Shopping at Amazon?
Wait! If you click on the Amazon banner link at the top of the page first, HCN will get a percentage of anything you purchase for 24 hours!
Open predictions
Our local book authors
User login
Who's online
There are currently 3 members and 137 guests online.
Clear Skies, nothing but Clear Skies....
I can't wait for the next post on this subject.
That's the Bush administration in a nutshell.
It's another Bush Administration shell game, they just keep moving the problem around. In the end it'll be the taxpayer who payes.
jo6pac
Any word on FLA and Norway?
Thanks Tanta
Mass fund with junk debt:
State fund in which Massachusetts municipalities park cash uses volatile 'structured investment vehicles' - The Boston Globe
My position has always been that the only really good thing about a full-blown credit crisis is that it creates a context in which restrictive legislation that would normally get successfully fended off by industry lobbyists can get passed
Until I got to the end of the post, I thought you were confusing George Bush and FDR.
It's disaster capitalism, dear. Each failure of the system offers only another opportunity to loot it.
more about OC:
Orange County Funds Hold SIV Debt on Moody's Review (Update3) - Bloomberg.com
Until I got to the end of the post, I thought you were confusing George Bush and FDR.
If you mean Fully Deranged Republican, I'd argue this isn't confusion.
You don't even have to go back to the Depression. We did get some decent regulation (like FIRREA) out of the S&L debacle. It was derided as too little too late at the time, but can anyone imagine what would have gone on in the last six years if we didn't have FIRREA?
OT,
Retail looking soft...so far.
Retailers' November Sales Rise During Slow Holidays (Update1)
By Joseph Galante
Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. retailers' sales rose 2.5 percent last month, starting off what may be the slowest-growing holiday shopping season in five years.
Consumers scaled back purchases in the last week of November following Thanksgiving weekend discounts, the International Council of Shopping Centers and UBS Securities LLC said yesterday, reporting preliminary sales figures.
Target Corp., Dillard's Inc. and Circuit City Stores Inc. lowered prices by as much as 50 percent to lure consumers contending with higher food and gasoline prices. Shoppers spent less per person over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend than a year ago, the National Retail Federation said.
[snip]
As far as the "Ownership Society"- can't we just say Mission Accomplished and go home?
BaconDreamz, if you're out there, this is for you-
Below the accounting of the financial deep,
Far, far beneath on level three,
His hidden, off-balance sheet, uninvaded sleep
The SIV sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee
About his shadowy sides; above him grow
Huge leverages of mortgaged growth and height;
And far away into the sickly light,
From MBS's to a CDO
Unnumbered and enormous tranches
Winnow with giant ARMs the monetary green.
There hath he lain for ages, and will lie
Battening upon huge bank fees in his sleep,
Until the investor's ire shall heat the deep;
Then once by man and angels to be seen,
In roaring he shall rise and on the surface die.
Problem with housing is that the prices are too expensive in relation to people's income and that is the bottom line.
Freezing rates or increasing FNM limit is not going to clear cause of our problem.
I think you're wrong in criticizing an expansion of FHA and GSE loans. The mortgage crisis has not been the result of poor FHA or GSE underwriting standards-- on the contrary, it's been the result of the huge expansion of the private mortgage market that has emerged because FHA and the GSEs weren't allowed to keep pace with rising home costs. Both FHA and the GSEs saw huge market share declines at the same time as the private mortgage market expanded. And the major risk of loss faced by the GSEs and FHA is not due to poor underwriting, but because of the decline in housing value and the larger economic effects of that caused by the private market!
You're seeming to imply that the GSEs and FHA caused this problem, and that is categorically wrong. High risk, high (paper) profit exotic mortgages were developed and originated in the private market, and were bought largely because the safer government backed mortgages were so limited.
If the GSEs and FHA had had loan limit increases earlier in the decade, it is clear that the mortgage crisis would be much less severe.
We're turning Japanese
I think We're turning Japanese
I really think so
Or to put it another way, how many no doc loans did FHA originate?
Minja,
You got your cart and horse mixed up.
Some previously called [our rules for appraisals] "unique," some called them "onerous" and some [called them] things worse than that, and we just thought maybe in today's hurry-up world it's not so important to go back two or three times to make sure a cracked window pane is fixed or maybe the tear in the carpet has been adequately repaired. Now, if it's something structural, that's a different story.
