Mortgage-backed bonds rallied on Friday helping rates move lower this morning. There is not much in the way of economic data out today so we will be watching the stock market to get a read on investor sentiment. Currently the major indexes are essentially trading flat on the day.
On Friday the monthly jobs report is scheduled to be released. For now we remain in a cautiously floating stance.
Current Outlook: Cautiously floating
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
WSJ reports on "Paulson Plan"
The WSJ reported this morning that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson will unveil an overhaul to the regulatory system for the financial markets on Monday. This should be very interesting. One of the provisions in the article calls for a Federal system for state monitored mortgage companies.
Here is the article:
Sweeping Changes in Paulson Plan
By DAMIAN PALETTA
March 29, 2008
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson plans on Monday to call for sweeping structural changes in the way the government monitors financial markets, capping a broad review aimed at revamping a system of regulatory oversight built piecemeal since the Civil War.
If all the changes get made, they would represent a complete reworking of the U.S. regulatory system for finance. Such an outcome would likely take years and would also require major compromises from an increasingly partisan Congress. The proposal, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, is likely to trigger messy feuds over turf at a time when confidence in government supervision is low.
Even so, the blueprint could be a guide for future action. Senior Democrats have expressed in recent weeks that they also believe the regulatory system should be overhauled, potentially paving the way for possible deals.
Mr. Paulson's plan will include merging some agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, while broadening the authority of others, such as the Federal Reserve, which appears to be a winner under the proposal. Mr. Paulson is expected to recommend that the central bank play a greater role as a "market stability regulator," with broader authority over all financial market participants.
Mr. Paulson is also expected to call for the Office of Thrift Supervision, which regulates federal thrifts, to be phased out within two years and merged with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks. One reason is that there is very little difference these days between federal thrifts and national banks.
The Treasury plan has been in the works since last year but has taken on greater prominence since the onset of the housing crisis and ensuing credit crunch. Critics have blamed lax regulation at both the state and federal level for exacerbating the crisis.
A key part of the blueprint is aimed at fixing lapses in mortgage oversight. Mr. Paulson plans to call for the creation of a new entity, called the Mortgage Origination Commission, according to an outline of the Treasury Department's plan, which was first reported by the New York Times. This new entity would create licensing standards for state mortgage companies. This commission, which would include representatives from the Fed and other agencies, would scrutinize the way states oversee mortgage origination.
Also related to mortgages, Mr. Paulson is expected to call for federal laws to be "clarified and enhanced," resolving any jurisdictional issues that exist between state or federal supervisors. Many of the problems in the housing market stemmed from loans offered by state-licensed companies. Federal regulators, too, were slow to create safeguards that could have banned some of these practices.
Mr. Paulson is expected to repeat his assertion that the Fed should have much more access to information from securities firms and investment banks that might borrow money from the central bank.
Presently, insurance is regulated on a state-by-state basis, but the Treasury review is expected to call for the creation of an optional federal insurance charter that would be overseen by a new Office of National Insurance. Such an idea has been floated for years but never directly endorsed by Treasury.
In addition to some of the short- and medium-term changes, Treasury officials have also designed what they believe to be an "optimal structure" of financial oversight. It would create a single class for federally insured banks and thrifts, rather than the multiple versions that now exist. It would also create a single class of federally regulated insurance companies and a federal financial-services provider for other types of financial institutions.
A market stability regulator, which would likely be the Fed, would have broad powers over all three types of companies. A new regulator, called the Prudential Financial Regulatory Agency, would oversee the financial regulation of the insurance and federally insured banks. Another regulator, the Business Regulatory Agency, would oversee business conduct at all the companies.
Here is the article:
Sweeping Changes in Paulson Plan
By DAMIAN PALETTA
March 29, 2008
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson plans on Monday to call for sweeping structural changes in the way the government monitors financial markets, capping a broad review aimed at revamping a system of regulatory oversight built piecemeal since the Civil War.
If all the changes get made, they would represent a complete reworking of the U.S. regulatory system for finance. Such an outcome would likely take years and would also require major compromises from an increasingly partisan Congress. The proposal, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, is likely to trigger messy feuds over turf at a time when confidence in government supervision is low.
