Regulatory Reform

Subscribe to Regulatory Reform via RSS

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

The general theme of the American Securitization Forum Sunset Seminar held on Wednesday at Dechert’s NY office was the unintended consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act. Our largest conference room was packed with over a hundred securitization industry players all searching for the best predictions on the shape of the massive amount of regulations coming our way over the next few months. First on the agenda was a discussion of the repeal of Rule 436(g) and the resulting Securities Act liability for rating agencies. Dodd-Frank’s intent was to improve the value of ratings by making rating agencies more accountable to investors. Unfortunately, the rating agencies would not consent to their ratings being disclosed and the entire public securitization market was stopped cold. Not helpful for a market struggling to return to "normal.” We have the temporary fix issued July 22 of this year in the form of an SEC No-action letter green lighting the omission of ratings in registration statements, but what happens next? Most likely– the SEC will amend Reg AB Items 1103 and 1120 to not require ratings in registration statements. However, the SEC is considering requiring ratings in non-ABS registration statements, so how likely is this most likely solution really? Other ideas—in no particular order of likelihood: Congress will reinstate 436(g). Doubtful. The SEC will extend the No-action letter indefinitely. Perhaps. Ratings agencies assume the liability or are indemnified by issuers. Maybe. One panelist predicted that in the short run, we’ll have uncertainty; and in the long run, more uncertainty. Consensus is that there’s a long road ahead and harmonization amongst the regulators and applicable agencies is key. Also keep in mind as this unfolds that rating agency accountability is also to be achieved under Dodd-Frank by new private rights of action against ratings agencies (and other parties) leading perhaps to nationally certified class actions. As a result, the rating agencies will be seeking comfort and indemnity from issuers on the accuracy of data given to them in the course of their diligence.

The discussion turned to conflicts of interest and the prohibition against engaging in any transaction that would result in a material conflict of interest with respect to any investor for one year following closing (other than hedging activity or market-making/sales to provide liquidity for the ABS). An example of this conflict would be underwriting ABS then shorting the synthetic ABS that references the first ABS. One issue raised with respect to compliance is the problem of information barriers between departments at investment banking institutions.
 Continue Reading ASF Sunset Seminar: What to Expect from the Dodd-Frank Rulemakings

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

It seems that I use most of my time in this space to rail against an unthoughtful regulatory architecture that will certainly surprise and may ultimately do unintended and substantial harm to our nascent and uncertain recovery. While, from where I sit, it’s still fair to say this market continues to show little real conviction that it’s safe to get back in the water (hardly an irrational mindset) there is, periodically, some good news. So let’s make time for a bit of good news. Ta-da: It was reported recently that average consumer credit card borrowings have dropped below $5,000 per person for the first time since 2002.

This is terrific news. Perhaps not the stuff of rational giddiness, but combine that with the fact that corporate earnings are up, private cash savings rates are at recent highs, the de-leveraging is going great guns (everywhere, that is, outside of our government), house prices seem to be stabilizing in most markets even if sales continue to lag, interest rates are at ridiculously low levels and the reality of the re-set of the valuations of both the commercial and residential property stock has been internalized. A bit of optimism is not wildly inappropriate.Continue Reading Vacation Induced Optimism?