FDIC Loan Sales – The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

by REIT Wrecks on May 18, 2009

Last week, Zero Hedge attempted to make a tortuous connection between the sales prices of “performing” commercial real estate loans being sold by the FDIC and the book value of performing CRE loans held by healthy financial firms – presumably the likes of JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and others. Aside from creating a new platform from which to bellow about “very startling” and “very hypocritical” dealings in the financial world, I failed to understand the purpose.

My Own Experience With FDIC Loan Sales

Having bid on performing and non-performing CRE loans with real money (my own), and having worked directly with two of the intermediaries that the FDIC has hired to dispose of these loans, my real world, practical view is that there is absolutely no connection to be made.

“No floor floaters” would be really interesting if they were part of a hip hop performance, but not if they are real estate loans at LIBOR plus 150. “No floor” simply means that there is no floor on the loan’s benchmark rate. In the case of a no floor floater at L+150, the new owner of that loan would get a coupon of about 1.85%. In today’s market, that’s a zombie loan. Add in a crooked borrower with bad collateral, and I’ll show you a loan on blocks sitting forever unsold on Indy Mac’s front yard.

One of the other revelations in the post was that even performing CRE loans were being sold quick, call the SEC! at an average of 51 cents on the dollar. But whether a loan is “performing” or “non-performing” is really not relevant: it is simply a bureaucratic classification for the current payment status of the loans.

If it Sounds to Good to be True…

In the real world, many of these “performing” loans are doomed. They were promoted by borrowers and mortgage brokers on the basis of NOI assumptions that can no longer be achieved, underwritten by loan officers who had no idea what they were doing, and ultimately sold to investors whose profit motive (in many cases) was collecting management fees, not interest income. In that case, why not lever yourself silly and buy all you can?

A couple of the loans I looked at had unpaid principle balances that were completely disconnected from the true value of the collateral. The reason: underwriting that seemed to be done by a kindergartner, and probably was.

One of the loans, against a 1960′s vintage 164 unit apartment building, assumed that operating expenses would be almost 30% below the national average. Nevermind that launching the Apollo program would be cheaper and easier than fixing the leaks constantly springing from this property’s creaky 45 year old plumbing system. Effective gross income also showed red against the original underwriting – something about renters unwilling to pay a premium for kitchens that hadn’t been updated since Jack Ruby gave Lee Harvey Oswald a new address.

Another was a Fannie Mae DUS deal in which the borrower had racked up negative retained equity of $2MM in just 4 years. In the most recent year, the borrower lost $250,000 just from trying to meet the property’s monthly nut. That loan is current and matures in 2012, so it is classified as “performing”. Neverthelesss, there’s no way it will get refinanced at par, assuming the borrrower makes it that far, because the property is worth much less than par. How could the loan be worth anything more?

If you think the sole province of bad underwriting is multi-family originations, you should think again and again.

So, You Want to Bid on an FDIC Loan Sale? Look Before You Leap…

So what happens when you bid on one of these loans? The FDIC does not allow property inspections of any sort. Buyers are afforded the opportunity to review the original loan files, which contain such helpful information as the original, hopelessly out of date appraisal. Assuming you have enough local market knowledge to formulate a bid and “win”, you’ll have just 7 days to close. There is no futzing around with surveys, title reports and good standing opinions – we’re talking an all-cash close on a 7-day fuse.

Once you own the loan, you’ll eventually need to foreclose. Quantifying the risks around that is practically impossible. Convincing the borrower to enter into a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure is about the best outcome you could hope for. Assuming the borrower does not declare bankruptcy, in which case you are totally screwed, expenses on a “clean” foreclosure will run you at least 4-5% of the face amount of the loan.

Then you finally get the deed, but it won’t be the normal “general warranty” deed that you want. It will be a “limited warranty” deed, meaning the seller (the FDIC) will not vouch for the deed’s marketability. This is ideal, as everybody Vladimir Putin and Caesar Chavez likes limited marketability.