Even so, the blueprint could be a guide for future action. Senior Democrats have expressed in recent weeks that they also believe the regulatory system should be overhauled, potentially paving the way for possible deals.
Mr. Paulson's plan will include merging some agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, while broadening the authority of others, such as the Federal Reserve, which appears to be a winner under the proposal. Mr. Paulson is expected to recommend that the central bank play a greater role as a "market stability regulator," with broader authority over all financial market participants.
Mr. Paulson is also expected to call for the Office of Thrift Supervision, which regulates federal thrifts, to be phased out within two years and merged with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks. One reason is that there is very little difference these days between federal thrifts and national banks.
The Treasury plan has been in the works since last year but has taken on greater prominence since the onset of the housing crisis and ensuing credit crunch. Critics have blamed lax regulation at both the state and federal level for exacerbating the crisis.
A key part of the blueprint is aimed at fixing lapses in mortgage oversight. Mr. Paulson plans to call for the creation of a new entity, called the Mortgage Origination Commission, according to an outline of the Treasury Department's plan, which was first reported by the New York Times. This new entity would create licensing standards for state mortgage companies. This commission, which would include representatives from the Fed and other agencies, would scrutinize the way states oversee mortgage origination.
Also related to mortgages, Mr. Paulson is expected to call for federal laws to be "clarified and enhanced," resolving any jurisdictional issues that exist between state or federal supervisors. Many of the problems in the housing market stemmed from loans offered by state-licensed companies. Federal regulators, too, were slow to create safeguards that could have banned some of these practices.
Mr. Paulson is expected to repeat his assertion that the Fed should have much more access to information from securities firms and investment banks that might borrow money from the central bank.
Presently, insurance is regulated on a state-by-state basis, but the Treasury review is expected to call for the creation of an optional federal insurance charter that would be overseen by a new Office of National Insurance. Such an idea has been floated for years but never directly endorsed by Treasury.
In addition to some of the short- and medium-term changes, Treasury officials have also designed what they believe to be an "optimal structure" of financial oversight. It would create a single class for federally insured banks and thrifts, rather than the multiple versions that now exist. It would also create a single class of federally regulated insurance companies and a federal financial-services provider for other types of financial institutions.
A market stability regulator, which would likely be the Fed, would have broad powers over all three types of companies. A new regulator, called the Prudential Financial Regulatory Agency, would oversee the financial regulation of the insurance and federally insured banks. Another regulator, the Business Regulatory Agency, would oversee business conduct at all the companies.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Rate Update March 28, 2008
Mortgage rates increased this morning following a sell-off of mortgage backed bonds yesterday afternoon. It looked as though mortgage-backed bonds may fall below the all-important 50-day moving average but thankfully this morning’s personal spending report helped support prices.
Watch today’s you tube video to find out how this report is helping mortgage rates…..
Current Outlook: Cautiously floating
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Rate Update March 27, 2008
Mortgage-backed bonds are testing the 50-day moving average again today. On Monday we hit the 50-day moving average and bounced higher which helped rates move modestly lower. If we can bounce higher again we should see rates improve. However, we remain concerned about the strength of the 50-day moving average as a support level. Should bonds manage to break through we could count on rate moving higher in the near term.
Current Outlook: neutral with bias towards locking.
Current Outlook: neutral with bias towards locking.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Spreads between treasuries & MBSs
This may be a little technical for most folks but this article explains that the curretn spreads between US treasury bonds & mortgage-backed bonds (MBSs) are extremely high. If we get some confidence back in the credit markets we should see this spread narrow which would send mortgage rates lower.
From WSJ.com:
Bond, Loan Markets Remain Wary
Despite Fed's Efforts,
Interest-Rate 'Spreads'
Reflect Big Fear of Risk
By LIZ RAPPAPORT
March 27, 2008
The Federal Reserve's efforts to heal broken credit markets have diminished worries about a big financial failure, but wariness about lending remains in bond and loan markets.
This wariness shows up in the movements of many interest rates and in a commonly watched measure of risk known as a spread. A bond's spread is the difference between its interest rate and the interest rate on a relatively risk-free investment, like a Treasury bond or a Federal Reserve loan. When spreads get bigger, as they have in recent months, it shows that investors are reluctant to own anything but the safest investments.
