Credit Card Noose Tightens in Deflation

When B of A spokesman Lawrence DiRita turned up on the evening news not long ago to assure listeners that his employer was willing to work on a case-by-case basis with troubled customers, we decided to call his bluff.  Would DiRita, formerly a high-ranking official in the Defense Department, go to bat for the borrower whose “teaser” loan from the bank was about to shoot up overnight from 0% to 12.24%?  Everyone with a credit card has been offered such a loan at one time or another, and it was once possible to initiate one at rates varying from 0% to 4%, with no additional fee for the balance transfer. Not any longer, though.  Anyone unfortunate enough to have gotten caught with a large balance when the music stopped is now paying rates of 12 percent or more to service it. And while there are still promotional rates available as low as 5.99%, a balance transfer fee of 3% to 4% effectively kicks that up above 13% annualized, since the loans are typically for 6-8 months.

Noose

If you’re in this situation and hoping the bank will work with you, don’t hold your breath. We were told that the lowest non-promotional rate available from B of A at the moment is 12.24%. The man we spoke with, who reports directly to B of A’s top brass, implied that only credit card customers with spotless records could borrow at that rate. We shudder to imagine the rate that would apply to those with spotty credit histories.

 Funds Cost Nothing

Now, we don’t doubt B of A’s sincerity when they say that 12.24% is a pretty good rate for unsecured borrowing. The man we spoke with said that’s what the bank must charge in order to make a profit.  We did point out to him that B of A and a few other biggies can borrow effectively limitless quantities of money from the federal government at rates approaching zero (a fact of which he seemed unaware). However, we had to concede that soaring default rates and delinquencies were probably behind the relentless rise in teaser rates. With so many borrowers skipping out on creditors, it’s possible banks really do have to charge at least 12%-15% on revolving-charge loans just to break even.

But has anyone really thought this through?  With the income and net worth of most Americans shrinking at the fastest pace since the 1930s, borrowing at nominal rates of 10%-15% equates to borrowing at real rates of 20% or more.  This is more obvious in the mortgage world, where, just as we predicted here years ago, a 30-year fixed-rate loan at 5% would in deflationary times become a crushing burden.  Although a 5% mortgage is easy to pay off when one’s home is increasing in value every year, if the price of the home slips by, say, 3%, one’s inflation-adjusted burden would shoot up to 8%.  In fact, home prices in the U.S. have fallen by 30% on average, subjecting scores of millions of homeowners to effective real-rate burdens so high that, unless inflation returns to the real estate sector with a vengeance, the loans are destined to become virtually unpayable.

 Best Game in Town

Meanwhile, banks continue to offer extortionate rates to credit card borrowers because, even with default rates so high, it is still the best game in town for the lenders. However, we think they are seriously mistaken if they expect default rates to decline from this point forward. We see defaults at least quadrupling before deflation has run its course. At that rate, perhaps the banks should be charging 50% on unsecured loans?

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • Chris T. October 1, 2009, 6:43 pm

    Two belated responses, which no one will prob. see, but anyway:

    Universlman writes:
    “Few items hold their value more than homes, in spite of a proportion of value being based on style, condition, effective age or inflation or deflation. I suspect that this is because like cars, homes do serve needs just by their happy existence, unlike say a bar of gold.”

    This is such a common perception in this country yet is not correct per se. It obviously is not correct for any “home” bulit back when in now ghost-towns across the west, or for that matter for over half the homes in Detroit. They have held NO value at all, and at some point in the future, this will apply to many tracts in the desert surrounding Las Vegas.

    But it shows a larger error of perception:
    Homes do NOT maintain value, they are, just like any other capital good, depreciating assets, which is why buildings are allowed to be depreciated in many tax structures, in many European countries, to spur more development, 15-yera write-offs are commone for residental construction. Rather one must continually expend resources to maintain the present state of a home/building. Invest nothing for a long enough time-frame, and your home holds as much value as the ruins all over Detroit’s neighborhoods (btw, just look at pitcures of abandonded properties in CA, and you will see that this time-frame isn’t even that long).

    What really underlies the value of homes is the land under the building, if it rises, that is as function of demand.
    We have lost or been “educated” away from this kind of conception in the US, elsewhere though people still understand this. There, for two identical properties in like location, the one with the newer structure would be priced/valued higher.
    Instead, most Americans have come to believe, that they can get a return greater than the investment by “improving” a home through additions, or a new kitchen, etc, even though realtor’s statistics demonstrate, that for virtually all projects, the return is <100%. Why should it be otherwise? Who pays more for a used car than for a new one?

    Ben:

    By way of example I mean:

    Assume this situation:
    The owner of a business with a stable revenue stream for himself acquires a home, with a mortage requireing $6000 per month, for both principal and interest, financed at 6%, 30 year fixed.

