Reconciliation

Subscribe to Reconciliation

I know I return to this theme a lot in this column, but the Unintended Consequences Watch needs to be manned day and night. Today let’s talk about 17g-5. This esoteric sounding SEC rule is intended to diminish the perceived failings of the rating agency culture which has been fingered as one of the principal causes of the “Late Unpleasantness”. The notion was that the rating agencies, hired by the issuers, were mired in conflicts of interest and there were few, if any, structural safeguards to protect investors from bad ratings.

17g-5 provides that rating agencies must require a party retaining the agency to rate an asset backed security (including CMBS) to establish and maintain a password-protected website for all other rating agencies. The website must contain all information provided to the rating agency in connection with the rating. This pertains whether information is provided in writing or orally and to information provided by the issuer or by anyone on behalf of the issuer. The information must be loaded into the website simultaneous with its delivery to the retained rating agency. This was purported to provide a structural counterpoint to the pressure for continuously lower levels by issuer procured ratings.

This has some superficial appeal. To the extent that investors were concerned about conflicts of interest, unsolicited ratings seems an antidote to these perceived concerns. Indeed, on first blush, it’s hard to see an argument that unsolicited ratings are bad.

But on first blush I thought the financial crisis that began about three years ago last month, would be over by Thanksgiving. The story of 17g-5 is yet another reminder that financial systems are much more complex than rule makers perceive them and wish them to be. Welcome back, yet again, to the wonderful world of unintended consequences.

In this case, what has flowed from the desire to do good by providing multiple opinions of value to the investors is a system which is likely to degrade the quality of information and analysis available to investors.Continue Reading Unintended Consequences Redux

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

Notwithstanding our optimism, it appears that there was not enough support from the Senate side of the reconciliation committee to include the proposed covered bond amendment in the final financial reform bill approved by the reconciliation committee.  However, the support received by the House and some members of the Senate committee indicates that covered…

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

The Senate reconvened reconciliation hearings at noon today with a deal brokered yesterday to place the new financial watchdog agency within the auspices of the Federal Reserve, rather than establishing an independent agency.  This compromise by Congressional Democrats – which is engendering strong opposition from some important constituencies – could indicate a growing desperation to get something (anything, anything at all) in front of the President before his appearance at the G-20 this weekend.  As someone who spends a good piece of my week (and some weekends) reading and writing documents that are intended to build a legal framework around unforeseeable real-word events, I can appreciate the utter impossibility of crafting legislation that will simply get it right the first time.  I’ve learned this too many times:  As complexities increase, the better can become the enemy of the good. Continue Reading Dodd’s Inferno

Do you have any idea how often each of the House and Senate reform bills proposes to solve an intractably complex problem by simply asking the regulators to come up with rules?  I don’t, but I found at least 20.  Now it all goes to reconciliation, and my suspicion is that that number will not go down and may, indeed, go up when our duly elected representatives throw up their hands, declare victory and make someone else figure it out.  Now, Congress asking our regulators to create rules to implement policy is nothing new, and there’s nothing wrong with it, if used sparingly.  But this is wholesale delegation of hugely important stuff.

Without clarity around the rules of the game, business will not thrive.  I keep coming back to this notion.  I run a business, and I need to figure out how financial markets will function coming out of the late unpleasantness.  It’s hard enough, but when the rules keep changing, it’s worse.Continue Reading Congress Kicks the Can Down the Road

We’ve been promised that the House and Senate financial reform bills will be reconciled in a highly transparent and thoughtful way and be wrapped up and ready for the President’s signature by Independence Day.

I’m trying to be upbeat about this.  There are, after all, substantial benefits to be obtained from certainty, and once this is done, we’ll at least have rules.  We may not like them, but at least we’ll have rules. (OK, the final Bill will probably include dozens of referrals to the regulatory community to make the actual rules, but nothing’s perfect.).  God only knows what to expect when our duly elected representatives, awash in populist outrage and with the clock ticking loudly down to election day, try their hands at making sense of these two ridiculously complicated 1,400 page bills.  Barney Frank will manage the reconciliation process.  Imagine, he has now been imbued with the hopes of the financial services community for a sensical and balanced Bill.  Man bites dog.  You can’t make this stuff up. Continue Reading Reconciliation Time on the Hill: Be Very Afraid