines, which means most big lenders offer similar loan programs.

All things being equal, choose a lender you feel you can trust (not just the one offering you the best deal) and always have a backup.

Lastly, never trust a broker to “tell” you how much you can afford. This decision, especially in an environment where home prices are likely to fall for the foreseeable future, should be one each buyer must make for himself.

Plans change, life doesn’t always follow the path you hope it does. Being conservative in what you can afford, leaving a cushion and planning for the unexpected are paramount in today’s uncertain market conditions.

5. Provide me with examples of a few closings you are the most proud of over the past year.

This question gives your broker a bit of an opening to sell himself, and will go along way towards helping figure out whose side he is actually on. If your broker launches into a a story about this cute young couple he helped get into the house of their dreams, move along, cute young couples rarely make savvy home buying decisions and are easy prey for aggressive brokers. Also pass if you hear things like, “I found this great house right when it came on the market, we jumped at it and got in before the other buyers had a chance to bid.”

Sellers, by and large, are still unrealistic about how much they can sell their homes for. This means that when houses come out onto the market, the asking price is nearly always above where it will actually go for. Be patient, make your broker work for his money.

Although there are situations where multiple bids will come in from prospective buyers, chances are this isn’t a house you want to buy. Most of this sort of activity is going on in areas with high levels of foreclosures. Now that the moratoria are lifted, banks will start flooding the market again come next month. All that great news about limited supply will become ancient history as prices plunge once again. The house itself may be great, but just because homes are “cheap,” doesn’t mean they won’t get cheaper.

A good response is one where a broker tells you a story of a buyer he worked with for months, go to know a few neighborhoods that fit all the pertinent criteria, and waited for the right house to come on the market. Many sellers will list their house at a “hopeful” price for the first 30 or 45 days, then drop it down to something more reasonable. Rarely will a house sold in the first couple weeks be a “steal” for the buyer.

Your broker should stress that patience, research and shrewd negotiating got his client a great home at a great price.

To be sure, there are other questions to ask of a prospective broker, but this is a good start. Finding a broker should be treated like a job interview, after all, even though the commission may not be coming out of your pocket, you, as the buyer, end up paying one way or another. Make sure your broker is worth his salt.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

Every month, it seems, Washington dreams up new and fantastic ways to funnel taxpayer money towards a growing list of undeserving recipients.

Now, in the latest attempt to coerce banks into modifying delinquent mortgages en masse, the Treasury Department plans to offer cash incentives to lenders who lower interest rates or forgive principal on second liens (so-called “piggyback” loans). According to Bloomberg, the new program aims to simplify the modification process and help struggling borrowers avoid foreclosure.

The subprime second lien was a highly profitable, nearly usurious loan product that proliferated during the housing boom. Once reserved for high-quality borrowers and those with sufficient equity in their homes, seconds became an easy way to jam borrowers into homes they couldn’t otherwise afford.

If a homeowner wants to take out a first mortgage for more than 80% of the home’s value, he or she is typically required to take out mortgage insurance, issued by firms like Radian (RDN), MGIC Investment Corp (MTG) and the PMI Group (PMI). For years, the cost of insurance — plus the required down payment — limited home ownership to those who, by and large, could afford to buy responsibly.

But as housing demand ballooned from 2002 to 2005, banks discovered they could just loan borrowers the down-payment money – and charge a hefty fee to do so. Without those pesky requirements — and by bypassing the sometimes strict credit guidelines of mortgage insurers — banks were able to open up their loan products to a whole new group of unqualified borrowers.

Second liens, by virtue of being subordinate to first liens, carry additional risk, and thus a higher interest rate. In other words, if a borrower defaults, the holder of the second lien has to wait until the first mortgage holder is made whole before getting paid.

And since seconds carried super-high interest rates, securities backed by this type of loan offered juicy returns for investors. It should come as no surprise that the second-lien market was dominated by Bear Stearns (now JPMorgan (JPM)), Countrywide (now Bank of America (BAC)), and Citigroup (C) (now in hock to Uncle Sam for a cool $300 million).

Now, the Obama Administration wants to give billions to not only the banks who wrote these loans, but the borrowers who accepted them. The program is destined for failure.

In fact, it’s already failed.

A little over a year ago, Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) introduced an initiative called the “HomeSaver Advance.” Under the program, borrowers behind on their mortgage payments could take out an unsecured line of credit to get current. Under this program, Fannie and Freddie lent out $462 million over the course of the next 12 months.

