Nevada and Arizona are really sucking wind with >14% delinquencies. Behind them, there are a number of other >10% states, but most are relatively low overall CMBS exposures (i.e. Rhode Island, Virgin Islands, Montana, etc.).
Friday, February 5, 2010
CMBS Delinquencies Accelerate
I know this is not new information, and it was widely reported over the last couple of weeks, but some charts to put it in perspective below from the Group Formerly Known As Wheeler's (GFKAW):
Nevada and Arizona are really sucking wind with >14% delinquencies. Behind them, there are a number of other >10% states, but most are relatively low overall CMBS exposures (i.e. Rhode Island, Virgin Islands, Montana, etc.).
Nevada and Arizona are really sucking wind with >14% delinquencies. Behind them, there are a number of other >10% states, but most are relatively low overall CMBS exposures (i.e. Rhode Island, Virgin Islands, Montana, etc.).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Didn't that same research group (while Wheeler was still there) say that 2009 year-end delinquencies would not exceed 2 or3%? I do recall...
yeah, and 10-year cumulative loss forecasts in the 6 or 7% area, I think.
Representative of Citi as a whole. They screwed up everything they got involved in, starting with Salomon. If you've got the data handy, take a look at whose CRE loans are the most delinquent.
They're around 7.25%, pretty bad. Originators with comparable or larger volumes that are worse: Column (9.94%), CIBC (9.70%), Nomura (11.65%!)
Originators with comparable or larger volumes that are better:
BOA (3.89%), LaSalle/pre-BOA (5.56%) Barclays (7.24%), Bear (6.05%), GE (4.87%), JPM (4.82%), Lehman (5.75%), Merrill/pre-BOA (4.46%), MS (3.78%), Wachovia (4.43%), and Wells/pre-Wachovia (3.21%).
Those numbers are completely fair without a WALA context - i.e. Citi's is just 50 months compared to Nomura's 75 months.
what's your measure of delinquent? I usually don't count 30 days, even though half of those do end up as 60 days.
Meant to say, "those numbers are NOT completely fair without a WALA context"
I just used 30+ and FC and REOs in that example because it was readily available. I agree though - usually do not count 30-59 bucket in a delinquency number.
Post a Comment