Regulators Propose ABS Credit Risk Retention Rule

Federal agencies are seeking public comment on a proposed rule that would require sponsors of asset-backed securities (ABS) to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of the assets underlying the securities.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said the proposal would not permit sponsors to transfer or hedge that 5% credit risk. In crafting the proposed rule, six agencies sought to ensure that the amount of credit risk retained is meaningful, while reducing the potential for the rule to negatively affect the availability and cost of credit to consumers and businesses.

The rule is proposed by the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the SEC, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It would provide sponsors with various options for meeting the risk-retention requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Among other things, the options include:

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

  • Retention of risk by holding at least 5% of each class of ABS issued in a securitization transaction (also known as vertical retention).
  • Retention of a first-loss residual interest in an amount equal to at least 5% of the par value of all ABS interests issued in a securitization transaction (horizontal retention).
  • An equally-divided combination of vertical and horizontal retention.
  • Retention of a representative sample of the assets designated for securitization in an amount equal to at least 5% of the unpaid principal balance of all the designated assets.
  • For commercial mortgage-backed securities, retention of at least a 5% first-loss residual interest by a third party that specifically negotiates for the interest, if certain requirements are met.

As required by the Act, the proposal includes descriptions of loans that would not be subject to these requirements, including asset-backed securities that are collateralized exclusively by residential mortgages that qualify as “qualified residential mortgages” (QRMs).

The proposal would establish a definition for QRMs — incorporating such criteria as borrower credit history, payment terms, and loan-to-value ratio — designed to ensure they are of very high credit quality. The proposed rule also includes investor disclosure requirements regarding material information concerning the sponsor’s retained interests in a securitization transaction. The disclosures would provide investors and the agencies with an efficient mechanism to monitor compliance with the risk-retention requirements of the proposed rules.

The proposed rule also has a zero percent risk-retention requirement for ABS collateralized exclusively by commercial loans, commercial mortgages, or automobile loans that meet certain underwriting standards. As with QRMs, these underwriting standards are designed to be robust and to ensure that the loans backing the ABS are of very low credit risk.

The proposed rule would also recognize that the 100% guarantee of principal and interest provided by Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Mortgage Loan Corporation) meets their risk-retention requirements as sponsors of mortgage-backed securities for as long as they are in conservatorship or receivership with capital support from the U.S. government.

The agencies are requesting public comments on the proposed rule by June 10, 2011, which can be made here. The rule is at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2011/34-64148.pdf.

BofA Takes Stock of Global Crises

Bank of America Global Wealth & Investment Management (GWIM) president Sallie Krawcheck hosted a discussion on how the crises in Japan and the Middle East may affect investors worldwide.

On the Webcast, “Global Risk Update: World Events and Your Financial Life,” Krawcheck was joined by Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia Group, a global political risk research and consulting firm, and Michael Hartnett, chief global equity strategist for BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research.

Considering the natural and nuclear disasters in Japan, Krawcheck noted that usually, natural disasters have a relatively short-term impact, but Japan may be affected in the long-term. Hartnett believes there will be long-term consequences in terms of energy development, commodities, and the Japanese market.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

“Clearly, when you lose one form of energy, in this case nuclear—we don’t know that that’s permanent, but the possibility is there—then other forms of energy will need to replace it,” Hartnett said. “Commodities would be a second area…the earthquake adds to the view that there are potential supply shocks at any stage in the future, and that’s been one of the forces behind commodity prices doing well over the past 10 years. And then, thirdly, Japan. We don’t know how the Japanese will react to this over time; but certainly, the markets reacted very violently,” he added.

Bremmer pointed to Japan’s aging demographic, lack of emigration, and high national debt as other factors that will influence Japan’s financial recovery.

Middle East Concerns? 

In the Middle East, Bremmer said we’re entering a third phase of conflict. The first—which only began a little more than three months ago—saw the “rise of secularist, largely nationalist, local, democratic movements that rose up spontaneously against authoritarian regimes,” he said. In the second phase, authoritarian regimes learned to take these revolts more seriously and began to crack down more harshly. And now, he said, we’re entering the much more volatile and potentially dangerous phase of geopolitics, with this becoming a global issue.

The largest oil supplier, Saudi Arabia, is in no real risk of a revolt, Bremmer noted. Even if the king were to die tomorrow, there would most likely be a smooth transition of power to his successor. Nevertheless, the markets are highly sensitive to headlines in the Middle East and it is something to be wary of, he concluded.

What to buy, what to sell? 

With all the uncertainty surrounding these crises, what’s an investor to do, asked Krawcheck. Hartnett turned to commodities and emerging markets. “These things have been going up for the best part of 10 years now, so you want to be very careful… It would be much smarter to long oil when it was $20 than $120. But our feeling is that the story is incomplete, and it’s incomplete because of the debt that the West has. And there are very few ways to solve that problem, but one of those ways is to really inflate your way out of that problem, and I think commodity simply is a—not just a hedge against natural disaster but a hedge against inflation,” he said.

As for what to buy, Hartnett said “global best-of-breed companies…the best companies with the best balance sheets, the best management, the best earnings prospect,” are most obvious. He also thinks U.S. technology is “fairly weatherproof,” and emerging markets are still a good idea, but investors may want to be a bit more selective.  As for Europe and Japan, Hartnett believes they are still “really trapped in trading ranges, and you have to be able to play the ups and downs of those trading ranges to make a lot of money there.”

Fixed income is an “area of concern” in Hartnett’s opinion. “I think it’s really tough to see value stocks outperforming, small‐caps stocks outperforming—I think in the fixed income world, you want to be very, very careful about government debt. I think it really is the case that a lot of corporations now are actually safer than the governments.”

The complete 30-minute Webcast is available here.

«