Daily Archives: March 23, 2011

Fed’s Clash With Bank of America Raises Questions

Brian T. Moynihan, Bank of America's chief executive.Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters Brian T. Moynihan, Bank of America’s chief executive.

This month, Bank of America gathered hundreds of investors and analysts in an ornate ballroom at the Plaza Hotel for the Wall Street equivalent of a coming-out party — with executives talking up a dividend increase and declaring that a “new era” for the company had begun.

There was just one problem: the Federal Reserve was not on board.

On Wednesday, Bank of America said the Fed had vetoed its plans for a modest dividend increase in the second half of 2011.

It is a serious setback for a company that has been struggling to win back the confidence of shareholders.

A handful of other large banks have also encountered resistance from regulators about their plans to increase payouts to investors or buy back stock, according to industry insiders who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Capital One Financial, MetLife and Morgan Stanley, along with Bank of America, have been notably absent from the list of peers that have announced dividend increases or share repurchases since last Friday, when the Fed informed the country’s 19 largest banks of the results of a second round of stress tests they underwent earlier this year.

For investors, the silence is somewhat unnerving. Bank of America did not disclose the central bank’s reason for rejecting the dividend proposal, and the Fed declined to comment on how individual institutions fared in its latest round of examinations.

Analysts said the rejection raised questions about the lingering problems faced by the nation’s biggest bank. Shares of Bank of America fell 1.66 percent on a day when the market edged higher.

Morgan Stanley declined to comment on the matter beyond a statement it had previously issued about the stress tests, which emphasized that the firm’s priority is to reinvest capital in existing businesses.

MetLife also did not comment on what it had been told by the Fed, but said it was “premature” to address the dividend issue because it typically increases dividends later in the year.

Capital One would not comment on discussions with regulators.

Analysts said the Fed’s concerns about Bank of America probably centered on its giant mortgage business, which is plagued by uncertainty because of institutional investors who want it to repurchase billions of dollars in soured mortgage securities.

In addition, the bank is under investigation by state attorneys general, which could force Bank of America and other large mortgage servicers to make a multibillion-dollar settlement.

“Nobody can really calculate” the risk Bank of America faces on the mortgage claims, said Chris Kotowski, a bank analyst with Oppenheimer, adding that it is “uncharted territory.”

Bank of America said it had originally submitted its dividend proposal to the Fed in January. The company’s plan was to maintain its current payout of one cent for the first two quarters of this year, and then institute a “modest increase” later this year, according to the regulatory filing on Wednesday.

Analysts originally expected the bank to raise its quarterly dividend to about a nickel — roughly 20 percent of its anticipated earnings for the remainder of 2011. That would be in line with other bank payout plans, which regulators are aiming to cap at 30 percent of earnings.

Despite the setback Wednesday, Bank of America said it intended to submit a revamped dividend proposal to the Fed.

“The corporation will continue to work with the Federal Reserve and intends to seek permission for a modest increase in its common dividend for the second half of 2011, through the submission of a revised comprehensive capital plan to the Federal Reserve,” the bank said in the filing.

Even so, analysts say that the rejection raises serious concerns about the bank’s leadership team, including its chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan.

Andrew Marquardt, a research analyst at Evercore Partners, called it a “frustrating and disappointing” setback.

“They are in this long haul of trying to rebuild credibility and confidence from investors and analysts alike,” he said. “This doesn’t help.”

Indeed, Bank of America’s failure to get the dividend increase proposal approved by the Federal Reserve stands in sharp contrast to other financial giants. Even Citigroup managed to get the Fed’s permission for a quarterly dividend payout, albeit a mere penny.

Bank of America “is financially stable enough to pay a dividend, but clearly you can’t put them on the same footing as JPMorgan or Goldman Sachs,” said Mr. Kotowski, of Oppenheimer.

The bank’s capital levels, although relatively strong, lag behind some competitors, according to Jefferson Harralson, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. “It makes sense to be a little more careful,” he said.

Capital One Financial’s public statement following the stress tests raised similar concerns. Although it had never indicated its capital plans, the bank stunned many investors when it said it expected to maintain its quarterly dividend at 5 cents, and unlike its peers, did not mention whether the Fed had granted it approval to return capital to shareholders in the future.

Many investors believe the company is financially strong, but some analysts said the Fed might have wanted more time to assess its condition once new accounting rules requiring it to bring billions of dollars of credit card-related securities onto its balance sheet go into effect later this year. In addition, the bank has acknowledged concerns over the application of certain tax benefits.

