Commercial Mortgage Finance

Subscribe to Commercial Mortgage Finance via RSS

In February, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in The Loan Syndications and Trading Association v. Securities and Exchange Commission and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 17-5004 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 9, 2018) (the “LSTA decision”) that a manager of an open market CLO is not required to retain risk under the Dodd-Frank Act and Regulation RR, because only a securitizer which transfers financial assets into a securitization vehicle must retain risk.  No transfer, no risk retention.

In its decision (joined by Judge Brett Kavanaugh), the Court was very clear in its analysis.  Essentially, the decision said “thank you very much, we can read simple English sentences, and the law is crystal clear on this point (if not on much else).”  The regulators may not elide the transfer requirement of the Dodd-Frank Act by calling managers of open market CLOs securitization sponsors, when they don’t transfer assets to a securitization vehicle.  The Court went on to point out that if this was a loophole, it needed to be fixed by Congress, not the regulators.  Blessedly, a satisfying, albeit rare, victory for a plain reading of our mother tongue.  The regulations actually mean what they say!

The broadly syndicated CLO business has taken this ruling to heart and has been beavering away on transaction structures that no longer provide for the retention of credit risk. One big issue in that space now is whether you can square the circle about avoiding risk retention in the US, while somehow meeting the EU risk retention criteria.  But that’s a bit of legerdemain for discussion another day.  What I want to talk about is the utility of the LSTA decision in spaces other than the broadly syndicated CLO space—particularly for commercial real estate single-asset, single-borrower (SASB) securitizations, a product representing almost half of all CRE securitization offerings this year.
Continue Reading The Boundaries of Risk Retention Now That the D.C. Circuit Has Spoken

In 2013, the Obama administration issued the Cole Memorandum, which called a truce between federal prosecutors and marijuana businesses operating legitimately under state law.  After regime change in Washington, however, it may come as no surprise that Jeff Sessions—the Attorney General who once opined that “good people don’t smoke marijuana”—rescinded the Obama-era guidance.  The only real surprise is that it took him a whole year to do it.

Since at least 2013, marijuana-related businesses have generally been operating on predictable, albeit legally shaky, ground.  Dispensaries have expanded dramatically.  Though details vary wildly, nine states currently allow recreational use and medicinal use is currently permitted under the laws of all but four states.

As a result, commercial real estate lenders have to grapple with the increasingly common problem of the dispensary tenant, and a number of lenders are dipping their toes into lending in expectation of securitizing loans secured in part by dispensaries.  But given the January 2018 announcement that the Cole memo is no longer in effect, the question everyone’s asking is: are things really that different?  The answer, we think, is no—but with an asterisk.
Continue Reading Securitizing Marijuana Dispensary Properties in the Sessions Era

You can never go wrong starting off a commentary with a butchered bit from the Bard, right?  “Now is the winter of our discontent” spake Richard III, an unamiable leader perhaps reminding us all today of our unamiable governing class.  Old Gloucester rhymed to presage war and chaos.  Apparently, all that happened because the poor dear couldn’t buy himself a date.  But hey, chaos, war, desolation, burning and pillaging, etc., aren’t all bad, that is, if you are equipped to enjoy the carnage.

And now, back to the market.  What am I rambling on about?  Distressed debt opportunities are coming back.  This is the silver lining, at least for some, in the cracks beginning to develop in our long, Goldilocks credit cycle.  A slowdown is not here yet, to be sure, but it’s time to sharpen the knives and begin to think about our opportunities. 
Continue Reading The Winter of Our Discontent May Be Over (If you are a Distressed Debt Investor)

In seven short years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has managed to court controversy across the political spectrum.  Under the leadership of former Director Richard Cordray, the bureau (for better or worse) tested the limits of its jurisdiction and enforcement power in a wide range of areas, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, student loan servicing, and let’s not forget the since-disavowed arbitration rule.  Enter new Acting Director Mick Mulvaney, who, along with the rest of the Trump administration, is sending the clearest of signals that he does not intend to “push the envelope” at the CFPB.  In short, the CFPB’s mission has turned inward—instead of policing the markets, it’s policing itself and the regulatory state, and with about the same degree of fervor.
Continue Reading D.C. Circuit to CFPB: “Go forth and conquer!” CFPB Responds: “No thanks.”

