S&P Changes Subprime Ratings Methodology

The discriminate analysis shows no difference between the loans that already went bad and those that are still performing.popcorn,anyone?

The discriminate analysis shows no difference between the loans that already went bad and those that are still performing

Which suggests one of two things:

  1. The data is reliable, in which case the loans that are still performing are doing so only coincidentally.
  2. The data is a giant joke but S&P just figured that out.

I vote for door number two. They're as good as saying they just take these numbers from originators and issuers and do zero verification or due diligence, so it is not safe to assume that the non-performing loans do, in fact, have the same characteristics as the performing loans. It is, indeed, possible that the LTV, CLTV, DTI, FICO etc. of the nonperforming loans were anywhere from miscalculated to made-up shit.

They are therefore going to deal with this problem by writing a questionnaire to be sent to the originators asking them if they ever bother to avoid fraud.

NB, I was told a while ago by an industry contact that at least one of the big Wall Street whole-loan buyers had "reversed" its due diligence sampling on loans. That is, it stopped selecting the ones with the higher CLTVS and lower FICOs, and started selecting the ones that looked (on tape) much better. Lo and behold, it found more fraud that way. Duh--if you want a fraudulent loan to sneak through, you go ahead and make it look like an 80% loan, not a 100% loan.

A detailed examination of the overall capabilities and experience of the executive and operational management team.

As long as they haven't left the country, leaving no forwarding address, of course.

All this comes too late for many investors. They find themselves stuck in an asset with declining value that is no longer liquid. Merrill Lynch and Bear Sterns already tried running for the door only to find that they were stuck in "Hotel California" where you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

A detailed examination of the overall capabilities and experience of the executive and operational management team.

Translation: not only will they have to give us their resumes, but we'll have lunch with them at least once a year and see if they can answer a few quiz questions.

Are you involved in fraud?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. Maybe, maybe not; I'd have to check with my attorney before I answer this question. Why don't you just wait there by the mailbox until I get back to you.

After all, we know that an originator who misrepresents loan-level detail or uses fraudulent appraisals would never lie on a bloody questionnaire . . .

It still staggers me that a bunch of penny-ante frauds (i.e., liar/borrowers) were able to fool all the smart people who supply the money.

Come on: income verification is a pain-in-the-___. Did anyone really believe that the previous generations of lenders were unnecessarily verifying income? Did they really think that the previous lenders were fools?

"The [downgraded] bonds represent 2.1 percent of the $565.3 billion of similar bonds rated by S&P during 2006." (quoted from Roubini's site)

Now, does 'similar' mean that S&P cannot differentiate - on the basis of the standards referenced in their news release - between these downgraded examples and the other 98 percent of that 565 billion in bonds?

Wally, it is only Tuesday afterall, and you can only shuffle through so many papers by Tuesday. Perhaps by the end of the week, Friday, we'll knock off a few more percent on those bonds.

Now, does 'similar' mean that S&P cannot differentiate - on the basis of the standards referenced in their news release - between these downgraded examples and the other 98 percent of that 565 billion in bonds?

No, I think it just means that 1) the downgraded bonds were almost exclusively mezz and residuals, which probably in total didn't account for more than 20% of the original dollar amount of the issues. So the better comparison is 20% of 565 billion, or $113 billion. S&P just whacked $12 billion, or nearly 10% of comparable classes using original balance.

I didn't include the list of deals and tranches placed on watch in this press release, because it's so long. I will, however, copy it into the comments if you all are dying of curiosity about it.

It still staggers me that a bunch of penny-ante frauds (i.e., liar/borrowers) were able to fool all the smart people who supply the money.

But did they really fool anybody? In other words, the true big boy pigmen making $360M/yr. on average at the large hedge funds probably knew that this stuff was total garbage. But they didn't really care because, well, because they were making $360M/yr! So the pensions, FCB's, and mom and pop 401k's are the ones holding the bag - JSP in other words. And when the excrement crosses paths with the oscillating air mover, the hedgies won't give back the bonus money and will just beg the Fed for more in the form of bailouts. LOL.

IMHO, the opaque nature of the CDO's prevented the investors from knowing what was really going on, and the salesmen for this junk (pigmen hedgies and the complicit rating agencies) were the ones that got over on them, which isn't really that surprising after all.

"nearly 10% of comparable classes "

Still, shouldnt the majority of this junk, if not all of it, be downgraded? Oh no wait, that would imply that they have some sense of fiduciary responsibility...

Another fine example of partially closing the barn door after the horse has run away and jumped off a cliff.

Tanta,
any of that bad paper from LEND (Accredited Home Loan...)?

I am interested as I have a ton of puts riding on the takeover by L% blowing up- although I think today just made them golden.

Or is L5 stupid enough to buy a ton of potential liability for fraudloans?

I don't think so...

I can't wait! This is starting to look like a crisis we haven't seen since the great S&L implosions!!!

Someday this war's gonna end....