After that happens, the town/county/governing authority comes in and wants to authenticate the Certificate of Occupancy. In the case of the 164 unit building above, the county condemned 32 units right off the bat yes we can! So now the purchaser, a small private equity fund in Connecticut, is suddenly 20% vacant just for the privilege of a handshake with the local building inspector. Meanwhile, they’re stuck paying property taxes based on some inflated value from 2006. But that’s OK – they have unfathomably deep pockets and lots of spare time, and according my friends at Zero Hedge, they’re a co-conspirator!

Commercial Real Estate Loans

Update: This post received over 30 intelligent, knowledgeable comments, but when I updated my software and moved to a new location on the server, they did not automatically port over to the new location. I have republished them in bulk below, under my name. I added a few line breaks for legibility, but they are otherwise unedited. Cheers, REIT Wrecks

Email, Print, PDF and/or Share:
  • email
  • Print
  • PDF
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Technorati
  • Netvibes

ShareThis

{ 1 trackback }

The State of Commercial Real Estate: Sternlicht and Zuckerman Have a Few Things to Say — REIT Wrecks
March 9, 2010 at 9:16 pm

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

1 REIT Wrecks March 30, 2010 at 9:53 am

31 Comments:

kfunck1 said…
Great post, I really wish you did more. My reaction to the ZH post was a little different though. I interpreted it as calling out the FDIC on the real worth of CRE loans sitting out there. I think you’ve pretty well demonstrated that most are worth well below what their current carrying value is likely to be, but the FDIC/Treasury via PPIP/banks involved are arguing that not to be the case, and that it is a liquidity issue (lever up on taxpayers). I don’t know, maybe I missed something in the original ZH post, I just didn’t see it as a conspiracy post, even though a lot of them are somewhat out-there.

May 19, 2009 4:36 PM

===============================================================
Kevin Kleen rpakkleen@gmail.com said…
Yes, great post. I suspected bidders on FDIC pools were working in the dark, but I had no idea it was as bad as you describe. I was at the FLSIC/FDIC in the late 1980′s but left before the auctions really got going. I always wondered how anyone could make an informed bid based on the asset information we had in our files. Do you have any sense of how the auctions today compare to the RTC auctions back then?

May 21, 2009 6:19 AM

===============================================================
REIT Wrecks said…
kfunck – thanks. I wish I had time to do more. I agree with a lot of the ZH agenda, but the part I don’t agree with is their tendency to publish financial pornography – sensational headlines with little substance in the story. They sometimes write a whole lot of nothing. At least it’s good prose.

My post actually referred back to some story they wrote about “exposing the utter hypocrisy of the FDIC” or something or other, so that’s why you had a bit of a disconnect. Interestingly enough, one of their ghost writers smugly admitted in a comment that ZH “absolutely wallows in hypocrisy”.

Kevin – I have no real sense of history with the FDIC. The only things I looked at in the early 90′s were defaulted commercial aircraft deals. Back then, they were giving aircraft and aircraft related paper away, but it was different – you could rely on FAA maintenance regs, serial numbers, log books, etc., it wasn’t the craziness you see in CRE.

I love your blog. For anyone who wants to read more on real estate topics, check out Kevin’s blog: Residential Property Analytics.

May 22, 2009 3:28 PM

=====================================================================
kfunck1 said…
Hah, yes, I would say it has a bit of sensationalism to it. I see that we are on the same page though. Appreciate the post as always.

May 22, 2009 4:13 PM

===================================================================
RichL said…
Throughout my 30+ year career in Wall Street, I’ve seen many traders with an innate tendency to be bearish. I believe that the reason is that there is a greater psychic payoff to making money on the short side when everyone around you is losing their shirts. Zero Hedge and the folks who comment there are a clubhouse of that kind of trader.
I’ve posted a few times in disagreement of some of the more obviously incorrect comments on that blog, and there were ZERO responses to what I said. I guess the cognitive dissonance was too much for them!

The long-term fortunes are made by owning assets at right prices, the unpleasantness of the past few years aside! They’re just a bunch of semi-intelligent lemmings who won’t be able to keep their profits from their shorts.

May 22, 2009 6:33 PM

==============================================================
REIT Wrecks said…
Rich – yes, the conclusions you can draw from the popularity of that blog are a little disturbing. I happen to believe your view, which is interesting, happens to be the least so!

Your last point (asset ownership at the right price) is the essence of this blog. There are a ton of interesting opportunities emerging from this mess.

