AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter Earnings

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. (“MITT” or the “Company”) (NYSE: MITT – News) today reported net income for the quarter ended December 31, 2011 of $5.8 million and net book value of $20.52 per share.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

• Net income of $5.8 million, or 0.58 per share for the fourth quarter
• Net income of $19.0 million, or $3.20 per share for the period from March 7, 2011 to December 31, 2011
• Core Earnings of $6.5 million or $0.65 per share for the quarter
• Core Earnings of $12.4 million, or $1.24 per share for the period from July 6, 2011 (the consummation of our initial public offering) to December 31, 2011
• Net realized gains of $2.9 million, or $0.29 per share, on Agency RMBS for the fourth quarter and $7.2 million, or $0.72 per share, for the period from July 6, 2011 to December 31, 2011
• Net realized losses of ($3.5) million, or ($0.35) per share, on credit investments for the fourth quarter and for the period from July 6, 2011 to December 31, 2011
• $0.70 per share dividend declared for the fourth quarter and $1.10 per share dividends declared for the period ended December 31, 2011
• Approximately $0.46 per share of undistributed taxable income as of December 31, 2011(1)
• $20.52 net book value per share as of December 31, 2011(1)

INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS

• $1.4 billion investment portfolio value as of December 31, 2011 (2) (4)
• 5.86x leverage as of December 31, 2011 (2) (3)
• 91.0% Agency RMBS investment portfolio (4)
• 9.0% credit investment portfolio, comprising Non-Agency RMBS, CMBS and ABS assets (4)
• 5.0% constant prepayment rate (“CPR”) for the fourth quarter on the Agency RMBS investment portfolio (5)
• 2.25% net interest margin as of December 31, 2011 (6)

FOURTH QUARTER 2011 AND PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 RESULTS
AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is an actively managed REIT that opportunistically invests in a diversified risk-adjusted portfolio of Agency RMBS, Non-Agency RMBS, CMBS and ABS. For the fourth quarter, the Company had net income of $5.8 million, or $0.58 per diluted share, and Core Earnings of $6.5 million, or $0.65 per diluted share. For the period from March 7, 2011 to December 31, 2011, the Company had net income of $19.0 million, or $3.20 per diluted share (7), and for the period from July 6, 2011 to December 31, 2011 (“period ended December 31, 2011”), the Company had Core Earnings of $12.4 million, or $1.24 per diluted share. Core Earnings represents a non-GAAP financial measure and is defined as net income (loss) excluding (i) net realized gain (loss) on investments and terminations on derivative contracts and (ii) net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and derivative contacts. (See “Non-GAAP Financial Measure” below for further detail on Core Earnings)
David Roberts, Chief Executive Officer, commented “We are pleased to announce our fourth quarter earnings. During the quarter, Core Earnings increased to $0.65 per share and we announced our first full quarter dividend of $0.70 per share. In addition to meeting our financial goals, we continued to diversify funding relationships and in January we were able to successfully complete an equity raise which has improved our stock’s liquidity. We are proud of our accomplishments over the last two quarters and look forward to the opportunities ahead.”
“Amidst uncertainty in the global markets, European liquidity difficulties and year-end funding pressures, we continued to optimize our Agency portfolio, opportunistically rotate the credit portfolio and retain capital for potential market dislocations,” said Jonathan Lieberman, Chief Investment Officer. “While Agency RMBS yields have compressed, we believe the low interest rate environment and a carefully selected investment portfolio will continue to support attractive risk-adjusted returns. Over the course of the quarter, we rotated a significant portion of the Agency portfolio into securities with more favorable prepayment attributes to further mitigate prepayment risk. Allocations to credit securities were concentrated in less volatile short duration Non-Agency securities and CMBS tranches with superior intrinsic value. We believe MITT is well positioned to continue to produce sustainable returns and take advantage of the opportunities ahead in both the Agency RMBS and credit markets. With the success of the European Central Bank’s Long-Term Refinancing Operation, funding risks have materially declined and we anticipate deploying capital in a more aggressive style. New capital from our January equity transaction allows greater latitude to the investment team to selectively increase our capital allocation to credit opportunities.”

KEY STATISTICS (2)
		Weighted Average at						Weighted Average
		December 31, 2011						at September 30, 2011
Investment portfolio		$	1,388,006,801					$	1,332,205,377
Repurchase agreements		$	1,189,303,407					$	1,126,859,885
Stockholders’ equity		$	206,283,920					$	207,413,703
Leverage ratio		5.86x			(3	)		5.70x			(3	)
Swap ratio			66	%	(8	)			51	%	(8	)
Yield on investment portfolio			3.16	%	(9	)			3.26	%	(9	)
Cost of funds			0.91	%	(10	)			0.82	%	(10	)
Net interest margin			2.25	%	(6	)			2.44	%	(6	)
Management fees			1.49	%	(11	)			1.43	%	(11	)
Other operating expenses			1.57	%	(12	)			1.58	%	(12	)
Book value, per share		$	20.52		(1	)		$	20.64		(1	)
Dividend, per share		$	0.70					$	0.40

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
The following summarizes the Company’s investment portfolio as of December 31, 2011 (2):

