Whose definition of subprime?

There is no standard definition of subprime. I used to think of the world in terms of “Household International Subprime” and “Conseco Financial Subprime”. The guys at Household didn’t think you could ever write loans at the Conseco level profitably over a cycle (discussion in year 2000). The HI credit modellers I talked to were well aware of the risks of the business – but thought it was unlikely that there would be severe stress on it outside periods of large unemployment. (They were wrong!)

Nonetheless the year 2000 distinction between Household and Conseco could be given with FICO scores:

· Household Subprime was FICO620 to 680, and

· Conseco subprime was below 620.

I think the guys at HI were more-or-less right. The HI business might be profitable on average over long periods and the Conseco business was hopeless at the outset. [Profitable over long periods does not make it a good business.]

After that conversation the world changed and everyone started doing Conseco subprime. There were plenty of issuers who worked with FICOs of 575 and below. I was short several – not because I thought a blow-up was inevitable –just that that sort of business cannot be profitable over a cycle.

High FICO defaults – or why FICOs were misleading

FICOs have proved not to be a great indicator of default.

There are deals done with a weighted average FICO of 710 which are defaulting very badly – see the FICO in Mish’s bad deal for instance. These deals consisted almost entirely of refinances – often cash-out refinances. A person with very poor credit could show as having good credit if they always repaid their last loan. They can achieve this by sequential cash-out-refinances. (A rolling loan gathers no loss.)

Deals with average FICOs above 700 that are behaving that way usually contain a very large number of cash-out-refis.

Why I mention

One of my games is to look at the definition of subprime that people were using (particularly prior to the recent credit crisis). Lots of companies wanted to deny they did subprime loans – so all they did was define subprime to be a credit notch below where they were. Defining the loan as Alt-A doesn’t make the bad credit go away – but it made you look safe. [See IndyMac for a company that denied doing bad credit by defining good as what they did.]

Anyway here are two definitions that stand out for me. The first is from MGIC – a mortgage insurer. The second from Ambac.

Here is MGIC’s definition (2006 annual report):

A-minus and subprime credit loans are written through the bulk channel. A-minus loans have FICO scores of 575-619, as reported to MGIC at the time a commitment to insure is issued, and subprime loans have FICO scores of less than 575. [MGIC defined prime loans as having a FICO above 620.]

To me this definition was astounding. The whole of Households year 2000 business would be prime by MGIC’s definition.

Ambac drank the poison too. It drank less poison but was less aware that it was doing it. The word FICO never appears in the 2006 annual which is full of soothing words about how they had reduced their underwritings in the subprime area. By the 2007 annual report they included a FICO definition:

FICO scores range from 300 to 850. Though there are no industry standard definitions, generally FICO scores are as follows: prime (FICO score over 710), mid-prime (FICO score between 640 and 710) and sub-prime (FICO score below 640).

The entire MGIC midprime business and some prime business is subprime by Ambac’s definition.

I knew in advance that MGIC’s underwriting standards were worse than Ambac. Much much worse. I was short MGIC and had sold out of Ambac. [I always wanted to be long Ambac as much as anything because I liked the CEO. I just did not like the credit cycle and some deals they were underwriting - so I sold my position well before the top.]

MGIC will pay almost 2 billion in claims this year. They are paying less claims than they anticipated – but not for any good reason – it is just that state legislatures are passing bills to slow down foreclosure and the courts are jammed and there are delays.

Ambac pays about 20 million in claims a month (admittedly rising).

Ambac has many times the claims paying capacity of MGIC and a small fraction of the claims rate.

But MGIC is still writing business and Ambac has almost ceased.

They might both be bust – indeed I express no opinion about the insurance companies. But if MGIC remains solvent and Ambac fails then the world is a very strange place indeed. [I will explore MGIC in more detail in a future post. Suffice to say I have no position long or short and the world might indeed be strange.]

Things I stuffed up – edition one - Interest rate risk versus credit risk

Anybody that trades stocks makes mistakes. I have made plenty. I would prefer sweep those under the carpet but a little bit of healthy self-flagellation is good for the spirit. Besides I hope it will make me a better investor. Besides I just posted that I purchased Ambac - something that could (easily) wind up as the next mistake. So you should know just how much I stuff up.

So this is the first of (almost certainly) many posts detailing things I stuffed up.

The list for the first choice is long. How about these?

(a) Believing that regional banks of Credit Agricole (which are very good) would offset the losses at the investment bank (which is very bad). Stock is down from 36 to 12.