We will all need a heavy dose of very good luck though. This crisis has totally obscured an even worse issue: the twin runaway trains of medicare and social security.

May 22, 2009 7:14 PM

====================================================================
crabsofsteel said…
It’s true that bad underwriting wasn’t confined to the multifamily sector, but I’ll contend that multifamily was and will continue to be the worst of all property types. Every CMBS deal done since 2002 had a bond sold to the GSEs (usually Freddie Mac) backed solely by multifamily loans which met their guidelines. These loans often comprised 20% of the overall pool, and getting GSE approval is what drove deals. Thus the market was flooded with $ available for lending, and it drove multifamily prices to ridiculous levels. CMBS market participants are all too familiar now with the several nine-digit loans which have collapsed, with the prospect of more to come. Although I do not think the $3B loan on Sty Town will default in the near future, the economics are not what they were at underwriting, and Tishman-Speyer will likely have to contribute additional capital.

May 25, 2009 7:10 AM
======================================================================
Anonymous said…
ZH in my opinion does very poor commercial RE assesment, jumps to conclusions, and always heads for the biggest headline grab and twists what the author is saying. Frankly, all I have seen ZH do is copy and past other research material and data. No idea why the commentors think he is doing such great analysis (relative perspective I guess), I really havent seen any anaysis (at least none that was his own)
I saw that post as well, made no sense to me. I have bid on FDIC loans recently as well, and besides bidding in the dark, I also wasnt bidding for a mortgage coupon yield return. I crushed the cash flows (the extent of which was not because I felt it was needed but often because I know I can) and throw a nice large cap rate on it,..end result is about a 50-60 dollar price for a minimum expected yield of low teens, and potentially much much more…all unlevered returns. None of which has anything to do with how the original loan was intended to perform. If the FDIC was capable of managing the assets, I think it would cost the FDIC far less money in the long run. Rather than handing over huge returns to investors, why not keep it for themselves?

crabs, I think the typical CMBS MF loans were not originated to any real agency guidlines, just some very low hurdles like it had to be MF and maybe some nominal LTV and DSCR hurdle, and the borrower had to be alive (although i think they were flexible on the last point). The bonds they bought were originally rated AAA, and typically they only bought the 30% credit support AAA, thus they didnt feel they needed much guidelines. Interesting your thoughts on sty town,..that paper is cheap, you may want to consider some low rate bonds from those deals if you think they continue paying then it could be a windfall. i was offered some low rated CMBS paper for cheap with sty town in the deal but turned it down because i didnt think it was cheap enough to make it to interest shortfalls from the deal.

May 26, 2009 12:27 PM

================================================================
crabsofsteel said…
Consider lower-rated bonds from deals with Sty town? Mmmm … no, thank you, I’ll pass. Not because of Sty town where the risks are disclosed and fairly well known, but because I can get written down by any number of other loans in these deals, particularly if a large portion of the loans are interest/only. How do you think the bond buyer feels when he finds out that oops! there’s a ground lease on a property and it wasn’t disclosed. The risks in these deals is precisely that: data which was not disclosed.

May 28, 2009 9:57 AM

====================================================================
REIT Wrecks said…
crabs of steel, re: “multi-family was and is the worst” of all property types, what’s your view of when these bad MF loans will start to appear in the market in greater numbers?

There are very few multi-family properties trading, and while it seems to me that cap rates for multi-family are rising, they are still stubbornly low relative to fundamentals. Fannie Mae is obviously playing a role here, but they can’t make the entire market. What do you think? Any predictions?

May 28, 2009 10:44 AM

================================================================
Anonymous said…
crabs, i would go into details regarding sty town deal low rated bonds purchase, but i am guessing it would be lost as i am not sure you understand how these products work given their current pricing levels. BTW, if you study these products for a living, you should know ground leases are always disclosed in the deal prospectus, partial or full. so your example would not happen unless an investor failed to look in the prospectus. And if this info was not included in the prospectus for whatever reason (very difficult given how the data is checked) i believe it would be a breach of the sellers reps and warrents and they would need to buy back the loan out of the deal at par. Lastly, getting GSE approval had nothing to do with these deals selling. The agency tranche was directed cash flows from the MF properties, so why would a buyer of another tranche care what a GSE thought since the investors cash flows were from other property types? The GSE’s never said anything, never even negotiated their price, they took the same price as another similar tranche of non-MF directed cash flows.