														Weighted Average
		Current Face			Premium (Discount)				Amortized Cost		Fair Value			Coupon		Yield
Agency RMBS:
15-Year Fixed Rate		$	738,344,948		$	22,525,476			$	760,870,424	$	772,310,909		3.32	%	2.62	%
20-Year Fixed Rate			227,566,114			7,362,001				234,928,115		237,586,837		3.69	%	3.00	%
30-Year Fixed Rate			232,890,169			12,162,512				245,052,681		246,679,482		3.99	%	3.18	%
Interest Only			43,505,596			(34,046,500	)			9,459,096		6,636,871		5.50	%	3.45	%
Non-Agency RMBS			102,246,062			(8,980,754	)			93,265,308		90,368,316		5.90	%	6.31	%
CMBS			19,500,000			(5,411,965	)			14,088,035		13,537,851		5.88	%	13.44	%
ABS			21,046,150			(34,497	)			21,011,653		20,886,535		4.50	%	4.50	%
Total		$	1,385,099,039		$	(6,423,727	)		$	1,378,675,312	$	1,388,006,801		3.81	%	3.16	%

As of December 31, 2011, the weighted average yield on the Company’s investment portfolio was 3.16% and its weighted average cost of funds was 0.91%. This resulted in a net interest margin of 2.25% as of December 31, 2011. (6)
The CPR for the Agency RMBS portfolio was 5.0% for the fourth quarter and 5.0% for the month of December 2011. (5)
The weighted average cost basis of the Agency investment portfolio, excluding interest-only securities, was 103.5% as of December 31, 2011. The amortization of premiums (net of any accretion of discounts) on Agency securities for the fourth quarter was $1.9 million, or $(0.19) per share. The unamortized net Agency premium as of December 31, 2011 was $42.0 million.
Premiums and discounts associated with purchases of the Company’s securities are amortized or accreted into interest income over the estimated life of such securities, using the effective yield method. Since the cost basis of the Company’s Agency securities, excluding interest-only securities, exceeds the underlying principal balance by 3.5% as of December 31, 2011, slower actual and projected prepayments can have a meaningful positive impact, while faster actual or projected prepayments can have a meaningful negative impact on the Company’s asset yields.
We have also entered into “to-be-announced” (“TBA”) positions to facilitate the future purchase of Agency RMBS. Under the terms of these TBAs, the Company agrees to purchase, for future delivery, Agency RMBS with certain principal and interest specifications and certain types of underlying collateral, but the particular Agency RMBS to be delivered are not identified until shortly before (generally two days) the TBA settlement date. At December 31, 2011, we had $100 million net notional amount of TBA positions with a net weighted average purchase price of 103.8%. As of December 31, 2011, our TBA portfolio had a net weighted average yield at purchase of 3.01% and a net weighted average settlement date of February 5, 2012. We have recorded derivative assets of $1.4 million and derivative liabilities of $0.5 million, reflecting these TBA positions.
LEVERAGE AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES
The investment portfolio is financed with repurchase agreements as of December 31, 2011 as summarized below:

		Agency RMBS						Non-Agency RMBS / CMBS / Other
Repurchase Agreements Maturing Within:		Balance			Weighted Average Rate			Balance			Weighted Average Rate
30 days or less		$	652,002,000		0.35	%		$	68,187,000		1.74	%
31-60 days			334,825,407		0.42	%			1,749,000		1.95	%
61-90 days			118,340,000		0.37	%			14,200,000		1.80	%
Greater than 90 days			-		-				-		-
Total / Weighted Average		$	1,105,167,407		0.37	%		$	84,136,000		1.75	%

As of December 31, 2011, the Company had entered into repurchase agreements with twenty-one counterparties. We continue to rebalance our exposures to counterparties and add new counterparties.
We have entered into interest rate swap agreements to hedge our portfolio. The Company’s swaps as of December 31, 2011 are summarized as follows:

Maturity		Notional Amount			Weighted Average Pay Rate			Weighted Average Receive Rate*			Weighted Average Years to Maturity
2012		$	100,000,000		0.354	%		0.285	%		0.14
2013			182,000,000		0.535	%		0.286	%		1.78
2014			204,500,000		1.000	%		0.395	%		2.54
2015			184,025,000		1.412	%		0.380	%		3.56
2016			87,500,000		1.625	%		0.328	%		4.63
2018			35,000,000		1.728	%		0.511	%		6.88
Total/Wtd Avg		$	793,025,000		1.008	%		0.350	%		2.72
* Approximately 50% of our interest rate swap notionals reset monthly based on one-month LIBOR and 50% of our interest rate swap notionals reset quarterly based on three-month LIBOR.

