- The U.S. Federal Reserve is considering expanding one of its lending programs to include commercial mortgage-backed securities with terms longer than three years, a Fed official said on Friday. The investment community has been pushing for the Fed to accept securities with a five-year term, but the central bank is concerned about holding longer-term assets on its balance sheet because that can make it more difficult for it to pull back on lending once the economy recovers.
Intense behind-the-scenes talks between the Fed and the commercial real-estate industry over the matter are emblematic of the delicate position the central bank is in as it tries to revive markets. "In our meetings with the Fed, they said 'we get it' that the five-year term is of paramount importance to CMBS investors," said Christopher Hoeffel, president of Commercial Mortgage Securities Association, a trade group. (I love how "trade groups" now have access to the Federal Reserve strategy)
But this is not surprising in the least as we've been discussing it for months and as I wrote yesterday morning the bankruptcy of General Growth (GGP) could now be spun "positive" because it forces the Federal Reserve to support yet another industry. Can't fight it anymore - the government does what it does and the peasants can only smile from afar in our current form of "representation".
Just as all the warning signs were shouted out about the dangers of what Fannie, Freddie had become were ignored for years.... until it came falling down -- so will be ignored the shouting about the enormous losses the Fed will be taking quietely in the night in a few years while no one is paying attention. I guess they can just print money to replace the losses they will take; thankfully the banks or fellas who made these disastrous commercial loans won't have to take the pain. Indeed they are being rewarded. Reverse Robin Hood strikes again.
I guess this leaves retailers as a last place to short, unless the Fed decides it needs to step in and support individual retail chains because they are "systematically" important as well. If so, we'll have to move to something else that is not under the rogue Fed's shooting range. Can't touch insurers, can't touch commercial real estate, can't touch banks - Nanny State is all over it.
It truly is amazing how much is being done outside the reach of our regular 3 branches of government. There is a whole "other" government in the Federal Reserve that answers to no one. And most Americans appear completely oblivious at what is going on.









9 comments:
Hey Mark, thoughts on this lateral market movement we're getting from positive earnings news? Are we setting up for a crash once we get some negative earnings news?
I would not be looking for crashes.
Disgusting, gut wrenching. I'll get on the phone to my congressman/senators but I'm not hopeful of any change.
The American people just won't face up to the damage wrought upon our economy over the last decade plus by the ridiculous debt levels. And our leadership is morally bankrupt. History will not treat this period kindly.
Ask if he supports this bill
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/
I saw that bill, I actually fear for Ron Paul's life!
The way things are going Ron Paul is going to join Jim Rogers in Singapore
If the Fed is going to accept 5 year CMBS then that will certainly help the holders of those securities - mostly banks, etc. But how will that affect companies such as MAC. It looks like MAC will still have cash flow problems and could still default. Am I missing something here?
from zerohedge:
Now the real question is who is really behind the push for this amendment. As Bloomberg points out, the lobbying effort is spearheaded by one Christopher Hoeffel, who is president of the Commercial Mortgage Securities Association trade group. A cursory check of Chris Hoeffel, indicates that he is also a managing director at none other than Investcorp, a "leading provider and manager of alternative investment products, serving high-net-worth private and institutional clients." Investcorp, on its website indicates, that it currently has $13 billion in assets under management.
Chris is a managing director in Investcorp's real estate team, who joined "in 2008 and has senior level responsibility for sourcing, structuring, financing, underwriting, and closing new debt investments for the group. Chris joined Investcorp from JP Morgan / Bear Stearns & Co. where he was a senior managing director and global co-head of Commercial Mortgages."
It would likely be safe to assume that among the assets that Chris manages for his clients at Investcorp, the majority include commercial mortgages. Maybe Chris, Tim Geithner, or the Fed can provide a little clarity on just how much Investcorp would benefit if Chris (the non-profit guy) manages to convince the administration to provide these largely beneficial terms to CRE securities holders, and how much Chris (the for-profit guy) would benefit as a result.
But the plot thickens. Reading further down Investcorp's website one comes to the following blurb:
"The success of the business is underpinned by Investcorp's unique placement capability in the six Gulf Co-operation Council countries of the Arabian Gulf, where we have focused on providing a high level of personal services to our investor base of high-net-worth individuals and institutions. Investcorp captures the growth dynamics of Gulf capital and of the alternative investment industry, combined with international best practice management disciplines."
As if there have not been enough rumblings that the bailout of the GSEs and of bank bondholders has been exclusively to the benefit of foreign investors, among them predominantly China and... Gulf sovereign wealth funds...
So let's recap: Gulf investors, commercial mortgage investments, JP Morgan, a trade group front... The list should probably necessitate some answers from someone before Geithner inevitably bends over backward and grants the TALF expansion, which, of course, like the current version of TALF 2.0 will be largely useless, but regardless U.S. taxpayers have a right to know who is conflicted in what and why.
Thanks Anon
And here I thought good ole Chris was doing this out of goodness of heart - so that our country could prosper; this is in the best interest of all of us!
I am so naive ;)
Post a Comment