FDIC

Subscribe to FDIC via RSS

Recently, while visiting my in-laws, I took a break from college basketball and the Daytona 500 and caught up on the latest developments in the quest for covered bond legislation in the United States.  Not surprisingly, I quickly found that the quest for covered bond legislation is, well, still a quest.

We have discussed the possibility of covered bond legislation numerous times on this blog (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).  As you may recall, 2010 ushered in optimism for proponents of covered bond legislation, as both the House and Senate at least entertained the possibility.  Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ), who has long been a strong proponent, led the charge in the 111th Congress pushing a bill out of the House Financial Services Committee and in front of the full House for consideration.  The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee even went so far as to hold a hearing on the topic.  Despite the attention, the elections and then other distractions took priority, and a lame-duck session came and went without further movement on the topic.  However, the bells ringing in the new year also rung in a new round of this fight, as all interested parties are gearing up for yet another attempt to pass this legislation.Continue Reading Covered Bond Update: Inching Closer?

I have a Leapster Explorer™ on order for my son’s 5th birthday that I seriously hope arrives in the next two days, but in addition to that delivery, there’s a lot of securitization-related rulemaking required or permitted to be delivered under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that was enacted on July 21, 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”).

Fewer than half of the rulemaking provisions in Dodd-Frank specify when the required or permitted rule should be issued or go into effect. Some of the Dodd-Frank rulemaking provisions require multiple agencies to issue rules jointly, some provisions require multiple agencies to issue rules separately, several provisions require that rules be issued by one agency in consultation with another agency… Some rulemaking deadlines are based on date of enactment of Dodd-Frank (July 21, 2010), others on the effective date (July 22, 2010, except as otherwise specifically provided in Dodd-Frank).

Below is a discussion about where we are in connection with some of the Dodd-Frank provisions that are of particular interest to the securitization industry.
 Continue Reading What Are We Still Waiting For and When Should it Arrive?

Another item to add to the growing list of possible unintended consequences of financial reform in connection with ABS: Section 210(a)(11) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Reform Act”)—Avoidable Transfers.

Here’s the who, what, where, when, why and how ABS are affected.

WHO? A “covered financial company” of which the FDIC becomes the liquidating receiver. Under the Reform Act, a “covered financial company” is a “financial company” as to which a “systemic risk determination” (such financial company is deemed to pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the U.S. upon its failure) has been made by the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in consultation with the President. Entities most likely to be affected are non-bank “financial companies,” bank holding companies, and non-bank U.S. subsidiaries of either– if such subsidiary is in a financial business. An insured depository institution cannot be a “covered financial company.”
 Continue Reading Fa la la la la, la la, OLA

 With Thanksgiving upon us and the holiday season in full swing, we here at CrunchedCredit.com would like to present our “Golden Turkeys”, noting certain special contributions to the ongoing resurrection of the Commercial Real Estate Finance industry.

The Golden Turkey for the Best Self-Inflicted Wound: FASB

Hands down, this goes to the Financial Accounting Standards Board. We don’t know whether to give top honors to FAS 166 and 167 dealing with the transfer of financial assets or the new Fair Value Accounting Rules. But in any event, in a series of changes which certainly must have made more sense to academic accounting communities and to the financial markets and investors for which these little regulatory gems were designed, for reasons which remain curious even now, they’ve imported enormous financial volatility and burdened the balance sheets of financial institutions with assets they don’t own and liabilities for which they have no contractual liability in the middle of the greatest financial correction in modern memory. At least we changed the rules of the game, we drop a giant pro-cyclical engine into the balance sheet, stir in a little FinReg, and, Viola! — chaos. We could have hoped someone with regulatory gravitas could have stood up and said, "What are you thinkin’?" And now for a second heaping of goodness, FASB is considering expanding Fair Value to all financial assets, which will produce even more volatility onto the balance sheets of financial institutions. Oh, and have we mentioned Lease Accounting? If FASB has their way, all leases will be treated as capital leases. we can’t even begin to tell you how bad that is. FASB, the winner in this category, hands down.

The Golden Turkey Award for Best Regulatory Knifefight: FDIC

This award goes to the FDIC. This late, lamented Congress began spinning the tale that the absence of skin in the game caused the capital meltdown over the past three years, and, in large measure, through sheer undisputed resolution, it has become received wisdom. (There must be a Golden Turkey for that itself, isn’t there?) So the SEC begins a regulatory initiative to impose skin in the game requirements for use of a shelf in a publicly registered transaction. Good enough, and then the Congressional locomotive comes through and skin in the game becomes a part of Dodd-Frank. Under Dodd-Frank, all the relevant banking regulatory agencies and the SEC are directed to engage in joint rulemaking on skin in the game. In the middle of all this, the FDIC publishes its new securitization Safe Harbor, which contains a completely freestanding and independent skin in the game provision. Oh, sure, the Reg which is in final form is applicable as of January 1, 2011, has an auto-conform provision that the Dodd-Frank skin in the game provisions won’t be law for two years, so we have, irrespective of the FDIC imposing its own set of conflicts rules on a certain sector of the securitization market, face a specific direction to engage in joint rulemaking. What the banking regulatory community thinks about this one can make the other members of the bank regulatory community and the Federal Reserve think about this one can only imagine. We suspect the SEC might be a bit pouty too.Continue Reading Commercial Real Estate 2010 Recap: And the Golden Turkey Award Goes To…

Last week the FDIC approved its final Safe Harbor Rule regarding securitization. That something that sounds so good could be so bad leaves you thinking: can’t we catch a break in trying to repair this damaged economy? To set the stage a bit, the FDIC has a suite of powers, while acting as conservator or receiver of an insured depository institution (“IDI”), to affirm or repudiate contracts and claim or recover property of the IDI. When a failing IDI securitizes financial assets, these powers allow the FDIC to undo the transaction and re-acquire those assets. The possibility that a securitization would be undone by the FDIC is an existential problem for any proposed securitization. But never fear. So long as a transaction meets all the conditions for sale accounting under GAAP, the transaction is proof against the exercise of those powers. Even better, there is a Safe Harbor! Sounds simple, right?Continue Reading FDIC: Mining a Safe Harbor

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

The push for covered bond legislation – left on the cutting room floor when Fin Reg. was finalized during a marathon session last week (or should I say finalized subject to Senator Scott Brown’s continuing review) – is coming under renewed discussion by Congress (led by Representative Scott Garret) and the FDIC.

The FDIC balked at the proposal that was to be included in the Dodd-Frank bill because of concerns about the effect of certain collateralization requirements on failed banks’ balance-sheets. Covered bond terms can require issuers to replace weakening collateral upon the occurrence of certain triggers; in a receivership scenario, this re-collateralization requirement would force the FDIC to re-deploy quality assets to serve as bond collateral and shift the risk of loss of declining collateral from bondholders to the government. The FDIC hates when that happens.Continue Reading FDIC and Congress Renew Covered Bonds Discussion

Community banks – long touted as the “next domino to fall” during this late unpleasantness – were expected to be a significant source of distressed assets for savvy investors.  However, many are finding the FDIC Structured Loan Sale Program a long and bumpy road for investment.

Historically, the FDIC operated to separate the wheat (failed banks’ desirable, high-quality assets (i.e. depository bases)) from the chaff (the bad – sometimes very, very bad – loan assets that caused the failure in the first place).  Two decades ago, The Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) found homes for over $400 billion of assets during the savings-and-loan crisis. This time around, however, the FDIC – holding in excess of $600 billion in distressed assets seized from failed banks – is steering away from outright bad asset sales to thresh out the chaff, opting instead for a policy designed to force would be bank buyers to take the bad with the good.Continue Reading FDIC Loan Sale Program: Lending at the 19th Hole

Earlier this week, Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced an amendment to the proposed financial reform legislation that will establish a regulatory framework for a covered bond market in the United States.  The House side of the reconciliation committee quickly passed the measure – the Senate side is now considering it.  This development is welcomed news to a banking industry that has craved a covered bond market for some time now.  For our part, we’ve been examining covered bond structures since the advent of the credit crises as our clients continued to try to devise a workable structure, so we’re very excited by this development. 

Covered bonds, which have been part of the European financing vernacular for over 200 years, function as a cross between an unsecured corporate bond and an asset-backed security.  Typically, a financial institution will issue a direct-recourse bond which is also secured by a specified pool of assets that remain on the financial institution’s balance sheet.  These are attractive to investors for many reasons, most important of which is that the investor has recourse to a specified pool of assets in the event the financial institution becomes insolvent, unlike typical unsecured corporate bonds that depend solely on the issuer’s credit.Continue Reading Reconciliation Update: Covered Bonds

FASB wants to expand Fair Value to other financial assets.  That bears repeating:  FASB has published an Exposure Draft that would extend the dubious joys of fair value accounting to ALL financial assets.  I so wish I was making this up.  On May 26, 2010, FASB published this missive. Fair Value seems to hold a religious (that’s born again, not Presbyterian) fascination for the academic accounting community, which seems astonishingly indifferent to the horrifying role the viciously pro-cyclical fair value process played in the late “Great Recession.”  Isn’t the definition of insanity doing something a second time and expecting a different outcome?  What are we doing here?

The proposed new rules would require all financial assets, with very few exceptions, to be subject to a mark to market  requirement.  Banks and other financial institutions would be obliged to mark all loans whether held for sale (which makes some sense) or held to maturity.  For loans, the mark would hit Other Consolidated Income (OCI) and put equity on the Fair Value roller coaster.

Continue Reading More From FASB