The image of the cresting wave looming behind the dais in the Loews’ Americana Salon during Douglas Holtz-Eakin’s keynote address posed a central, if unintended, question that was addressed by more than one speaker during the three-day conference. Are we riding a wave to recovery or facing a deluge of maturing debt? For most of the 1,200 industry participants that occupied Miami’s South Beach for CREFC’s annual January conference last week, there seems to be no certain answer (other than almost unanimous agreement that South Beach is a better Winter destination than our Nation’s Capitol).Continue Reading CREFC January Conference Recap: Riding the Wave
January Conference 2012: CREFC Brings its Talents to South Beach
Over a thousand lenders, borrowers, servicers, lawyers and other service providers have descended on Miami for three days of networking, meeting and doing things you just can’t do in DC. After a Sunday spent checking in, catching up and Tebowing, the conference kicked off in earnest this morning. I started my day with a PSA…
A Dodd-Frank Holiday Reminder: Ribbons, Reindeer and Rule 193
While wrapping your holiday presents, don’t forget about another regulatory gift that springs to life as of the new year: Rule 193 and the accompanying joys of Items 1111(a)(7) and 1111(a)(8) of Reg AB. The final rules for Dodd-Frank’s Section 945 – which we at CrunchedCredit.com have addressed before – are almost a year old and their effects are coming to a public transaction near you by requiring “issuers” (1) to perform (or have a third party perform) a due diligence review of a deal’s underlying assets with the aim of reasonably assuring that disclosure included in the related offering documents is materially accurate and (2) to disclose in offering documents the nature of the review, any findings or conclusions of the review and any details regarding assets that deviate from the disclosed underwriting criteria. And this is a gift that keeps on giving.Continue Reading A Dodd-Frank Holiday Reminder: Ribbons, Reindeer and Rule 193
Summary of a CREFC After-Work Seminar: The Return of the Public Deal or the Regulator Strikes Back?
What’s with all these public CMBS offerings? And what about all that rule-making? The registered market has otherwise been frozen since the pre-crisis days, and the cloud of heavy-handed regulation looming over our heads is anything but an invitation to dust off your public shelf. Moreover, given that some of those regulations may be (or have been) applied in the 144A context, shouldn’t one be concerned about the private market before we even think about re-entering the public space? And all of that is without even considering the general mid-year market slump. To address these critical questions and the state of the galaxy as we know it, CREFC held an after-work seminar recently, hosted by Dechert, entitled “Review and Outlook for Public CMBS Offerings.”Continue Reading Summary of a CREFC After-Work Seminar: The Return of the Public Deal or the Regulator Strikes Back?
It Just Gets Better and Better: Reg AB Redux
I just can’t schedule enough time in my day to worry about all the things that seem to demand to be worried about. As I write, this week the Dow closed 630+ down one day and bounced 600 points the next. Yikes. Between that, the debt ceiling and downgrades, Dodd-Frank, the interminable drumbeat of hostility towards Wall Street and business coming out of the White House, the mess in Europe, the falling dollar, insanely low interest rates, high unemployment, the fact that somehow corporate America seems to still be earning bucket loads of money, and, in general the discomfiting disconnect between our still positive every day deal world and the angst, anxiety and drumbeat of awful news in the macro market, what should we think? It makes my hair hurt.
But, drawing on my deep and boundless reserve of existential anxiety, I’ve now found a few free moments to worry about the SEC’s new re-proposal on shelf eligibility for asset-backed securities. This missive was released (pdf) on July 26, 2011, and comments are due by October 4, 2011. Continue Reading It Just Gets Better and Better: Reg AB Redux
CREFC Convention Recap and Making Way For Duck Boats
Here in Boston, we’ve had a busy but productive week since the CREFC June Convention culminated –punctuated with more than a million hockey fans witnessing a parade of Duck Boats waddle through the Back Bay. The Convention itself saw a smaller (albeit similarly excitable) parade of lenders, borrowers, servicers and other industry participants descend on Manhattan for two days of networking, learning and discussion.