TAXABLE INCOME
The primary differences between taxable income and GAAP net income include (i) unrealized gains and losses associated with investment and derivative portfolios are marked-to-market in current income for GAAP purposes, but excluded from taxable income until realized or settled, (ii) temporary differences related to amortization of net premiums paid on investments (iii) the timing and amount of deductions related to stock-based compensation and (iv) excise taxes. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had undistributed taxable income of approximately $0.46 per share.
DIVIDEND
On December 14, 2011, the Company declared a dividend of $0.70 per share of common stock to stockholders of record as of December 30, 2011 and paid such dividend on January 27, 2012. The Company declared dividends of $1.10 per share for the period ended December 31, 2011.
SUBSEQUENT EVENT
On January 24, 2012, the Company completed a follow-on offering of 5,000,000 shares of its common stock and subsequently issued an additional 750,000 shares of common stock pursuant to the underwriters’ over-allotments at a price of $19.00 per share, for gross proceeds of approximately $109.3 million. Net proceeds to the Company from the offerings were approximately $104.1 million, net of issuance costs of approximately $5.2 million.
SHAREHOLDER CALL
The Company invites shareholders, prospective shareholders and analysts to attend MITT’s fourth quarter earnings conference call on March 1, 2012 at 11:00 am Eastern Time. The shareholder call can be accessed by dialing (888) 424-8151 (U.S. domestic) or (847) 585-4422 (international). Please enter code number 8732511#.
A presentation will accompany the conference call and will be available on the Company’s website at www.agmit.com. Select the Q4 2011 Earnings Presentation link to download and print the presentation in advance of the shareholder call.
An audio replay of the shareholder call combined with the presentation will be made available on our website after the call. The replay will be available until midnight on March 15, 2012. If you are interested in hearing the replay, please dial (888) 843-7419 (U.S. domestic) or (630) 652-3042 (international). The conference ID number is 8732511#.
For further information or questions, please contact Allan Krinsman, the Company’s General Counsel, at (212) 883-4180 or akrinsman@angelogordon.com.
ABOUT AG MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that invests in, acquires and manages a diversified portfolio of residential mortgage assets, other real estate-related securities and financial assets. AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is externally managed and advised by AG REIT Management, LLC, a subsidiary of Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P., an SEC-registered investment adviser that specializes in alternative investment activities.
Additional information can be found on the Company’s website at www.agmit.com.
ABOUT ANGELO, GORDON & CO.
Angelo, Gordon & Co. was founded in 1988 and has approximately $22 billion under management. Currently, the firm’s investment disciplines encompass five principal areas: (i) distressed debt and leveraged loans, (ii) real estate, (iii) mortgage-backed securities and other structured credit, (iv) private equity and special situations and (v) a number of hedge fund strategies. Angelo, Gordon & Co. employs over 250 employees, including more than 90 investment professionals, and is headquartered in New York, with associated offices in Amsterdam, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Hong Kong Seoul, Shanghai, Sydney and Tokyo.
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are based on estimates, projections, beliefs and assumptions of management of the Company at the time of such statements and are not guarantees of future performance. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties in predicting future results and conditions. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation, changes in interest rates, changes in the yield curve, changes in prepayment rates, the availability and terms of financing, changes in the market value of our assets, general economic conditions, market conditions, conditions in the market for Agency securities, and legislative and regulatory changes that could adversely affect the business of the Company. Additional information concerning these and other risk factors are contained in the Company’s most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Copies are available on the SEC’s website, http://www.sec.gov/. The Company does not undertake or accept any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect any change in its expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheets
			December 31, 2011			April 1, 2011
Assets			(Unaudited)
Real Estate securities, at fair value
Agency – $1,186,149,842 pledged as collateral			$	1,263,214,099		$	-
Non-Agency – $47,227,005 pledged as collateral				58,787,051			-
CMBS – $2,747,080 pledged as collateral				13,537,851			-
ABS – $4,526,620 pledged as collateral				4,526,620			-
Linked transactions, net, at fair value				8,787,180			-
Cash and cash equivalents				35,851,249			1,000
Restricted cash				3,037,055			-
Interest receivable				4,219,640			-
Derivative assets, at fair value				1,428,595			-
Prepaid expenses				317,950			-
Due from broker				341,491
Due from affiliates				104,994			-
Deferred costs				52,176			-
Total Assets			$	1,394,205,951		$	1,000
Liabilities
Repurchase agreements			$	1,150,149,407		$	-
Payable on unsettled trades				18,759,200			-
Interest payable				2,275,138			-
Derivative liabilities, at fair value				7,908,308			-
Dividend payable				7,011,171			-
Due to affiliates				770,341			-
Accrued expenses				668,552			-
Due to broker				379,914			-
Total Liabilities				1,187,922,031			-
Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
Common stock, par value $0.01 per share; 450,000,000 and 1,000 shares of common stock authorized and 10,009,958 and 100 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2011 and April 1, 2011, respectively				100,100			1
Additional paid-in capital				198,228,694			999
Retained earnings				7,955,126			-
				206,283,920			1,000
Total Liabilities & Equity			$	1,394,205,951		$	1,000

AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Operations
(Unaudited)
							Period from
			Quarter Ended				March 7, 2011 to
			December 31, 2011				December 31, 2011
Net Interest Income
Interest income			$	10,022,275			$	18,748,669
Interest expense				1,106,097				1,696,344
				8,916,178				17,052,325
Other Income (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss)				(589,747	)			3,701,392
Gain (loss) on linked transactions, net				(1,013,291	)			(808,564	)
Realized loss on periodic interest settlements of interest rate swaps, net				(1,175,788	)			(2,162,290	)
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments, net				70,663				(6,491,430	)
Unrealized gain (loss) on real estate securities				1,346,237				11,040,692
				(1,361,926	)			5,279,800
Expenses
Management fee to affiliate				770,341				1,512,898
Other operating expenses				811,372				1,566,642
Equity based compensation to affiliate				97,343				176,165
Excise tax				105,724				105,724
				1,784,780				3,361,429
Net Income (Loss)			$	5,769,472			$	18,970,696
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock
Basic			$	0.58			$	3.20
Diluted			$	0.58			$	3.20
Weighted Average Number of Shares of Common Stock Outstanding
Basic				10,009,958				5,933,930
Diluted				10,010,799				5,933,930
Dividends Declared per Share of Common Stock			$	0.70			$	1.10

