Big Banks Suffering Losses As Subprime Mortgages GET REPAID

The Wall Street Journal reports that a daring trade has Wall Street seething.

(emphasis mine) [my comment]

JUNE 12, 2009
A Daring Trade Has Wall Street Seething
Texas Brokerage Firm Outwits the Big Banks in a Mortgage-Related Deal, and Now It's War
By GREGORY ZUCKERMAN, SERENA NG and LIZ RAPPAPORT

A canny trade by a small brokerage firm in two markets at the heart of the financial crisis has left some of the biggest players on Wall Street crying foul.

The trade, by Amherst Holdings of Austin, Texas, was
particularly galling to the big banks because it turned what they believed was a sure-fire profit into a loss. [If anyone can turn a "sure-fire profit into a loss", it is the big banks. These banks unfortunately, forgot how to make "profits" nearly two years ago. Luckily though, they never forgot how to pay bonuses.]

The burned banks include J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Bank of America Corp. Some banks have reached out to two industry trade groups about Amherst's actions, and the groups are reviewing the transaction, according to people familiar with their thinking.
"It's all-out warfare" between the banks and Amherst, said a senior banker at one firm that lost money.

At issue is a move by Amherst to boost the price of bonds to avoid paying out on credit-default swaps it had sold.
Banks are questioning whether Amherst set them up by selling credit-default swaps and then rendering them worthless.

Amherst says it didn't do anything improper, but
took advantage of an opportunity when it emerged. A lawyer reviewed and blessed the strategy for the firm, according to people familiar with the matter.

Privately held Amherst says it acted in good faith trying to limit losses for clients, who had sold credit-default swaps on the securities. "We wouldn't jeopardize our business and reputation by entering into an opportunistic trade knowing what the outcome would be," said Amherst's chief executive, Sean Dobson.

The dispute echoes battles over
the largely unregulated credit-default-swap market during last year's financial turmoil [these types of things happen in unregulated markets]. Companies including Morgan Stanley accused investors of using the insurance-like contracts to hurt the value of their shares, creating a panic among other investors and the firms' clients.

In 2007, a group of hedge funds led by Paulson & Co. suspected Bear Stearns of plotting to boost the value of subprime-mortgage securities. At the time, Bear (which was later bought by J.P. Morgan) denied planning to engage in such transactions.

So far the latest dust-up has been all words, in part, bankers say, because they
are wary of attracting more regulatory scrutiny at a time when lawmakers are planning major reforms in the largely unregulated derivatives markets, long lucrative for banks [this loss is entirely of banks' own making.]. While the banks' combined losses from the trade were in the tens of millions of dollars -- modest by recent standards -- they are the buzz of Wall Street as firms try to prevent a repeat of the episode.

The trade involved credit-default swaps and securities backed by subprime mortgages. The original securities had been sold by Lehman Brothers and were backed by $335 million of subprime mortgages mostly on homes in California made at the housing bubble's peak in 2005, according to the prospectus.

Following a wave of refinancing and defaults, only $29 million of the loans were left outstanding by March 2009, half of which were delinquent or in default, according to a performance report by Moody's Investors Service.

Believing the securities would become worthless, traders at J.P. Morgan bought credit-default swaps over the past year from Amherst, according to people familiar with the matter. Credit-default swaps act like insurance, paying off the buyer if securities are hit by losses. Other banks including RBS Securities, which is the U.S. investment-banking arm of Royal Bank of Scotland, and BofA also bought swaps on the securities from different trading partners.

The banks had to pay up for the protection, similar to a person buying insurance on a beach house just before a hurricane. They paid as much as 80 to 90 cents for every dollar of insurance, the going rate last fall according to dealer quotes, expecting to receive a dollar back when the securities became worthless over the coming months.

Traders can buy credit-default swaps on securities they don't own. At one point, at least $130 million of bets had been made on the performance of around $27 million in securities, according to a person familiar with the matter.

In late April,
traders at some banks were shocked to find out from monthly remittance reports that the bonds they had bet against had been paid off in full [they made subprime loans and then bet against them. That is Wall Street for you]. Normally an investor can't pay off loans like that but if the amount of outstanding loans falls to less than 10% of the original pool, the servicer -- or company that collects mortgage payments from homeowners and forwards them to investors who own the securities -- can buy them and make bondholders whole.

That's what happened in this case. In April,
a servicer called Aurora Loan Services at the behest of Amherst purchased the remaining loans and paid off the bonds. [Very smart move. Bravo!]

Although Amherst won't provide specifics and won't comment on its arrangement with Aurora, it doesn't deny that it took this approach. (Aurora says it is a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Bank, but not part of the Lehman Brothers Holdings bankruptcy filing.)

A spokeswoman for Aurora says these servicer provisions are customary and when rights are exercised it ensures that appropriate requirements are met.

