Morning Report: A slew of mortgage banking earnings

Vital Statistics:

S&P futures3,73049.75
Oil (WTI)92.314.02
10 year government bond yield 4.12%
30 year fixed rate mortgage 7.14%

Stocks are higher after the jobs report. Bonds and MBS are up.

The economy added 261,000 jobs in October, which is more or less what we added in September. The unemployment rate ticked up to 3.7% from 3.5%, an indication that the Fed’s tightening is beginning to have some effect on the labor market. The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.2%. Average hourly earnings rose 0.4% MOM and 4.7% YOY.

Rocket reported third quarter numbers. Volumes were down again – 26% QOQ and 71% YOY – to $25.6 billion. Gain on sale and earnings were again supported by servicing. The company is guiding for volume to slow again in Q4 (though seasonality is playing a part) to a range of $17 to $22 billion.

UWM reported third quarter earnings. Volumes increased from $29.9 billion to $33.5 billion. Gain on sale margins fell from 99 bps to 52 bps, but net income rose QOQ.

Guild Holdings reported Q3 numbers. In-house origination volumes were down 23% QOQ, however net income increased. Gain on sale margins were flat.

Freddie Mac is adjusting the way it calculates rates in its Primary Mortgage Market Survey. Freddie believes that its methodology contains sampling bias and it is working to fix that. FWIW, Freddie’s PMMS numbers have been a sticking point with borrowers and loan officers: “Freddie says rates are X% and we aren’t offering anything close to that!”

It sounds like Freddie will be using loan application data going forward instead of a survey. The biggest impact will be that points and fees will no longer be included in the rate data.

For those wondering, in the Morning Report, I use data from Optimal Blue to get the prevailing mortgage rate.

TIAA is getting out of the banking business. It will be selling TIAA Bank (which used to be known as Everbank) to a consortium of private equity funds and Bayview. The new name will be revealed soon.

36 Responses

  1. MIlwaukee mayor fires election commissioner for demonstrating how easy it is to conduct fraud.

    Her only crime is proving that election fraud can be done relatively easy which embarrasses the democrat mayor.


  2. She’s a natural:

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Greg is dismayed at PL today:

    “But Lake’s focus groups also find something troubling for Democrats. Swing voters aren’t moved by these topics, Lake says, because they see both parties in a similar light: They think both manipulate democracy to their advantage, and they see the 2020 urban unrest amid police protests as akin to Jan. 6.

    “I think both parties do this — I think both sides do this,” Lake quotes many voters as saying. This is particularly pronounced among White swing voters, she says, though some college-educated White swing voters are more troubled by GOP conduct.”


    • Yet if you go somewhere like PL, which is probably pretty representative of the crowd driving things, they think they are the plucky Jedi and the GOP is the Death Star.

      I thought this was really good:

      The Weimar dynamic is a simple one. The left and right polarize; the middle collapses; inflation takes off, unnerving everyone and discrediting government; and at some point, as liberal democracy breaks down, voters are asked to choose between the extreme left or the extreme right.


      • As is the graf that follows it:

        “What Biden has done, by showing that even an alleged moderate like him is just a vehicle for the extreme left, is accelerate the moment when we are faced with that horrible choice. And if that is the choice, I have little doubt that Americans will pick the far right.”


        • Given the left’s hammerlock on the administrative state and culture, I don’t think the far right could pull it off. Only the left could.


        • Possibly. Sullivan was arguing what people would do if given the choice.


        • I really want to know what policies define this “extreme right” that we are supposed to be worried about. I know what policies the extreme left is pushing, and I can identify the Democratic politicians that are pushing them (ie nearly all of them), but I genuinely don’t know what policies would result from this dreaded “extreme right” that Sullivan is concerned might appeal to voters.


        • Abortion, like Brent said, and also the idea that Republicans can express skepticism about election procedures. Sullivan remains weirdly convinced that Trump is the only person to ever deny election results.


        • Don’t forget Sullivan is the originator of the Great Palin Uterus Conspiracy.


        • I really want to know what policies define this “extreme right” that we are supposed to be worried about.



  4. This is funny:

    “Over in another corner, another operative, one who works in digital strategy and who asked that his name not be used, was explaining his own evolution.