Man that is the start of one slippery slope...
tanta, "Im working on a longer post".
Thanks for the warning.
Take a look at the participants/advisors of "HOPE NOW". Between them and the FHASecure program, borrowers don't stand a chance.
Until someone decides to start getting the servicers under control and holding them accountable for manufacturing defaults - I have proof of this - nothing is going to help. When servicers see borrowers applying for assistance with these programs they are going to be able to control and/or modify the payment histories of said borrower. If nothing else, they will be able to create defaults for the latest month thereby blocking a borrower's access to the programs.
The party line that "no one makes money on foreclosures" is total and utter BS and all one needs to do to realize that is read a freakin' prospectus and examine what a servicer gets as "additional servicing compensation" as outlined in the pooling & servicing agreement.
barely,
or more of a tantalizing hint...
Official Line: The irresponsible got us into this situation, the irresponsible will get us out. Next one telling the truth gets bankrupted. It's not a bad thing if everyone is doing it.
Moral relativism at its peak (nadir?).
Marcus,
I thought the administration policy was:
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" Will Rogers
How did James Lockhart find his way into this, and how can we ever thank him for staying on?
Overheard as we drove off the cliff in our collective economic bus: Look everybody! We're flying! WoooooooHoooooo.............
If the GSEs and FHA had had loan limit increases earlier in the decade, it is clear that the mortgage crisis would be much less severe.
The jumbo market had plenty of sane products available. The availability of larger GSE mortgages would have stopped buyers from picking toxic loans.
I compute the payment on a $417,000 loan at 6% to be ~ $2500/month. With sane underwriting standards, it's relatively small percentage of population who can afford higher payments.
So what will the bondholders do? They'll be blocked from suing the servicers for modifying the loans.
If this plan is implemented, every mortgage in the country will have to be conforming, or have a double-digit interest rate?
haha, thanks sdtfs...high five for the nerdz! ow, hey you missed and smacked me in the forehead!
To be fair, many Democrats have lobbied for more FHA involvement in the mortgage market as well as Fannie and Freddie, while most Republicans I have talked with are generally opposed to any charter creep by Fannie and Freddie or FHA, so Bush is running against the normal tide on this issue. It seems all politicians are trying to leverage the credit crisis to their election advantage. Funny, but why are they only focusing on the mortgage side of the crisis --is that side the most simplistic so the most understandable to the Pols?
Anyway, FHA in my mind has always been about first time homebuyers and streamline refis. Philosophically speaking, I am not a big fan of FHA as it's a government subsidized program and as such, I do not think we should not encourage any credit or program expansion. I do believe some low value counties need a loan amount upgrade however.
Here's a good idea: Let's shift the responsibility for all of our bad decision-making/criminality onto the Federal Government and their subsidiaries - they're already bankrupt! We'll all come out unscathed!
Is everybody on board?
(You're on board whether you like it or not.)
Or to put it another way, how many no doc loans did FHA originate? -Minja
I see your point that if we had had some "responsible" parties originating loans over the last handfull of years, things might not be so bad. But, I think the outrageous home price appreciation would not have been possible without these exotic loans. In some places only something like less than 10% of the population can afford the median priced home. Yet these same dwelling units kept moving!
Thus the GSE and FHA loans, with full documentation but larger loan limits, probably still would have comprised a small portion of the overall market.
You're seeming to imply that the GSEs and FHA caused this problem, and that is categorically wrong.
Minja, this isn't the best blog post I've ever written. I'm a bit under the weather. But still, I wrote this:
The best thing you can say about FHA and the GSEs over the last several years is that while they took on some real riskeveryone didthey did notthey could notparticipate in the worst of the excesses. It was left to the purely private sector to go where the agencies would not go; they went there; we got a postcard; its not a pretty one.
How do you get from there to the implication that the agencies caused it all?
The point of my post is that the agencies were prevented (by loan limits among other things like underwriting and down payment standards) from chasing bubble business. Therefore it would not be a good idea to remove those limitations now.
If the GSEs and FHA had had loan limit increases earlier in the decade, it is clear that the mortgage crisis would be much less severe.
