Banks are making more off mortgages than ever before, refusing to pass on lowered interest rates from federal policy, including the purchase of trillions in mortgage-backed securities by the Federal Reserve, to consumers. This isn’t really the enigma that the New York Times’ Dealbook makes it out to be. It’s simple collusion. Nobody offers 2.8% mortgage rates, so nobody gets them. As a result, the spread that banks capture on their mortgages widens.
Banks make mortgages, but since the 2008 crisis, they have sold most of them into the bond market, attaching a government guarantee of repayment in the process.
The metric effectively encapsulates the size of the gain that banks make on those sales. In September 2011, banks were making mortgages with an interest rate of 4.1 percent. They were then selling those mortgages into the market in bonds that were trading with an interest rate, or yield, of 3.36 percent, according to a Bloomberg index.
The metric captures the difference between the bond and mortgage rates; in this case it was 0.74 percentage points. The bigger the “spread,” the bigger the financial gain for the banks selling the mortgages. That 0.74 percentage point “spread” was close to the 0.77 percentage point average since the end of 2007. Banks were taking roughly the same cut on the sales as they were in previous years.
But something strange has happened over the last 12 months. That spread has widened significantly, and is now more than 1.4 percentage points. The cause: bond yields have fallen a lot more than the mortgage rates banks are charging borrowers.
So the natural rate for mortgages should be 2.8%, but banks aren’t passing the lower bond rates to their customers. Their middleman cut has grown.
The claim that banks are simply overwhelmed by mortgage demand is a crock. Mortgage lending fell to a 16-year low in 2011, and the mortgage purchase index shows a general sideways trajectory. Refinances have gone up somewhat with the tweaking of HARP and lowering of rates, but this is off a tremendously low bottom – lending fell 64% from 2006-2011. Anyway, banks were able to handle refi booms when rates dropped precipitously post-2008. And, smaller community banks seem to have no backlog whatsoever.
There may be a clogged pipeline, but you would have to see that as deliberate. Think about it, the less personnel that big banks hire to handle mortgage applications, the more they can constrict supply, the more they can charge for scarce mortgages. It’s a form of rationing, where banks make out of both sides – they don’t have to pay for labor AND they get to charge more for the product! And since they control so much of the market, there’s no real incentive for them to change their practices.
You would think that all this demand would get scooped up by someone who would rates. But that ignores the real issue of where the demand in housing is coming from. It’s not in mortgages.
Housing demand has improved this year, largely because investors and other buyers who have been paying in cash have scooped up quantities of foreclosed and other distressed properties. While lending to non-owner-occupants is down sharply from five years ago, it rebounded last year, rising 10% from 2010.
The money is being made in the sale of distressed properties to hedge funds and other investors, who are borrowing the capital to make these purchases from… the same big banks! Then, they plan to securitize the rental revenue, using the same banks as trustees to facilitate the sales. The big banks have no incentive to increase mortgage lending, because there is more money to be made on other pursuits, and because the real demand out there comes from the investor bubble.
This means that QE3 will have a hard time transmitting into the pockets of mortgage buyers, which is the ostensible goal, to boost consumer spending and mortgage purchases through lower rates. But the banks will sure be happy to increase their profits by doing nothing at all.
UPDATE: This Washington Post story gets at the same issues.
Photo courtesy 401K under Creative Commons License





17 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
US banks are not only lending money for private equity firms and hedge funds to snap up distressed housing stock here, they’re also doing it in Europe.
It’s clear that the Fed has run out of ammunition.
No matter how much money they shove at the banksters, and no matter how cheaply,
the MOTU will do with it as they see fit. And the
47%99.47% can feast on the crumbs.These are the people Mitts was referring to when he said Victims who feel entitled to government support and handouts. Why yes, they will vote for Obama.
Fed buying MBS is an outright gift to the banks, as intended.
Once again: who has made out during the Greenspan/BerBanke (sl)easy money era. The 99%, or the 1%?
The question answers itself.
As an aside, even Krugman, who’s been whining for QE3 like a baby with soiled diapers, doesn’t think it’ll work, at least judging by the fact he’s already dusting off his usual “they’re not doing enough” excuse:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/quote-day-qe3-should-have-been-more-stronger
What would a national consumers’ bank look like?
The post office.
It must be very confusing up at the .o1% level where their portfolios increased @4.9% while millions lost their jobs and/or their home. What to do, what to do; oh hey, Cancun looks nice right now…or maybe Davros.. hmmm …life is tough.
POs in a number of countries handle savings. If you could trust the Republicans not to sell it out from under you. . .
It’s a strange world we live in. . .
If Romney were President he would tell you directly what he wanted to do, and how he was going to do it. You could disagree with him if you didn’t like it, and fight his policies.
With President Obama, he tells you he’s on your side, and then his policies have the opposite result, and when you point that out, he just tells you he agrees with you, and he’s working toward the same goal as you. So you really can’t fight against him, because he agrees with you in words, but not deeds.
Let’s take a look at issue after issue. . .
1) President Obama says he wants to tax the rich: action, he signs extention of tax cuts for the rich.
2) says he wants to withdraw from Iraq asap: action, he follows President Bush’s time table for withdrawal.
3) says he wants to close gitmo: action, it stays open.
4) says President Bush is a war criminal: action, increases drone kills, and even kills purposely a US citizen!
5) says he’s for the little guy. action: his policies increase the amount of people living in poverty.
6) says he wants to help the middle class. action: Bank profits increase, middle class incomes go down.
I could go on and on with example after example.
I think we’d be better off with a President Romney, at least we’d know which way to focus our efforts.
I will vote Stein/Honkala this Nov. but I am beginning to agree with this assertion. The wolf would be better than the wolf in sheeps clothing.
If anyone here is truly surprised that the banksters are lining their pockets with taxpayer money, hasn’t been paying attention at all, to what has been going on.
Banks must preserve their profits/income. With declining #s of mortgages (volume), they have to make up for it in price/profit. They’ve got to do this–their Christmas bonsuses depend on it!
No shit! So glad I get to experience the feudal lifestyle of the Middle Ages rather than just just reading about it. Debt enslavement to enrich the aristocracy is so appealing. Serfdom or slavery, the choice is ours.
Meanwhile the sheeple line up at the BofA and Chase atm’s. Aiding and abetting the people who are robbing them. Credit unions should be overwhelmed with new accounts.
That and the inability to recognize the existence of the uniparty duopoly’s Kabuki Theatre is what qualifies them as sheeple
I’ve always preferred a frontal assault to being back-stabbed.
Nice post DD .Ben isn’t out of tools he represents the MOTU ,and he knows damn well the banksters are not going to play trickle-down economics .The fed buys trillions in toxic mortgage sludge at mark -to myth valuation and this crap gets recycled to the Treasury and we taxpayers get the bill via direct levy,debt and austerity .Proof of this scam is in the contraction of base money ,i.e.,in circulation ,compared to M-2 expansion in the money supply .It’s a historically unprecedented differential .
If Ben were serious about stimulating the economy .he could purchase bonds from states for infrastructure projects and let regional banks make a few bucks .That’s not what he envisions for municipalities ,states ,or the national economy In fact the socialized banking oligopoly doesn’t prosper if we prosper .
Bottom line : the trillions stay on bankster balance sheets to leverage trillions more in interest rates swaps ,suckers bet on all the money printing forcing higher interest rates ,then realize the banksters shorted the swaps while the fed monetizes debt at treasury auctions to rig lower rates .The banksters can bet on a future they have the power to create with over $150trillion in interest rate swaps to make the desire outcome .Don’t be the next libor chump .The inverted yield curve means low rates inflate asset values on balance sheets .