Morning Report: Mortgage bank profitability soars

Vital Statistics:

  Last Change
S&P futures 3668 2.6
Oil (WTI) 45.17 -0.31
10 year government bond yield   0.94%
30 year fixed rate mortgage   2.78%

Stocks are flattish this morning on no real news. Bonds and MBS are flat.

Initial Jobless Claims fell to 712k last week, while the Challenger and Gray job cut report showed companies announced 64,700 job cuts last month.

Independent mortgage banks earned $5,535 on each loan in the third quarter, an increase from $4,458 in the second quarter, according to the MBA. This works out to be 203 basis points compared to 167 basis points in the second quarter. Average production volume increased from $1.02 billion to $1.34 billion.

“With the surge in mortgage production volume in the third quarter, net production profits among independent mortgage bankers increased, surpassing 200 basis points for the first time since the inception of MBA’s report in 2008,” said MBA Vice President of Industry Analysis Marina Walsh, CMB. “Soaring production revenues – led by strong secondary marketing gains – drove these results and more than offset an increase in production expenses.” 

The FHFA extended the moratorium on foreclosures and evictions through January 31, 2021.

The Fed’s Beige Book reported modest growth for most of the country. Employment growth remains slow, and inflation is under control. Overall, the economy has a lot of work to do in order to recover to pre-COVID levels.

The CDC has lowered its quarantine time recommendations. The 14 day period has dropped to 7 or 10 days, depending on test results and symptoms.

19 Responses

  1. yes


  2. Nice summation of the rogues gallery:

    “Rules for Thee, But Not for Me
    By Sarah Jones”


  3. Tucker Carson’s latest struck a nerve over on Plum Line. It’s basically Scott’s argument:

    “So what do we take from all of this? It’s hypocrisy, of course, but it’s deeper than that. The people giving us these highly specific orders don’t believe the orders. They don’t believe what they’re saying. Obviously, they don’t really think that COVID-19 is very dangerous. If they thought it was very dangerous, they would be following their own orders, but they’re not.”


    • I won’t look at PL. Are they defending these officials?

      I wrote Scott that I personally could cut some slack for a small outdoor wedding, everyone masked except the B and G, but I condemned flying off to Cabo while telling everyone else to hunker down. There is questionable, and then there is outrageous, and a lot of these examples are outrageous. I did not consider my cutting some slack for the wedding a defense, because it was still a bad leadership example, questionable at best.

      I don’t see how anyone could defend these choices by these officials. If they don’t think it is dangerous than all the crowded hospitals in their jurisdictions and all the doctors and nurses begging for help don’t mean anything to them and they deserve to be voted out of office.

      Our Mayor may get recalled on petition.


      • Waldman is arguing this is part of the usual Republican victimhood complex over “The War on Christmas”, ala being outraged over Starbucks having generic holiday coffee cups or people saying happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

        He’s not even engaging Carson’s argument, just lying about the content of it.


      • This is a good observation too:

        “Everyone is very sorry. Everyone is a Democrat, too. There are no anti-maskers in this bunch; no one is trying to inherit Trump’s base. But the contrast between their party affiliation and their behavior isn’t as incongruous as it initially seems. Partisanship cannot help us understand the seductive qualities of a French Laundry or the allure of a Mexican resort town. Nor does it explain why Hancock would scold his workers about the very mistake he planned to make himself. Each politician shares something beyond a flair for the hypocritical. They share a class, and the rules have always been different for them.

        Inequality is the subtext of most outcomes of the pandemic. The virus has proven deadliest for Black and brown people. It finds its most productive feeding grounds on reservations and in prisons, and in the crowded nursing homes where the elderly poor go to die. As some conservatives explain it, these deaths are a natural phenomenon, like a hurricane, or maybe a tornado. Blame God. But we should know by now that the virus maps a world we’d already made. If we can perceive a hierarchy in its death toll, we can only blame ourselves.

