Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Mortgage Co’s’ Category

Thoughts about my investment in New Residential’s and a look at their MSR Pools

New Residential has performed poorly over the last few weeks. Pretty much since the release of their 3rd quarter results, the stock has tumbled.  As I mentioned in my previous post, I think that this move in unwarranted, and I have added to my position significantly at and below $6.

I suspect that the market is lumping in New Residential with all the other mREITs.  They are being compared on standard book value metrics and New Residential trades at a significant premium to its book value (20%) while most other REITs trade at a discount to it.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are algorithms picking up on the book value discrepancy and automatically shorting the higher price to book companies against longs on the lower ones.  It would seem like a natural trade – short what is expensive, go long what is cheap, and look for opportunities where the dividend of the long exceeds that of the short. Read more

Is the Gain on Sale Boom over?

Earlier this week my portfolio was rolling along nicely, having closed at an all-time high on Wednesday night with me looking forward to further gains ahead.

And then Flagstar reported their fourth quarter results.

I don’t own Flagstar.  I don’t even follow Flagstar.  They are a Michigan based bank that has had some problems in their past and, most importantly for this discussion, run a reasonably large sized mortgage operation. In the fourth quarter Flagstar reported a big decline in their gain on sale margin, from 244 basis points to 153, and the Street took it to mean that the mortgage origination boom was over. In addition to the carnage of Flagstar (down about $2.50 to $15.57 on Thursday), PHH Corp, Impact Mortgage and Nationstar all took it on the chin.

But while the headline decline was steep, there is more to the story.  During the conference call Flagstar provided some clarity. The following exchange between Matthew Kerin, the president of the Mortgage banking division, and Paul Miller of FBR is instructive (via SeekingAlpha). Read more

Impac Mortgage: Where the money comes from

When I first bought Impac Mortgage (back at the beginning of August) it was on the basis of GAAP earnings (which were 50 cents per share in the second quarter), and revenue growth from the mortgage origination business.  Soon after, when I looked more closely into earnings, I determined that much of what was reported in GAAP was obscured by mark to market adjustments and a legacy business that is no longer operating.  Fortunately if I ignored these effects, the resulting picture was even better than the one painted by GAAP.

So I left it alone and went on to other things.

To digress for a minute, this is my process.  Once I feel like I have a clear answer on a stock, I don’t look too much further into the details.  When I look at a stock I look hard, and I usually come up with a fairly accurate picture, but after I feel able to draw a conclusion, I don’t spend a lot more time quibbling over the details.

I don’t have time.  I have time to look into maybe 2 stocks per week.  If I spent week after week evaluating a single security, it is simply inefficient.

Does this lead to mistakes?  Absolutely.  Sometimes I miss a key aspect that changes the equation.  But to mitigate mistakes I have learned to reevaluate when the market tells me I am wrong, and to act quickly when it turns out I am.  And actually, this has been one advantage of starting this blog.  There have been a couple of cases where readers have pointed out something that I have missed.  And I’ve saved money as a result.

Given the amount of time I have to allocate to investing, this remains, in my opinion, my most efficient process.  Study the business, figure out what the key drivers are and where problems are most likely to arise, evaluate those drivers and problems, make a decision and move on to the next one.  Take another look if things start to go amiss.

With respect to Impac, as the stock moved up from $2.50 to $10, I wasn’t that concerned with getting a better grasp on the specifics of earnings.  My initial analysis showed me the drivers, and they led me to conclude that the stock wasn’t even close to reflecting those drivers, and that was enough for me.

But now, with Impac hovering between $10 and $11, further analysis is warranted.  My intent below is to understand how each of the businesses that Impac operates generates earnings, and to compare the earnings generation capacity to GAAP, hopefully eliminating some of the confusion introduced by GAAP. Read more

Further investigation into Impac Mortgage Part I: Non-recourse trusts

I did more research into Impac Mortgage (IMH) over the weekend, and I plan to share my findings in a series of 3 posts.

In this first post I want to focus on the trust assets.  While the trusts are somewhat peripheral to my investment thesis in Impac, an explanation of how they work is central to the following posts I plan to write about earnings, and understanding the trusts helps quantify what potential they might hold for Impac if the housing market recovery becomes robust.