I see no particular evidence that that is true. Having increased loan limits would not have made these homes any more affordable than they were: upping loan limits doesn't supply income to pay back loans with. The GSEs and FHA would have been forced into the no-down no-doc underpriced-for-the-risk model that the private sector ended up in.
What is being obscured here is that the GSEs and FHA lost market share in the conforming dollar business during the boom. Not that they lost share because they couldn't buy jumbos.
The average balance of securitized subprime loans in the last few years is just about $200,000. Most OAs are conforming dollars. The issue wasn't loan amount, it was no down and no docs and toxic loan terms used to make up for outrageous DTIs.
am not a big fan of FHA as it's a government subsidized program and as such, I do not think we should not encourage any credit or program expansion. I do believe some low value counties need a loan amount upgrade however.
REBanker | 12.05.07 - 12:12 pm | #
Same reason I don't like Wall Street.
We're turning Japanese
I think We're turning Japanese
I really think so
That started around 1996. Greenspan even gave a speech about it, and then went on to do nothing to stop it from happening.
It was left to the purely private sector to go where the agencies would not go; they went there; we got a postcard; its not a pretty one.
Yeah but but it reads:
Dear Mom and Dad,
Send money.
Love,
Angelo
Only someone drinking too much bongwater, in my view, can think that now is a good time for FHA to start taking the oversized no-down loans (with casual appraisals) that are blowing up in the conventional sector.
Shouldn't that be non-conventional? Or have I ingested to much bongwater again?
Tanta - thank you for sparing the gory details of treatment. Many of us financial types just can't deal with that sort of thing - I had a hard time sitting through last night's Gray's Anatomy epidsode with Mrs.Shnaps.
In any event - I HOPE YOU ARE FEELING MUCH BETTER and VERY SOON, TANTA!
ow, hey you missed and smacked me in the forehead!
What do you mean "missed"?
I talked to a former mortgage broker who made about $100k/yr in 03, then 80k in 04. He bought a townhouse in 04 (under the most convoluted scheme I've seen to date - the bottom line was that it allowed no money in) with a 90%LTV interest only 3 year ARM, which he closed on in 05.
He is now re-entering the work-force for what he thinks will be about $40k/year. He is putting up his TH for sale before his IO ARM resets.
While he still has good credit, he can't refi for these two reasons:
1) the TH no longer has the value to support anything other than an FHA;
2) he no longer has the income to qualify for that much, even under FHA.
How common do you think this scenario is, and as a non-defaulted loan, is it on the radar?
What do you mean "missed"?
oh yeah?
kicks him in the shin
Shouldn't that be non-conventional? Or have I ingested to much bongwater again?
Traditional mortgage-ese:
"Conventional" means "not government insured."
"Conforming" means not jumbo (usual definition) or GSE-quality in general terms (less usual definition).
What we think of as Fannie and Freddie plain vanilla loans are "conventional." So are jumbos. So are everything but FHAs, VAs, RECDs, Farmer's Home, Podunk County Housing Authority Bond Issue . . .
Of course that doesn't mean you haven't ingested too much bongwater.
For some reason, I read 'conventional' as 'conforming'.
/burp!
OT,
OK does anyone else note cognitive dissonance in the AP lead on Yahoo Finance:
Wall Street rallied Wednesday after new data showed the U.S. economy is in good shape and that another interest rate cut is still a possibility.
If the economy is so good why did we want that rate cut again?
sdtfs,
Well done.
If you mean Fully Deranged Republican, I'd argue this isn't confusion.
This current mess goes back to Greenspan and Rubin. The public sector pension plans will be some of the bagholders. They were in 2001, reference OC, and will be again. They voted themselves nice retirement packages during the last bubble which the private sector can't support through taxes. How did they fund the pension plans so long? With aggressive investing. That was the only way some pension plans remained solvent. Time for the public sector to cut benefits or go bankrupt.
FDR, socialism and big government are at the root of the issue. It's called debt not paid for 50+ years.
Anyone care to speculate on why Hank Paulson would leave a multi-multi-million$ paying job as head of the most respected bank to join a lame-duck unpopular administration? He was replacing Snowjob for heavens sake.
Did Wall Street see this coming and want the first team on the court to push through "reform" from the inside. A cynic on TV yesterday suggested that the Paulson plan was intended to front run (and thus effectively block) any more serious plan from Congress.
