Securitization

Subscribe to Securitization

My last commentary, Playing with Broken Toys in Coronavirus Land, touched on the notion that sometimes following rules can guarantee a bad outcome.  I’ll leave more important musings about ethics and morality aside here (I still don’t have a clue about what Kant was nattering on about) and focus on the more mundane question of whether one should do what a contract says when the contract conflicts with the exercise of good judgment.
Continue Reading “I Was Just Following Orders”

Last week, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released proposed rules providing tax guidance around various LIBOR replacement issues.  Long anticipated.  The defenestration of LIBOR will leave considerable broken glass in its wake.  Perhaps just so the tax professionals wouldn’t feel left out, the end of LIBOR will create a series of tax problems.  Very briefly, changing the price index of a loan, and certainly a mortgage loan, might be a significant modification under the so-called 1001 Rules.  The result of that?  Without a fix from our friends at the IRS, that change may be deemed an exchange of an old financial asset for a new one, creating potential gain or loss, violating the REMIC requirement that pools be static and violating the provisions of the REMIC rules.  Obviously, those adverse consequences under the tax code were not intended by anyone and it would seem that we ought to get a simple fix.  Changing the index is not a significant modification and therefore none of the other follow-on bad things happen.  The end.

While, as we’re sure everyone knows, it’s not that simple and the IRS, instead of saying, “you got it fellas, we’re good,” has given us 50 pages of new regulatory code speak. We suggest that you read our OnPoint and we certainly invite you to read the release, which is subject now to public comment, because it is critically important that we get this right.  Here’s a spoiler alert, while the proposed rules basically work, they do create problems and issues which we urge the industry to address to see if we can get this right before the proposed rules go into effect.Continue Reading Proposed Tax Rules on LIBOR Replacements Answer Some (But Not All) Questions

A new OnPoint from Dechert’s Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation team discusses a recent ruling from a federal court in the Southern District of New York. There, a pension plan that had acquired notes issued by a vehicle invested in a pool of sub-prime residential mortgage-backed securities is arguing that the vehicle’s assets are “plan…

On March 15, the day the Japanese Financial Services Agency (the “JFSA”) published its final risk retention rules, Dechert’s CLO team published an OnPoint discussing the new final Japanese risk retention rules and their impact on the CLO market. 
Continue Reading Dechert OnPoint: Japanese Risk Retention: JFSA Favors Diligence Over Disruption

We’re all just back from CREFC and the mood was broadly constructive.  (Don’t you love that word, “constructive”?  When did “constructive” become a fancy way to say “good”?)  We all went to South Beach this year wondering where the investors were, wondering whether the market was okay and wondering whether December was a blip or a coda. If the industry chatter captured the gestalt, and the gestalt is right, then while this recently strong market will surely expire at some point, this is not that point.

Amongst the frolicking in Goldilocks Land in SoBe, there were some actual issues discussed.  One of these that got some attention, at least by the wonkier members of the crowd, is the new risk retention rules out of Europe.

We’ve written about these before.  It is very much a moving target.  If you think the American rulemaking process is baroque, turgid and opaque, spend some time in Brussels. 
Continue Reading More Fun With Risk Retention: Europe and Japan Weigh In

We have been writing off and on about the restoration to good graces of the commercial real estate CLO since the early days of this current recovery, and it’s important to keep the conversation going.  Hey, if Pete Rose can get into the Hall of Fame (and as MLB is embracing gambling, that cannot but happen, right?), the full restoration of the reputation of the CRE CLO cannot be far behind.

First, let’s just stop and get some definitional clarity here for those of you who actually have a life.  Fundamentally, the CRE CLO is a device that provides match-term leverage for a portfolio lender, though the technology can be used for other purposes.  Loans are pooled, investment-grade securities are sold to investors, and the loans are repaid from debt service payments.  Customarily, the sponsor retains all of the equity and junior debt, creating structural leverage to enhance returns on the dollars invested in the structure.

It’s really a warehouse funded by the capital markets. As such, it provides for an excellent alignment of interests between investors and the sponsor, who holds the bottom of the capital stack.  The sponsor is in it for the long haul, managing financial assets for its benefit and the benefit of the investors alike.
Continue Reading The CRE CLO Is Back…and That’s Good

With full and complete credit to the Bard (Macbeth), and to Mr. Ray Bradbury who repurposed this line as the title for his 1962 dark fantasy (of which I was and still am a huge fan), there is just not a better title for this note. Trust me. A few weeks ago, I inked a note about whether the current expansion was soon coming to an end and whether it made sense to begin to “get the distressed debt band back together again.” Tongue slightly in cheek then because things seemed awfully good, I made the argument that we are not really all that far away from an abrupt right turn off the highway of good times onto the dirt road of distress. It apparently resonated (or at least there’s lots of people who think like me). Dechert is hosting a distressed debt conference on October 18, 2018 in New York which will touch on a wider range of issues but will include a distressed debt panel and we now have almost 400 RSVPs. We’ll report on that next week. That’s either 400 people with nothing better to do, or 400 folks who think it might just as well be time to start thinking about the end of days.
Continue Reading The Next Recession: Something…Perhaps Not Really Wicked… But Certainly Annoying…This Way Comes

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

We published the below commentary, In Defense of Securitization, last week and we are republishing it today as, let’s face it, we’re all getting very French, and many of us took most of last week off.  Enjoy, if that’s the right word.

Returning to the theme of my most recent commentary entitled God Hates Securitization, I want to elaborate on the point I made there (yes, if you stuck with me all the way through to the end, there was a point):  We need to fight the narrative that banking, finance and securitization are evil.  I am afraid that if we don’t do something here soon, we’ll wake up one morning (probably after the next cyclical downturn is underway) and find pitchfork-wielding villagers outside the gates thinking they have found Dr. Frankenstein’s monster.  Populist anger, whipped up by our critics demonizing the financial sector, unfettered from the necessity to defend these positions in the marketplace of ideas and the court of public opinion, is powerful.  That, coupled with our recent embrace of the weaponization of policy disputes enforced by both civil and criminal legal proceeding, should frighten all of us who make our living in the financial sector.  And, to be clear, it should frighten everyone who understands the importance of an efficient and liquid capital market for the continued success of the US economy.
Continue Reading Repost: In Defense of Securitization – Unto the Breach or Close the Wall Up with Our Dead (with Apologies to Mr. Shakespeare)