Impac Mortgage was a $250 stock in 2004 (I am including the 10:1 share consolidation that took place).  Obviously it has been a long way down.   The fall in the stock price from then to now has been entirely because of the mortgage market collapse.   This is something to keep in mind while I step through the next few paragraphs.

As I have explained in previous posts, I bought Impac Mortgage because of the growth I anticipate from their origination business.   But while the current business model centers around mortgage origination, it hasn’t always been that way.  Prior to 2008, in addition to originating mortgages Impac created and ran a number of off-balance sheet trusts.  These trusts would buy mortgages, mostly one’s originated by Impac, and pay for those mortgages by selling securitized mortgage obligations to investors.  The trusts would pay interest on their obligations from the cash collected on the mortgages. Read more

Week 65: Doing the work

Portfolio Performance

The turn in housing

– Michael Burry – Scion Capital

The housing market has turned.

Being that it is a huge, lumbering tanker, it takes a long time to slow down and redirect.  The changes happen slowly enough that you can miss them if you are focused on the wrong details (price increases and to a lessor degree sales increases) and not enough on the right one’s (inventory).  All that matters is that prices are cheap, rates are low, and inventory has come down to levels that leave many cities firmly entrenched as sellers markets. Once buyers stop seeing themselves in the drivers seat, their attitude changes from one of waiting for a better buy to that of getting in before its too late.  The vicious circle is replaced by a virtuous one, and sales and price increases will follow.  Nothing lasts forever, and the US housing collapse didn’t either.

Falling inventories had to lead the housing turnaround, and that is what we are seeing now.  Nationwide in August housing inventories fell from 8.2 months of supply a year ago to 6.1 last month.

Read more

More on Impac Mortgage

Yesterday was another big moving day for Impac Mortgage.  I was nervous adding to the stock last week given that it had risen from $2.30 to over $4 in a single day but I’m feeling better about those purchases now.  I’ve been looking at some of the details of the company, trying to fill in the gaps.  Below are some of the answers I’ve found.

On the Business Strategy…

During the year end conference call the company focused much of the discussion on what they were doing to expand the business going forward. They are focused on expanding retail lending activities, their broker network and on purchase money loans.

I had to look up the definition of a purchase money loan:

Simply put, a purchase money loan is a loan used to buy a home. In some ways, it is easier to describe what a purchase money loan is not. It is not a loan that is taken out after you buy a home such as a home equity line of credit or a home equity loan. It is not a refinance mortgage. A purchase money loan is evidenced by the trust deed or mortgage a home buyer signs at the time the home buyer purchases the home.

Impac is developing a business model that is directed at new home loan originations, as opposed to refinancing. I think this is a good strategy going forward. The refinancing business has been a strong business but at some point, probably in the not too distant future, interest rates are going to go up. The whole thesis behind my idea to get into mortgage servicing rights has been premised on rates going up. When they go up the refinancing business is going to dry up. At the same time, the increase in rates is almost certainly going to coincide with an improvement in the resale market, since rates aren’t rising unless the economy improves and the economy isn’t going to improve until housing improves. Impac is positioning itself well for this turn.

Retail volumes were flat in the first quarter but the company guided to higher volumes in the 3rd quarter. Retail volumes have increased significantly over the past year, up from $60.5 million to $132 million in Q2.

The company also restarted their correspondent lending business in January. I’ve written about correspondent lending before, in my write-up of PHH Corporation, and as I point out in an excerpt from that piece below, I really like the prospects of the correspondent business because everybody is running away from it as quickly as they can:

Consider the following. Imagine a mortgage broker who develops significant business volume, earns the confidence of wholesale lenders who will authorize him to approve their loans, and has accumulated some capital. He can now obtain a credit line from a bank that can be drawn against to fund loans, repaying the loans when they are sold to wholesale lenders. Under the law, the broker has morphed into a “lender” – the type called a “correspondent lender”.

This has been a business the big banks have traditionally taken a large piece of. Until now. In August Bank of America reported that they were exiting the correspondent lending business. Ally Financial, who lends through GMAC, retreated from correspondent lending back in December before recently announcing that they would get back into the business on a limited basis. Met Life announced that they were winding down their origination business entirely in January.

This isn’t small potatoes. The above 3 companies were in the top 12 correspondent lenders by volume in the third quarter.