The general election year strategy appears to be to veto any bill which makes even the smallest change to that submitted by Bush and then to run against a "do nothing" Congress.
We are all politicians now.
Do we need the FHA? I think YES - in a few years when the housing market is in shambles and private financing is gone for low-income households. Any "modernization" now could weaken FHA to carry the burden then.
FHA limits: Wouldn't is be better to tie those limits to the INCOMES of a region instead the prices. This would both ensure that the FHA can help those it should help, low-income households, and be a circuit-breaker in time of housing bubbles when house prices loose historical ratios to incomes.
FDR, socialism and big government are at the root of the issue. It's called debt not paid for 50+ years.
Yes, clearly FDR is to blame for lax lending standards in the year 2005ff, the repeal of Glass-Steagal, the explosive growth of hedge funds, low federal funds rates, NINJA loans, subprime mortgages, and all the rest.
OK.
Apparently, even Republicans have grown tired of blaming Clinton for everything.
"Mission Accomplished," again and again.
Something like 70-80% of our soon-to-be 10 trillion dollar national debt is a direct result of the policies of Reagan, Bush, and Bush Junior. What was that about the GOP being the party of fiscal responsibility?
If looting the Treasury and the wealth of nations for the benefit of the uber rich can be called fiscal responsibility, then I guess this den-of-thieves qualifies. Al Capone was a two bit punk compared with the BushCo gangsters.
NC Jim, I read a while ago that one of the benefits of being a Secretary of the Treasury is a fat one-time only tax break for all those stock and other securities that you have to sell to avoid conflicts of interest. Paulson is probably laughing all the way to the bank. Paulson also gets to be introduced by the nice nifty title of Mr. Secretary for the rest of his life. What Wall Street Firm wouldn't want a former Treas. Sec. as a board member along with all those nice nifty (revenue generating) federal government and international contacts he's developed? I think Paulson figures that playing shill for a couple of years is a small price to pay.
We're building a Rube Goldberg solution to the housing bust.
Here's where we're going (how we get there can be fast and painful, or slow and painful):
The bottom in housing prices: When the average price of houses in all geographic economic zones equals 3x the average gross income of the inhabitants of those zones, we'll be at or near bottom.
Loan qualification: 20% down, documented income, documented debt.
Loan products: 30 year, fixed rate. No pre-payment penalty.
Loan servicing: Loan must be serviced by originator or by Government-chartered corporation set up for that purpose. No securitization of mortgage debt allowed.
To the businesses that profit from the current Mortgage Mill/Securitization system: If you never make another dime off of your scams, so be it. You've proven to be nothing but sellers of snake-oil, and everybody is sick off your product. Good riddance, and welcome to the middle class workforce. (BTW: If you broke any rules on the way up, either fess-up now, or don't get too comfortable in your new lives. We'll be checking your records for decades (after extending the statute of limitations and outlawing after-the-fact immunity). If we find any hank-panky, we'll be coming for you and your meager possessions.)
To the disenfranchised: You gambled and lost - you brought it on yourselves and everybody else. Welcome to the lower middle class. Try not to make such poor decisions in the future (and for god's sake, stay away from the Kool-aid).
I love conservatism (when correctly applied).
have you seen the monthly progression of new GSE business in 2007 by risk buckets (ie % greater than 80% LTV or % less than 700 FICO)? oh, that's where all the subprime and alt-a went.
Im working on a longer post
Whew, when it's time to read it, I'll have to block off some time on my calendar
What Wall Street Firm wouldn't want a former Treas. Sec. as a board member along with all those nice nifty (revenue generating) federal government and international contacts he's developed?
--Andrew | 12.05.07 - 12:57 pm | #
Just ask Dick Cheney.
Maybe they can name the new GSE loans over $417k the "FreddieMac Mumbo Jumbo.
Gee whiz wasnt another Bush involved in the S&L scandal? why cant they just go back to their mansions in Maine and ranches on the Rio Grande and leave us alone.
To steal AllenMs line
Someday this nightmare will end.
have you seen the monthly progression of new GSE business in 2007 by risk buckets (ie % greater than 80% LTV or % less than 700 FICO)? oh, that's where all the subprime and alt-a went.
bacon...don't tease us. Post dem stats, already.