S&P-So let's do a detailed review of your underwriting guidelines and credit process.
Lender-There are none.
S&P-Anything you'd like to add?
Lender-Uhm, and there never have been either?
S&P-Excellent, thank you. Now, moving onto quality control and internal audits. As above we presume?
Lender-yes, as above.
S&P-Thank you. Now that's out of the way, let's discuss our rating fees.

re: LEND - I think the bailout and subsequent "acquisition" was just a ploy to allow Farallon to unload some stock they bought in the 20's back in Dec without a total loss. Or perhaps have time to buy enough swaps to hedge properly for when LEND does go belly up.

itsallgreektome,
I have some put positions that might pay me enough to quit work for a year if the deal blows and Lend hits the bk button. But I was buying those positions when everyone was harping on how done the deal was and how great the business would be with nobody left in the subprime space.

I now believe that subprime will only exist through fannie, freddie, and some very large banks through their own subprime divisions that will provide credit only upon enough equity being left to cover their costs of foreclosure. In other words back to the old days. I also believe that anybody who levered up to buy the toxic waste is currently dead in the water and will no longer be solvent by the end of the month, if not today by mark to market. Now how much in the way of equities they have to sell to meet their margin calls is yet another question that no one is even asking yet.

Everything down except treasuries is what seems to be the next month's future- oh yeah, gold up too and the yen due to shorts being repurchased.

Someday this war's gonna end...

Note: the entire document is available in pdf on standardandpoors.com if you are a registered user.

For the rest of us who are only 'recreational users'... we will have to come here for our fix.

Are you involved in fraud?

Depends on the meaning of 'fraud'...

Another fine example of partially closing the barn door after the horse has run away and jumped off a cliff.

Maybe if they leave the barn doors open a jar... the horses will return. Can horses fly?

AllenM, LEND doesn't issue as LEND. I believe they own Aames, which has one issue on the list (2006-01).

The thing is, I bet many, many of these securities have LEND loans in them. Or had, before LEND had to buy a boatload of them back.

Thanks for the reminder about Ames, that name has come up before in some of the subperforming pools.

Oh my, this is going to be fun, indeed. Funny how things can work out suddenly for the better, but not in the case of housing.

The only solution for the housing crisis is to unanchor those inflaiton expectations and allow wages to rise significantly.

Will Ben allow it to happen? Hedge funds and their lenders want to know in the worst way...

Someday this war's gonna end...

Bad day for ABK, CFC and MBI all are off more than 3%.

It looks like the market might be waking up to reality here.

I still beleive that we have not seen the worst in the mortgage backs yet because FNMA and Freddie have not seen the bad losses yet on their portfolios because the volume of foreclsures are still low on A paper.

As housing prices fall over the next year or two they too will suffer the losses on their securitizations. I have to believe that the securities they issued underestimate the losses that they would incure just like the subprime folks did.

When this realization occurs look out.

"I now believe that subprime will only exist through fannie, freddie, and some very large banks through their own subprime divisions that will provide credit only upon enough equity being left to cover their costs of foreclosure"

I agree with Allen M.

Many small to mid size mortgage companies have already been squeezed out of the market. Mortgage brokers are also failing and are being regulated out of the market by new legislation being enacted.

This whole thing is a huge disaster for the consumer as they will be left with a home that is not worth as much ,higher mortgage payments and less competetion as there will be fewer companies offering mortgages.

dryfly- anyone can register on the site. unfortunately, when i tried to download the doc I got an error message reading the that file had an error in it and couldnt be downloaded. maybe you'll have better luck.

Joe

how can u listen to that conf call and have any confidence in these people???????

It seems that the these folks have read the tea leaves and concluded that a good defense is a killer offense. Every trader touching these things knew the deals were full of holes. Knew life stays good until the bubble bursts. What they didn't count on was the totality of it all....and the resulting backlash, which IMHO hasn't even gotten into high gear yet. So, when they go to court as a defendent or the Fed's ask what were you thinking, they can point to two things: 1) Geeze, we have never seen anything like this before and couldn't model it properly, and 2) now that we know, look at all the nifty things we have done to make sure it doesn't happen again.

More fee income for them.....after all, it takes resources to pass judgment on Sr Mgrs and read all those questionaires.

The discriminate analysis shows no difference between the loans that already went bad and those that are still performing

Perhaps if they had tried discriminant analysis, they would have had less indiscriminant results!

(Hopefully the typo is from the reportage, and not an reflection of the quality of the statistical analysts hired to perform this vital, billion-dollar task...)

paraphrase from the cc:

Q: Why did you wait until now to do this when everyone in the market was aware that the paper was junk months ago and that your ratings were a joke?

A: We acted as soon we were able to.

Q: So you're going to be downgrading 1Q07 deals in six months?

A: We need to wait for them to season.

you go ahead and make it look
like an 80% loan, not a 100% loan.

You mean the crappy looking loans are actually the "honestly brokered ones" and in better shape than the non-crappy looking loans? That can't be good.

Will Ben allow it to happen?

It depends on how nicely he asks the BRICs...

Login or register to post comments
Syndicate content