There are rumors others are leaving the business. I thought this quote from a Mortgage News Daily article was spot-on:

One can just hear large lenders talking in their boardrooms. “Do we really want to be in this business, given the regulatory, legal, financial, and public relations issues? Where the value of servicing has dropped dramatically in the market, and could drop further depending on Basel III? Where the mortgage insurance tax deductibility has gone away? Where every week brings a new lawsuit – when will we have more attorneys on staff than originators?”

Its a low margin, highly competitive business. But the opportunity is that it could become less so with some of the big players moving on.

Impac is doing exactly what a small, nimble mortgage originator should do. Get into businesses where the big boys are getting out of. We’ve already seen some of the fruits of that. Correspondent lending volumes were $81.9 million in the second quarter versus only $24.7 million in Q1.

On the preferreds…

The company issued the preferred shares in 2004. The preferred shares paid a dividend of 9.5% and were redeemable at $25 per share. The shares also held precedence in the event of a liquidation over the common shares.

And then Impac changed the rules. In the second quarter of 2009 Impac sent out a proxy  to tender the preferred shares. The tender price, at $1.37 for the series B and $1.43 for the series C, was a small fraction of the redeemable.

About a month later Impac amended the proxy. The amendment rather drastically changed the rules of the preferred. It stripped them of their dividends, stripped them of rights to elect members to the board of directors, and stripped them of almost all other rights that made them senior to the common.

Looking back on the event, it could be interpreted that the preferred holders got a raw deal.  But keep in mind this was the spring of 2009, the stock market had recently hit decade lows in March, and most believed that the rally off those lows was a dead cat bounce.  Many of Impac Mortgage peers were going bankrupt.  The preferred holders were probably happy to getting anything and walk away.   The proxy reached its required minimum tender of 66.7% and along with the shares tendered the amendment was passed.

There are now 665,592 series B preferred outstanding and 1,405,086 series C preferred outstanding. The liquidation value at $25 per share works out to about $52 million. I think you have to consider these shares in terms of the detrimental effect they would have on a takeover bid, because if you wanted to take over the company today you would have to pay something above the current market rate for the common, which would work out to greater than $30 million, plus you would have to pay out the $52 million for the preferred shares.

The weird thing about the preferred is that the only value they is in the event of liquidation.r.   They have no value in a change of control (at least as far as I can tell).  So the preferred’s effectively can be ignored unless you are considering a bankruptcy scenario.  If you are considering a bankruptcy scenario, you also probably should not be considering the common.

So I think its fair to ignore the preferred shares in terms of stockholder equity calculations such as earnings per share and such. Because those earnings are not going to be siphoned to the preferred. It is only if you were buying IMH with the intent of benefiting from a takeover or from the liquidation that you would have to consider them.

There is a lawsuit outstanding with respect to the preferreds.  I haven’t been able to dig up a lot of details on the lawsuit and how much of a risk it is.  The original source of the news release of the lawsuit (not put out by Impac) is not available, but there are reproductions are a few message boards.  The essence of the complaint was explained here:

Silverman says a condition of the tender offer was that at least two-thirds of the holders of the Preferred B and at least two-thirds of the holders of Preferred C shares tender, with the purpose of obtaining sufficient “exit consents” to eliminate the valuable quarterly dividends, preference rights, voting rights and other valuable rights of preferred holders refusing to tender their shares. In this way, the linked tender offer/consent solicitation was deliberately structured to coerce the preferred shareholders into tendering for reasons other than the economic merits of the transaction and into voting for amendments to the terms of the Articles Supplementary of the preferred shares they were selling. Holders of the Preferred B and C shares had to tender or face the prospect of losing virtually all of the economic value of their shares.

This is something I will have to continue to monitor and dig up information on.

A Capital Raise

I think its pretty likely that Impac is going to raise capital here at some point. During the AGM Impac’s CEO,  Joe Tomkinson, said flat out that was part of the plan.

We’ve done a great job on recovery.  When all the competition was declaring bankruptcy, and that quite frankly it would be have been the easiest thing in the world for us to walk away and start a whole new company.  We didn’t do that.  We’ve done everything we can to preserve the shareholders equity.  We haven’t gone out and raised capital, although quite frankly I intend to raise capital which will dilute the shareholders.  I’m told that we’ll get sued for that but my feeling is that its better to have 20% of $100 million dollars than 20% of $20 million dollars.  And so to increase the overall efficiency of the company we’ve got to raise capital.