We at Dechert had our annual business meeting last week in Miami (tough duty).  Nestled in the general atmospherics of bon ami and collegiality were sessions on collaboration and connectivity amongst the lawyers in our firm.  Apparently the data suggested that law firms make more money when the partners of the firm work together.  Flash.  The mathematical proof of the blindingly obvious perhaps, but just in case, we were stentoriously and with great seriousness told that these conclusions were based on rigorous and exhaustive academic research; research undoubtedly paid for by the American taxpayer, along with other studies of similar compelling import such as why Americans don’t like lice.

But the point here is (and I’m not for an instant suggesting that making money is not a valid point) that collaboration is now essential to getting anything done right because we have all become so damn specialized.

All professionals and business folks, including those of us in Big Law, are under enormous pressure to be intensely specialized yet issues are never so neatly defined by those specializations which all too often also mark the boundaries of our intellectual domains.
Continue Reading Life in the Silo

Morningstar has published a proposed method for rating single-asset/single-borrower (SASB) transactions. The new approach is slated to replace the “U.S. CMBS Subordination Model” with respect to SASBs and other forms of CMBS securities with similar credit and diversity profiles, including large-loan transactions and rake certificates. Morningstar has issued a request for comments on the proposal. We plan to provide our thoughts, described below, before the April 20th deadline, and encourage you to do the same. But first, answers to what are sure to be your most burning questions:
Continue Reading Morningstar Requests Comments on Proposed Rating Methodology for SASB Deals

Will 2018 be the Year of Concentration across our market?  “The Urge to Merge” was the title of a January 2, 2007 Economist article.  It resonates today.  The cover photo was two camels copulating, which some of the Economist readers, surely a high-brow and sensitive bunch, apparently found offensive, as the picture is nowhere to be found on the internet.  They would not allow me to republish the pic.  A priggish fastidiousness that does not reflect well.

Seriously, 2018 could be the year of significant concentration across much of the CRE non-bank space, and perhaps some portions of the prudentially regulated bank space as well. 
Continue Reading The Urge to Merge

Our friend, Dan Rubock, just inked an interesting and timely piece entitled, “Key pillars of loan structural quality are eroding, especially in single-borrower deals.”  As usual, Dan’s views at Moody’s are worth considerable attention.  That piece focused on bad-boy carve-out guaranties, the quality of borrower financial information, property release provisions, qualified transfer provisions and cash sweep triggers.  While reasonable professionals can differ on both the incidence and the impact of the deterioration of these deal features, the point is well taken that the deterioration of legal structural features in CRE lending is often a canary in the mine for… excessive exuberance.  I’ll put off litigating Dan’s points for a future time, but this got me thinking about all that we do in legally structuring loans for the capital market.

Much of the playbook for capital markets CRE lending was established at the dawn of this business.  At that time, Dechert was outside counsel to S&P and for good or ill, Dechert was responsible for much of the early architecture of CRE documentation and legal underwriting.  While these criteria have been periodically tweaked over the years and adapted to changes to the underlying CRE lending market, the original architecture is still pretty much in place.

I would posit that it is an industry failing that we haven’t really given legal underwriting a thorough rethink in 30 years.  Here’s a start.
Continue Reading I Urgently Want to Report the Deaths of the Non-Con Opinion (But Probably Cannot…Yet)

Every once in a while we get some good news around the capital markets hood and this is one of those times.  Admittedly, all we’re doing here is fixing a problem which was one of the unintended consequences of the Dodd-Frank regulatory regime and just gets us back to where we thought we were before the issue arose, but hey – a victory is a victory. 
Continue Reading Third Party Purchaser Agreements Don’t Destroy Sale Treatment: A Victory for the Unintended Consequences Resistance

The Wall Street Journal reminded us this month that it was ten years ago, August 9, 2007, that the first regulatory domino in The Great Recession fell as BNP Paribas froze a series of resi investment funds for lack of a functioning market to value the securities. One could quibble about whether The Great Recession could be so precisely dated. Were there the blackened equivalent of green shoots earlier in the year? Did The Great Recession really only begin when the trouble in the subprime resi market morphed into all other credit markets? But that’s merely a cavil. August 9, 2007 is, for me, the date the world changed.
Continue Reading A Tale of Two Years; This Time Will Be Different