        With that as our context, the actions of Democrats like Adler are easier to understand. They know what the science says, and because they know, they’re able to convince themselves that they’re intelligent and savvy enough to safely flout the rules. If it seems like they’ve lost all sense of priority — why risk a fancy dinner out? Why take a nonessential flight? — understand that we have different priorities. They’re not immune from the virus, but they are insulated by power from its aftershocks. They have access to rapid testing and better care if they fall ill. They can behave like nothing’s changed, because for them, nothing really has. The pandemic, and the ensuing economic crisis, are problems they have to manage for other people. The threats they face are not acute.”


        • The pandemic, and the ensuing economic crisis, are problems they have to manage for other people.

          The pandemic did not cause an economic crisis that politicians need to manage. Politicians trying to manage the pandemic has caused the economic crisis.

          I really think this is an important point. Despite the author’s implicit critique of conservatives, deaths from this disease actually are a natural phenomenon. The economic disaster that has followed has been purely man-made, the result of panicked and unthinking policy making. It is true, as the author says, that they do not face the same threats as the people they deceive themselves into thinking they are helping, but we should not let these politicians (or their policy cheerleaders in the media or the public at large) soothe their consciences by pretending that the economic wreckage they have wrought was caused by Covid. It is entirely on them. They own it. If they think it was worth it, then they should have to make the case.


        • i think Durham will be unimpeded by the next Admin.

          I am betting there is no there there beyond what we know about over zealous and conviction minded FBI agents. And that JB himself has no fear of this investigation and won’t want to appear worried about it.


        • Mark:

          I am betting there is no there there beyond what we know about over zealous and conviction minded FBI agents.

          I’ll take that bet. I think we already know there is a lot more there than just that. The idea that the Russian Collusion Hoax was a good faith investigation cannot be rationally sustained anymore.


        • I think you’ll lose money on that Scott, this whole thing dies on 1/21 whether or not Biden cans Durham, which I still think he does.


        • McWing:

          I think you’ll lose money on that Scott, this whole thing dies on 1/21

          Well I am betting on whether there is a “there” there, not on whether Durham produces any indictments. As I said, I think we already know enough to reasonably conclude that the whole Russia Collusion investigation was a political hit-job, not a good faith investigation. The Flynn fiasco alone revealed enough to know that.

          In other words, I think I won the bet before it was even made!


        • Under those terms I’d pay you. It was a put up job from the time Trump sealed the nomination in the spring of 16. The Aussie, Downer was the initial pretext for Brenner and he took it to Comey to run agents at the campaign.


        • I mean to be betting that there was no instigation of the FBI from the Admin, and thus nothing for JB to care about impeding Durham. If Durham shows broader politically motivated impulses in the Intel community beyond FBI overreach that will be worth knowing. But I think the whole matter comes out of the intel community and that part of it was justified – that Russia was trying to influence the election at a more fundamental level than previous efforts from other nations, at least since GB’s open attempts in WW2. The suspicions of collusion were certainly fueled in part by the actual connections of the “volunteer” campaign manager, Manafort.

          We shall see.


        • Mark:

          If Durham shows broader politically motivated impulses in the Intel community beyond FBI overreach that will be worth knowing.

          I think we already know it. Any other explanation of the things that have already been revealed strains credulity.

          Addendum: You really should read Ball of Collusion by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. He is no Trumpster, and he both knows and professes respect for most of the principals involved…Comey, Mueller, etc. But he concludes that “The most sinister collusion came from the incumbent administration putting law enforcement and intelligence apparatus toward getting Hillary bClinton elected and damaging Trump’s campaign. And when they couldn’t prevent Trump from being elected, they hamstrung his ability to govern on the agenda he ran on.”

          You are not going to know what happened by reading the WaPo and/or the NYT.


        • I sensed that, but it is awful leadership. Should not be rewarded.


    • i think i show up at the PL once a month, tops. They are some of the least self-aware people i have ever met.


  4. Have any of you watched the surveillance footage of the vote counting in Georgia? Wholly apart from the ballots that were broken out from under a table and counted after they told observers to go home for the night, I am trying to figure out how observers could have possibly been observing anything, even when they were in the room. I can’t see observers in close enough proximity to any ballot counters to be able to confirm that they are doing things properly. The WaPo et al have told us that claims that observers were kept at a distance so as to prevent them from doing their job has been “debunked”, but i have looked at the video and those claims actually seemed to be confirmed by it. What am I missing?


Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: