April 23, 2024

You are here: Home / Archives for finance system

High & Low Finance: Report Lays Out Plan to Reduce Government Role in Home Financing

February 28, 2013 by Leave a Comment

It is amazing just how few people think it can.

“For the foreseeable future, there is simply not enough capacity on the balance sheets of U.S. banks to allow a reliance on depository institutions as the sole source of liquidity for the mortgage market,” stated a report on the American housing market this week, issued by a group that was filled with members of the housing establishment.

The panel, which included Frank Keating, the president of the American Bankers Association and a former governor of Oklahoma, does not see that as an indictment of the American banking system, which would much rather trade leveraged derivatives than keep a lot of mortgage loans on its books.

“Given the size of the market and capital constraints on lenders, the secondary market for mortgage-backed securities must continue to play a critical role in providing mortgage liquidity,” added the report, issued by a housing commission formed by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a group that was begun by former Senate majority leaders from both parties. The group thinks investors will not be willing to finance enough mortgages — particularly 30-year fixed-rate loans — without a government guarantee.

The report does an excellent job of analyzing the history of the American housing finance system, as well as looking at the government’s efforts over the years to promote and subsidize rental housing. It calls for changes in those policies as well, aimed at assuring that those with very low incomes “are assured access to housing assistance if they need it.”

But those rental proposals are unlikely to lead to legislation any time soon, said Mel Martinez, one of four co-chairmen of the housing panel. Mr. Martinez, a former Republican senator from Florida and housing secretary under President George W. Bush, said in an interview that any proposal calling for spending government money, as this one does, would face tough sledding in Congress.

But he said it was possible that changes in the housing finance system, which is widely criticized on both sides of the aisle, had a better chance of getting approval.

Certainly, one principle enunciated by the panel will get wide support: “The private sector must play a far greater role in bearing housing risk.” But the details show that the panel still thinks sufficient money can be found for housing only if Uncle Sam remains the ultimate guarantor for most home mortgages.

Currently, the government backs about 90 percent of newly issued mortgages, more than ever before. The proportion fell in the years leading up to 2007 as subprime loans proliferated and then soared after that market collapsed.

Since then, the Federal Housing Administration has expanded its role in backing home loans on the low end of the scale. But most mortgages are purchased by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises that the government took over after the housing bubble burst.

So-called jumbo mortgages, that is, mortgages too large to qualify for purchase by Fannie or Freddie, account for most of the rest. Some mortgages are put into securitizations that have no government guarantee, but many jumbo mortgages end up being owned by the banks for the long term.

The F.H.A. appears to be more cautious than it used to be. The report notes that last year the average FICO score for an F.H.A. or Department of Veterans Affairs loan was close to 720 on a range of 300 to 850. That is about what the average Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac borrower had in 2001.

The commission, whose other co-chairmen were George J. Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic leader; Christopher S. Bond, a former Republican senator; and Henry Cisneros, who served as housing secretary under President Bill Clinton, wants to preserve the F.H.A., but orient it more to those who need the most help. It would phase out Fannie and Freddie — something that is politically necessary — but replace them with something that sounds sort of similar.

The new organization would be called a “public guarantor.” It would guarantee that investors in mortgage-backed securitizations would not lose money, much as Fannie and Freddie now do. But its responsibility would come after that of a “private credit enhancer,” which sounds like a monoline insurer that would make payments to securitization holders if the underlying mortgages were performing badly. That organization would be regulated by the public guarantor, and only after it goes broke — something that should happen only if housing prices fall more than they did in the recent crisis — would the public guarantor be responsible for making investors whole.

Floyd Norris comments on finance and the economy at nytimes.com/economix.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 28, 2013

An earlier version of this column misstated the potential proportion of new mortgages that Mr. Martinez said he believed would eventually be financed by private capital. It is 40 to 55 percent, not 40 to 50 percent.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/business/report-lays-out-plan-to-reduce-government-role-in-home-financing.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Filed Under: Economy News Tagged With: , ,

Around the World in One Movie: Film Financing’s Global Future

December 6, 2011 by Leave a Comment

From its truly global parentage to its time-bending story told by three directors using two separate production crews, the movie is unabashedly strange. The narrative, which starts near New Zealand and circles the globe, is bewildering in its complexity, featuring characters in six eras who might share a soul migrating through time. And the project’s primary backers are from China, Korea and Singapore.

But “Cloud Atlas,” in all its glorious confusion, also serves as a guidepost to the future of the film business. Increasingly, sophisticated filmmakers who once relied on American studios for backing are turning to a globe-straddling independent finance system for their most expensive projects.

“Cloud Atlas,” with its $100 million budget and high-wattage cast, including the Academy Award winners Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, was an epic independent film too complicated, too expensive and perhaps too risky for any conventional studio to have backed.

To move forward, the project broke free of national boundaries. Investors from China, Korea, Singapore and beyond contributed roughly $35 million, without which the film could not have been made. German subsidies account for $18 million more. In the United States, “Cloud Atlas” will be distributed, probably next fall, by Warner Brothers, which has made only a modest investment to date.