    If he is in a market with rising prices, his real-rate burden declines, but if his business burns down, causing his cash-flow to disappear, he will default on his loan and lose the house. ( He may try to sell ahead of that, and even have a capital gain, but that is not the point here.)

    If on the other hand, his business is stable in a way where the cash-flow can be maintained, then he can still pay that $6000/month, even if he is underwater, and having a real burden of 8% or more.

    In the former case, the declining real burden does not prevent loss of home, in the latter it the rising real rate does not force it.

    By persuade to ditch vs. force I mean that in the former case the homeowner may decide to no longer throw good money after bad, by no longer voluntarily paying his $6000/month, to keep current a loan, which may be a few hundred-thousand greater than the assets current value (people have done this, and lived rent-free until foreclosed upon 10-12 months later. The jingle-mailers were the suckers here, they left too early).

    Thus it is not the same, the "persuade to ditch" is the result of a cold and rational evaluation of the present state by the homeowner with subsequent voluntary consequences by the same, the "force" is a cold and (somewhat) rational evaluation by the lender, with subsequent involuntary consequences for the homeowner.

    If his wife or kids complain, because ot the attachment they have formed to the house, neighborhood, friends, etc, they often will veto the cold and rational evaluation to stop making those $6000 payments, and to keep throwing good money after bad.

  • Ben September 30, 2009, 6:28 pm

    “And sure, the wisdom of still servicing an underwater (and growing) loan, with a rising real rate, is a different ball game. Just because someone can still service it through cash-flow, doesn’t mean they should. BUT, it remains cash-flow that determines ability to service the loan, not its rising real rate, thus the crux is not the rising real rate, but mainting income.”

    Hello, Chris T,

    I just wanted to point out, from my point of view, that the ability to pay is dependent on lenders willing to lend. With so many defaulted loans… and still growing… I think it’s invitable that both the lender and the borrower continue to get hammered.

    “This may be happening in many places due to psychological attachment…but a rising burden in that case could only persuade to ditch the loan, not force it into defaultt..”

    Isn’t ditching the loan and forcing it into default the same thing? Or do you mean refusal to take on any new loans, and instead pay off the existing ones? In either case, again, I don’t see that that favors a continued cash flow to service debt, whether old or new. I am inclined to think that rising home values are a sign that people could pay. When that slows/stops, default setting in, then perhaps employing them , which requires credit to do, is a bad idea as well…

  • Rich September 30, 2009, 4:32 pm

    Aloha All

    We left BAC and WFC when their advertised low-cost overdraft protection in fact turned out to be 62+% cash advances. Calls and letters to the CEOs at the time got no response. That’s when we knew the deck was rigged at the request of the boss. Why play an unfair game with loaded dice?

    Big banks got better than they deserved, committing fraud, ripping off paying customers and getting taxpayer subsidies from Congress passing unread emergency bill bailouts that further buggered the economy for decades.

    The Federal Reserve Banking System cannot last, as credit markets are poised for higher iRates, even though real interest rates are the highest in history. -15.3% GDP the last 4 quarters, the first annual contraction since 1947, plus nominal rates makes real rates implosive, the reason every wise spiritual leader banned usury for their people.

    If we consider durable good imports, prices and production falling -33% yoy plus nominal rates, real interest rates are crushing the life and future out of every producer that borrows.

    No wonder consumers and producers began to save rather than spend. Only headline fools rushed in for cash for clunkers and $8500 first-time buyer loans as prices continued to fall. Anyone who trades with headlines touting an improving economy is signing their own capital punishment warrant.

    As we write this, Mr Market is down in triple digits, headline conditioned fools still buying dips. At some point more realize the inflation game is over. Government may fail to reinflate Humpty Dumpty from the Macy’s to Mummer’s Parades and they know it despite Public Green Shoot predictions since at least Feb 2008.

    Deflation may cleanse every overdraft more thoroughly than a glacial morraine.

    Our last public day at Stockcharts marked by two earthquakes, 8.0 and 7.6 in Samoa and Sumatra, with at least one 13.7 foot Tsunami, and the Dow down in triple digits. Harbinger of things to come in the marketplace?

    Our favorite idea here now, even with time wasting usury: DRV above the 16.23 black dagger.

    Regards*Rich

    http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/Favorites.CServlet?obj=ID3251493

    PS: A recession is a less than a 10% contraction in GDP. -15.3% GDP in a year is a Depression, although government monopoly media did not yet use the word. GMO Media may use it at the bottom, whenever that is, with current guesses in 2014 subject to extension…

  • jp September 30, 2009, 2:39 pm

    Knew BoA was doomed the day they called to tell us our credit line was being reduced from $26k to $700 and the interest rate was doubling from 9 to 18% on a card we’d held for 8 yrs on which we’ve never missed a payment. My FICO is in the low 800’s, my wife’s in the high 700’s. If they won’t lend to us, then who?
    From whom will they profit? The overextended with a proven record of skipping out on their responsibilities? Glad I’m not a banker…

