August 2011

Sure, vacant properties bring to mind decay, blight, vandalism and the like, and Chicago’s south and west sides are plagued (pdf) with vacant properties; but is the answer requiring lenders to shoulder the responsibility (and liability) for the maintenance and upkeep of these properties?

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel thinks so. On July 28, Chicago’s City Council passed an ordinance amendment that would require mortgage holders (and assignees named in RMBS securitizations) to assume liability for the maintenance, security and upkeep of vacant properties, regardless of the delinquency or foreclosure status. The ordinance would define as an “owner” of a vacant building a mortgage holder — even before the mortgage holder has foreclosed on the property. Unless it is delayed, the ordinance is expected to become effective on September 18, 2011.
 Continue Reading May There Be Enough Wind in Chicago to Blow This Ordinance Amendment Away

I just can’t schedule enough time in my day to worry about all the things that seem to demand to be worried about. As I write, this week the Dow closed 630+ down one day and bounced 600 points the next. Yikes.  Between that, the debt ceiling and downgrades, Dodd-Frank, the interminable drumbeat of hostility towards Wall Street and business coming out of the White House, the mess in Europe, the falling dollar, insanely low interest rates, high unemployment, the fact that somehow corporate America seems to still be earning bucket loads of money, and, in general the discomfiting disconnect between our still positive every day deal world and the angst, anxiety and drumbeat of awful news in the macro market, what should we think?  It makes my hair hurt.

But, drawing on my deep and boundless reserve of existential anxiety, I’ve now found a few free moments to worry about the SEC’s new re-proposal on shelf eligibility for asset-backed securities. This missive was released (pdf) on July 26, 2011, and comments are due by October 4, 2011. Continue Reading It Just Gets Better and Better: Reg AB Redux

The Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services (“HFSC”) Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and the Chairman of the HFSC Subcommittee on Capital Markets and GSEs Scott Garrett (R-NJ) submitted a letter on August 2, 2011 to the joint regulators addressing the premium capture cash reserve account (“PCCRA”) as proposed in the risk retention NPR.  Under the proposed risk retention rules, if excess spread in a securitization is monetized, any premium received has to be put into a separate PCCRA that would absorb losses first.  So a securitizer who monetizes an IO or earns a premium on the sale of P&I bonds, has to put that money in a PCCRA to serve as a first loss reserve for any losses on the collateral– for the life of the transaction– on top of the 5% risk retention requirement. So, basically, securitizations would be done without profit.  Understandably, the PCCRA has been one of the sore spots of the risk retention NPR.  The Mortgage Bankers Association (“MBA”), among many others, extensively discussed the problems with the PCCRA in its July 11 letter to federal regulators outlining MBA’s views and recommendations from the commercial and multifamily mortgage finance perspective in response to the risk retention NPR.Continue Reading More About that Premium Capture Kerfuffle