Continue Reading CREFC Convention Recap and Making Way For Duck Boats
CREFC 2011 Opens In New York
For many of us, an annual right of summer’s commencement, CREFC’s mid-year conference has begun in earnest for the last time in Manhattan (we’ll be in DC at this time next year). I’ll also note that for the second straight year, the conference’s first day coincides with Game 6 of a rather hotly contested playoff…
CMBS 2.0: Has the time come for an industry-form A/B Colender?
Early last decade, two Dechert partners, Tim Stafford and Dave Forti, published Mezzanine Debt: Suggested Standard Form of Intercreditor Agreement (pdf) in CMBS World. The article proposed a standard form of mortgage-mezzanine intercreditor that provided a portion of the bedrock upon which the architecture of CRE mezzanine lending would be built for the years to follow. At the time of its publication, burgeoning demand for mezzanine debt (and mezz lenders’ desire to create liquidity in their positions) had created a tension among mezz lenders, bond investors and rating agencies – the absence of a form ICA resulted in mezz debt being an inconsistent and pricey financing alternative. The CMSA (now CREFC) form ICA made mezz lending more predictable, less expensive and easier to trade. Continue Reading CMBS 2.0: Has the time come for an industry-form A/B Colender?
Dechert Hosts CREFC After-Work Seminar
Writing from the Acela again, en route to Back Bay Station after a short trip to New York to attend a CREFC After-Work Seminar we hosted. The space at our Bryant Park offices was full – I took a seat in the last row next to interim CEO John D’Amico (he seemed really pleased with the turnout). The meeting was the latest in a series of after-work seminars that CREFC is holding throughout the country (next stop is Dallas). The topic – “A Case Study in Lending from the Perspective of Both Portfolio and Conduit Lenders” – was moderated by Whit Wilcox (HFF) and included panelists Michael Shields (ING Real Estate Finance), Mike Doyle (CIGNA) and Schecky Schechner (Barclays Capital). The panel explored their thinking on loan applications from the perspective of the three corners of the CRE banking world – life insurance companies, bank balance sheet lenders and CMBS conduit lenders.Continue Reading Dechert Hosts CREFC After-Work Seminar
So You Really Want To Do A Public Deal?
As the CMBS market begins to get its feet underneath it, a number of folks have begun to pine for the public markets. Since 2009, every CMBS deal has been issued as a 144A (or otherwise privately placed). The public market is beginning to feel like a memory. While there seems to have been relatively robust demand for product, a number of bankers say that demand is still somewhat constrained in the 144A institutional market place. They fondly remember the benefits of the public market: liquidity, better pricing, a wider investor pool. As the market rebounds, these bankers suggest that it may be time to dust off the shelves.
And so we thought it would be useful to revisit that bid and ask. For this purpose, we’ll assume that the hypothetical banker is right and that there are significant benefits to be obtained by reanimation of the public deal zombie. That’s the bid.
Here’s the ask. First, there’s that pesky little liability issue. The liability exposure for bankers and sponsors in the 144A market is less than in a public (registered) deal. No liability under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act. That liability is generally pretty absolute (as to non-expertized info) subject only to a diligence defense. Liability in the private market is limited to 10b-5. The need to prove scienter and reliance in a 10b-5 action is a significant burden for an aggrieved investor. The difference in exposure to liability is a distinction not to be sniffed at. Yes, of course we always mean to get the disclosure right. But the underlying assets are complex and there’s an undeniable hunger among the plaintiffs’ bar to “discover” disclosure defects where honest folks, acting in good faith, thought adequate disclosure had been made. (Note also how much more ominous the enhanced liability exposure in public deals will be after FinReg and its progeny become law. As disclosure gets more complex and elaborate, the opportunities to stumble into liability grow exponentially.)Continue Reading So You Really Want To Do A Public Deal?