It was actually a pretty interesting comment.  It was about as blunt of a response as I’ve ever heard to the question of a capital raise.  No fluff about exploring our options or being proactive or some other two-bit turn of phrase to obscure the obvious.   Tomkninson said yup, you bet, we need the cash.

The thing is, they do need cash.  They are growing like a weed and what is beginning to hinder their growth is their warehouse line and the capital required for holding on to servicing.

A warehouse line is a short term line of credit that provides cash for Impac to extend money for the period of time between when the loan is made and the company sells the loan off to Fannie or Freddie.

Warehouse lines are short term and relatively safe so they don’t require a large capital cushion, but they do require some. The main risk is with respect to loans that are made but that can’t be subsequently sold.  This could be because the loans have problems with the documentation (Called scratch and dent), or because the eventual loan purchaser decides not to buy the loan.  A good description of the risks of warehouse lending can be found here.  The article describes the key key evaluation metric for a warehouse lender:

Take any mortgage banker’s financial statement and see how much you need to deduct from loans held for sale to trigger insolvency. Divide that by the average loan amount for that customer. That’s the number of unsaleable loans it will take to put the customer in the tank, and it is typically not going to be a large number.

Tomkinson said that if they raised capital, they could increase their warehouse lines by $70 million for every $700K they had. Right now warehouse capacity is about $140 million (top of my head) and so you could raise $1.5 million and double that.  $1.5 million at $5 per share would be less than 5% dilution.  Even if they doubled that amount, the dilution would not be significant and the money raised would allow the business to continue to grow.

The company has also been growing its servicing portfolio.  I have talked extensively about how I feel the servicing business is a great business to be in, including this article I published on SeekingAlpha. As I wrote in that article:

Mortgage servicing rights are one of the most attractive opportunities in the market right now. There is the potential for returns as much as 30-40% IRR for the companies involved.

I believe the opportunity is being ignored by a market for three reasons:

  1. The market lumps mortgage servicing rights in as just another housing play, and housing is still 2-3 years away from recovering
  2. Mortgage servicing rights are complicated and most market participants don’t want to take the time to understand them
  3. Mortgage servicing rights have traditionally been a crappy business and over the past 5 years they have been a really crappy business

If the company uses capital to grow its servicing business at 30% returns, I would be ok with that.  This is a case where a little dilution may not be such a bad thing.

Limitations on acquisition and change in control ownership limit

The last item that I have been researching but have not had much success in understanding is whether there are obstacles to a potential take over.  With the 10-K risk factors was the following statement:

Our Charter and bylaws, and Maryland corporate law contain a number of provisions that could delay, defer, or prevent a transaction or a change of control of us that might involve a premium price for holders of our capital stock or otherwise be in their best interests by increasing the associated costs and timeframe necessary to make an acquisition, making the process for acquiring a sufficient number of shares of our capital stock to effectuate or accomplish such a change of control longer and more costly. In addition, investors may refrain from attempting to cause a change in control because of the difficulty associated with such a venture because of the limitations.

Unfortunately I have searched and cannot find any clarification on this.

Impac Mortgage: Out of Nowhere

Sometimes you have to act before you know the whole story.

I’ve been on holidays all week and have had pretty limited access to the internet.  I’ve checked my emails maybe once a day at most.  On Tuesday night I checked and I noticed the following google alert (by the way I would highly recommend using google alerts for all key words and company names.  Its an invaluable tool).

I had never heard of the company but I’ve been looking for other ways of playing the origination and servicing industry, especially through smaller companies.   So I read the earnings release.

50 cents per share earnings in the second quarter. Most of the earnings appear to be coming from plain vanilla mortgage origination (same business as PHH).  The company almost doubled origination revenue year over year.  They also hold on to their servicing rights and appear to be growing their servicing portfolio.

Then I check the stock price on yahoo.  The stock had a $2.30 close before the earnings release.

Wait a minute.  This company just earned 50 cents in the quarter and its trading at $2.30 per share?

