- This topic has 40 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
4plexowner.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
December 2, 2007 at 6:41 AM #11046
-
December 2, 2007 at 6:42 AM #107180
4plexowner
Participantand 75% of E-Trade’s mortgage exposure was so called ‘prime’
-
December 2, 2007 at 6:42 AM #107278
4plexowner
Participantand 75% of E-Trade’s mortgage exposure was so called ‘prime’
-
December 2, 2007 at 6:42 AM #107310
4plexowner
Participantand 75% of E-Trade’s mortgage exposure was so called ‘prime’
-
December 2, 2007 at 6:42 AM #107314
4plexowner
Participantand 75% of E-Trade’s mortgage exposure was so called ‘prime’
-
December 2, 2007 at 6:42 AM #107337
4plexowner
Participantand 75% of E-Trade’s mortgage exposure was so called ‘prime’
-
December 2, 2007 at 6:47 AM #107185
4plexowner
ParticipantETrade Marked to Reality – What if Citigroup is? here’s Mish (which is how I found the Reuters link above)
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/etrade-marked-to-reality-what-happens.html -
December 2, 2007 at 6:47 AM #107283
4plexowner
ParticipantETrade Marked to Reality – What if Citigroup is? here’s Mish (which is how I found the Reuters link above)
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/etrade-marked-to-reality-what-happens.html -
December 2, 2007 at 6:47 AM #107315
4plexowner
ParticipantETrade Marked to Reality – What if Citigroup is? here’s Mish (which is how I found the Reuters link above)
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/etrade-marked-to-reality-what-happens.html -
December 2, 2007 at 6:47 AM #107319
4plexowner
ParticipantETrade Marked to Reality – What if Citigroup is? here’s Mish (which is how I found the Reuters link above)
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/etrade-marked-to-reality-what-happens.html -
December 2, 2007 at 6:47 AM #107343
4plexowner
ParticipantETrade Marked to Reality – What if Citigroup is? here’s Mish (which is how I found the Reuters link above)
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/etrade-marked-to-reality-what-happens.html -
December 2, 2007 at 6:51 AM #107190
4plexowner
Participant73 percent of the assets were backed by prime mortgages, or loans to people with solid credit.
It is worth emphasizing that a large portion of the assets were backed by prime – not subprime – mortgages. And many of the prime loans were first liens with decent average FICO scores (average 725) and LTV (71%).
Impact of ETrade Portfolio Sale
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/impact-of-etrade-portfolio-sale.html-
December 2, 2007 at 9:32 AM #107286
HereWeGo
ParticipantThere must be details here that are not available to the public. That sort of markdown makes no sense, unless there was a lot of fraud amongst those “AA first liens”, and even still, you wouldn’t expect a 50% markdown.
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM #107585
4plexowner
Participantactually, I expect that 11 cents on the dollar is just a resting place before this paper reaches its true value of 0
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:18 PM #107600
want a good deal
ParticipantIs that saying that their portfolio of mortgages is worth 11-27% of value. How can that be. Does that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written or is this a product of leveraging.
-
December 2, 2007 at 10:32 PM #107710
Eugene
ParticipantDoes that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written
I think it’s much more complicated than that.
Basically here’s the situation (as far as I understand it)
Suppose that some company offers you a bond that pays 1000 dollars a year in interest for 10 years. What’s that bond worth?
If it has zero probability of default (e.g. it’s a government bond), the value of that bond is $1000 divided by 10-year treasury rate, give or take. Let’s say it’s 25k.
If some respectable credit agency tells you that the bond is AAA-rated, you might be willing to pay 20k for it.
The company takes your 20k and gives a subprime loan with 10% interest rate to someone. At 10% rate, it’s only necessary to loan 10k to generate enough revenue to pay you back. As long as home prices are rising, default rates are low, the company can spend the remaining 10k whichever way it wants (e.g. pay big dividends or do a stock buyback).
Subprime crisis hits, and now it suddenly turns out that the bond is not really AAA. (And you don’t really know what it is, because the market for those bonds is frozen solid) You do know that only 10k out of your 20k was really spent on the actual house. Besides, home prices are declining and the company will only get maybe 7-8k out of 10k if that house forecloses. Furthermore, the company will bear legal expenses and pay all sorts of fees before the house is sold, so you will only get 5k back. Finally, there is a good possibility that the company goes bankrupt and you will have to jump through all sorts of hoops before you see a singe penny.
Under these circumstances, you might consider yourself fortunate if someone agrees to buy the bond from you for 5k which is only 25% of what you paid for it.
-
December 2, 2007 at 10:32 PM #107810
Eugene
ParticipantDoes that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written
I think it’s much more complicated than that.
Basically here’s the situation (as far as I understand it)
Suppose that some company offers you a bond that pays 1000 dollars a year in interest for 10 years. What’s that bond worth?
If it has zero probability of default (e.g. it’s a government bond), the value of that bond is $1000 divided by 10-year treasury rate, give or take. Let’s say it’s 25k.
If some respectable credit agency tells you that the bond is AAA-rated, you might be willing to pay 20k for it.
The company takes your 20k and gives a subprime loan with 10% interest rate to someone. At 10% rate, it’s only necessary to loan 10k to generate enough revenue to pay you back. As long as home prices are rising, default rates are low, the company can spend the remaining 10k whichever way it wants (e.g. pay big dividends or do a stock buyback).
Subprime crisis hits, and now it suddenly turns out that the bond is not really AAA. (And you don’t really know what it is, because the market for those bonds is frozen solid) You do know that only 10k out of your 20k was really spent on the actual house. Besides, home prices are declining and the company will only get maybe 7-8k out of 10k if that house forecloses. Furthermore, the company will bear legal expenses and pay all sorts of fees before the house is sold, so you will only get 5k back. Finally, there is a good possibility that the company goes bankrupt and you will have to jump through all sorts of hoops before you see a singe penny.
Under these circumstances, you might consider yourself fortunate if someone agrees to buy the bond from you for 5k which is only 25% of what you paid for it.
-
December 2, 2007 at 10:32 PM #107842
Eugene
ParticipantDoes that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written
I think it’s much more complicated than that.
Basically here’s the situation (as far as I understand it)
Suppose that some company offers you a bond that pays 1000 dollars a year in interest for 10 years. What’s that bond worth?
If it has zero probability of default (e.g. it’s a government bond), the value of that bond is $1000 divided by 10-year treasury rate, give or take. Let’s say it’s 25k.
If some respectable credit agency tells you that the bond is AAA-rated, you might be willing to pay 20k for it.
The company takes your 20k and gives a subprime loan with 10% interest rate to someone. At 10% rate, it’s only necessary to loan 10k to generate enough revenue to pay you back. As long as home prices are rising, default rates are low, the company can spend the remaining 10k whichever way it wants (e.g. pay big dividends or do a stock buyback).
Subprime crisis hits, and now it suddenly turns out that the bond is not really AAA. (And you don’t really know what it is, because the market for those bonds is frozen solid) You do know that only 10k out of your 20k was really spent on the actual house. Besides, home prices are declining and the company will only get maybe 7-8k out of 10k if that house forecloses. Furthermore, the company will bear legal expenses and pay all sorts of fees before the house is sold, so you will only get 5k back. Finally, there is a good possibility that the company goes bankrupt and you will have to jump through all sorts of hoops before you see a singe penny.
Under these circumstances, you might consider yourself fortunate if someone agrees to buy the bond from you for 5k which is only 25% of what you paid for it.
-
December 2, 2007 at 10:32 PM #107852
Eugene
ParticipantDoes that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written
I think it’s much more complicated than that.
Basically here’s the situation (as far as I understand it)
Suppose that some company offers you a bond that pays 1000 dollars a year in interest for 10 years. What’s that bond worth?
