InvestorsHub Logo

brandemarcus

10/07/16 2:15 PM

#355604 RE: big-yank #355599

What point exactly? We are debating the loss reserves and capital in 2009 ,not at the end of 2007. We now know the actual results not the hypothetical ones quoted in that piece. As I explained to you in the past , you take the default rate 2% -3% times the loans. That takes 5 trillion down to a less scary number like say 250 billion. Then we take the loss severity rate of 45% , to account for a 50% drop in prices and mortgage insurance. Private Mortgage insurance is that great private system that Bob Corker and Timmy G. loved so much. Don't tell me they were in trouble too, but I digress. That reduces our number down to a large but not so astronomical 125 billion for both gse's. By 2010 , large numbers of those losses have already hit and as I said the gse's already have 136 billion loss reserves not counted as capital and recurring net income of in excess of 30 billion per year about half the peak loss rate per year so that 136 billion is going to last quite some time even at peak loss rates. In excess of 3.5 years!
Private label mbs had default rates of at least twice the Gse's so don't tell me the banks and investment banks were less risky. There are no links for after 2008, so we are going to have to do analysis on our own. Now we have Blackrock from 2011? What did they say? Hmmmm

brandemarcus

10/07/16 2:40 PM

#355611 RE: big-yank #355599

You and everyone can look it up on Hempton's blog . In one of his November 2009 posts , he shows than Fannie Mae uses loss provisions of 7 times charge-offs and bac uses loss provisions of less than twice Charge-offs. From that, it doesn't take a macroeconomic model to figure why the loss reserves went all the way up to 136 billion and then got returned with the net worth sweep in 2012.....to 2015. Columbo is hot on the trail!