    “People get into politics to bring about progressive change, but once you start really working on elections, even in a city like New York you realize that the shit someone who went to Swarthmore and goes to DSA meetings says on Twitter is not what voters think. In 2016, there was this feeling that you could just mobilize your way into Democratic landslides, but anyone working in politics can tell you that persuasion is the whole ballgame.”

    “Look around, you won’t see anyone wearing an Abolish ICE T-shirt here,” said one partygoer when I asked about the different vibe here from the happy hours of a few years ago.

    I pointed out one guy who in fact was in an Abolish ICE T-shirt.

    “Yeah, he’s doing it ironically.”


    • I just finished Will To Power and Nietzsche talked about how the highly intelligent are the most susceptible to he sort of cultish behavior of the Woke Left.

      From the sample size of 1 (my son and my friends) none of them GAF about politics. The valedictorian from his high school? Sure, but the rest of them don’t care.

      In some ways, they remind me of Risky Business.


      • makes sense to me.
        their parents, however, do. which makes politics very uncool to the kids


        • I think there is a boys versus girls skew too.

          I think girls are more into the woke shit than boys


        • I think this is true. I also think there are tipping points for everything and everybody. And young men are willing to go along with all sorts of thing popular in the girl-o-sphere as long as they think it will get them laid . . . up until it reaches a point where they have to commit suicide in order to conform to the narrative, or up to some other bridge-to-far, and then suddenly they’ll abandon the progressive narrative en masse.

          Which is the problem with “burn the witch” progressivism, where eventually everybody becomes a witch and you’re persecuting your base as much, if not more, than your original enemies. You start chasing everybody out of your coalition.


    • i made it about 4-5 paragraphs in.
      what a bunch of insufferable pricks.


    • The whole polling industry complex was based on this delusion, and data geeks were selling it to the advocacy organizations and to their donors, who were lapping up confirmation of what they wanted to hear, even if it wasn’t backed up by the numbers.

      I think this captures neatly why polling errors are large and only tend in one direction.


    • “They see the two as selling little more than the warmed-over centrism of the Clinton and Obama eras that led to lost Democratic vote share among working-class voters”

      I don’t think those people have any idea what has lost Democratic vote share among working-class voters. Rather, actively spitting on the working class if they don’t 100% buy in to your faculty lounge progressivism is what is losing them working class voters.

      “Our biggest failure has been our inability to name a constant enemy.”

      The biggest failure is naming almost everybody their constant enemy.

      ” Should Democrats accept the American electorate as it is, and adjust its messaging and policies accordingly, or is there out there a latent population of Democratic voters, just waiting to be energized by a thrillingly revolutionary message?”

      Just even speculating that there is a hidden group of voters just waiting for you to go even MORE crazy than you already have, and then they will turn out to vote for revolution, indicates a serious problem.

      This article encompasses a lot of the problems I think the Democrats and the left have in terms of winning:

      “Nobody, not even Shor or McElwee, has a concise definition of their notion of “popularism,” but in essence what they call for is Democrats to recognize that large parts of their agenda — raising wages, raising taxes on the wealthy, legalizing marijuana and statehood for Washington D.C. — are very popular with a broad section of the overall electorate,”

      Statehood for D.C. is popular with inside-the-beltway progressives and academics–not the overall electorate. It is a clear example of “because I like it, everybody must, so it’s got to be totally motivating to talk about it to working-class voters in Ohio! They are really hyped on D.C. statehood!”

      ” Only 20 percent of the electorate cares about our values. If they shared our values, they would be liberals.”

      I think this is wrong. I don’t think liberals particularly share all or even most of their woke values. The Democrats are less run by liberals now, IMO, and more run by woke progressives and (as they now) coastal elites. Not liberals as one would have thought of them in the Reagan era.

      “Her point is that Democrats can’t simply run away from fights over race, sexuality and gender — or other “unpopular” topics like class and policing — when the other side is talking about them constantly. ”

      They can’t help but set up all their arguments against strawmen, even among themselves. I don’t think those guys are saying “run away” from gender and race, they are saying don’t make them the only thing you talk about, and when you do talk about them, don’t sound like a lunatic.