Now, based on current market prices, the loans are worth a whopping $8 million, or $0.017 cents on the dollar. Talk about throwing good money after bad.

The President’s initiative to modify seconds is no different: It takes a situation destined for foreclosure and simply prolongs the agony. This prevents the borrower from getting out from under his mountain of debt and starting anew. Meanwhile, homes become ever more dilapidated, and banks further delay their own days of reckoning.

The rationale for this program is obscure – though it does provide yet another way to hand taxpayer money over to the very banks who got us into this mess in the first place.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

With mortgage rates at historic lows, housing prices plummeting, and Washington throwing billions at housing-market recovery efforts, why is it still so damn hard to get a loan?

And while the easy answer is that banks are flat-out broke, the real answer may lie in an esoteric corner of mortgage finance which has all but disappeared: warehouse lending.

In the heyday of the housing boom, small mortgage companies were able to compete with huge financial institutions by tapping so-called warehouse lines of credit. Using cash from their warehouse lender to fund loans at the closing table, as big banks do, these smaller mortgage shops could often provide better service than their bigger competitors, though at the same low rates.

Warehouse lenders, often big banks themselves — remember Washington Mutual and Countrywide (Bank of America (BAC))? — held onto loans until they were sold in the secondary market. Turnaround time could be anywhere from a few days to a few months for larger, more complex transactions.

The benefits to being able to finance one’s own loans rather than just acting as a broker were numerous. Having a warehouse line gave mortgage bankers better control over the closing process, enabling them to beat out big banks in terms of response time and customer service.

By aggregating loans on a warehouse line, bankers could bundle them together and sell packages at a premium, rather than selling them off one by one. And since they could sell loans to any bank on the street, most such originators offered loan programs just as varied as those of even the biggest institutional lenders.

At the height of the boom, it was estimated that almost half of the over $3 trillion in annual loan production was first funded on a warehouse line.

As the mortgage market began to collapse, big purchasers stopped buying, and warehouse lines filled up with unwanted loans. Warehouse lenders began margin-calling clients, cutting off funding capacities, and capturing every penny they could from the few sales that actually went through.

The result, which can be plainly seen on websites like The Mortgage Lender Implode-o-Meter, was that hundreds of small bankers closed up shop.

Now, as banks scramble to handle the flood of requests for refinances at super-low interest rates, the mortgage industry is once again facing a credit crunch. By one estimate there’s only $25 billion in available warehouse lines to support the $2.8 trillion in mortgages expected to be written next year.

Mortgage bankers I speak with say the only thing holding them back from giving out more loans is a lack of warehouse capacity.

According to the Wall Street Journal, one solution being floated by the Mortgage Bankers Association (or MBA) is for Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) to provide government-backed warehouse lines to the few intrepid mortgage bankers still eking out a living in this nightmarish market.

The MBA argues that, since big banks like JPMorgan (JPM), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC) don’t need access to warehouse lines, they’re pushing out the smaller guys and stymieing competition. There’s little incentive for a Chase or a Citi to reopen its warehouse lending group, since the move would just allow competitors to grab market share from the very profitable business of originating loans.

While it makes logical sense for regulators to allow Fannie and Freddie to prop up this segment of the market, it may run contrary to other bank-friendly initiatives. Fees generated by writing new mortgages may be the only thing keeping the likes of Bank of America and Citigroup from tapping even more government support to stay afloat.

This week’s House of the Week takes us down to the South Land, to Santa Ana and the land of endless strip malls and condo complexes. For under $1000 per month in mortgage, tax and insurance payments (assuming 20% down), you can be the proud owner of a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom condo. The price: Just $139,000. (click images to enlarge)

Condos are cheap – but are they cheap enough? Sure, you can save a couple hundred bucks a month in rent, but is that worth it to risk owning a condo in a lousy real estate market?

WHAT WOULD YOU PAY FOR THIS HOME?
Post a comment below to guess!

