Subscribe Print This Post Home / Daily Dose / Risky Business credit default loans mortgage Risk Urban Institute 2018-10-25 Radhika Ojha Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago October 25, 2018 1,212 Views Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Related Articles Previous: Coming to America Next: A Way Amidst the Wildfires The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Risky Business About Author: Staff Writer The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Share Save Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Tagged with: credit default loans mortgage Risk Urban Institute The Housing Finance Policy Center with Urban Institute has released its Q2 2018 Housing Credit Availability Index (HCAI). The HCAI tracks the amount of mortgage credit available as well as the percentage of home purchase loans likely to go into default after missing payment for more than 90 days. The report released along with the index further distinguishes between the sources of the default risk: whether it stems from borrowers’ inability to pay or the products that service their loans.Overall, the HCAI indicates a decline to 5.7 percent from a peak in Q1 2018 of 5.9 percent, the highest the index has climbed since 2011. This small dip quarter over quarter is a consequence of a shift in the market’s composition: while the government channel saw a loss in market share, the portfolio channel grew, and because the government channel has looser lending standards, this has had consequences on the total amount of credit available.A higher HCAI signifies that lenders are willing to take on a greater risk of default and so also how easy it is to acquire a home loan. The credit available to homebuyers remains far tighter than it was prior to the housing bubble burst—at least half of what it was in pre-bubble years.But because the index also gauges risk from borrowers contrasted against risk from services, it reveals more than just how much credit is available. Because product risk remains negligible, the index indicates that if credit were made more readily available to homebuyers, the risk posed would be slight. Just compare the current total risk posed in the index, or 5.7 percent, with the pre-crisis standard: 12.5 percent from 2001 to 2003. The report makes a subtly compelling argument that the stress felt in the market today from a gauntlet of forces (including rising mortgage rates, affordability issues, and a general lack of supply) could find reasonable respite in an expansion of credit available to prospective homebuyers. This would cause a corresponding increase in default risk, but presumably said risk would remain far below, and outside the perimeters, of the percentages that preceded the crisis of 2008.The government channel today—which as mentioned above recently opened up its credit accordingly—represents the only segment of the market today servicing less-than-pristine borrowers. in Daily Dose, Featured, Loss Mitigation, News Sign up for DS News Daily Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago
Email [email protected] Follow the Foreign Office on Twitter @foreignoffice and Facebook Follow the Foreign Office on Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn The governments of France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States are deeply concerned about the announcement that the Ras Lanuf and Sidra oil fields and facilities will be transferred to the control of an entity other than the legitimate National Oil Corporation. Libya’s oil facilities, production, and revenues belong to the Libyan people. These vital Libyan resources must remain under the exclusive control of the legitimate National Oil Corporation and the sole oversight of the Government of National Accord (GNA), as outlined in UN Security Council Resolutions 2259 (2015), 2278 (2016), and 2362 (2017). UN Security Council Resolution 2362 (2017) condemns attempts to illicitly export petroleum, including crude oil and refined petroleum products, from Libya by parallel institutions which are not acting under the authority of the GNA. Any attempts to circumvent the UN Security Council’s Libya sanctions regime will cause deep harm to Libya’s economy, exacerbate its humanitarian crisis, and undermine its broader stability. The international community will hold those who undermine Libya’s peace, security, and stability to account. We call for all armed actors to cease hostilities and withdraw immediately from oil installations without conditions before further damage occurs. In September 2016, the LNA supported the legitimate National Oil Corporation’s work to rebuild Libya’s oil sector for the benefit of the Libyan people. This action served Libya’s national interest. The legitimate National Oil Corporation must be allowed again to take up unhindered work on behalf of the Libyan people, to repair infrastructure damaged after the attack by forces under the direction of Ibrahim Jadhran, and to restore the oil exports and production disrupted by that attack. For journalists Media enquiries Further information
As the financial services industry becomes more competitive and institutions continue to face regulatory and economic pressures, the need for a focused, informed board of directors is critical. In this challenging environment, it is essential that every board member be fully engaged in the institution’s governance, policies and procedures, and strategic direction in order for it to be successful in fulfilling its obligations to depositors and shareholders.Board member responsibilities begin with a commitment to be actively involved in all leadership aspects of the institution, including:actively participating in all board meetings;selecting qualified executive officers;providing governance on institutional policies related to safety and soundness;maintaining awareness and compliance with all state and federal regulations;assessing established business strategies; andserving as ambassadors for the purpose of growing the institution’s market share.The consequences of having directors who aren’t fully engaged or who don’t have the best interest of all stakeholders in mind can negatively impact an institution’s ability to make prudent business decisions and to meet its strategic objectives. If allowed to continue, this can result in potential regulatory consequences, and in the worst cases cause the institution to fail.What’s more, if directors don’t possess the basic knowledge required