We should take comfort in the fact that, at least with a EA3 - someone has to look at the file before hitting the SEND button.
energyecon,
I came here to post exactly that.
The economy is doing great! Maybe the Fed can continue to prop up the stumbling economy.
This one gets my vote for second best blog on 12/4 after CR&T of course. BANK LAWYER'S BLOG
Paulson's Plan In The Crosshairs "... I hear Sheila Bair is going to scratch your eyes out for talking smack about her 'one-size-fits-all' loan mod scheme..."
Bank Lawyer's Blog: Paulson 's Plan In The Crosshairs
Loan servicing: Loan must be serviced by originator or by Government-chartered corporation set up for that purpose. No securitization of mortgage debt allowed.
I'm a proponent of radical free markets for the most part, but even I've argued in favor of this in the past. And in fact, by mandating this you pretty much eliminate the need for the two previous mandates.
You think there's a buck to be made in evaluating would-be borrowers for Credit, Capacity, and Collateral, and handing them six- and seven-figure loans based on the results?
Fine. Then you keep any non-conforming loans on your books, and you sink or swim with the borrowers. You didn't properly vet a batch of high-DTI or low-FICO loans in a dicey market? Sucks to be you. Hope your balance sheet can handle it, bucko.
Actions have consequences: Didn't that used to be the de facto motto of American conservatives?
Mish has a couple of posts on Paulson's plan:
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Paulson Strikes Out
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Paulson's Plan Is Nothing But Lip Service
I think it's safe to say he doesn't like it...
Loan qualification: 20% down, documented income, documented debt.
Loan products: 30 year, fixed rate. No pre-payment penalty.
Dude, thats just crazy talk! How old are you? Thats sooooo old fashioned and, well just crazy. I mean when I take out a mortgage Im buying a call, who cares if I can afford to own the property or pay my debts. The more leverage the better. What are you doing when you take out a mortgage? Like Volcker said, housing is about leverage and speculation. The ownership society is an opportunity to gamble, not a responsibility, get with the program.
"radical free markets"
Mook | 12.05.07 - 1:25 pm |
Hey, Mook,
Apparently, there's a very thin line between radical and (what should be) criminal when it comes to passing-off bad debt. That line needs to be a wall.
I agree with everything you wrote here.
FFDIC.
Thanks for that link. Excerpt:
Try Bert Ely's house. I hear he has a .50 cal. machine gun mounted on a swivel turret on his roof (as Bert always says, "When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic."), plus two Rottweilers named Eva and Adolph who've been trained to attack first and slobber questions later.
On a completely unrelated note some enterprising fellow has purchased some domains and set up a blog. The idiots at hopenow.com didn't think to spend the $17 to squat nohopenow.com and nohopenow.org I've redirected both to a blog nohopenow.blogspot.com I've already gotten my $17 of amusement from them but now i guess i have to actually do something with them.
Robert C,
Something tells me you will be able to get some voluntary assistance with that...hell, lets start up a futures contract on how many peeps it actually ends up refinancing!
FormerlyknownasJS | 12.05.07 - 1:28 pm | #
Not that old, I hope. I'm old enough to have known my Grandparents, who lived through, and prospered during the Depression (not an easy or painless thing to do). Lots of good stories and advice regarding hard times in my family. Lot's of warnings about the folly of paper wealth vs. hard assets.
I sure wish my Grandad was still around - there's nothing like experience as a teacher.
energyecon,
I'll put up "Hope Now Counter." Thanks for the suggestion.
Robert Cote` perhaps a public service announcement or two. I figure a couple of credit counseling links and perhaps a link or two to some of Tanta's UberNerd posts should do it. Oh, and you could mention to the intrepid surfer what's going on with the addresses. Stick to the bare facts and avoid spin. The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) has a guide for bloggers on blogging free speech if the hopenow.com guys start rattling sabers.
Whoops. I forgot to link in the EFF guide. EFF: Bloggers
Apparently, there's a very thin line between radical and (what should be) criminal when it comes to passing-off bad debt.
It's the age-old problem: How do you ensure a fair market when one party to the transaction has greater knowledge of the asset than the other?
