CMBS 2.0

Subscribe to CMBS 2.0 via RSS

The gestation of CMBS 2.0 continues apace. A slow pace. The bulk of the deals look an awful lot like CMBS 1.0, but at least one, the Goldman/Citi deal, seemed to come right out of the playbook of the activist investment grade ad hoc committee that has been fulminating for fundamental change in the structure of CMBS. The Goldman/Citi deal saw a B buyer without customary rights to terminate the special servicer, bondholder voting mechanics to remove the special servicer, a consulting ombudsman for the investment grade classes, and constrained special servicer compensation. To say the least, the industry’s notion of what CMBS 2.0 ought to look like has not gelled and will probably continue to see innovation and tinkering for some time to come. Certainly, the industry has yet to absorb whatever risk retention FinReg will bring us as well as possible changes in the structure of representations and warranties and perhaps something to reflect enhanced underwriting.

The talk on the street is that the investment grade buyers responded very well to the Goldman/Citi structure. At the end of the day the structure will follow the money.

So it’s a good time to pause for a minute on the rush to the new structure. Is the new structure, so adamantly pursued by segments of the investment grade marketplace, really an unalloyed good?Continue Reading Careful What You Wish For…

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

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

I write from CREFC’s annual do with my 800 or so best friends.  We are trying to party like it’s not 2009, and you know, we’re getting there.  The government’s still playing pin the tail on the regulatory donkey, Europe’s a mess, housing and employment are not ready for prime time, and the banking system hangover goes on.  Yet…JPM got a deal done, the bonds cleared, and pricing was… well, it’s been reported that they made a few bucks.

The CREFC convention kick off is the Monday night parties, of which yours truly was a host of the annual Dechert dinner.  Note I said parties with an “s”.  We’ve had a banker party drought these past few years. I see the return of the Street parties as a leading indicator of CMBS 2.0.  We cannot wish 2.0 into existence, but let’s face it:  A robust appetite for anything to invest in with yield measured in percentage points not basis points plus good vibes can a market revive.
 Continue Reading Partying Like it’s not 2009

CMBS 2.0 is coming, we hope (and pray). But boy, it’s taking its good time about it. Putting aside what our friends in Washington may or may not do to the structure of securitization, it’s remarkable to me how shy we in the industry (and its trade organizations) seem to be about putting a stake in the ground as to what CMBS 2.0 should look like. 

With CMBS 1.0, we built the airplane while flying it, so it’s hardly shocking that when tested, some things failed the stress test. On the other hand, we also did a great deal of fundamental work on an industry-wide basis in the early days, to make CMBS work. We created the IRP, the data dictionary and the like. Shouldn’t we do at least that much again?

Now that we’ve had a chance to observe the problems of CMBS 1.0 in the crucible of a wrenching recession, we seem mildly disinclined to take any dramatic action to address structural problems on an industry wide basis.Continue Reading CMBS 2.0

I’m just about to do another CRE Finance Council (formerly CMSA) PSA after work tutorial. A couple of observations. As a lawyer who packed the sausage casings, it is startling to see how much uncertainty and, in fact, misinformation exists about how a PSA actually works in the community of people who buy and sell bonds and other financial assets. Perhaps not surprising, because who reads these things, except the lawyers who draft them and a few anal B piece buyers, who really need a life? Continue Reading Time to Read that PSA