Non-GAAP Financial Measure
This press release contains Core Earnings, a non-GAAP financial measure. AG Mortgage Investment Trust’s management believes that this non-GAAP measure, when considered with GAAP, provides supplemental information useful in evaluating the results of the Company’s operations. This non-GAAP measure should not be considered a substitute, or superior to, the financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. Our GAAP financial results and the reconciliations from these results should be carefully evaluated.
Core Earnings are defined by the Company as net income excluding both realized and unrealized gains (losses) on the sale or termination of securities, including underlying linked transactions and derivatives. As defined, Core Earnings include the net interest earned on these transactions, including credit derivatives, linked transactions, inverse Agency securities, interest rate derivatives or any other investment activity that may earn net interest. One of the objectives of the Company is to generate net income from net interest margin on the portfolio and management uses Core Earnings to measure this objective.
A reconciliation of GAAP net income to Core Earnings for the quarter and period ended December 31, 2011 is set forth below:

						Period from
		Quarter Ended				March 7, 2011 to
		December 31, 2011				December 31, 2011
Net income/loss		$	5,769,472			$	18,970,696
Add (Deduct):
Net realized gain			589,747				(3,701,392	)
Gain/loss on linked transactions, net			1,013,291				808,564
Net interest income on linked transactions			554,729				900,638
Unrealized gain/loss on derivative instruments, net			(70,663	)			6,491,430
Unrealized gain/loss on real estate securities			(1,346,237	)			(11,040,692	)
Core Earnings		$	6,510,339			$	12,429,244

Footnotes
(1) Per share figures are calculated using outstanding shares including all shares granted to our Manager and our independent directors under our equity incentive plans as of quarter end.
(2) Generally when we purchase a security and finance it with a repurchase agreement, the security is included in our assets and the repurchase agreement is separately reflected in our liabilities on our balance sheet. For securities with certain characteristics (including those which are not readily obtainable in the market place) that are purchased and then simultaneously sold back to the seller under a repurchase agreement, US GAAP requires these transactions be netted together and recorded as a forward purchase commitment. Throughout this press release where we disclose our investment portfolio and the repurchase agreements that finance it, including our leverage metrics, we have un-linked the transaction and used the gross presentation as used for all other securities. This presentation is consistent with how the Company’s management evaluates the business, and believes provides the most accurate depiction of the Company’s investment portfolio and financial condition.
(3) Calculated by dividing total repurchase agreements, including $39.2 million included in linked transactions, plus payable on unsettled trades on our GAAP balance sheet by our GAAP stockholders’ equity.
(4) The total investment portfolio is calculated by summing the fair market value of our Agency RMBS, Non-Agency RMBS, CMBS and ABS assets, including linked transactions. The percentage of Agency RMBS and credit investments are calculated by dividing the respective fair market value of each, including linked transactions, by the total investment portfolio.
(5) This represents the weighted average monthly CPRs published during the period for our in-place portfolio during the same period.
(6) Net interest margin is calculated by subtracting the weighted average cost of funds from the weighted average yield for the Company’s investment portfolio, which excludes cash held by the Company. See footnotes (9) and (10) for further detail.
(7) Diluted per share figures are calculated using weighted average outstanding shares in accordance with GAAP. For the period from March 7, 2011 to December 31, 2011, the calculation reflected the impact of 100 shares outstanding from July 1, 2011 through the settlement date of our IPO.
(8) The swap ratio was calculated by dividing the notional value of our interest rate swaps by total repurchase agreements, including those included in linked transactions, plus payable on unsettled trades.
(9) The yield on our investment portfolio during the period represents an effective interest rate, which utilizes all estimates of future cash flows and adjusts for actual prepayment and cash flow activity as of quarter end. This calculation excludes cash held by the Company.
(10) The cost of funds was calculated as the sum of the weighted average rate on the repurchase agreements outstanding at quarter end and the weighted average net pay rate on our interest rate swaps. Both elements of the cost of funds were weighted by the repurchase agreements outstanding at quarter end.
(11) The management fee percentage at quarter end was calculated by annualizing management fees incurred during the quarter and dividing by quarter-ended stockholders’ equity.
(12) The other operating expenses percentage at quarter end was calculated by annualizing other operating expenses recorded during the quarter and dividing by quarter-ended stockholders’ equity.
http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

Senate GOP's next move awaited in nominations spat

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s appointments to two key agencies during the Senate’s year-end break ensures that GOP senators will return to work Monday in an angry and fighting mood.

Less clear is what those furious Republicans will do to retaliate against Obama’s “bring it on” end run around the Senate’s role in confirming nominees to major jobs.

While Republicans contemplate their next step, recess appointee Richard Cordray is running a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the National Labor Relations Board, with three temporary members, is now at full strength with a Democratic majority.

Obama left more than70 other nominees in limbo, well aware that Republicans could use Senate rules to block some or all of them.