In many ways, the producers are drawing a blueprint for a new era of genuinely international filmmaking.

“We were just looking for a way to get it done,” said Grant Hill, one of the “Cloud Atlas” producers, “but I think there’s the basis for a model there.” He called the final push for financing an “exotic mixture” of deals, adding, “What a studio would have had to pay would have made it impossible.”

The change has been coming for several years. In 2010, the international box office was up 30 percent over five years, twice the growth in domestic sales. And foreign sales accounted for roughly 70 percent of total receipts, both for the industry at large and for some of the biggest American studio productions like “Avatar.”

Meanwhile, the Oscar for best picture, for three consecutive years, has gone to films — “Slumdog Millionaire,” “The Hurt Locker” and “The King’s Speech” — that used globe-spanning financial networks to create stories aimed at global audiences. Movies like these will simply make a stop on American theater screens as they travel around the world.

A peek at the back lot for “Cloud Atlas” testifies to the need for a budget that defies the term “indie.” Behind the yellow shipping containers that are part of the futuristic Korean set is a fine 19th-century sitting room with a rose-lined garden path outside the front door. The interior of an old tall ship shares the soundstage with the exterior of a space-age hovercraft and Styrofoam boulders.

The performers, meanwhile, shift between jarringly different roles. “The biggest change for me as an actor is to have two different film units and two different film crews and to go between the two from one day to the next,” Ms. Berry said in a phone conversation.

She described playing “a Jewish woman in the 1930s” for the third director, Tom Tykwer, then becoming “an old tribal woman” for the Wachowski siblings the next day, and losing track of fellow cast members amid the layers of makeup and costumes.

“Some days I go into the trailer, I’ll be having a conversation — I won’t even know it’s with Hugh Grant until five minutes in,” Ms. Berry said.

Nicholas Kulish reported from Potsdam and Michael Cieply from Los Angeles.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/business/media/around-world-in-one-movie-film-financings-global-future.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Filed Under: Global Business Tagged With: , ,

Around World in One Movie: Film Financing’s Global Future

December 6, 2011 by Leave a Comment

From its truly global parentage to its time-bending story told by three directors using two separate production crews, the movie is unabashedly strange. The narrative, which starts near New Zealand and circles the globe, is bewildering in its complexity, featuring characters in six eras who might share a soul migrating through time. And the project’s primary backers are from China, Korea and Singapore.

But “Cloud Atlas,” in all its glorious confusion, also serves as a guidepost to the future of the film business. Increasingly, sophisticated filmmakers who once relied on American studios for backing are turning to a globe-straddling independent finance system for their most expensive projects.

“Cloud Atlas,” with its $100 million budget and high-wattage cast, including the Academy Award winners Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, was an epic independent film too complicated, too expensive and perhaps too risky for any conventional studio to have backed.

To move forward, the project broke free of national boundaries. Investors from China, Korea, Singapore and beyond contributed roughly $35 million, without which the film could not have been made. German subsidies account for $18 million more. In the United States, “Cloud Atlas” will be distributed, probably next fall, by Warner Brothers, which has made only a modest investment to date.

In many ways, the producers are drawing a blueprint for a new era of genuinely international filmmaking.

“We were just looking for a way to get it done,” said Grant Hill, one of the “Cloud Atlas” producers, “but I think there’s the basis for a model there.” He called the final push for financing an “exotic mixture” of deals, adding, “What a studio would have had to pay would have made it impossible.”

The change has been coming for several years. In 2010, the international box office was up 30 percent over five years, twice the growth in domestic sales. And foreign sales accounted for roughly 70 percent of total receipts, both for the industry at large and for some of the biggest American studio productions like “Avatar.”

Meanwhile, the Oscar for best picture, for three consecutive years, has gone to films — “Slumdog Millionaire,” “The Hurt Locker” and “The King’s Speech” — that used globe-spanning financial networks to create stories aimed at global audiences. Movies like these will simply make a stop on American theater screens as they travel around the world.

A peek at the back lot for “Cloud Atlas” testifies to the need for a budget that defies the term “indie.” Behind the yellow shipping containers that are part of the futuristic Korean set is a fine 19th-century sitting room with a rose-lined garden path outside the front door. The interior of an old tall ship shares the soundstage with the exterior of a space-age hovercraft and Styrofoam boulders.

The performers, meanwhile, shift between jarringly different roles. “The biggest change for me as an actor is to have two different film units and two different film crews and to go between the two from one day to the next,” Ms. Berry said in a phone conversation.

She described playing “a Jewish woman in the 1930s” for the third director, Tom Tykwer, then becoming “an old tribal woman” for the Wachowski siblings the next day, and losing track of fellow cast members amid the layers of makeup and costumes.

“Some days I go into the trailer, I’ll be having a conversation — I won’t even know it’s with Hugh Grant until five minutes in,” Ms. Berry said.

Nicholas Kulish reported from Potsdam and Michael Cieply from Los Angeles.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b31c2fd7ecc8b7026f88ccb8e467e732

Filed Under: Business News Tagged With: , ,