If it has zero probability of default (e.g. it’s a government bond), the value of that bond is $1000 divided by 10-year treasury rate, give or take. Let’s say it’s 25k.
If some respectable credit agency tells you that the bond is AAA-rated, you might be willing to pay 20k for it.
The company takes your 20k and gives a subprime loan with 10% interest rate to someone. At 10% rate, it’s only necessary to loan 10k to generate enough revenue to pay you back. As long as home prices are rising, default rates are low, the company can spend the remaining 10k whichever way it wants (e.g. pay big dividends or do a stock buyback).
Subprime crisis hits, and now it suddenly turns out that the bond is not really AAA. (And you don’t really know what it is, because the market for those bonds is frozen solid) You do know that only 10k out of your 20k was really spent on the actual house. Besides, home prices are declining and the company will only get maybe 7-8k out of 10k if that house forecloses. Furthermore, the company will bear legal expenses and pay all sorts of fees before the house is sold, so you will only get 5k back. Finally, there is a good possibility that the company goes bankrupt and you will have to jump through all sorts of hoops before you see a singe penny.
Under these circumstances, you might consider yourself fortunate if someone agrees to buy the bond from you for 5k which is only 25% of what you paid for it.
-
December 2, 2007 at 10:32 PM #107866
Eugene
ParticipantDoes that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written
I think it’s much more complicated than that.
Basically here’s the situation (as far as I understand it)
Suppose that some company offers you a bond that pays 1000 dollars a year in interest for 10 years. What’s that bond worth?
If it has zero probability of default (e.g. it’s a government bond), the value of that bond is $1000 divided by 10-year treasury rate, give or take. Let’s say it’s 25k.
If some respectable credit agency tells you that the bond is AAA-rated, you might be willing to pay 20k for it.
The company takes your 20k and gives a subprime loan with 10% interest rate to someone. At 10% rate, it’s only necessary to loan 10k to generate enough revenue to pay you back. As long as home prices are rising, default rates are low, the company can spend the remaining 10k whichever way it wants (e.g. pay big dividends or do a stock buyback).
Subprime crisis hits, and now it suddenly turns out that the bond is not really AAA. (And you don’t really know what it is, because the market for those bonds is frozen solid) You do know that only 10k out of your 20k was really spent on the actual house. Besides, home prices are declining and the company will only get maybe 7-8k out of 10k if that house forecloses. Furthermore, the company will bear legal expenses and pay all sorts of fees before the house is sold, so you will only get 5k back. Finally, there is a good possibility that the company goes bankrupt and you will have to jump through all sorts of hoops before you see a singe penny.
Under these circumstances, you might consider yourself fortunate if someone agrees to buy the bond from you for 5k which is only 25% of what you paid for it.
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:18 PM #107696
want a good deal
ParticipantIs that saying that their portfolio of mortgages is worth 11-27% of value. How can that be. Does that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written or is this a product of leveraging.
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:18 PM #107731
want a good deal
ParticipantIs that saying that their portfolio of mortgages is worth 11-27% of value. How can that be. Does that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written or is this a product of leveraging.
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:18 PM #107744
want a good deal
ParticipantIs that saying that their portfolio of mortgages is worth 11-27% of value. How can that be. Does that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written or is this a product of leveraging.
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:18 PM #107756
want a good deal
ParticipantIs that saying that their portfolio of mortgages is worth 11-27% of value. How can that be. Does that mean the homes are worth 11-27% of what they were when the mortgages were written or is this a product of leveraging.
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM #107681
4plexowner
Participantactually, I expect that 11 cents on the dollar is just a resting place before this paper reaches its true value of 0
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM #107716
4plexowner
Participantactually, I expect that 11 cents on the dollar is just a resting place before this paper reaches its true value of 0
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM #107729
4plexowner
Participantactually, I expect that 11 cents on the dollar is just a resting place before this paper reaches its true value of 0
-
December 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM #107742
4plexowner
Participantactually, I expect that 11 cents on the dollar is just a resting place before this paper reaches its true value of 0
-
-
December 2, 2007 at 9:32 AM #107381
HereWeGo
ParticipantThere must be details here that are not available to the public. That sort of markdown makes no sense, unless there was a lot of fraud amongst those “AA first liens”, and even still, you wouldn’t expect a 50% markdown.
