Loss Severity

Subprime Auto Delinquencies Jump 17% In July, Net Losses Soar 28%

According to the latest Fitch auto subprime report, things in the auto subprime space are progressively deteriorating, with subprime 60+ day delinquencies rising 13% month-over-month (MOM) in July to 4.59%, and were 17% higher versus a year earlier.  Subprime ABS annualized net losses (ANL) hit 7.39% in July rising 17% MOM, and were 28% higher year-over-year (YOY).

The Treasury's Worst-Case Scenario: Over $3.3 Trillion In Student Loans In A Decade

"... If the unemployment rate were to edge up after reaching a trough in two years and the gap between U-6 and unemployment remains as wide as it is today – in excess of historical norms – the size of the program would be expected to reach roughly $3.3 trillion in 2024, $1.7 trillion more than in the base case." - TBAC

Gundlach's First Webcast Of 2014: "Let the Race Begin! 2014 Markets: Year of the Horse"

"Bond King" Bill Gross may not have had a good year following over $40 billion in redemptions from his $250 billion Total Return Fund, but another aspirational Bond King, DoubleLine's Jeff Gundlach, had an even worse year on an relative basis, when his Total Return Bond Fund saw $6 billion in redemptions ending the year at $30.9 billion in AUM following seven consecutive months of withdrawals. So in his attempt to start the new year on better footing, here is his first webcast (as usual open to the public), titled "Let the Race Begin! 2014 Markets: Year of the Horse", in which as usual Jeff will discuss the economy, the markets and his outlook for the best investment strategiest of 2014. Let's hope that for bond fund manager, that 2014 is not just another "year of the donkey", as was the case in the past year which everyone managing duration would rather forget.

Bank Of America Has Lost Money Trading On Only Three Days In 2012

From the just released Bank of America 10-Q: "During the three months ended June 30, 2012, positive trading-related revenue was recorded for 95 percent, or 60 of the 63 trading days of which 75 percent (47 days) were daily trading gains of over $25 million and the largest loss was $11 million. These results can be compared to the three months ended March 31, 2012, where positive trading-related revenue was recorded for 100 percent (62 days) of the trading days of which 95 percent (59 days) were daily trading gains of over $25 million. There were no daily trading losses recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2012." This vaguely reminds us of the JPM's trading performance. Just before they got busted for hiding a $350 billion hedge fund in the firm's "risk hedging" aka CIO/Treasury division that is. Also, if anyone else has problems believing that BofA's trading desk, with or without Merrill, both of which are better known as the C-grade (and that is being generous) of Wall Street traders, could generate profits on 122 of 125 trading days, please lift your hand.

The 'Big Reset' Is Coming: Here Is What To Do

A week ago, Zero Hedge first presented the now viral presentation by Raoul Pal titled "The End Game." We dubbed the presentation scary because it was: in very frank terms it laid out the reality of the current absolutely unsustainable situation while pulling no punches. Yet some may have misread the underlying narrative: Pal did not predict armageddon. Far from it: he forecast the end of the current broken economic, monetary, and fiat system... which following its collapse will be replaced with something different, something stable. Which, incidentally, is why the presentation was called a big "reset", not the big "end." But what does that mean, and how does one protect from such an event? Luckily, we have another presentation to share with readers, this time from Eidesis Capital, given at the Grant's April 11 conference, which picks up where Pal left off. Because if the Big Reset told us what is coming, Eidesis tells us how to get from there to the other side...

TARPed, RETARPed, And Then DETARPed

To sum up today's mass bank lawsuit news: first the taxpayers were asked to save Freddie and Fannie, then they were asked to save the banks, now when it is politically expedient to do so, the first entity which is still being saved ($200B of taxpayer funded capital injections later) is suing the second saved entity. In the interim, on a day when job growth in this country was essentially ZERO, we are going to lose another 30,000 private sector jobs. Finally, it is worth mentioning that these lawsuits are suggesting that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were semi-clueless when it came to the mortgage securitization process. Something that may be a tad difficult to prove given that they were major players in the mortgage markets. If readers are confused, they are not alone.

PIMCO On The Robosigning Scandal And Its Consequences

PIMCO, which was one of the firms spearheading the putback push against BofA, has put together a useful and rather objective analysis though Executive Vice President, Global Structured Finance Specialist, Rod Dubitsky, titled "Foreclosure Flaws Trigger New Round of Uncertainty." While not surprisingly the baseline case presented by PIMCO is a moderate one, as the asset manager claims the most likely impact is "moderate" it does acknowledge that there is a possibility for substantial complications (although Fannie's recent bail out of BofA pretty much takes cares of that). The two main adverse consequences are "corrupted title" - a topic beaten to death previously, and, more importantly, "Tax issues relating to RMBS issuance entities" on which PIMCO says "Some have argued that assigning the note for the mortgage loan so long after closing would run afoul of REMIC rules, which could subject RMBS deals to adverse tax consequences." Of course, as an escalation of these developments would bring the entire $8 trillion RMBS structured finance industry to a halt, we are fairly confident that as more and more settlements are instituted, that the whole fraudclosure issue will be very soon completely forgotten.

Reggie Middleton's picture

BoomBsutBlog and the independent analysts vs Wall Street: I(we) say insolvent, or damn close, they say buy. Hmmm!!! Judging by affiliation and track record, who do you think is right?

It is peculiar that the firms that don't underwrite securities or sell information services are the most bearish on the banks, isn't it? Even the constant "just shut up and buy 'em" banks missed the ball on Google!