(b) Believing that the mortgage insurers would blow up this cycle but the bond insurers would probably be OK. Ambac is down 90 to 1ish and is no longer writing much business. MTG (which was my favourite short) is down from 60 to 6 but is writing plenty of business. Got the wrong shorts… and didn’t short the bond insurers…

(c) Believing that the (seemingly extreme) valuation difference between News Corp and other media stocks would solve itself by New Corp’s stock price rising. It didn’t as a stock price comparison of Viacom, Time Warner and News Corp will attest. (It was a wash – all the stocks lost a little.)

(d) Buying Origin Energy at under $2 and selling it at about $4 on the basis that the utility parts of the business were fully recognised. I sold it despite loving the management. It is currently under hostile takeover at $15.60 – and the Aussie dollar in which it is priced has almost doubled. I didn’t recognise just how good the gas assets were. This was non-trivial as the fund I worked for owned almost 5% of the company – and left more half a billion dollars on the table and it was my fault.

Against this it should be pretty hard to tell what the worst intellectual error I made in the past five years is. But I have a candidate. I thought that the interest rate risk in US banks would blow up before the credit risk.

Background

The US has a very unusual mortgage market. Most mortgages have the peculiar term of being fixed rate when rates are rising – but being refinanceable if rates fall. This means that customers pay more for their mortgages than most jurisdictions – but that all the interest rate risks fall on the financial sector.

For instance in most markets the difference between central bank fund rate and the average mortgage rate is less (often much less) than 200bps. In the US it is unusual to get a conventional mortgage at under 6 percent – and the feds fund rate is 200bps. Mortgage margins in the US are more than double most countries.

For this however the system as a whole takes an awful lot of interest rate risk. If short rates were to go to say 8 percent there would be 5-7 trillion in mortgages that yield less than that. Individual institutions might say they were hedged – but the system as a whole cannot be hedged.

I spent an awful lot of time looking for banks and other institutions that were particularly levered to interest rate risk. WestAmerica Bancorp (an otherwise pristine bank) stood out. If you look at the balance sheet I linked in my previous post you will see that it contains $1.5 billion in fixed rate securities financed floating. That number is very significant compared to pre-tax income of 120 million or tangible book value of about 270 million. And WABC is by no means the largest offender.

My back of the envelope calculation was that the system had about 400 billion of pre-tax profits. That included all brokers, all banks, all insurance companies, fund managers – the works.

The US system had 7 trillion of interest rate miss-match. Almost half the profits of the entire US financial system could disappear in a 200bps rise in rates across the yield curve. And they would have disappeared without a penny of credit losses. A lot of institutions would lose their profits entirely. They would in my view all try to hedge simultaneously guaranteeing the dynamic hedging strategies that were in place did not work.

And I thought with Alan Greenspan setting the tone of the Fed the stuff up on inflation and hence interest rates was inevitable. Greenspan never saw a problem he could not fix by pumping more liquidity into the system. I thought Helicopter Ben was even more likely to use a little inflation to get the US out of its mess. Indeed that is where the “helicopter” moniker comes from – a speech to that effect. So essentially whilst I thought that credit problems were sort of inevitable – the US would inflate their way out – and hence the real manifestation would be an interest-rate-risk debacle.

So I spent a couple of years getting completely obsessed about interest rate risk. It led to some OK shorts (eg Fannie and Freddie) but meant I underestimated the credit story.

The credit risk I thought had been passed pretty heavily to the non-bank sector. It existed in the Europeans (I sort of knew about UBS). It existed in the investment banks (including Citigroup). It existed in some regional banks (I knew about Bank United). But I was stunned it wound up quite so bad at Fifth Third. Just stunned.

I thus covered a Fifth Third short many years ago. (Ooops.) I was short a bunch of interest rate risk sensitive banks (such as North Fork which was purchased by Capital One) and I didn’t short MBIA and Ambac. Indeed I was tempted to go long (but fortunately I did not). I made money on a few interest rate shorts – but altogether it was not a profitable activity.

A few years ago the short end of the yield curve was at about 1%. The long end in the 4s and quasi-government guaranteed mortgages were in the high 5s. Borrowing short to buy Fannie Mae backed mortgages was the seeming no-lose trade. Everyone was on it. It didn’t even carry much credit risk because everyone knew the government backed Fannie.

However it carried – and still carries – massive interest rate risk. Everyone seemed to ignore that. My usual reaction – if everyone is doing something then it will probably lose you money. I would rather be on the other side.

Still I remain convinced that this is a theme that will play out. Warren Buffett says inflation is heating up – and he doesn’t stretch the duration of his assets.

There are good people who think inflation is highly unlikely. Paul Krugman (who I admire) suggests that Bernanke should ignore the inflation naysayers. Mish writes for ever on how inflation is not likely – see here and here for examples.

I will get back to this shortcoming one day soon.

John