Not sure what crabs is trying to get at with worst property type, but depending on what he means by that statement I can think of several other property types i would be less excited to be long. However, MF loans have been the leader in deliq in CMBS over the past couple years, so the delinq rate is pretty high already for MF. Started with MBS (Smuck) defaulted on a large portfolio a while back.

As long as agencies provide relatively cheap funding and decent leverage for MF assets, cap rates should stay lower on a relative basis. I think rising cap rates in other property types is largely a function of a lack of cheap funding. Same reason I think cap rates went lower in the first place: cheap financing and lots of leverage available.

Most of the borrowers I have talked to seem to more interested in getting involved in distressed assets (loans or REOs) as opposed to buying a MF asset in the traditional sense.

May 28, 2009 12:06 PM

===================================================================
crabsofsteel said…
RW:
“what’s your view of when these bad MF loans will start to appear in the market in greater numbers?”

They already have, to the tune of quite a few nine-digit loans which are in default, and I think they will continue to do so. Robot bids create asset bubbles, and being able to sell MF-only tranches to Freddie Mac (not so much Fannie Mae) drove deals. Of course, who else but Freddie is out in the market with a new deal?

Anonymous:
I gather that you know something but your analysis is quite wrong.

“BTW, if you study these products for a living, you should know ground leases are always disclosed in the deal prospectus”

For the top ten loans in a deal or however many appeared in the term sheet, yes, there was fuller disclosure including whether there was a ground lease. However, there was not as much disclosure for loans that were not top-ten. All you had to go on was the data which were provided in the annex. The CMSA standard doesn’t include a field for ground leases, and even then, where fields were provided, not every underwriter bothered to fill in such important fields such as “borrower” or “sponsor”. So please, do not try to claim any greater knowledge because you, like most investors, did not know where and how risks were hidden.

May 28, 2009 6:04 PM

=================================================================
Anonymous said…
crabs,
thats is not correct. the annex and term sheet are not the only location of data. within the prospectus there is disclosure specifically regarding ground leases (and other similarly important disclosures) no matter how small the loan. its in a paragraph, so just do a word search in the prospectus and you will find it. If you are seeing a deal that does not have this, please let me know the deal and I will look into it, as it would be a first for me. The reality is if there is any information which is material that investors should be made aware of, it is disclosed, otherwise a loan seller runs the risk of having to buy the loan from the deal at full value if there is ever an issue with the loan regarding material non disclosed info such as a ground lease and the seller would take the loss and not the bond buyer.

The agencies bids were robot because they were not buying lower credit bonds as i mentioned earlier. If MF loans were to default and produce losses, the losses go to the bottom of the credit stack buyers first. The investors at risk of losses on MF, such as b-piece buyers and to so some extent all below AAA bond buyers, did the credit homework and were the gate keepers of credit right or wrong. So again, the agencies and their opinions, if they ever had any, were useless. No idea where you are getting this info, but if you understand how the deals are structured, you would know how this relationship between tranches works.

Not every underwriter filled in all the fields? can you you show me an example? this would be news to me, as I have looked through a lot of deals.

May 28, 2009 8:05 PM

===================================================================
crabsofsteel said…
hey Anonymous,

I just reread the loan writeup in the prospectus for one of the top ten loans in CSMC 06-C4, Harwood Center. Not a word about a ground lease. The only clue that there was a ground lease was that the Fee/Leasehold column in the fine-print annex held “Fee/Leasehold”. Maybe that’s enough for you.

Once the loan ended up with the special servicer, now we hear about the ground lease: “4/21/2009 Lender received notification from ground owner, Estate of Elise Kleuser and their legal counsel. It seems that the borrower and the Estate cannot come to an agreement on the ground rent renewal that should change effective 09-01-2008. ”

What a surprise. Don’t you think this should have been mentioned in the term sheet writeup?