The White House justified the appointments on grounds that Republicans were holding up the nominations to paralyze the two agencies. The consumer protection agency was established under the 2010 Wall Street reform law, which requires the bureau to have a director in order to begin policing financial products such as mortgages, checking accounts, credit cards and payday loans.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the five-member NLRB must have a three-member quorum to issue regulations or decide major cases in union-employer disputes.

Several agencies contacted by The Associated Press, including banking regulators, said they were conducting their normal business despite vacancies at the top. In some cases, nominees are serving in acting capacities.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., at full strength, has five board members. The regulation of failed banks “is unaffected,” said spokesman Andrew Gray. “The three-member board has been able to make decisions without a problem.” Cordray’s appointment gives it a fourth member.

The Comptroller of the Currency, run by an acting chief, has kept up its regular examinations of banks. The Federal Trade Commission, operating with four board members instead of five, has had no difficulties. “This agency is not a partisan combat agency,” said spokesman Peter Kaplan. “Almost all the votes are unanimous and consensus driven.”

Republicans have pledged retaliation for Obama’s recess appointments, but haven’t indicated what it might be.

“The Senate will need to take action to check and balance President Obama’s blatant attempt to circumvent the Senate and the Constitution, a claim of presidential power that the Bush Administration refused to make,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is his party’s top member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Grassley wouldn’t go further, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky hasn’t tipped his hand after charging that Obama had “arrogantly circumvented the American people.” Before the Senate left for its break in December, McConnell blocked Senate approval of more than 60 pending nominees because Obama wouldn’t commit to making no recess appointments.

Republicans have to consider whether their actions, especially any decision to block all nominees, might play into Obama’s hands.

Obama has adopted an election-year theme of “we can’t wait” for Republicans to act on nominations and major proposals like his latest jobs plan. Republicans have to consider how their argument that the president is violating Constitutional checks and balances plays against Obama’s stump speeches characterizing them as obstructionists.

Senate historian Donald Ritchie said the minority party has retaliated in the past for recess appointments by holding up specific nominees. “I’m not aware of any situations where no nominations were accepted,” he said. The normal practice is for the two party leaders to negotiate which nominations get votes.

During the break, Republicans forced the Senate to convene for usually less than a minute once every few days to argue that there was no recess and that Obama therefore couldn’t bypass the Senate’s authority to confirm top officials. The administration said this was a sham, and has released a Justice Department opinion backing up the legality of the appointments.

Obama considers the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a signature achievement of his first term. Republicans have been vehemently opposed to the bureau’s setup. They argued the agency needed a bipartisan board instead of a director and should have to justify its budget to Congress instead of drawing its funding from the independent Federal Reserve.

Cordray is expected to get several sharp questions from Republicans when he testifies Tuesday before a House Oversight and Government Reform panel.

The NLRB has been a target of Republicans and business groups. Last year, the agency accused Boeing of illegally retaliating against union workers who had struck its plants in Washington state by opening a new production line at its non-union plant in South Carolina. Boeing denied the charge and the case has since been settled, but Republican anger over it and a string of union-friendly decisions from the board last year hasn’t abated.