Address: 2511 West Sunflower Ave. T15, Santa Ana, CA 92704
Status: ACTIVE
Bedrooms: 2; Bathrooms: 2
Living Space: 875 square feet
Lot Size: N/A
List Date: 3/14/2009
Original List Price: $139,000
Current List Price: $139,000
Average School API: 737
Zip Code Sales Last 3 Months (year-over-year): +166.0%
% Homes in Foreclosure in Zip: 4.6% (High)
% Housing Inventory For Sale in Zip: 1.1% (Moderate)

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

There isn’t an economic forecaster or media pundit alive who isn’t angling to be the first to (correctly) call the bottom in housing. Many have tried; they all have failed.

But what happens when one’s right?

At some point in the future, broad home price indicators will cease to slide, then stabilize and even begin to move back up. When, and in what shape that trajectory will be, of course remains a mystery. As I’ve written in the past, the eventual recovery in housing will be a prolonged, localized event. The rising tide will not lift all boats, as the fundamentals of the old cliché “location, location, location” will be truer than ever.

And although predicting the date of this event is a fool’s errand, savvy home buyers will be ready to jump in ahead of those who remain in their shells long after the best bargains are behind them.

Here are 5 simple things you, the future home buyer can do now, without putting your nest egg at risk, to be ready for the coming opportunities in real estate:

1. Have patience.

There will be false bottoms, dead-cat bounces and treacherous pitfalls on the path to a recovery in real estate. Be patient. Don’t believe the hype – a couple months of strong sales numbers don’t foretell and imminent rebound in prices. Let the beginnings of a trend develop before you begin your home search in earnest. Future appreciation will come slowly, as tightened mortgage guidelines and fear of the collapse we’re now experiencing will not be soon forgotten.

2. Find a market, do your homework.

Had your eye on that classic Victorian around the corner from your kids’ future grade school, and hoping the elderly couple living there knock off just in time for you to swoop in at the estate sale? Expand your search.

Pick a couple of areas you could be happy in – look in multiple cities even. By focusing too narrowly on a single street, or even a single neighborhood, you could be missing out on what could be a fantastic opportunity on the other side of town. Don’t compromise, but play with your list of priorities to give yourself the most “exposure” to localized markets that may become increasingly attractive.

Tour the schools, scope the neighbors – hang around on Halloween to see who gets egged. RealtyTrac.com is a great resource for watching foreclosure activity all over the country and in your backyard. Their free site provides a great overview of cities and neighborhoods, but you have to pay for the house-by-house detail. Unfamiliar with an area? Use RealtyTrac to eyeball major neighborhood dividers (railroad tracks, highways, main roads, etc.) and examine foreclosure activity on either side.

3. Find a broker and start a housing “tracker”.

Real estate brokers can be a valuable tool in your home search – use them.

An aside: The commonly used term “realtor” denotes an association with the National Association of Realtors, or NAR, the lobbyists who have been predicting a bottom since the downturn began over 3 years ago. Tread carefully with anyone proudly bearing an NAR pin. Contrary to what many tell you, you don’t need to be a realtor to have access to MLS. But I digress.

Today, with transactions down in all but the most distressed areas, any broker worth his (or her) salt should be out prospecting for future clients, not proclaiming the time to buy is now. Collect referrals, test drive a broker or 2 and find one you’re comfortable with. Your broker should not just understand the local market but be up to speed on the macro-level events affecting the real estate and mortgage markets. Ask him what a CDO (collateralized debt obligation) is – watch for a flinch. For better or for worse, understanding the state of Wall Street is as important these days as understanding the state of your street.

Ask your broker to help you develop a “housing tracker,” a simple tool that allows you to watch homes as they come on the market to see when and for how much they sell. Watching the life cycle of homes in a given market will give you a sense of how desperate sellers are, when asking prices drop and what concessions buyers are able to receive from sellers. As concessions begin to swing in favor of the sellers, the bottom may be nigh.

4. Start saving money.

If there’s one sure bet in the housing market, it’s that mortgage requirements will remain tight for the foreseeable future. Banks — Citigroup (C), Bank of America (BAC), JP Morgan (JPM) and Wells Fargo (WFC) being the obvious examples — are hoarding cash and reticent to lend even to the most qualified buyers. Unless a loan falls within guidelines set by Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), rates remain elevated and approvals elusive. This isn’t likely to change any time soon.

Save for a down payment and be able to point to liquid reserves (i.e. money in the bank) during the application process. Think about this as the lender’s cushion should you fall on hard times – and banks will need all the cushion they can get.

5. Think of your home as an investment, not just a place to raise your kids.

This may seem counter-intuitive, since speculation on housing prices played a huge role in creating the recent housing bubble. But speculating and investing are not the same thing.

