March 2010

Note to File:

If you thought about it, when we take something as complicated as a pooling and servicing agreement and then modify it to do a work around changes to GAAP, it’s not going to be pretty. And it’s not. Welcome to the fair value auction. In a CMBS securitization, when a loan defaults, you’d figure the servicer would either work it out, foreclose it or sell it. That’s what we did until 2001 when the accountants concluded that, if the servicer had the ability to try to sell a mortgage loan, the trust would no longer be a qualified special purpose entity or a Q, and the securitization not a true sale. If it’s not a true sale, the mortgages stay on the issuer’s balance sheet and the transaction simply fails to work.Continue Reading Note to File re: Fair Value Auction

I’m just about to do another CRE Finance Council (formerly CMSA) PSA after work tutorial. A couple of observations. As a lawyer who packed the sausage casings, it is startling to see how much uncertainty and, in fact, misinformation exists about how a PSA actually works in the community of people who buy and sell bonds and other financial assets. Perhaps not surprising, because who reads these things, except the lawyers who draft them and a few anal B piece buyers, who really need a life? Continue Reading Time to Read that PSA

The changes to the REMIC rules (PDF) were intended, at least in part, to ease restrictions on servicers of securitized mortgage loans. However, while expanding the scope of permitted modifications, the new REMIC regulations also impose a requirement that the modified loan be re-tested to ensure the mortgage loan continues to be principally secured by real estate. This generally makes sense REMICs are intended to hold mortgage loans, and this new requirement presumably prevents a servicer from modifying the mortgage loan so as to be secured by other assets, such as credit-card receivables, cash or other non-real estate collateral.

The problem, however, is that the new regulations also require mortgage loans to be re-tested any time real property collateral is released (even if the release is explicitly contemplated by the loan documents). On troubled multi-property loans (with an LTV of less than 80%), this re-testing requirement potentially puts servicers between a rock and a hard place, forcing them to choose between entering into a prohibited modification (resulting in the imposition of potentially severe tax penalties) and incurring liability to borrower (and potentially, junior lenders) for failing to meet the obligations of the loan documents.Continue Reading New REMIC Rules Leave Servicers with Questions

As if we didn’t have enough trouble already, we’re now caught in the political cross-fire between Sheila Bair at the FDIC and the rest of the regulatory apparatchnik of the capital markets. We all commented last week on the FDIC’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) on the new safe harbor for bank securitization. It seems little more about turf than mission, the FDIC proposed to lard its safe harbor with a number of substantive restrictions on what a securitization transaction would look like, including “skin in the game”, limits on the number of tranches of securitized debt, seasoning requirements on the underlying financial assets and compensation restrictions for the people in the bank responsible for the securitization.Continue Reading Why is Sheila Bair Making Rules on the Safe Harbor for Bank Securitization?