Well before I went to bed I thought about what I needed to clarify before the market opened the next day if I were going to buy the stock.  I needed to make sure that the share structure was what it appeared.  I needed to make sure that the earnings were legitimate (that they were coming from mortgage origination and not from a one time mark to market valuation change).  And I needed to make sure that there wasn’t some sort of debt or financing issue (for example some sort of GSE putback overhang) that would put the company close or perhaps over the precipice.

I read through the 10-Q, which was released with earnings, and I read through the 10-K risk factors. I didn’t see any red flags.  So I took the optimistic attitude that maybe this stock was simply mispriced.  Maybe it was like all the other mortgage related stocks and the mortgage industry itself and it was just hated to the point where it no longer reflected reality.

First thing in the morning before everyone woke up and I had to get off the computer (it was a vacation after all) I bought some stock.  I took a 1% position in each of my portfolios, including the one followed here:

By the end of the day, the stock was trading over $4.

I give this history in part because I hate to write up a stock after its had a run like Impac has.  I’m sure its going to sound to some like a pump and dump or an unlikely piece of luck.  Yet this blog is about the stocks I’ve bought so that’s what I have to write about and that’s what I’m doing.

As well, specifically regarding the outlook of Impac Mortgage, even though the stock has run up a rather ridiculous 100+ percent in the last 4 days, I think it may go a lot higher.  If I’m reading it right and not missing anything (which keep in mind I very well could be), the stock has room to run.  After all this was a $250 stock in 2005 and even after the run up, the market capitalization is a miniscule $30 some million dollars (though there are additionally some preferred’s outstanding). I’m not just talking the talk.  I doubled my position on Friday at $4.26.

So with a word of warning that any stock that has risen 100% in less than a week should be carefully considered before buying, let’s take a look at what the company does.

On to the company…

The story here is a simple one. Impac is a mortgage originator that has been growing it origination volumes substantially for the past year, and that growth has finally reached the inflection point where it has become profitable.

The company originates mortgages through retail, wholesale and correspondent channels.  A breakdown of origination volume by channel for the second quarter is illustrated below:

The company has developed a significant retail platform.  Retail lending is when the company deals directly with the borrower, as opposed to wholesale and correspondent lending where they are acting through independent brokers and correspondents who are originating the actual loans which are then sold to them.

The retail business is more often the higher profit business (because there is no middle man taking a cut) but it also requires more up front capital and fixed costs as you have to develop the infrastructure, the marketing, the people and the relationships required to interact with the borrower directly.  These higher start-up costs were at least partially responsible for the losses incurred in previous quarters.  The company made the following statement with respect to this in the year end 10-K:

 In 2011, the mortgage lending operations has been successful in increasing its monthly lending origination volumes to be in excess of $100 million. However, although the mortgage lending revenues increased in 2011, expenses associated with the mortgage lending activities significantly increased also. The increase in expenses was primarily due to start-up and expansion costs with opening new offices, hiring staff, purchasing equipment, investing in technology and the supplemental default management team as discussed above. Specifically, as the Company attempts to build a purchase money centric platform with a significant amount of retail originated loans; the related start-up costs for this type of origination platform will be higher than a wholesale refinance focused mortgage operation. In addition, the Company has made small investments in proprietary technologies that will further support our expansion of retail originated purchase money mortgages along with more competitive recruitment of realtor direct loan officers. The Company believes this is the right strategy in the long term as interest rates on mortgage loans are expected to rise in the future, which will greatly reduce the percentage of refinance transactions to more historical percentages. In order for the mortgage operations to achieve profitability, we will need to (i) increase overall origination volumes, (ii) improve lending revenues by originating a higher percentage of retail loans and products with wider margins and greater loan fees and (iii) reduce lending operating costs through increased operational efficiencies, or some combination of them.

While in the second quarter most of the growth was from the wholesale channel, future growth is expected to be driven from retail.

Second quarter volumes in the wholesale and correspondent lending channels led to significant volume increases over the first quarter; however, retail expansion during the second quarter is expected to lead to a corresponding increase in retail production during the 3rd quarter. Retail production is also expected to increase from the opening of the previously announced Reverse Mortgage operations.

Moving on to margins, Impac’s margins on mortgage lending look comparable to other companies I follow.  The company booked mortgage lending gains and fees of $15.1 million on $531.9 million of loans originated.  That is a total gain of 283 basis points.  To compare, PHH recorded a total gain on loans of 308 basis points in the second quarter.  Nationstar meanwhile recorded gain on sale of 306 basis points.