http://tourism9.cm/    http://vkins.com/

Q&A: Consumer watchdog spells out agency's tasks

A company’s obligations don’t stop with the law. It also needs to be fair and upfront with customers.
That’s the message from Richard Cordray, who was named by President Barack Obama as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“Frankly there’s a lot of fraud that’s committed in the marketplace that is not on its face necessarily technically illegal,” Cordray said in an interview with The Associated Press. Such practices will now be a target for the CFPB.
The agency and Cordray’s appointment are both controversial. The CFPB was created as part of the overhaul of the nation’s financial regulations, with a mandate to police the array of financial products marketed to consumers.
Republicans blocked Cordray’s appointment for months, saying the agency would have far too much power with too little accountability. Then earlier this month, Obama installed Cordray when Congress wasn’t in session.
With a director finally in place, the CFPB is moving quickly to flex its full authority in policing businesses such as mortgage brokers, student lenders and other businesses that previously escaped federal scrutiny.
On Thursday, the agency released a field guide for its examiners to analyze practices at payday lenders, which essentially offer customers advances on their paychecks for a flat fee. It will mark the first time the industry will be subject to such oversight.
The CFPB has started collecting public comment to help simplify the disclosures consumers receive with credit cards, mortgages and student financial aid. It will take months or even years before consumers see how these efforts play out.
But here’s what Cordray had to say about how the agency will impact consumers:
____
Q: A major focus for the CFPB has been on improving the transparency of a product’s fees and terms, and the disclosures consumers receive. Are there instances where this won’t be enough and more aggressive regulatory action will be required?
A: Let me answer that question in two parts. On transparency and disclosure; a key insight here is that more disclosures don’t always make things better. As it accumulates, there can be so much dense fine print that it can actually make things much worse _ consumers find it hard to penetrate and they often will not read it.
That’s a concern and that’s why we’re trying to make things more transparent, simpler and clearer with our “Know Before You Owe” project.
However, simply making things clearer to consumers is not enough if people aren’t actually playing by the rules and defrauding consumers. There we have to enforce the rules and we have to do it fairly, even handedly, but with rigor so that everybody understands that they have to follow and respect the law.
Q: Are there practices that are technically legal yet require regulatory action?
A: If something is technically legal, that’s one issue. But we also have the authority to determine that practices are unfair, deceptive and abusive. That’s where our authority can be used to try to protect consumers, even though maybe the technicalities of pre-existing laws have been followed.
So that’s something we’re going to have to be careful about _ the use of that authority. But it certainly is necessary to protect consumers and frankly there’s a lot of fraud that’s committed in the marketplace that is not on its face necessarily technically illegal. But when you see how a product is marketed, you can see what the effect is on consumers.
Q: So in those situations, what is the most important thing consumers need to know about what the CFPB can and cannot do?
A: Consumers should know that when they feel they’re being treated unfairly, they have the opportunity to come and tell us about it. And I mean the 300 million consumers all across this country _ they can come to our website at consumerfinance.gov. If it’s a mortgage or credit card issue, they can file a complaint with us.
If it’s any other kind of issue, we will be able to take those complaints eventually.
Q: Once those complaints are in hand, what are the limits of what the CFPB can do?
A: We have three different sets of authority that Congress gave us and that we are by law responsible to carry out. We have rule making authority. And we particularly are going to be active in trying to correct some of the problems in the mortgage markets over the next year or two.
We have supervision and examination authority, which is new but very important. It’s the ability to actually go into these institutions, look at their books and records and ask questions about what they do, and really get to the bottom of things. This means both working with them where that’s possible and or bringing enforcement actions where that’s necessary.
And the third is the ability to actually enforce the law _ which is clearly needed if you’re going to have a marketplace that actually works.
Q: One of the first industries the agency will be looking at is payday lending. A concern for consumer advocates is that customers often roll over the loans, meaning they repeatedly take out new loans to repay previous loans. What practices in the payday industry raise concerns for you?
A: One of the things we’re very concerned about is making sure that those products actually help consumers and don’t harm them. So the possibility that consumers end up rolling loans over and over, and end up in this sort of debt trap where they’re living off of money at 400 percent interest rates is a concern and it’s something we’re going to look at very closely.
Q: Suze Orman has a prepaid card and Amex last year rolled out a prepaid card. Do you see any risks with celebrities and major banks backing prepaid cards, or are there upsides?
A: We generally think consumers need to take care when they’re attracted to a product for reasons that might obscure the actual price and risk involved. People want think carefully about what they’re getting into here.
In the prepaid space in particular, there’s a lot of evolution and there are a lot of new products coming out. Some have appeared to be terrible products and some may be pretty good. We’re monitoring that and as I say, it’s a fast moving market right now and we’re going to consider carefully how to address those issues as they arise
Q: A lot of major banks have adopted this theme of transparency. Chase rolled out new checking account disclosures and Citi has its Simplicity credit card. How much faith do you have that the market can “right itself” in terms of transparency?
A: I have a lot of faith in the market if it is backed by evenhanded, comprehensive rules of the road that everyone knows they have to live by. If the market is left to its own devices or if we regulate part of the market and leave the rest unregulated, as happened with the mortgage market, that created, in my view, a lot of what caused the financial meltdown _ that’s never going to work.
It is our view that what we do will actually strengthen markets.
It’s quite possible that banks would have been moving to more transparency and simpler terms on their own. I happen to think some of that is in reaction to knowing that the consumer bureau is now in place, that it’s something we’re emphasizing.
Q: Student loans were a big issue during the Occupy protests and graduates are burdened with more and more debt. Do you see any parallels to the mortgage industry?
A: I’ve read a lot that suggests that student loans may be a bubble that is developing. Obviously the major driver of the total amount of student loans is the rapid increases in tuition and the costs of higher education in the last 10 years. We don’t control that.
What we can control and what we can affect is the choices that consumers make. That they know what their choices are, that they know the difference between federal loans and private student loans _ how that can affect terms of repayment, how that can affect the price and interest rate. These are important things for consumers to know.
We’re working right now with the Department of Education on an easy to navigate shopping sheet for students and their families.
Q: What role do school financial aid offices have in explaining the costs?
A: You have to examine the particular approach of an institution in context. You have to look at the facts and circumstances. So I wouldn’t make a blanket statement about all student loan offices, but obviously that’s an initial point of contact for the student and their families on the terms of what’s being offered. That needs to be done clearly and it needs to be done so that the student and their family can understand that choice.
It’s our belief that if consumers are presented with information in a clear and understandable fashion, they are the ones who will be able to make the best choices for themselves. It will never be for us to try and make these choices for anyone.
Q: Are companies changing their practices just because they know that the CFPB is out there?
A: I think that you are seeing change in these markets. I think you’re seeing it on three sides.
One side is you now have a bureau with some good tools to actually affect these markets in a constructive way.
On the business side, many of them are recognizing that they should get out in front of it. They’re trying to see what they can change on their own to either head off the enforcement or to try to improve things because they’re persuaded that it needs to be done.
The third side is consumers themselves. And it’s very important for consumers to recognize they have a lot of power in the market. Especially with social media, as they group together and it’s not just an isolated complaint but a group of people with a similar complaint. They can affect these businesses and how they respond to them
It’s important for consumers not only to look to the bureau for help but to look to themselves and help themselves.
___
Candice Choi can be reached at www.twitter.com/candicechoi
http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