Asked if Capital One had submitted a dividend or share buy back request to the Fed, or if the Fed had rejected its plan, Tatiana Stead, a bank spokesman, demurred. “As a matter of policy, we will not disclose supervisory conversations or the nature of these supervisory interactions,” she said.

Capital One, she added, expected that its strong capital levels would support growth and “be available for increased deployment in the interest of shareholders.”

In January, federal regulators asked the nation’s 19 largest banks to provide detailed plans of how they would deploy their capital over the next two years — including any dividend increases or stock repurchase programs. Then, they tested their ability to cope with losses from a range of economic and financial situations.

Regions Financial and SunTrust Banks did not submit a dividend or stock repurchase request to the Fed. Those lenders were barred from doing so because they had not repaid the federal bailout money they accepted during the financial crisis.

Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC, said its plans were still under review by the Fed, and as a private company, does not face the same pressures as publicly traded lenders.

Fed officials told the banks they could not return more than 50 percent of earnings to shareholders, and specifically limited dividend payouts to no more than 30 percent of earnings. But regulators declined to tell them the specific amounts they would approve; instead, they would only approve or reject the banks’ proposals, giving them the opportunity to resubmit them in future quarters.

Susanne Craig contributed reporting.

DESCRIPTION

New-home sales hit all-time low in February | Inman News

New-home sales hit all-time low in February

NAHB: 'Housing recovery is hesitating'

By Inman News, Wednesday, March 23, 2011.

Inman News™

New-home sales dropped to an all-time low in February, falling an estimated 16.9 percent from January 2011 and sinking 28 percent compared to February 2010, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 250,000, the U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Housing and Urban Development reported today.

The rate of single-family new-home sales in February was down 82 percent from a peak of 1.39 million, set in July 2005. The previous all-time low of 274,000, in records dating back to 1963, was set in August 2010.

"February’s sales numbers add to the mounting evidence that the housing recovery is hesitating along with the inconsistent progress of the economic recovery," said David Crowe, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, in a statement.

The NAHB also noted that "even qualified buyers who are ready to make a purchase are facing frustrating challenges in terms of tight consumer lending conditions and inappropriately low appraisal values on new construction."

Record lows were reported in the new-home sales rate in three of four U.S. regions in February: the sales rate from one month earlier plunged an estimated 57.1 percent in the Northeast, 27.5 percent in the Midwest, and 6.3 percent in the South. Compared to February 2010, new-home sales dropped 50 percent in the Northeast, 40.8 percent in the Midwest, and 17.8 percent in the South. In the West, the new-home sales rate dropped 14.7 percent from January to February and fell 34.1 percent compared to February 2010.

The median sales price of new single-family homes, at $202,100 in February, dropped to the lowest level since December 2003, when it stood at $196,000. And the average price, at $246,000, was at the lowest level since January 2009, when it stood at $245,200.

The median single-family new-home price fell 8.9 percent, and the average price fell 13.4 percent year-over-year in February.

On Monday, the National Association of Realtors reported that sales of resale single-family homes, townhomes and condominiums dropped 9.6 percent compared to January and dipped 2.8 percent year-over-year in February, with the median price dropping 4.2 percent year-over-year, to $157,000.

Contact Inman News:
E-mail

E-mail

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor

Copyright 2011 Inman News

All rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.

A Realtor, in sickness and in health | Inman News

 Flickr photo courtesy of <a href=

Last week I received a phone call from a family friend. He is a well-known real estate investor and a very savvy one at that. He is also really cheap.

Now, I don’t mean “sorta cheap” or “kinda cheap.” Heck, I can admit to being sorta cheap myself; I am no stranger to a good sample tray and a free coffee. And kinda cheap people are like my grandparents: they tip with whatever change they find in the bottom of their coat pockets. But really cheap people involve you in their cheapness. So I wasn’t too surprised to hear the request on the other end of the line.

REALLY CHEAP: Alisha, I need you to drive by (123 Address St.) and check it out for me. Do a walk-through, a (comparative market analysis), and let me know what you think I could flip it for.

ME: Well, I …

REALLY CHEAP: And don’t talk to the seller’s Realtors. I don’t want them to know I’m interested.

ME: Do you …

REALLY CHEAP: And I’m already working with another Realtor. I don’t want them to know you’re involved, ‘kay?

ME: But, the thing is …

REALLY CHEAP: Just your gut level instinct will be enough for me. Thanks for the favor, hon’. (Click.)