      “not just college-educated progressives but also working-class voters of color, to quiet down for a moment so that the concerns of white moderate swing voters can be attended to.”

      Yes, because working class people of color aren’t worried about inflation or not having products in the stores or high-crime in their neighborhoods, they are much more preoccupied with LGBQT+ literature in school libraries and making sure children can get gender affirming care without parental consent.

      ““This inevitably means punching down, usually at Black and brown activists.”

      And it always has to be about any critics being racist. These dudes are clearly punching up at the coastal elites and celebrity progressives.

      “The ad thrilled college-educated voters and was a sensation online, but according to his research, actually made people who saw it want to vote against Clinton. “Donald Trump is talking about jobs and immigration and you are just trying to guilt-trip me into all of this liberal bullshit?” By contrast, they tested every single ad in the 2020 campaign, and the one that performed best with voters by far was one where a former soldier in Iraq talked about how Biden worked with Republicans and Democrats to secure mine-resistant vehicles for troops.”

      The real problem the Democrats have is that this should not require any polling or research. This should be obvious. The fact that it’s not means that 9 times out of 10 their instincts are going to be wrong.

      “you realize that the public holds lots of retrograde beliefs”

      Again, just naturally considering traditional mores or opinions of any kind of be “retrograde” is a big part of the problem.

      “There is no amount of pressure that is going to make Democrats create Medicare for All, because the public doesn’t want it.”

      And still they won’t even think about talking about what gets you to Medicare for All, if you really want it: identify 1 or 2 very popular expansions of Medicare, and then work on making that happen. Rather than trying to go from 0 to 60 in 1 second. The left used to understand incrementalism, and now that they’ve used it to get almost absolute institutional power, they’ve forgotten how they got there.

      “The idea of inclusive populism is to rally working-class voters of all stripes against corporations and political and economic elites”

      This is not something the Democrats are in any position to do at this point. Not IMO.

      ” leftists can actually replicate what Trump did, tapping into economic anxiety, but redirect it without the racist comments.”

      Yeah, until they get that “white people are the problem” commentary is also racist, they can’t do that. Which I don’t see happening.

      “Their shorthand for how to do this is “race-class narrative” — a political framing that, as one creator told me, argues that “racism is a weapon of the rich that pits us against each other. And so the threat we face is not from other racial groups, it is from the power elites.”

      So their way to stealing Trump’s thunder is do it without the racist comments, except where the racism matches their narrative and then LOTS of racist comments.

      “Somewhere at the core of their debate is a long-running political argument on the left: To win, do you need to persuade the persuadables, or find new ways to excite people and get them to show up?”

      Again, I think it’s obviously persuadables. Every time you excite people to show up, you risk (and often get) exciting EVERYBODY to show up. So you get out the youth vote and the oldsters show up, too. You motivate the “anti-racists” and you also get more “racists”. Whatever group your exciting, there’s a good chance you excite their opposite number. Sometimes you will excite more of the opposite number than they people you are targeting.

      You have to make able to make your argument and persuade independents and fence-sitters and pull over some folks from the other side. Also, if you’ve got a good argument, this makes more sense: exciting people often means scaring people and scaring people usually means you risk going way overboard.

      ““David Shor and his crowd could never say that Black Lives Matter activists need to shut up,” said Shenker-Osorio. “He knows what would happen if he did. So he says that ‘Oh, yeah, a bunch of well-educated white people who live in coastal cities need to watch what they say.’ But it amounts to the same thing.””

      How? How does telling WHITE, WEALTH PROGRESSIVES to stop telling minorities what they are supposed to feel and how much they are supposed to love their great progressive positions . . . how does that amount to suggesting BLM has to shut up?

      ” And I think it is really bad for marginalized groups when they are represented by Republicans instead of by Democrats, even if those Democrats talk about those issues in ways that people who live in cities and have advanced degrees don’t necessarily agree with”

      I think there’s no evidence for this position.

      ” “He could talk about health care, and he could talk about legalizing marijuana, but he didn’t say he was only going to allow Black people to sell weed, which is a real fucking thing he said in a debate!””