In many markets, spreads have improved since the Fed's actions of last week, but they remain elevated compared with a few months ago. Other measures of risk in credit markets, such as the cost of insuring bonds against default, have improved, particularly for bonds issued by financial institutions, but they aren't out of the woods yet.
"There are still a lot of challenges looming," says Kevin Flanagan, fixed-income strategist at Morgan Stanley.
Last week, the Fed helped to orchestrate the sale of Bear Stearns Cos. to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. The Fed has also reduced its benchmark lending rate by three percentage points since September and created several borrowing facilities to address Wall Street's short-term financing needs. But the root causes of the credit crisis -- worries about mounting mortgage defaults and a desire among many investors and financial institutions to reduce their debt loads -- still hang over the market.
As worries reached a crescendo nearly two weeks ago, spreads on everything from mortgage debt to short-term money-market loans between banks shot higher.
Consider interest rates on mortgage securities backed by government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These bonds' spreads relative to comparable Treasury bonds have narrowed after reaching 20-year highs March 6, a day after Carlyle Capital Corp., an investment fund, said it couldn't meet cash demand from some bankers.
Since March 6, the average spread on a 30-year mortgage bond has fallen by 0.76 percentage point to 2.17% over Treasury bonds. Still, that spread was 1.14% over comparable Treasury bonds last June.
"It's a start," says Michael Schultz, portfolio manager at Summit investment Partners, which invests in mortgage- and asset-backed securities. "Until we have hit bottom in the housing market, you're not going to get a major uptick."
Mortgage-market spreads have moved nearly in tandem with other measures of risk, says Hans Mikkelsen, credit strategist at Banc of America Securities: "At the root of all that happening is the housing market and banks' and brokers' exposure to the housing market."
In the derivatives market, where investors buy and sell protection against bond defaults, the cost of insuring against default by firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers has dropped since the Fed's actions.
Investors can buy protection against a Lehman default on $10 million of bonds for almost half of last week's price, at $231,543 annually from $447,515. The cost of such protection last year was just $29,261.
But this hasn't dramatically changed the reluctance of banks to lend to each other. In short-term funding markets, spreads show that firms are still reluctant to part with their cash.
The spread between three-month Libor, or the London interbank offered rate, and the expected federal-funds rate over the next three months remains elevated. This spread shows the difference between what firms charge each other for short-term cash and what they expected to pay in the relatively risk-free overnight fed-funds market. The spread widens when banks are worried about short-term risks.
The spread rose to 0.65 percentage point Tuesday from 0.59 point Monday. It peaked in December at more than one full point. In normal times, it rarely surpasses 0.10 point.
The trouble has spread to corporations. Spreads on junk bonds have gone from record lows last summer, about 2.4 percentage points over comparable Treasury bonds, to about eight percentage points over, even though the rate of default remains near historic lows, according to Standard & Poor's. While S&P believes defaults will rise to only 4.6% in 2008, others say the wide spreads in the junk-bond market reflect expectations for a deeper economic downturn.
From WSJ.com:
Bond, Loan Markets Remain Wary
Despite Fed's Efforts,
Interest-Rate 'Spreads'
Reflect Big Fear of Risk
By LIZ RAPPAPORT
March 27, 2008
The Federal Reserve's efforts to heal broken credit markets have diminished worries about a big financial failure, but wariness about lending remains in bond and loan markets.
This wariness shows up in the movements of many interest rates and in a commonly watched measure of risk known as a spread. A bond's spread is the difference between its interest rate and the interest rate on a relatively risk-free investment, like a Treasury bond or a Federal Reserve loan. When spreads get bigger, as they have in recent months, it shows that investors are reluctant to own anything but the safest investments.
In many markets, spreads have improved since the Fed's actions of last week, but they remain elevated compared with a few months ago. Other measures of risk in credit markets, such as the cost of insuring bonds against default, have improved, particularly for bonds issued by financial institutions, but they aren't out of the woods yet.
"There are still a lot of challenges looming," says Kevin Flanagan, fixed-income strategist at Morgan Stanley.
Last week, the Fed helped to orchestrate the sale of Bear Stearns Cos. to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. The Fed has also reduced its benchmark lending rate by three percentage points since September and created several borrowing facilities to address Wall Street's short-term financing needs. But the root causes of the credit crisis -- worries about mounting mortgage defaults and a desire among many investors and financial institutions to reduce their debt loads -- still hang over the market.