Hmmm …maybe I should mention that this is my husband’s family’s friend.

I didn’t even know what to say, really. Who does that? Expecting me to just drop everything and offer free real estate advice for nothing! Who does he think I am, a Realtor? Hmpf …

I decided there were only three ways to play this.

No.1: Pretend to be really, really sick. “Oh, I can’t even pick up the phone, let alone drive out to that address. I’m so sorry. If only I didn’t feel like the living dead. Blaahhhhhh!”

No. 2: Give bad advice. “Flip that? Of course! Why, I see you making three times any other conservative estimate. It doesn’t need any updating. It’s perfect just the way it is. Honestly, what a piece of cr … creativity, oh so cute! I think you should buy all the surrounding real estate, too.”

No. 3: Play it straight. “Well, based on the current sales trends in the area and the existing competitive properties I’d say you should offer no more than X. And if you can get it for that, well then, that’s a lucrative deal.”

Option No. 1 really appeals to me the most. I can do a very realistic impression of the flu. However, word of my true health would no doubt get back to Mr. Really Cheap, aka Mr. Savvy Investor. In scenario No. 2, I could guffaw to myself in secret, but if he actually took my advice and bombed, well then, where would I be? Ugh.

Down to the third option. Sure, I would end up telling the truth, but also end up feeling just a little used in the process. I decided the problem was that most, if not all, real estate clients do not truly know how we get paid. How much we get paid is a different issue altogether. But I’d argue that unless you are a Realtor yourself, you don’t really know how all the splits, referral commissions and brokerage fees work. So I decided to type it all out and send Mr. Savvy Investor an invoice with an explanation of fees. Lawyers and doctors do this, right?

After printing out my handiwork and spritzing it with expensive perfume, I thought I’d better let a broker friend read it. Another set of eyes, you know.

BROKER FRIEND: You are seriously going to send this out, Alisha? What are you thinking?

ME: Well, I was thinking that I’d let him know I value my own time, and that I treat real estate like my own business because it is my business!

BROKER FRIEND: But don’t you think this letter is a little ‘in your face’?

ME: So?

BROKER FRIEND: So, this business is all about relationships. This is not a relationship letter. I’d say give him the information he desires and file this letter under “How to Lose a Client.”

ME: But he’s not my client! He’s just really cheap!

BROKER FRIEND: Really bad idea, Alisha. Really bad. But hey, it’s your call.

Fine. So I round-filed my explanation of fees. Pooh. I’m in a relationship business. But I’m curious, anyone know a better, more elegant solution to really cheap people? Sigh.

“Blaaaaaahhhhhh! Oh no! I just got the flu!” Darn it. I hate being sick.

Alisha Alway Braatz is a buyer’s broker for Coldwell Banker Advantage One Properties in Eugene, Ore., and a real estate humorist.

     

Grievances, Support Aired at Joint Public Meeting of Hayworth and Castelli – Bedford-Katonah, NY Patch

Grievances, Support Aired at Joint Public Meeting of Hayworth and Castelli

Section Sponsored By

Indian Point status was most frequent topic in meeting held at Fox Lane Middle School.

By Tom Auchterlonie | Email the author | March 21, 2011

An audience full of people eager to get their views across greeted Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-Bedford) and state Assemblyman Robert Castelli (R-Goldens Bridge) at a public event in Fox Lane Middle School on Saturday.

While folks attending were on multiple sides of the spectrum, Hayworth in particular faced critical reviews from people to her ideological left on federal issues, with the status of the Indian Point nuclear plant being the most frequent.

Sunny Armer, a Croton-on-Hudson resident and member of the Raging Grannies, came with a sign and hymn offering her displeasure of Hayworth’s support for keeping the plant open and of comments she made in a media interview regarding the difficulty of evacuating people in the tri-state area.

Hayworth acknowledged the comments were true but also noted that evacuation in the area is difficult in any type of emergency. Also, unlike the ongoing danger of heightened activity of the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan in the aftermath of that country’s earthquake and tsunami, Hayworth explained that either event was unlike to happen in this area due the geological differences. She also said that power from Indian Point is needed, and that it is a cleaner source of energy in terms of carbon emissions.

Castelli joined in the conversation, explaining that while putting a nuclear plant at that site was a bad idea, he talked about having to deal with it now.

“So we’re stuck with this problem, ladies and gentlemen,” he said.

Both elected officials stated that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should do its work to review Indian Point, an agency that Armer said is “the lapdog of the nuclear industry.”