The company also earns money from mortgage servicing, and they have been growing their servicing portfolio every quarter.  I appreciated the company’s comments that they saw opportunity in holding on to the service rights of the mortgages they are originating given the ultra-low rates and high quality loans that are being written.

Excel expects to continue building its mortgage servicing portfolio as management believes a servicing portfolio of agency loans during a period of low interest rates and high credit quality focus is a good investment for the Company.

It’s the same line I’ve been saying for months now.

The company hasn’t been reporting the total balance of loans serviced for very long, but below the increase over the last 3 quarters is illustrated:

The company hires a subservicer to perform the servicing activities.  Assuming 25 basis points for the servicing fee and 7 basis points going to the subservicer, the company stands to pull in around $2 million in servicing revenues per year.

All of the loans originated and serviced are conforming, meaning they are being sold to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae.

Things to be concerned about…

With this all said, the company does have some hair.

For one, they do not do a very good job of explaining their mortgage lending revenues.  While PHH and Nationstar both provide enough information to determine what they are valuing the capitalized servicing rights at, I can find no way of doing that with what Impac provides.

Second, the company appears to mark to market just about everything, including their long term debt. As noted in the 10-Q:

…long-term debt had an unpaid principal balance of $70.5 million compared to an estimated fair value of $12.0 million

Huh?  I don’t know if I am misunderstanding this or what because I have never seen a company mark to market their own debt and I didn’t even know you could do that.  Nevertheless, it seems to be what they do and its something worth contemplating the implications of.

Potential upside from The Long Term Mortgage Portfolio

An interesting sort of call option that Impac has embedded into its value comes from their residual interest in a number of securitization trusts.   Before 2007 the company originated and packaged mostly sub-prime loans and sold them off to investors through non-recourse trusts.  The company kept a residual interest (the equity) in these trusts.  The residual interest was the lowest rung on the ladder, being the first to not receive payment in the event of defaults within the trust.

These trusts are basically securizations of mostly Alt-A loans (meaning loans where the borrower does not have full documentation of income or net worth or some other metric that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac requires).

Probably the most important thing about these trusts is that they are non-recourse to the Company, so the economic risk is limited to the residual interest only.

A break-down of the current fair value estimate of residual interest in the trust by year (taken from the 10-Q) is shown below:

These trusts are carried at fair value and the debt associated with them is also carried at fair value.   The difference between the expected fair value of the trusts (which is $5.469 billion) versus the debt (which is $5.446 billion) is $23 million.

While Impac seems to point to this number in its 10-Q I don’t think its terribly relevant.  For one, the future value of the trust assets (the mortgages within each trust) are based on a lot of assumptions, including future default rates, prepayment rates, interest rates, and so on.

Probably more importantly, at maturity the debt associated with each trust has to be paid in full, not at fair value.  While the overall fair value of the trust assets is a little less than $5.5 billion, the outstanding principle balance of the debt is $9.1 billion.  So clearly the debt outstanding outweighs the trust assets.  Nevertheless, the trusts are clearly not all a worthless asset.  In the second quarter the company collected $4.4 million in cash from the trusts, representing residual interest payments from those trusts that are presumably in a strong enough position to meet the collateral requirements that must be met before cash is paid to the residual interest holder.   Value is being realized and the potential for more value to be realized exists.

What I think is worth highlighting is that the future cash flow potential of these residual interests is basically a pure play on the US housing market.  Less defaults, stronger cash flow performance from the underlying mortgages, and Impac stands to take in a decent amount of cash from these trusts.  If housing goes down for a triple dip, well then you can probably write them off to something pretty close to zero.

Conclusions…

The stock is a bit of a flier, no question about it.  The market capitalization is miniscule, the analyst and brokerage following is non-existent, and the disclosure is not as complete as I would like it.

Nevertheless, the industry is right and, if my thesis about the housing market bottoming and potentially surprising to the upside pans out, the timing is right.  The company, if you ask me, is doing exactly the right thing at the right time by building its origination business and retaining as much servicing as cash flow will allow.  I’ve taken a position and added to it once.  If it continues to play out as it appears to me it could, I will continue to add on the way up.