FinReg

Subscribe to FinReg

As we return to our desks after last week’s whirlwind in Las Vegas for the Structured Finance Industry Group (SFIG) Conference, we find ourselves reflecting on how this conference was at once business as usual while also showing evidence of an evolving industry looking to the future. Approximately 8,050 attendees, including a sizable Dechert team, gathered last week at the Aria to discuss past, present and future and to put our heads together to ask “where do we go from here?”
Continue Reading SFIG Vegas 2019

The Dodd-Frank Act was a cornucopia of opportunity for rule writers. To the regulatory community, this was almost a bottomless candy jar. And so our regulatory apparatchiki began to beaver away and produced, to date, something like 22,000 pages of rules which purport to moderate or prevent bad behavior by all those nasty institutions perceived to have some responsibility for the financial crisis of 2008. Curiously, at least, to me, Dodd-Frank included in among its bad boys, those institutions “significantly engaged in insurance activities.” Apparently, our Congressional grandees in the overheated environment of the Great Recession conflated insurance and banking. Hey, they are kind of like financial institutions, and they’re big, or at least some of them are, and are probably filing with nefarious types inclined to go off the reservation and therefore in need of “guidance” from the regulatory community.
Continue Reading Dodd-Frank Rulemaking Developments by the Fed for Fed-Supervised Insurance Firms

And now to return to our commentary a few weeks back about the stultifying impact of ill-thought through rules and regulations (at best) (Brexit has intervened).  This is our Regulatory State which broadly attempted to pick winners and losers and modify market behavior, to get an engineered outcome by using the blunderbuss of proscriptive rules and regulation.
Continue Reading A Trip Through the Labyrinth – The Regulatory Man in Full

The slow start to 2016 did not dampen the enthusiasm at CREFC’s Annual Conference, held last week in New York City.  The conference saw record attendance, with standing-room-only crowds at virtually every panel.  As with the Industry Leaders Conference in January, the hot topics on people’s minds were risk retention (and the rest of the regulatory headwinds), liquidity and the competitiveness of the CMBS market.

The conference made very clear that we are at an inflection point in the current cycle.  The general mood of the conference, in our view, was the confluence of nervousness and cautious optimism.  The gloominess of the first quarter, and fears over the “sky is falling,” has yielded to mild bouts of enthusiasm (at least if the parties were any indication).  The capital markets have settled down over the past few months, spreads have tightened, and borrowers have begun to trickle back into the CMBS market.

Clearly our industry faces headwinds, and nobody is betting on a record second half, but we also did not hear anyone ringing the death knell for our business.  We left the conference with more questions than answers.  Here are some:Continue Reading CREFC Annual Conference 2016: Headwinds or Head First Into the Wall?

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?

Well, we now have our proposed risk retention rule. The regulator class has been incubating this egg for the better part of nine months and we’re all now well behind the, admittedly, magical thinking schedule proposed in the actual FinReg legislation. Now, I’m not complaining. Particularly having read this missive, I’m all into delay.

If you want to read the proposed rule, feel free to take your pick of announcements from the Department of Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the SEC or the FHFA: it’s here—the long-awaited Credit Risk Retention proposed Rule (large pdf). The Rule shows every evidence of having been written by a committee, in fact, by a committee of committees. We all know that the definition of a committee is something with more than two legs and less than one brain. A committee of committees? Need I say more?Continue Reading CMBS: The Risk Retention Proposed Rule Has Finally Been Unleashed; The Comments Begin

On January 20th, the SEC finalized its first batch of many rules to come under Dodd-Frank, requiring issuers to perform reviews of the assets underlying their ABS securities and requiring them to disclose fulfilled and unfulfilled repurchase requests for alleged breaches of representations and warranties.  These have effective dates beginning with 2012 issuance so, to a certain extent, we can kick the anxiety can down the road for a while.  Nonetheless, this is a pretty clear window into what may be a bleak regulatory future.  And that’s important now.  More on this later.

Rule 193 (release here (pdf)) requires an issuer to know something about the assets it’s securitizing.  The issuer is supposed to do diligence to understand the assets it securitizes and tell the investor about the nature of its inquiry.  Curiously, and I’m not complaining here, Rule 193 does not purport to define what disclosures need be made, just that there ought to be “robust" and "transparent” diligence behind them. Its inquiry must be “designed and effected to provide reasonable assurances” that the disclosures about the assets are correct.

Hardly shocking.  Call me silly, but that seems to be what we do in structured finance.  I guess more information about exactly what the issuer did to understand the assets it securitizes could be useful, particularly in asset classes in which the asset level data is sketchy and aggregate.  It’s just silly in CMBS when we already deliver vast quantities of granular data in every deal.Continue Reading The FinReg Sheriff Arrives in Town: Do You Feel Safer?

Somehow, particularly this year, the fact that election eve and All Hallow’s Eve arrive but three days apart seems so compellingly appropriate.  Both are scary and both involve an awful lot of people pretending to be something they’re not.  But elections are supposed to have consequences while Halloween does not.  So let’s test that.  Does this election matter for CRE finance?  Or, how many treats and tricks did this election cycle have to offer?

As I write, the election is in the history books.   A resounding Republican victory in the House, while the Ds held on to the Senate by a smidge.  We hear the term game changer tossed around a lot, but will this indeed be a game changer for CRE finance?Continue Reading Elections, Halloween and the Credit Market