-
December 2, 2007 at 9:32 AM #107416
HereWeGo
ParticipantThere must be details here that are not available to the public. That sort of markdown makes no sense, unless there was a lot of fraud amongst those “AA first liens”, and even still, you wouldn’t expect a 50% markdown.
-
December 2, 2007 at 9:32 AM #107419
HereWeGo
ParticipantThere must be details here that are not available to the public. That sort of markdown makes no sense, unless there was a lot of fraud amongst those “AA first liens”, and even still, you wouldn’t expect a 50% markdown.
-
December 2, 2007 at 9:32 AM #107440
HereWeGo
ParticipantThere must be details here that are not available to the public. That sort of markdown makes no sense, unless there was a lot of fraud amongst those “AA first liens”, and even still, you wouldn’t expect a 50% markdown.
-
-
December 2, 2007 at 6:51 AM #107288
4plexowner
Participant73 percent of the assets were backed by prime mortgages, or loans to people with solid credit.
It is worth emphasizing that a large portion of the assets were backed by prime – not subprime – mortgages. And many of the prime loans were first liens with decent average FICO scores (average 725) and LTV (71%).
Impact of ETrade Portfolio Sale
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/impact-of-etrade-portfolio-sale.html -
December 2, 2007 at 6:51 AM #107320
4plexowner
Participant73 percent of the assets were backed by prime mortgages, or loans to people with solid credit.
It is worth emphasizing that a large portion of the assets were backed by prime – not subprime – mortgages. And many of the prime loans were first liens with decent average FICO scores (average 725) and LTV (71%).
Impact of ETrade Portfolio Sale
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/impact-of-etrade-portfolio-sale.html -
December 2, 2007 at 6:51 AM #107324
4plexowner
Participant73 percent of the assets were backed by prime mortgages, or loans to people with solid credit.
It is worth emphasizing that a large portion of the assets were backed by prime – not subprime – mortgages. And many of the prime loans were first liens with decent average FICO scores (average 725) and LTV (71%).
Impact of ETrade Portfolio Sale
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/impact-of-etrade-portfolio-sale.html -
December 2, 2007 at 6:51 AM #107348
4plexowner
Participant73 percent of the assets were backed by prime mortgages, or loans to people with solid credit.
It is worth emphasizing that a large portion of the assets were backed by prime – not subprime – mortgages. And many of the prime loans were first liens with decent average FICO scores (average 725) and LTV (71%).
Impact of ETrade Portfolio Sale
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/impact-of-etrade-portfolio-sale.html -
December 3, 2007 at 11:32 AM #108048
4plexowner
Participant“… there’s a growing consensus that their value is close to zero. And there is enough of the worthless crap to choke banks all over the world.”
James Kunstler
-
December 3, 2007 at 11:32 AM #108151
4plexowner
Participant“… there’s a growing consensus that their value is close to zero. And there is enough of the worthless crap to choke banks all over the world.”
James Kunstler
-
December 3, 2007 at 11:32 AM #108185
4plexowner
Participant“… there’s a growing consensus that their value is close to zero. And there is enough of the worthless crap to choke banks all over the world.”
James Kunstler
-
December 3, 2007 at 11:32 AM #108192
4plexowner
Participant“… there’s a growing consensus that their value is close to zero. And there is enough of the worthless crap to choke banks all over the world.”
James Kunstler
-
December 3, 2007 at 11:32 AM #108203
4plexowner
Participant“… there’s a growing consensus that their value is close to zero. And there is enough of the worthless crap to choke banks all over the world.”
James Kunstler
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.