When the bonds got paid off, the swaps became worthless, meaning the banks effectively forfeited what they had paid for the insurance. J.P. Morgan lost millions, while RBS and BofA suffered minimal losses, said people familiar with the matter.

On April 28 representatives of banks including J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and UBS AG's UBS Securities held a conference call to discuss the trade but didn't come to any conclusion, according to people familiar with the matter.

Amherst is the antithesis of the big Wall Street banks. With its Austin headquarters and around 100 employees, the 15-year-old firm has long been a player in the mortgage market, but is now one of the upstarts trying to take business from banks weakened by the credit crisis. The firms has hired bankers, mortgage traders and research analysts who had left banks such as Bear Stearns and UBS, while raising new capital to expand its trading activities.

Since the mortgage securities were valued at just $3 million or so in the market, well below the $27 million they were redeemed for,
traders believe Amherst entered into an uneconomic transaction to profit from its swap positions. [of course it did]

Firms that suffered losses as well as some that didn't have brought the trade to the attention of two financial industry groups, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, and the American Securitization Forum, which are considering their concerns, say people familiar with the trade groups' thinking.

Critics of these markets say such conflicts aren't a surprise.
In secretive, over-the-counter markets "there are hidden risks and fault lines that don't show up until times of stress or when people are losing money," says Martin Weiss of Weiss Research, an investment consultancy in Jupiter, Fla., not involved in the trade.

Many credit-default swap contracts that were written on subprime mortgage securities over the past three years remain outstanding, and holders could lose out if more bonds are made whole. Deutsche Bank has sent a list, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, to its clients of more than two dozen other mortgage pools that could see similar moves.


My reaction: This is hilarious!

1) In late April, traders at some banks were shocked to find out that bonds they had bet against had been paid off in full.

2) a servicer called Aurora Loan Services at the behest of Amherst purchased the remaining loans and paid off the bonds.

3) When the bonds got paid off banks forfeited what they had paid for the insurance. J.P. Morgan lost millions, while RBS and BofA suffered minimal losses, said people familiar with the matter.

4) Banks don't dare sue about getting burned because they don't want reform in the unregulated derivatives markets (which have been lucrative for them).

5) Many credit-default swap contracts that were written on subprime mortgage securities over the past three years remain outstanding, and holders could lose out if more bonds are made whole.

6) Deutsche Bank estimates two dozen other mortgage pools that could see similar moves.


Conclusion:
This is great for everyone involved (those that matter anyway):

1) Subprime borrowers get their mortgages paid off.
2) The owner of subprime bonds get paid back in full.
3) Small firms like Amherst make a nice profit.
4) Big banks get screwed in the unregulated derivatives markets they used to wreck the US economy. Poetic justice at its finest.

I can't emphasize how much I am loving this development. Wall Street managed to lose billions as subprime loans defaulted. Now they are set to lose billions more as those subprime loans get paid back. The only constant here is Wall Street's ability to lose money.

This entry was posted in Financial_Wizardry, Humor, News_Developments, Wall_Street_Meltdown. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Big Banks Suffering Losses As Subprime Mortgages GET REPAID

  1. H(oratio) says:

    I thought that Issa and Kucinich both softpedalled the Lewis hearings.

    Christopher Dodd. Like father like son. You are from Fairfield county, so you know.

    Here is a dire warning from the UN on hunger. Note that Italy has only given three percent of the money it pledged. Soon, money pledges may be worthless, while food pledges will be everything.

    http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-40293520090612

    My compliments on your blog.

  2. Dudeman says:

    It seems criminal that sub-prime borrowers get their mortgages paid off. They helped destroy real estate including my real estate investments. When do the responsible people get bailouts?

  3. hack3434 says:

    Dudeman...Why blame the borrower and not the banks? Also smart money saw what was coming with the real state bubble and got out. Don't blame others for your poor "investment" choices.

  4. Dudeman says:

    hack3434, I would blame both. As for blaming others, the government and the banks are responsible for a lot of the devastation. It wasn't just speculators that got destroyed. Builders got destroyed. To say those sub-prime borrowers had no blame would be stupid.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Thank you! I'm not very knowledgable about economics, but even I can see the humour in this. It's nice to get some good news for a change.

  6. Anonymous says:

    The subprime borrowers didn't get their mortgages paid off. Only the noteholders (MBS investors) were paid off in full. The subprime borrowers still have to pay their mortgages, only now to the servicer, who bought the remaining mortgages in the clean-up call.

    Oh and by the way, this was straight up market manipulation, and there's a 0% chance Amherst will get to keep its profits.

  7. Bo says:

    When you manipulate an unregulated market, you get to keep the money. What part of "unregulated" do you not understand?

Leave a Reply to H(oratio) Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>