As worries reached a crescendo nearly two weeks ago, spreads on everything from mortgage debt to short-term money-market loans between banks shot higher.
Consider interest rates on mortgage securities backed by government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These bonds' spreads relative to comparable Treasury bonds have narrowed after reaching 20-year highs March 6, a day after Carlyle Capital Corp., an investment fund, said it couldn't meet cash demand from some bankers.
Since March 6, the average spread on a 30-year mortgage bond has fallen by 0.76 percentage point to 2.17% over Treasury bonds. Still, that spread was 1.14% over comparable Treasury bonds last June.
"It's a start," says Michael Schultz, portfolio manager at Summit investment Partners, which invests in mortgage- and asset-backed securities. "Until we have hit bottom in the housing market, you're not going to get a major uptick."
Mortgage-market spreads have moved nearly in tandem with other measures of risk, says Hans Mikkelsen, credit strategist at Banc of America Securities: "At the root of all that happening is the housing market and banks' and brokers' exposure to the housing market."
In the derivatives market, where investors buy and sell protection against bond defaults, the cost of insuring against default by firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers has dropped since the Fed's actions.
Investors can buy protection against a Lehman default on $10 million of bonds for almost half of last week's price, at $231,543 annually from $447,515. The cost of such protection last year was just $29,261.
But this hasn't dramatically changed the reluctance of banks to lend to each other. In short-term funding markets, spreads show that firms are still reluctant to part with their cash.
The spread between three-month Libor, or the London interbank offered rate, and the expected federal-funds rate over the next three months remains elevated. This spread shows the difference between what firms charge each other for short-term cash and what they expected to pay in the relatively risk-free overnight fed-funds market. The spread widens when banks are worried about short-term risks.
The spread rose to 0.65 percentage point Tuesday from 0.59 point Monday. It peaked in December at more than one full point. In normal times, it rarely surpasses 0.10 point.
The trouble has spread to corporations. Spreads on junk bonds have gone from record lows last summer, about 2.4 percentage points over comparable Treasury bonds, to about eight percentage points over, even though the rate of default remains near historic lows, according to Standard & Poor's. While S&P believes defaults will rise to only 4.6% in 2008, others say the wide spreads in the junk-bond market reflect expectations for a deeper economic downturn.
Thinking about refi'ing? Read this first....
The purpose of this article is to give consumers a guide for determining whether or not a proposed refinance makes financial sense for them. Through my interactions with many of my clients over the years I’ve found that much of the population is left confused when evaluating mortgage refinance options. I hope that I can shed some light through this article so that you can make better decisions about your own situation.
Because evaluating proposed refinance options is often confusing and overwhelming, many “rules” have been created over the years in an attempt to simplify the formula. Among the most common of these is the “1% rule” in which loan holders are to refinance ONLY if they can lock a rate 1% below their existing mortgage rate. Although I applaud the simplicity of such a rule I do not think it is effective in helping people make wise financial decisions.
The truth of the matter is that every single household’s situation is different and therefore there is no blanket rule that can apply to all people. We may advise two households differently even though they have the exact same mortgage balance and the exact same interest rate evaluating the exact same refinance proposals because each has different objectives.
So how do you decide whether or not a proposed refinance makes sense for you? Here is a methodology that we use with our clients:
The first step is to identify what your objectives are.
For most people the biggest consideration in deciding whether or not to refinance is cost. If they can replace their existing loan with a lower cost option then the refinance makes sense for them. For these people we’d like to remind them that costs can be expressed in a variety of ways such as closing costs, interest costs, opportunity costs, etc.
For other people the monthly payment or loan program may be their biggest consideration. For example, maybe someone is anticipating going back to school and wants to refinance into an interest-only loan to reduce their monthly payments. Or, maybe a person has an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) that is scheduled to adjust in the coming months and they think that it would be a good time to lock in a fixed rate. These considerations may not be motivated by cost in the near term but instead by lifestyle changes.
The bottom line is that the objectives can vary depending on the person and the circumstance. It’s important that a person identifies what is important to them and communicates it to their mortgage professional.
