#QM

22 07, 2024

Karen Petrou: The Toxic Brew of Insurance Companies, Private Equity, and High-Risk Mortgages

2024-07-22T11:13:54-04:00July 22nd, 2024|The Vault|

As financial regulators fret about risk migration to nonbank financial intermediaries, a new race to the sunny side of the regulatory street is already underway.  As detailed in a comprehensive Bloomberg article, insurance companies are increasingly investing in high-risk whole residential-mortgage loans, doing so either with no capacity to service them unless they rely on parent-company private-equity firms to do so somehow.  What could go wrong?

This transaction is redolent – indeed, it’s a repeat – of how nonbanks barged into mortgage finance before the great financial crisis without a clue about the real risks they ran.  Well, I recall Bear Stearns’ big bet on mortgages placed without any concomitant servicing capacity because, as they said at the time, mortgages never go to foreclosure.  Speculative house-price increases led them to this sanguine conclusion because there hadn’t been many foreclosures for a couple of years, but neither Bear Stearns’ mortgage portfolio nor the firm is here today to ruminate over hard lessons learned in the 1980s.

Bear Stearns’ failure quickly became a systemic threat, with wider damage delayed until the 2008 crash thanks only to the first of the Fed’s high-cost subsidized mergers that bred moral hazard that fired speculation up to a still more frenzied height until Lehman Brothers failed.

As before the great financial crisis, insurance companies are investing in high-risk mortgages because yield-chasing and capital arbitrage rewards them, at least for now.  The whole mortgage loans insurance companies are buying carry wide spreads over RMBS is only …

4 08, 2023

FedFin on: Credit-Risk Capital Rewrite

2023-08-04T13:41:04-04:00August 4th, 2023|The Vault|

In this report, we proceed from our assessment of the proposed regulatory capital framework to an analysis of the rules governing credit risk.  In addition to eliminating the advanced approach, the proposal imposes higher standards for some assets than under the old standardized approach (SA) via new “expanded” requirements.  As detailed here, many expanded risk weightings are higher than current requirements either due to specific risk-weighted assessments (RWAs) or definitions and additional restrictions.  This contributes to the added capital costs identified by the banking agencies in their impact assessment, suggesting that lower risk weightings in the expanded approach reflected the reduced risks described in the proposal for other assets and will ultimately have little bearing on regulatory-capital requirements and thus ….

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

Go to Top