to understand the institution’s financial and accounting practices, neglect to complete their responsibilities or disregard the importance of protecting the interests of all stakeholders, they can be subject to civil monetary penalties imposed by regulators and civil liability.While large institutions are expected to incorporate self-assessment practices into their board governance, initiating a process that establishes strong expectations for board involvement and responsible decision-making is beneficial for smaller institutions as well. This can be accomplished through the implementation of an on-going board member evaluation process.Boards are only as strong as the weakest linkIn many institutions with long-term board members and legacy policies, member evaluations often aren’t given the serious attention they deserve. And while it’s no secret that board members don’t relish the idea of evaluating their peers, when an individual board member is no longer providing value to the group, it is distracting and affects the performance of the entire body.Unfortunately, in many cases institution and board leadership take the seemingly easy way out when it comes to removing non-contributing members by implementing a mandatory retirement age requirement or relying on the eventual retirement decision of individuals who may have lost interest or the ability to provide value. These strategies offer two very pronounced limitations to the preferred outcome of improving the quality and effectiveness of board membership.First of all, age isn’t always an indicator of whether or not someone is an effective, contributing board member. Automatically removing a member from the board at an arbitrary age can result in the loss of relevant industry and community knowledge, along with valuable institutional support and strong leadership abilities. And relying on underperforming members to decide on their own when it’s time to leave can take years and result in the loss of opportunities to make changes that would benefit the institution, both now and in the future.These two scenarios are often the result of a board review process that is limited to a perfunctory self-assessment – where board members are asked to rate their own proficiencies and identify areas of potential weakness. This can have little value if a director is only concerned about his or her own needs, or doesn’t want to appear at odds with the opinions of the board chair or specific committee leadership. Too often the result of this type of review only serves to fulfill a board requirement and leads to the continuation of the status quo, whether good or bad.Peer-to-peer review allows relevant across-the-board assessmentHowever, by developing a peer-to-peer review system for evaluating each member’s contributions, board leadership demonstrates its commitment to maintaining quality involvement of all board members, all the time.Anonymous peer-to-peer evaluations provide a vehicle for obtaining feedback to evaluate each person’s value as a board member. To be effective, the process should include the following elements to ensure consistent, quality input on issues that directly relate to the successful oversight of the financial institution:a clear, upfront establishment of process objectives, as well as criteria to be used for member evaluations;development of an unbiased format that provides constructive, non-personal information;identification of a neutral party to gather and share individual feedback; andconsideration of how the evaluation responses will affect on-going board membership.Once the evaluation process is complete, underperforming members can be counseled and given the opportunity to improve their performance or increase board involvement before a final recommendation is made to find a replacement.Planning and expectations promote healthy board involvementWhile the issue of dealing with underperforming board members is difficult, if a board is going to function as a unit, it is incumbent on every member to fully commit to his or her responsibilities for the duration of their board service.The process can be eased by implementing clear expectations of membership requirements during the recruiting process and addressing institutional leadership needs on a regular basis. It is also imperative that board members are given the training and information they need to stay aware of changing market and regulatory conditions. When weaknesses or deficiencies are observed, it is the responsibility of board leadership to address the situation immediately with the individual member and discuss possible solutions.With this process in place, every member will have a better understanding of what is required to have and maintain a seat at the board table.About JMFAJMFA is a leading provider of profitability and performance-improvement consulting. For more than 35 years, JMFA has been recognized as one of the most trusted names in the industry for earnings enhancement and expense control programs, training and development, and recruitment services, as well as product, service, pricing and technology-improvement consulting. Simply stated, JMFA’s programs and services are designed to increase income or reduce expenses. JMFA is proud to be a preferred provider among many industry groups. To learn more about JMFA, please visit www.JMFA.com or call (800) 809-2307. 11SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr,Keith Hughey Keith joined JMFA in 2012, with more than 35 years of consulting and managerial experience. Until founding his own practice, J. Keith Hughey Company in 2008, he was a principal … Web: www.JMFA.com Details
ORGANISERS of the Guyana Cup Rematch horse race meet have released a provisional eight-race programme.The one-day race meet, which is organised by the Jumbo Jet establishment, is billed for December 3 at the Rising Sun Turf Club.According to the provisional programme, the feature event is for horses classified C and Lower. The race is over a distance of 1200m and at stake is $1M and a trophy.The co-feature event will see horses in the F Class and Lower competing over 1200m.Other races on the card includes the: H1 and Lower (1200m), three-year-old Guyana-bred (1200m), two-year-old Guyana-bred (1200m) , K Class (1200m), L and Lower (1200m) and the L-Class Non Earners since Guyana Cup 2017.For more information contact: Chandu Ramkissoon (624-9063/608-9063/232-063), Alan Padmore (232-9115), Rajin (Lion) (608-4050) or Nikita Ross (662-4668).