The second step is to evaluate your options.
Once your mortgage professional understands what you’re after, they should be able to provide you with multiple refinance options based on those objectives. This is where the art of evaluation comes into play.
At the heart of evaluating a refinance proposal is a cost-benefit analysis. As a consumer you must weigh the cost associated with the refinance (as measured by the closing costs) against the proposed benefit (your objectives).
If your objective is anything other than cost the evaluation is much more subjective in nature. You will have decide if the closing costs you’ll incur for refinancing is worth whatever benefit you are seeking.
If cost is of most importance, then the cost-benefit analysis is relatively easy to complete. With this analysis we’ll evaluate the proposed cost of the refinance, in terms of closing costs, and weigh it against the proposed interest savings over time.
The cost-benefit analysis looks like this:
Proposed closing costs ($)/ Proposed Interest Savings ($ per month) = break even period: # of months in which it would take to recoup the closing costs and begin saving money
Once a person has calculated the length of time it would take for them to recoup their closing costs they can then decide if they expect to hold the loan long enough in order to experience significant savings.
In order to make sense of this concept lets evaluate a hypothetical situation:
Johnny Homeowner bought his home in January of 2006. At that time he took out a 30 year fixed rate mortgage @ 6.50% which he’s made standard payments on ever since. As of March of 2008 his loan balance is $296,067 and his monthly principal and interest (P & I) payment is $1,871.
He is currently evaluating a refinance proposal which would replace his existing mortgage with a new 30 year fixed rate mortgage @ 5.875%. The closing costs associated with the refinance are $3,000 which he has decided to include in the new loan so that he doesn’t have to pay them out of pocket. The new monthly payment would be $1,769 which represents a savings of $102.
Here is the analysis for him:
$3,000 (closing costs) / $102 (monthly interest savings)= 29 months.
What the analysis suggests is that he would have to maintain this mortgage for 29 months in order to recoup the initial closing costs he paid for the refinance. From that point forward he’s in better shape than he would have been had he not refinanced. So, for him to evaluate whether or not this makes sense he’d probably want to feel confident in the fact that he’ll have this loan for at least 30 more months.
The last step is to make your decision.
Since everyone is different there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to refinancing. We can help you best understand the implications of refinancing but ultimately it’s up to you to decide whether or not you should do so.
Typically we try to provide our clients with little to no closing cost refinance options because we believe there is less risk of making a bad decision when the break-even period is relatively soon. The tradeoff in that the borrower may not be locking an interest rate that is as low as they could get if they were willing to incur more costs.
If you decide that the refinance terms are not good enough to justify the cost then be sure and communicate that to your mortgage professional. Often times they can keep a lookout for you so that if/ when the opportunity does present itself they can pro-actively let you know.
In summary, deciding whether or not to refinance can be a difficult decision. In order to make sense out of it we’d first encourage you to identify what your motivation for refinancing is. Second, communicate that to your mortgage professional and have them work up some options for you to review. Evaluate these options using a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether or not the proposed benefit outweighs the cost of the loan. Finally, remember that there is no right or wrong answer. If you think that it makes sense then go for it and if not be sure to inform your mortgage professional what it is you’re looking for so that they can keep an eye out for you.
Because evaluating proposed refinance options is often confusing and overwhelming, many “rules” have been created over the years in an attempt to simplify the formula. Among the most common of these is the “1% rule” in which loan holders are to refinance ONLY if they can lock a rate 1% below their existing mortgage rate. Although I applaud the simplicity of such a rule I do not think it is effective in helping people make wise financial decisions.
The truth of the matter is that every single household’s situation is different and therefore there is no blanket rule that can apply to all people. We may advise two households differently even though they have the exact same mortgage balance and the exact same interest rate evaluating the exact same refinance proposals because each has different objectives.
So how do you decide whether or not a proposed refinance makes sense for you? Here is a methodology that we use with our clients:
The first step is to identify what your objectives are.
For most people the biggest consideration in deciding whether or not to refinance is cost. If they can replace their existing loan with a lower cost option then the refinance makes sense for them. For these people we’d like to remind them that costs can be expressed in a variety of ways such as closing costs, interest costs, opportunity costs, etc.