Kevin Winterfield, a Garrison resident and member of a Facebook group called the NY19 U.S. House of Representatives Civil Discussion Center, was also skeptical about Indian Point, calling it “a big turd sitting there.”

“Risk is undertaken in any endeavor,” Hayworth responded to his question, in relation to other energy sources. She also noted to Winterfield that his driving a car to the meeting was a risk.

One person who spoke called for the repeal of Price-Anderson, which provides some legal indemnification for nuclear power companies in the event of accidents.

Other Big Federal Issues: Federal Spending and Healthcare

Federal spending was a big point that Hayworth noted in her meeting, starting off by showing a series of charts with public debt figures. She was particularly concerned about the long-term state of major federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

We are facing, Hayworth explained, “an enormous challenge of arithmetic and demographics.”

A Pound Ridge resident whose daughter works on Hayworth’s staff wanted to know what action could be taken regarding the entitlement programs. She responded that future recipients “will probably see some changes,” while emphasizing that doing so would be done on a relatively longer-term time table, compared to the current fiscal debate over continuing resolutions, which are stopgap measures need to keep the federal government running in absence of a budget, which was not passed for the 2011 fiscal year.

In response to another question Winterfield asked regarding action to help create jobs, Hayworth argued that cutting spending would help in the process, and argued that taxes that excessive regulations are hindrances to growth.

With regard to government spending for certain areas, one issue that Hayworth was asked about with concern came from Mount Kisco resident Phyllis Padow-Sederbaum, who was opposed to Hayworth’s support for cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. The congresswoman responded that, “This is a matter of responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.” On the issue of abortion she stated that she is opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade, but argued that many taxpayers do not want to money used for elective abortions. House Republicans, according to media reports when the vote was taken in February, were on record as supporting the move because they argued that it would prevent taxpayer funds from supporting abortion procedures.

Bob Korren, a Bedford resident and small business owner who said he is facing rising health insurance costs, voiced his displeasure with how both parties have been handling healthcare as an issue.

Things got a bit tense after Hayworth responded in voicing her displeasure with the current healthcare law on the books that had the backing of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats, saying that will could allow for the federal government to become “the payer of default,” and leading to a single-payer healthcare system.

“I’m sorry, Congresswoman, that is not true!” shouted Maria Schafer, a Somers resident.

After some brief back-and-forth yelling between people on both sides, things died down and the format resumed as before, and while a majority of people who asked questions had various disagreements with Hayworth, there were supporters in the audience who gave her applause at times.

As the healthcare conversation resumed, Hayworth stated that she wants to see policy changes such as buying health insurance plans across state lines, more emphasis of Health Savings Accounts and changing the medical liability structure.

State Issues, and What Federal Involvement Should There Be?

The meeting also had room for issues of local and state impact, with people asking questions that local officials talk about frequently.

Peter Harckham (D-Katonah), the Majority Leader for the Westchester County Board of Legislators, told Hayworth that the federal government should help with funding mandates like the MS4 stormwater management requirement for local governments. He said there is a need “to get the federal government back into the water infrastructure business.” He also stated that federal funding for water infrastructure was once higher than it is now.

Jim McCauley, a Chappaqua resident a member of the local taxpayers’ watchdog group New Castle Citizens for Responsible Education, asked Castelli about efforts in Albany to change teacher tenure and to repeal the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law, which maintains certain increases in pay after public employee collective bargaining agreements expire. Both of these issues are of concern to members of his group.

Castelli said that he introduced legislation last year to repeal Triborough but that it got killed in committee. He hopes that it can at least be suspended, and said that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration might be open to doing that.

Regarding changing the tenure system, Castelli, who has also been a college professor, said, “If I do my job well I won’t lose it,” calling for  there to be a longer period of time to get tenure, as well as changing the seniority system that gives preference to retaining teachers who have worked in the district longer, in the event of job reductions.

Korren, in posing another question voicing concern about the state of roads in the area, asked if a program could be implemented to fix them while putting unemployed people to work.

Castelli did not see how doing it would be practical at the state level, and said that he wasn’t sure if doing so could be easily instituted at the federal level

Hayworth, in talking about infrastructure, felt that the federal role should be in areas such as interstate projects, and said that local and state roads should be the responsibility of local and state governments. She also felt that unnecessary federal involvement could ultimately have a negative impact on the cost of a local project even if there is an intent to do so in order to provide relief to area taxpayers in paying for the cost.