Securitization

Subscribe to Securitization via RSS

I know I return to this theme a lot in this column, but the Unintended Consequences Watch needs to be manned day and night. Today let’s talk about 17g-5. This esoteric sounding SEC rule is intended to diminish the perceived failings of the rating agency culture which has been fingered as one of the principal causes of the “Late Unpleasantness”. The notion was that the rating agencies, hired by the issuers, were mired in conflicts of interest and there were few, if any, structural safeguards to protect investors from bad ratings.

17g-5 provides that rating agencies must require a party retaining the agency to rate an asset backed security (including CMBS) to establish and maintain a password-protected website for all other rating agencies. The website must contain all information provided to the rating agency in connection with the rating. This pertains whether information is provided in writing or orally and to information provided by the issuer or by anyone on behalf of the issuer. The information must be loaded into the website simultaneous with its delivery to the retained rating agency. This was purported to provide a structural counterpoint to the pressure for continuously lower levels by issuer procured ratings.

This has some superficial appeal. To the extent that investors were concerned about conflicts of interest, unsolicited ratings seems an antidote to these perceived concerns. Indeed, on first blush, it’s hard to see an argument that unsolicited ratings are bad.

But on first blush I thought the financial crisis that began about three years ago last month, would be over by Thanksgiving. The story of 17g-5 is yet another reminder that financial systems are much more complex than rule makers perceive them and wish them to be. Welcome back, yet again, to the wonderful world of unintended consequences.

In this case, what has flowed from the desire to do good by providing multiple opinions of value to the investors is a system which is likely to degrade the quality of information and analysis available to investors.Continue Reading Unintended Consequences Redux

The commercial banks have largely paid it off, GM has paid it off, and even AIG says it will soon pay off the government’s emergency investment to save the Western world as we know it. As to the GSEs: not so much. We’ve got about $150 billion invested in these entities and no end in sight. In fact, as far as I can tell, there’s yet no plan in sight to ultimately come to an end in sight. Clearly, there are hard political questions about these enterprises which the political class have seen fit to dodge or kick down the road. Should they be private businesses? Conduits for subsidized housing? Both? We now know that both is the wrong answer, or at least not a very good answer. Someone said the GSEs are critical because the private markets have abandoned housing. But how can private markets compete with enterprises that have no need to make a profit, and whose debt is backstopped by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Who’s going to compete in that market place? Moreover, you’d hope Washington is aware that many other advanced Western economies seem to do quite well without such quasi-public vehicles (not to mention without tax deductibility of mortgage payments, but that’s another story).Continue Reading The Intractible Problems of the GSEs

Issuers, investors, rating agencies and other industry participants continue to wrestle with the fundamental changes that will come to define CMBS 2.0. Among the (many) issues raised in the "Best Practices" guidelines issued by CREFC during June’s get-together was a proposal for market-wide, programmatic change to the package of representations and warranties given by securitization issuers. Specifically, investors are calling for the formulation of a market standard list of reps and warrants, and for a standard procedure for receiving any deviations on a deal-by-deal basis. One would hope this would sate the appetite of the investing community – a community ravenous after being starved of ground lease exceptions and knowledge qualifiers during the lean years.Continue Reading Industry Considers CMBS 2.0 Rep Package

If there’s a worry bead left to worry, hold it in reserve for Basel III. Basel III (its informal name – it’s actually a patch job on the never really fully implemented Basel II) is the most recent effort by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to fix the worldwide financial system. I am far from a master of the nuances of this enormous regulatory undertaking, but I know enough to be worried. As a friend and colleague said, “if the only right answer on Jeopardy to ‘What is Basel?’ were ‘a delightful walled medieval city,’ we might be better off.”

Basel II was never fully implemented, certainly not in the United States. While Basel II generally resulted in a significant relaxation of capital requirements for most lending activities, (that worked well, right), it stipulated that many types of commercial real estate loans warranted uniquely higher capital changes.  These loans, called High Volatility Commercial Real Estate or HVCRE, include acquisition and development loans, construction loans and loans to sectors deemed by the applicable regulators to have higher risks of default and greater loss expectancy.  As Basel II was never implemented here, these CRE rules never really bit.
 Continue Reading Basel III: Big Deal or Not

Back from vacation … The sheer joy of re-engagement cannot be captured in words.  But, can there be a better way of restarting than perusing FinReg?  Being the parochial structured finance lawyer that I am, I start with Subtitle D with the Potemkin village-like name of  "Improvements to the Asset Backed Securitization Process" and Section 13, which is the Proprietary Trading or so-called Volcker Rule provisions.  I’ve got some thoughts.

Let’s start with the improvements to the securitization process.  The good news, as I’m sure everyone knows by now, is that some sensible asset class-specific provisions for commercial mortgages were included in the risk retention language.  More flexibility in sorting out what alignment of interests ought to look like.  Included was the notion that a B piece buyer could meet the retention requirement as could really good reps or underwriting.

The bad news is, just as in almost every other corner of this massive regulatory exercise in political self-indulgence, all the tough and important issues have been kicked down the road to the “Regulators”.  The scope of that delegation is breathtaking.  The regulators have been invited to sort out what is and what is not risk retention (vertical strip, horizontal strip, L strip), what is the “credit risk” for which 5% must be retained, what are good hedges and bad, what is the minimum hold period for risk, what is high quality underwriting, and what appropriate risk management practices of securitizers ought to be.  Wow!  They can do all that?  We won’t have to think at all.Continue Reading Securitization Survives Round One

Dechert has assembled a team to cover the latest legislative and regulatory developments affecting the CMBS, RMBS, and ABS markets. Each Dechert Securitization Update provides timely information on these developments. For a discussion of several recent legislative and regulatory developments that will shape the future of the securitization markets, please see the latest Securitization Update…

We’ve been promised that the House and Senate financial reform bills will be reconciled in a highly transparent and thoughtful way and be wrapped up and ready for the President’s signature by Independence Day.

I’m trying to be upbeat about this.  There are, after all, substantial benefits to be obtained from certainty, and once this is done, we’ll at least have rules.  We may not like them, but at least we’ll have rules. (OK, the final Bill will probably include dozens of referrals to the regulatory community to make the actual rules, but nothing’s perfect.).  God only knows what to expect when our duly elected representatives, awash in populist outrage and with the clock ticking loudly down to election day, try their hands at making sense of these two ridiculously complicated 1,400 page bills.  Barney Frank will manage the reconciliation process.  Imagine, he has now been imbued with the hopes of the financial services community for a sensical and balanced Bill.  Man bites dog.  You can’t make this stuff up. Continue Reading Reconciliation Time on the Hill: Be Very Afraid