The answer is a warranty or guarantee of some sort, backed by tough anti-fraud laws. If I buy a "new" car that turns out to be one with 20,000 miles and a new odometer on it, the dealer who engaged in that activity could wind up in jail. At the very least, he'll be forced to take that (depreciated) asset back, and very possibly offer compensation of some sort as well.
If debt's an asset, then let's treat it like one. Don't want to make resales illegal? Fine. Make them "recourse sales", so to speak - where your guarantee is that you can come after my other assets if the ones I sold you go bad. (Again: actions have consequences.)
Most times that'll mean they're staying on my books, which in turn means you'd better believe I'm triple-checking the entities to whom I'm lending in the first place to make sure I get MY money.
Yes, clearly FDR is to blame for lax lending standards in the year 2005ff, the repeal of Glass-Steagal, the explosive growth of hedge funds, low federal funds rates, NINJA loans, subprime mortgages, and all the rest.
OK.
Citigroup was formed from the merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group in 1998. The merger combined a multinational banking corporation (Citigroup) with a business that covered credit services, consumer finance, brokerage and insurance (Travelers). The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted following the Great Depression, forbade banks to merge with insurance underwriters, and meant Citigroup had between two and five years to divest of any prohibited assets. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of November 1999 opened the door to financial services conglomerates offering a mix of commercial banking, investment banking, insurance underwriting and brokerage.
Who was Treasury Secratary when Citigroup merged with Travelers in 1998? Robert Rubin. Who became Chairman of Citigroup after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? Robert Rubin. The mix of banking, investment, insurance and brokerage during Greenspans expansion of speculative financing and credit significantly expanded debt at many levels. As already pointed out it is wrong to call this a "subprime" problem. It is a debt problem.
Bernanke is fighting asset deflation, not inflation. Why? How do you tax deflated assets to pay for $70 trillion in future debt? Mmmmmm . . .
Thanks Andrew, I've been raked over the coals, your points are well considered.
Mook,
It's like FormerlyknownasJS says, above: Clear thinking on these issues is an indicator of underlying insanity.
Funny, but why are they only focusing on the mortgage side of the crisis --is that side the most simplistic so the most understandable to the Pols?
You don't suppose someone has constructed a database of who is getting NOD's and compared it to a database of who contributed money .. hmmm ?
My position has always been that the only really good thing about a full-blown credit crisis is that it creates a context in which restrictive legislation that would normally get successfully fended off by industry lobbyists can get passed, as part of the price tag of various bailout or pseudo-bailout efforts. . . . Changes to bankruptcy law to allow cram-downs is a great example of this . . .
I've read in other places that the Paulsen proposal is an attempt to head off certain proposals in Congress to allow a bankruptcy judge to reduce the debtor's mortgage balance to the value of the underlying security (house), which is a kind of anti-deficiency rule for bankrupt homeowners.
Is that what you are advocating? If so, why?
Tanta,
Good analysis.
WHAT A MESS!!
Same sh*t post Katrina.
What keeps getting left out of this conversation is that FHA has always required common sense underwriting and full income documentation and always will. Further, all the parties involved - broker, appraiser, underwriter, and lender alike - have been held to limits on allowable defaults. They are cut off from the program if they don't consistently make good decisions.
However, because they had these crazy stated income and nonsensical subprime programs available that were much easier, many brokers didn't bother to keep up the audits and net worth requirements to remain in FHA over the last few years.
Subprime guidelines are based on rating a borrower by matching a particular number of late payments over the last year with a credit score - no matter what the reason for either - and coming up with a credit grade. The underwriter was more concerned with the rule than the reason. This does not fly in FHA. Except for the strongest borrowers which get automated approvals, each borrower has to explain why they were late and document it AND explain why it won't happen again. The loan isn't just given an A- rating with no credit explanation and sent to closing. In FHA, if an underwriter allows any one element of the approval, such as debt ratio, to exceed guidelines they have to offset it by being stronger in another area such as proof of having already been able to pay a higher payment.
In addition, HUD has a strong loss mitigation counseling effort that is preventing many foreclosures. In the conventional market such efforts aren't comparable.
If all loans had been underwritten the way FHA loans are underwritten, you can absolutely bet there wouldn't have been such a crisis.