For other people the monthly payment or loan program may be their biggest consideration. For example, maybe someone is anticipating going back to school and wants to refinance into an interest-only loan to reduce their monthly payments. Or, maybe a person has an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) that is scheduled to adjust in the coming months and they think that it would be a good time to lock in a fixed rate. These considerations may not be motivated by cost in the near term but instead by lifestyle changes.
The bottom line is that the objectives can vary depending on the person and the circumstance. It’s important that a person identifies what is important to them and communicates it to their mortgage professional.
The second step is to evaluate your options.
Once your mortgage professional understands what you’re after, they should be able to provide you with multiple refinance options based on those objectives. This is where the art of evaluation comes into play.
At the heart of evaluating a refinance proposal is a cost-benefit analysis. As a consumer you must weigh the cost associated with the refinance (as measured by the closing costs) against the proposed benefit (your objectives).
If your objective is anything other than cost the evaluation is much more subjective in nature. You will have decide if the closing costs you’ll incur for refinancing is worth whatever benefit you are seeking.
If cost is of most importance, then the cost-benefit analysis is relatively easy to complete. With this analysis we’ll evaluate the proposed cost of the refinance, in terms of closing costs, and weigh it against the proposed interest savings over time.
The cost-benefit analysis looks like this:
Proposed closing costs ($)/ Proposed Interest Savings ($ per month) = break even period: # of months in which it would take to recoup the closing costs and begin saving money
Once a person has calculated the length of time it would take for them to recoup their closing costs they can then decide if they expect to hold the loan long enough in order to experience significant savings.
In order to make sense of this concept lets evaluate a hypothetical situation:
Johnny Homeowner bought his home in January of 2006. At that time he took out a 30 year fixed rate mortgage @ 6.50% which he’s made standard payments on ever since. As of March of 2008 his loan balance is $296,067 and his monthly principal and interest (P & I) payment is $1,871.
He is currently evaluating a refinance proposal which would replace his existing mortgage with a new 30 year fixed rate mortgage @ 5.875%. The closing costs associated with the refinance are $3,000 which he has decided to include in the new loan so that he doesn’t have to pay them out of pocket. The new monthly payment would be $1,769 which represents a savings of $102.
Here is the analysis for him:
$3,000 (closing costs) / $102 (monthly interest savings)= 29 months.
What the analysis suggests is that he would have to maintain this mortgage for 29 months in order to recoup the initial closing costs he paid for the refinance. From that point forward he’s in better shape than he would have been had he not refinanced. So, for him to evaluate whether or not this makes sense he’d probably want to feel confident in the fact that he’ll have this loan for at least 30 more months.
The last step is to make your decision.
Since everyone is different there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to refinancing. We can help you best understand the implications of refinancing but ultimately it’s up to you to decide whether or not you should do so.
Typically we try to provide our clients with little to no closing cost refinance options because we believe there is less risk of making a bad decision when the break-even period is relatively soon. The tradeoff in that the borrower may not be locking an interest rate that is as low as they could get if they were willing to incur more costs.
If you decide that the refinance terms are not good enough to justify the cost then be sure and communicate that to your mortgage professional. Often times they can keep a lookout for you so that if/ when the opportunity does present itself they can pro-actively let you know.
In summary, deciding whether or not to refinance can be a difficult decision. In order to make sense out of it we’d first encourage you to identify what your motivation for refinancing is. Second, communicate that to your mortgage professional and have them work up some options for you to review. Evaluate these options using a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether or not the proposed benefit outweighs the cost of the loan. Finally, remember that there is no right or wrong answer. If you think that it makes sense then go for it and if not be sure to inform your mortgage professional what it is you’re looking for so that they can keep an eye out for you.
Rate Update March 26, 2008
More weak economic data and positive technical trading patterns have helped mortgage rates this morning.
The gain in mortgage rates may be short lived however as two prominent Fed officials are scheduled to speak later today. We know that inflation remains a primary concern for the Fed and any mention of inflation in their speeches could send rates higher.
Current Outlook: neutral
The gain in mortgage rates may be short lived however as two prominent Fed officials are scheduled to speak later today. We know that inflation remains a primary concern for the Fed and any mention of inflation in their speeches could send rates higher.
Current Outlook: neutral
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