      Shor nails it there. And this:

      “Oh my god, these debates. I can’t tell you how painful they were to me,” he said about the 2020 primaries. “It was a fucking parody. Like, oh, we are going to talk about marijuana legalization, which is super-popular, but only in the weirdest, most racialized way possible. It was an Olympics to embrace unpopular ideas. Here were legitimate candidates with decent chances of winning the presidency and they were talking about reparations and legalizing opioids!”

      And so they nominated an old man who never came out of his basement.

      “but most of the public holds reactionary views.”

      Again, this is part of the problem. Subscribing to MLK’s “content of their character” formulation is not reactionary. Thinking we should be a net energy producer is not reactionary. Believing parents have a role in their children’s lives is not reactionary. Etc.

      ““Your job as a left-wing person is to figure out how to take your ideas and like, trick them and mold them into something that the median voter could support,”

      They really shouldn’t be so comfortable saying the quiet part out loud.

      Back in the Obama years, the party wasn’t far enough to the left, and it hurt them with voters, McElwee’s and Shor’s research found. Had Obama gone further with the Affordable Care Act, or passed a bigger stimulus, he might have staved off the Tea Party wave.

      This is delusional. A bigger stimulus wouldn’t have helped the average voter and would have increased inflationary risks. A smaller healthcare plan that took care of specific issues that really impact people would probably have been far more popular than a bigger, more ineffective, more difficult-to-use thing.

      Now, though, the party is plenty left, and American policy has shifted sharply. The left has moved the needle on one issue after another, from same-sex marriage to marijuana

      Also all issues where the country has moved towards the libertarians on. And if you talk to most people who have come around on same sex marriage or marijuana, they sound more like libertarians–it’s more “live and let live”, not “we must free the oppressed”.


      • “A bigger stimulus wouldn’t have helped the average voter and would have increased inflationary risks. ”

        Also, it wouldn’t have stimulated and reduced unemployment. As Obama found out, nothing was actually “shovel ready”.

        And the signature project from that stimulus, high speed rail in California, is a complete failure.


        • As Obama found out, nothing was actually “shovel ready”.

          There is no way a person who’d worked in government all his life didn’t know this. It was a made up term after the fact to justify their initial lie to get it passed. Just like “If you like your doctor (plan) you can keep your doctor (plan).” They knew all along.


      • KW:

        How? How does telling WHITE, WEALTH PROGRESSIVES to stop telling minorities what they are supposed to feel and how much they are supposed to love their great progressive positions . . . how does that amount to suggesting BLM has to shut up?

        Because the BLM movement is comprised of and gets its voice from, white, wealthy progressives. If you are telling white wealthy progressives to shut up, you are telling BLM (among many other fads of the day embraced by the “This House Believes…” crowd) ) to shut up.


      • KW:

        Subscribing to MLK’s “content of their character” formulation is not reactionary.

        It is now that the neo-racist left has captured the culture.


  5. What it was about the whole time:

    “Devastating cuts to Twitter’s workforce on Friday, four days before the midterm elections, are fueling anxieties among political campaigns and election offices that have counted on the social network’s staff to help them combat violent threats and viral lies.

    The mass layoffs Friday gutted teams devoted to combating election misinformation, adding context to misleading tweets and communicating with journalists, public officials and campaign staff.

    The layoffs included a number of people who were scheduled to be on call this weekend and early next week to monitor for signs of foreign disinformation, spam and other problematic content around the election, one former employee told The Washington Post. As of Friday morning, employee access to internal tools used for content moderation continued to be restricted, limiting staff’s ability to respond to misinformation.”


    • “Twitter had become one of America’s most influential platforms for spreading accurate voting information, and the days before elections have often been critical moments where company and campaign officials kept up a near-constant dialogue about potential risks.

      But a representative from one of the national party committees said they are seeing hours-long delays in responses from their contacts at Twitter, raising fears of the toll workplace chaos and sudden terminations is taking on the platform’s ability to quickly react to developments. The representative spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.”

      Hmm. I wonder which “one of the national party committees” that could be and why it wasn’t named explicitly?


    • I swear it is in the AP Style Guide that making any sort of negative adjustment, no matter how small, of Progress, is a “gutting”


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: