Rick Jones

Subscribe to Rick Jones's Posts

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)

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)

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 In Defense of Securitization – Unto the Breach or Close the Wall Up with Our Dead (with Apologies to Mr. Shakespeare)

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Papacy has denounced securitization characterizing it (in such an intellectually balanced way) as tainted by “predatory and speculative tendencies.”

Good Lord!

Now, I’m not perfect — I can’t remember the last time I participated in a black mass, inverted a crucifix or committed any of the more striking of your basic mortal sins — but I did close a securitization last week and now I’m worried.
Continue Reading God Hates Securitization?

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

As we all marinate in the difficulties of Mr. Zuckerberg, who, at the end of the day, can certainly salve any wounds with a net worth measured in the tens of billions of dollars, I was struck by the continued drumbeat for “REGULATION.”  Now, perhaps I am ill equipped to discuss Facebook, not being a participant and therefore never having clicked through a lengthy agreement on privacy (or the lack thereof), but I have some thoughts.  I’ll largely leave the ethics of the privacy contretemps to others, but I was struck by the parallels between the current kerfuffle over Facebook and privacy and the Dodd-Frank mess, lo these ten years past.

Let’s start with this dictum:  Beware the politician bearing new and comprehensive regulatory gifts for the American people.
Continue Reading I Hear This Cries Out for Regulation!

Geeking out, I just finished reading the second report from the Alternate Reference Rates Committee that was just published jointly by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) in cooperation with the Alternate Reference Rates Committee (ARRC).  Does that scream bureaucracy in full, or what?  The report runs 40 pages, awkwardly pats itself on the back (with a net back-patting surplus allocated amongst the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Commodities Future Trading Commission and the Office of Financial Research) for confirming that we need a LIBOR replacement and the Secured Overnight Funding Rate (SOFR) is way better than the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR) or the Overnight Bank Funding Rate (OBFR).  Ergo SOFR is the ARRC’s preferred alternate rate upon the expiry of the spavined LIBOR.
Continue Reading More Fun with LIBOR

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

I don’t think risk retention is applicable to a direct issuance securitization.  Many single asset, single borrower (SASB) transactions can be structured to avoid the need to retain risk under the Dodd-Frank Act and the attendant Risk Retention Rule.  There.  I’ve said it.  Read on.
Continue Reading The Astonishingly Shrinking Risk Retention Rule – SASB Transactions Unshackled

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)