Jump in delinquencies for FHA loans raises fears of bailout

Concerns are growing that the Federal Housing Administration will need to be bailed out by taxpayers.
The agency’s latest monthly outlook report revealed a spike in serious delinquencies for FHA-insured loans, posing a further threat to the agency’s already depleted cash reserves.
According to the report, the percentage of loans in the FHA’s portfolio with three missed payments or more rose to 9.3% in November, up from 8.4% in August.
“It’s highly likely that the FHA will need a taxpayer bailout over the next three to five years,” said Joseph Gyourko, a real estate professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and author of a report entitled “Is FHA the Next Big Housing Bailout?.”
In November, an independent audit of the FHA’s finances found that losses from mortgage defaults had depleted the agency’s reserve fund to 0.24%, or $2.6 billion, during fiscal 2011 — well below the Congressionally-mandated 2% level. (The ratio measures the net worth of the reserve fund compared with the value of the loans FHA has insured.) In 2006, the reserve fund stood at 7%.
At the time, the agency’s auditor warned that if home prices continued to drop, FHA could run through the remainder of its reserves, forcing it to either seek a bailout from the Treasury Department or further increase the premiums it charges borrowers. The FHA doesn’t issue mortgages, but instead insures lenders against defaults.
Such a bailout could cost billions: Guyourko argues that the FHA is so undercapitalized that it would need at least $50 billion, even if the housing markets don’t deteriorate further. But even by more conservative measures, the agency would need at least $20 billion to meet the capital requirements mandated by Congress.
In early December, the House Financial Services Committee grilled Shaun Donovan, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing Urban Development, over the possibility of a bailout. Donovan blamed FHA’s financial woes on loans made before 2009 and said that loans issued in recent years were experiencing a “dramatic decline in the rate of early payment default.” As a result of these healthier loans, he said the reserve fund would be able to return to the required 2% level in 2014.
Yet, Wharton’s Gyourko argues that the FHA has underestimated the risk of these more recent loans. Many of the new serious delinquencies were from loans issued in 2009 and 2010 and he projects there will be many more defaults to come.
One reason is that many of the borrowers who took out FHA-backed mortgages during this time relied on the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit for down payments. A large percentage of these borrowers didn’t have enough cash for the small 3.5% down payment that FHA requires, let alone the money to make their ongoing mortgage payments, he said.
Foreclosure free ride: 3 years, no payments
The FHA said that the vast majority of home buyers who claimed the tax credit used their own cash for down payments or borrowed from relatives and are therefore low risk.
Home prices will also play a key role in whether taxpayers will have to rescue the FHA, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication.
“Given that most FHA loans are made with a 3.5% down payment, most are underwater within a year after price declines,” he said.
Many FHA borrowers are teetering on the edge of foreclosure and further housing price declines will push many of those over, exposing the agency to more losses. “I think there will have to be a bailout over the next couple of years,” said Cecala.
The FHA claims its total liquid assets are $400 million higher than a year ago and home prices would have to fall 4% to 5% before the agency would need a bailout. It said it has also recognized expected losses and planned for them by raising upfront insurance premiums to bolster its assets.
Still, that might be cutting it close. Home prices are projected to fall another 3% to 4% in 2012 before stabilizing, according to forecasting firm Fiserv.
For all the FHA’s problems, however, it has filled a great need over the past few years, said Cecala. Low-income and first-time home buyers have relied on FHA loans to finance their purchases. Without the backing of the FHA, fewer homes would have been sold and prices would be even lower.
“The housing market would be in far worse shape than it is,” he said.
View this article on CNNMoney
More From CNNMoney.com
 http://tourism9.com/