  • universlman September 30, 2009, 7:51 am

    Interesting perspective. However isn’t the “actual” value of the real estate determined by supply and demand rather than the opinion of a qualified appraiser or that of a persuasive writer? Few items hold their value more than homes, in spite of a proportion of value being based on style, condition, effective age or inflation or deflation. I suspect that this is because like cars, homes do serve needs just by their happy existence, unlike say a bar of gold. As long as the house functions, few other investments can compare with its value. Investment banks often summon the imagery of the roof and pillars, with apologies to those from the religious right who would lobby for a more religious symbol, the ultimate protective symbol in our society is a house. Sure the value of the house has bubbled a little lately, but not like stock in oil wells that never were drilled. I can not prove that the trashing of a national asset is going on to cover the huge transfer of wealth by unit load into the pockets of a few thousand lucky bankers. However, it seems that the uninflated value of houses will rebound when our still growing population needs them to live in. This product market is somewhat resistant to off-shoring. Also at some point if energy continues to occupy increasing importance in our unfortunately limited national field of view, the efficiency of our houses and communities will establish further value within the big future picture if one is ever noticeable to our leaders. Our leaders who seem trapped in a political system invested in resisting and not even recognizing change when its flames are crackling at their ankles.

    &&&&&

    Home prices have much more than “bubbled a little”. There is no jerkwater town in the deepest, darkest boondocks of America that does not have a subdivision of $500,000 houses. Exactly why? RA

  • Chris T. September 30, 2009, 7:19 am

    Rick,

    a question (hopefully not too naive) about:
    “Although a 5% mortgage is easy to pay off when one’s home is increasing in value every year, if the price of the home slips by, say, 3%, one’s real (i.e., adjusted for inflation) interest rate burden would shoot up to 8%”

    I don’ t see how the lessoning or increasing real burden (depending on infl/defl state) affects the ability to pay either way, esp. for those, who DID NOT overextend themselves, got a normal-sized 30-year fixeds in relation to their (at signing) ability to pay.

    Such a person (and there definitely are many even today) meets his obligation out of cash-flow, ie. income, and the relation of the monthly sum owed to the securing object’s value does not affect the ability to pay. Only cash-flow maintenance matters, that is, keeping one’s job at a pay-level permitting continued debt-service (at 5% or whatever).
    Sure, that “keeping” is tough in these times, but, 80-85% of the country still has their employment.

    And sure, the wisdom of still servicing an underwater (and growing) loan, with a rising real rate, is a different ball game. Just because someone can still service it through cash-flow, doesn’t mean they should.
    BUT, it remains cash-flow that determines ability to service the loan, not its rising real rate, thus the crux is not the rising real rate, but mainting income.

    This may be happening in many places due to psychological attachment (the wife factor, kids school, etc), or the realization of inability to get out in any case because of underwater situation, etc, but a rising burden in that case could only persuade to ditch the loan, not force it into defaultt..

    Just wondering?
    BTW, you have recovered?

    &&&&&&

    The disaster is unfolding at the margin, one homeowner at a time. Fifty million or more U.S. homeowners are underwater, and there is no escape.
    RA

    ps: Am mostly recovered, thanks.

  • Ben September 30, 2009, 6:34 am

    I would think borrowers would be the ones put through the noose because the lender can just have their losses monetized by the central bank… after they’ve squeezed at least some blood from the stone. And when I think about it, in taking money out of circulation like that, one drop at a time, to the last drop, then bailing out the lenders who won’t lend from there on out… Well, doesn’t mean they’re running counter to inflation, leaving us with inflation of money supply, but not deflation in circulating supply?

    Of course, making loans and providing credit is their life-blood, and that runs counter to that, so I guess what we have here is a murder-suicide combo.

    Now supposing Bill (01:04) is right, I have to wonder what they would be bargaining for (I can see Benny Boy Bernanke flinching, throwing up his hands in defense and saying “Don’t audit me! If you do, I’ll kill us all, I swear to God!”).

  • Occdude September 30, 2009, 4:09 am

    Interest rates for unsecured credit need to go up. Too much frivolity and avarice. If I see another middle age guy skateboarding, rollerblading or otherwise playing instead of being at work paying off his debts Im gonna hurl.

    Thats another shift you’re going to see, one of search for value rather than fluff. Thank goodness for recessions — they wake everyone up and get them thinking about efficiencies.

    America needs to keep its credit card dry for the day when the Chinese stop making our shoes and we need capital for shoemaking machines.

  • Bill September 30, 2009, 1:04 am

    As I read article after article, many akin to the one Rick just posted, the Keith McCready line to Tom Cruise in “The Color Of Money” comes to mind. “It’s like a nightmare, isn’t it ?…It just keeps getting worse and worse”, as McCready ran rack after rack on Cruise.
    Is there ANYONE out there who still believes all this is some sort of mistake??–