A home, in addition to being a place to raise kids, is a massive financial obligation. Becoming emotionally attached to a house, rationalizing the financial realities away and hoping paychecks keep coming simply isn’t a viable home-buying strategy. As un-romantic as it may be, treat a home as you would a stock: Examine it, turn it upside down, run the numbers. Love it every day you’re there, but financial responsibility and emotional attachment don’t need to be mutually exclusive.

The time to buy may not be today — and it may not be tomorrow — but we’ll be closer to that day tomorrow than we are today. However, just as prices overshot to the upside, they’ll likely overshoot to the downside – be ready when that day comes.

Preparation, not hoping, will be the key to taking advantage of the opportunities that will present themselves on the other side of this mess.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

Many months ago, long before bureaucrats dreamed up their massive, ill-conceived loan-modification programs, the free market found a solution to the mortgage mess.

Specialists in handling distressed debt amassed tens of billions of dollars to buy up bad loans at steep discounts. The offending institutions who had bought the stuff in the first place would be forced to own up to their mistakes, take their lumps and move on. Meanwhile, those deft enough to clean up the problems would reap their just deserts.

Alas, it was not to be.

Sometime around the middle of 2006, some regulator woke from a decade-long slumber and decided to hazard a look at the balance sheets of America’s largest financial institutions. To his horror, just about every bank in the country would be insolvent, given the going prices for delinquent mortgage debt.

He raced off to tell his boss, who alerted his superior, and so on up the chain until then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson got wind of the coming tsunami of losses. Paulson barely flinched, for Wall Street’s top brass was well aware their collective predicament. After all, it was the likes of his former charge, Goldman Sachs (GS), who designed and sold the toxic assets in the first place.

The choice then was simple: Step back and let markets sort out the mess, risking the lives of storied firms like Citigroup (C), Bank of America (BAC) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) – or latch onto the absurd notion that these institutions were “too big to fail,” and begin a process whereby the American taxpayer’s hard-earned nest egg would be used to forestall the inevitable day of reckoning.

We now know how that sad story ends.

To prevent the market from clearing these assets at their true value — sometimes just pennies on the dollar — lawmakers, bureaucrats and big bank executives huddled together and devised ingenious schemes like the Super-SIV, HOPE NOW, Project Lifeline, TARP, and other utterly contrived “solutions” that, despite their claims to the contrary, were simply ways to extend the lives of these zombie banks.

Two pieces today, one run by Bloomberg charting the failure of myriad modification programs to address the problem of negative equity, and one in the New York Times documenting the exploits of former Countrywide executives buying distressed debt from the FDIC on the cheap, evidence the abject failure of government efforts to stem the rising tide of foreclosures.

Private investors, the ones best suited to forgiving principal or lowering interest rates to keep a family in their home, were handcuffed by political bumblings. But these programs, by preventing true price discovery in the housing market, have likely achieved their goals of their designers.

Our banking system has buckled, but not broken. The eventually recovery, however, has been pushed well down the line and the cost shoved onto future generations. Those responsible have by in large retained their posts at the institutions deemed “too big to fail,” save a couple token scapegoats tossed to the media wolves.

Meanwhile, the responsible few who did not speculate on their home, did not use credit as a vehicle for illegitimate economic growth and never thought they’d be asked to pick up the tab for those that did, have now been asked to shoulder the burden.

It should come as no surprise that housing prices keep falling — indeed they must in order for true stabilization to occur. But the slow bleed, the persistent drag on the fundamentals of our economy, is doing more damage under the hood than our wise leaders would care to admit.

Still, they insist the more economic control centralized in Washington, the better. After all, the ones that drove us off this cliff certainly should know how to break the fall.

By AUSTIN NELSON

There is considerable controversy as to the wisdom of the new measures introduced by the Obama Administration to stabilize the housing market: Will they work? What does it even mean for something like this to work?

While there are strong arguments on both sides, let’s look specifically at who Obama’s plan will definitely help and how that could in turn help the economy.

According to the White House’s official release on the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan (HASP), upwards of 9 million homeowners will be helped in their struggle to stay afloat. Even assuming that the administration is inflating these numbers a little, that’s still a lot of families. Each of these families could potentially be given a lifeline, a way to stave off the foreclosure of their homes.

In a plan estimated to cost $275 billion, HASP aims to achieve the lofty goal of slowing foreclosures by:

1.Reducing and subsidizing monthly payments for troubled borrowers
2.Incentivizing servicers and banks to modify loans
3.Instituting clear and consistent guidelines for loan modifications

The argument has been made that the plan rewards those who made poor financial decisions at the expense of those who did not. In some ways, this is true, but there could be effects of these measures beyond the families who are directly helped.

Most importantly, slowing foreclosures can prevent the downward spiral of home values that results when a number of homes get foreclosed within a single neighborhood. In fact, the White House claims that “the average homeowner could see his or her home value stabilized against declines in price by as much as $6,000 dollars.” While the exact modeling used to figure out such a specific number is unclear, the fact remains that preventing foreclosures will stabilize prices, particularly in neighborhoods with high rates of foreclosure.

Notice that I said that staving off foreclosures will STABILIZE prices, not that it would put an end to price declines. The underlying forces involved in the current home price correction go well beyond foreclosure activity. Prices will correct—indeed they must correct before the economy improves–and no foreclosure prevention plan can stop those fundamentals. The key is to make sure that the market doesn’t over-correct and cause unnecessary damage to the economy as a whole.

In a pattern we here at Cirios have seen many times over, a flood of foreclosures can cripple a neighborhood in a matter of weeks. The greatly increased supply caused by newly foreclosed properties coming onto the market results in price declines in the entire neighborhood. Additionally, foreclosed homes often sit on the market for months, largely because they are improperly priced and the bureaucracy involved in their sale is staggering. While on the market, these homes gradually fall into disrepair, decreasing the value of every home on the block simply by their ugly presence. The resulting decrease in home values leads to more homeowners going underwater and in turn even more foreclosures. And the spiral continues, feeding back on itself. By slowing the flow of foreclosures, it is theoretically possible to stabilize this cycle and remove the feedback mechanism.

The bubble that formed from 2001-2006 in the residential real estate market was unprecedented in its scope and magnitude. At the national level, median home prices climbed to more than 30% beyond historical trends. In many areas that number was twice that much.

As you can see in the graph below, a previous bubble (blue arrow) in the late 1980s (a time period where prices climbed above historic trends) was followed by a prolonged trough (red arrow) where prices fell below the trend. The same could be said for the late 1970s, but the bubble was much less severe.

In fact, the size of these “bubbles” and the length of following “troughs” have increased substantially. If the same pattern were to follow the currently deflating bubble, we should expect to see a trough that lasts on the order of fifteen years. With the current plummeting trajectory of home prices, that trough could be even deeper than the historical pattern would predict.

Source: Economagic, analysis by Cirios Real Estate

On the right side of the graph, I’ve placed a few projections of trajectories for housing prices. One represents a deep trough, which would result from a large “overshoot” in housing price declines. The other represents a “soft landing” for home prices which could result from breaking the foreclosure spiral. Note that the difference between the two projections is two-fold: depth and duration.

In other words, how bad will it get and for how long.

The variance between the trajectories is a 12% difference in low price and a five year lag in home prices’ return to historical trends. In the interest of scientific rigor, I have to say that there is no factual basis for either one of these scenarios. I have not run any models or even evaluated any data in a quantifiable way. But what I am trying to show is that the difference between a scenario where the foreclosure fueled home price spiral continues and one where it is attenuated could have drastic consequences for real estate markets and the economy as a whole.

Our fictional 12% difference in home price means well over $1 Trillion dollars in lost home equity. A five year lag in housing recovery means five more years of expensive and destructive foreclosures. The drag that both of these factors would place on the economy would certainly slow any eventual economic recovery we could hope for.

Only time will tell if HASP will have the desired effect on the housing market. As I’ve said, it certainly won’t be a magic bullet to “solve” the economic problems that currently face us. At best it only addresses a symptom and not the disease. But spiraling home prices are a symptom that we cannot afford to ignore. That HASP simultaneously provides a positive solution to a lingering problem while directly helping millions of families most strongly affected by the economic downturn is reason for praise.

That it helps a select few more directly than others is unarguable, but the overall effect on the housing market and the economy should be positive. Whether it is the best possible plan or merely the result of political expedience is a matter for debate, as are the moral implications that such a socialistic policy represents. But now is the time for action, and this plan strikes a powerful blow.