Bailout concerns mounting for federal housing agency

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Concerns are growing that the Federal Housing Administration will need to be bailed out by taxpayers.
The agency’s latest monthly outlook report revealed a spike in serious delinquencies for FHA-insured loans, posing a further threat to the agency’s already depleted cash reserves.
According to the report, the percentage of loans in the FHA’s portfolio with three missed payments or more rose to 9.3% in November, up from 8.4% in August.
“It’s highly likely that the FHA will need a taxpayer bailout over the next three to five years,” said Joseph Gyourko, a real estate professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and author of a report entitled “Is FHA the Next Big Housing Bailout?.”
In November, an independent audit of the FHA’s finances found that losses from mortgage defaults had depleted the agency’s reserve fund to 0.24%, or $2.6 billion, during fiscal 2011 — well below the Congressionally-mandated 2% level. (The ratio measures the net worth of the reserve fund compared with the value of the loans FHA has insured.) In 2006, the reserve fund stood at 7%.
At the time, the agency’s auditor warned that if home prices continued to drop, FHA could run through the remainder of its reserves, forcing it to either seek a bailout from the Treasury Department or further increase the premiums it charges borrowers. The FHA doesn’t issue mortgages, but instead insures lenders against defaults.
Such a bailout could cost billions: Guyourko argues that the FHA is so undercapitalized that it would need at least $50 billion, even if the housing markets don’t deteriorate further. But even by more conservative measures, the agency would need at least $20 billion to meet the capital requirements mandated by Congress.
In early December, the House Financial Services Committee grilled Shaun Donovan, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing Urban Development, over the possibility of a bailout. Donovan blamed FHA’s financial woes on loans made before 2009 and said that loans issued in recent years were experiencing a “dramatic decline in the rate of early payment default.” As a result of these healthier loans, he said the reserve fund would be able to return to the required 2% level in 2014.
Yet, Wharton’s Gyourko argues that the FHA has underestimated the risk of these more recent loans. Many of the new serious delinquencies were from loans issued in 2009 and 2010 and he projects there will be many more defaults to come.
One reason is that many of the borrowers who took out FHA-backed mortgages during this time relied on the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit for down payments. A large percentage of these borrowers didn’t have enough cash for the small 3.5% down payment that FHA requires, let alone the money to make their ongoing mortgage payments, he said.
The FHA said that the vast majority of home buyers who claimed the tax credit used their own cash for down payments or borrowed from relatives and are therefore low risk.
Home prices will also play a key role in whether taxpayers will have to rescue the FHA, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication.
“Given that most FHA loans are made with a 3.5% down payment, most are underwater within a year after price declines,” he said.
Many FHA borrowers are teetering on the edge of foreclosure and further housing price declines will push many of those over, exposing the agency to more losses. “I think there will have to be a bailout over the next couple of years,” said Cecala.
The FHA claims its total liquid assets are $400 million higher than a year ago and home prices would have to fall 4% to 5% before the agency would need a bailout. It said it has also recognized expected losses and planned for them by raising upfront insurance premiums to bolster its assets.
Still, that might be cutting it close. Home prices are projected to fall another 3% to 4% in 2012 before stabilizing, according to forecasting firm Fiserv.
For all the FHA’s problems, however, it has filled a great need over the past few years, said Cecala. Low-income and first-time home buyers have relied on FHA loans to finance their purchases. Without the backing of the FHA, fewer homes would have been sold and prices would be even lower.
“The housing market would be in far worse shape than it is,” he said

 http://tourism9.com/

OPIC Records Net Income of $269 Million in FY2011, Helping Reduce U.S. Budget Deficit for 34th Consecutive Year

WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)– The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the U.S. Government’s development finance institution, generated net income of $269 million in Fiscal Year 2011, helping to reduce the federal budget deficit for the 34^th consecutive year.
In addition to generating revenue for the U.S. taxpayer, OPIC recorded a three-fold increase in the amount of capital the agency’s financing mobilized, rising to $4.4 billion.
In fiscal year 2011, OPIC committed $3.2 billion to companies expanding into emerging markets and supported 92 new investment projects in the power sector, hotels and housing, telecommunications and other infrastructure, as well as many other sectors like agriculture, education and microfinance. Consistent with its focus on supporting U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises, in FY2011, 78 percent of OPIC’s projects, representing nearly $1 billion in commitments, involved American small and medium-sized businesses.
OPIC responded quickly to the events of the Arab Spring, targeting up to $3 billion in financial support for investment and job creation in the Middle East and North Africa. Since setting that goal, the agency has already approved $657 million in transactions for the region, mainly to support investments in small business.
This year, OPIC also lent powerful support to U.S. companies seeking investment opportunities in the high growth renewable resources sector in emerging markets. Its commitment of $1.1 billion in financing and insurance to the sector in FY2011 represented a roughly three-fold increase over last year’s figure. Financing was provided to companies investing in a wide range of projects and regions: solar projects in Peru, India and Thailand, hydropower in Georgia, geothermal in Kenya and biomass in Liberia, among many others. Projects supported by OPIC in FY2011 will generate nearly 728 megawatts of electricity from renewable energy sources, more than a ten-fold increase from FY2010, and help avoid nearly one million tons of CO₂ emissions annually.
“OPIC generated net income and contributed to the reduction of the budget deficit for the 34th consecutive year,” said OPIC President and CEO Elizabeth Littlefield. “We did this while out performing on our core mission of mobilizing U.S. private capital to catalyze markets and support development in developing countries. OPIC’s work tangibly and profitably advances both U.S. interests and economic development abroad.”
“OPIC projects delivered important economic, environmental and developmental benefits to local populations that will make both the partner countries and the United States more secure and prosperous,” Ms. Littlefield said.
OPIC’s earnings were generated through financing and insurance provided to support U.S. private investment overseas, as well as interest earned on reserves. Those investments helped foster economic development in new and emerging markets, advance U.S. national security, and support growth in U.S. jobs and exports.
OPIC’s financial statements were audited by an independent accounting firm in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as well as government audit standards specified by the Comptroller General of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget.
OPIC is the U.S. Government’s development finance institution. It mobilizes private capital to help solve critical development challenges and in doing so, advances U.S. foreign policy. Because OPIC works with the U.S. private sector, it helps U.S. businesses gain footholds in emerging markets catalyzing revenues, jobs and growth opportunities both at home and abroad. OPIC achieves its mission by providing investors with financing, guarantees, political risk insurance, and support for private equity investment funds.
Established as an agency of the U.S. Government in 1971, OPIC operates on a self-sustaining basis at no net cost to American taxpayers. OPIC services are available for new and expanding business enterprises in more than 150 countries worldwide. To date, OPIC has supported nearly $200 billion of investment in over 4,000 projects, generated $74 billion in U.S. exports and supported more than 275,000 American jobs.


http://tourism9.com/