Plenty of underwriters didn’t fill in the fields. Look at an annex for any Lehman-UBS deal and tell me if you find a column for Borrower. You won’t; it isn’t there. Nor Sponsor nor any clue as to who the credit is. Once investors realize that who the credit is actually matters because it might be Babcock&Brown, by then, it is too late.

yours in AAA, crabs

May 29, 2009 10:15 AM

=====================================================================
Anonymous said…
Sorry, but the term sheet does show a “Fee and Leasehold”, which tells me that there is a partial leasehold. Additionally in the term sheet, Harwood also has an upfront and ongoing ground lease reserve. That is enough right there for me to know there is one. What term sheet are you looking at?

as you noted it is also disclosed in the annex

additionally, page s-43 has a table, telling you that 2.3% of the deal is partial leasehold which the sellers consider material. this includes harwood, i checked
and page s-65
“Thirteen
(13) of the mortgage loans that we intend to include in the issuing entity,
representing 13.6% of the initial mortgage pool balance, are secured in whole or
in material part by leasehold interests with respect to which the related owner
of the fee estate has not mortgaged the corresponding fee estate as security for
the related mortgage loan…Because of the possible termination of the related ground lease lending
on a leasehold interest in a real property is riskier than lending on the fee
interest in the property.”
Harwood is among the 13%, i checked

and page s-105
“Thirteen (13) of the mortgage loans that we intend to
include in the issuing entity, representing 13.6% of the initial mortgage pool
balance…are
secured by a mortgage lien on the borrower’s leasehold interest in all or a
material portion of the related mortgaged real property but not by any mortgage
lien on the corresponding fee interest.
again, Harwood is among the 13%

i would conclude pretty easily that Harwood has a patial leasehold which is material at a minimum. so no surprise to me that its showing up now at special serv.

what the seller does not do well is go into detail on the partial leasehold which i would agree with. but they do disclose the ground lease in the term sheet and also in the annex and also in the prospectus as material.

May 29, 2009 1:58 PM

==================================================================
crabsofsteel said…
Anonymous,

Congratulations to you for finding the language which the ratings agencies missed or ignored. You miss my point; no one should have to review a 200+ page prospectus in detail in order to determine that their AAA investment is really AAA. It makes investments non-transparent and subject to questions about interpretation. S&P finally came clean to say that in an environment where CRE prices are down 35%, they could no longer guarantee their AAA ratings. I applaud their honesty.

May 29, 2009 8:06 PM

======================================================================
kfunck1 said…
This has been an awesome back-and-forth to watch, and I thank both of you for seeing it through. I would just say though, that last answer about not having to read the information is a complete cop-out. You have no defense if you don’t do due diligence. That means you have to read the material, whether its 200 pages of a CMBS prospectus, or 200 pages of a JPM 10-K. Sorry.

May 29, 2009 8:16 PM

===============================================================
Anonymous said…
crabs,
Once again, you are mistaken. The rating agencies do not use the prospectus/annex/term sheet to underwrite and rate deals. They probably never even look at them. For all the large loans (and many of the smaller loans) they fully underwrote the loans just like anyone else, getting all the relavent documents such as zoning reports etc. They get all the info and are not subject to any missing or hidden in the small print important disclosures that you feel the annex/term sheet/prospectus are prone to.

You state that you work in CMBS for a living. But when I see you post completely incorrect statements over and over, eventually someone needs to say something. You have stated nothing factual in this entire comment section, everything has been completely incorrect. You couldnt even find the ground lease info on a loan in a deal, which is absolutely inexcusable for someone who “works in CMBS”. I hope you in no way help invest other peoples money.

I have seen you post here and elsewhere before, and I will call your b/s when i see you post incorrect info, so please make sure it is correct first.

May 29, 2009 10:42 PM

====================================================================
crabsofsteel said…
Anonymous,

“The GSE’s never said anything, never even negotiated their price, they took the same price as another similar tranche of non-MF directed cash flows.”

This is also factually incorrect. The MF class was sold at quite a different spread than the non-MF AAAs.

I am still waiting to hear about how Lehman provides information which lets investors identify borrowers.

yours, crabs

May 30, 2009 3:19 AM

===============================================================
REIT Wrecks said…
Hey boys, who cares? More interesting to me (and perhaps others) is granular details on CMBS maturities. I have seen the same “nine digit MF loans” out in the market and it’s no mystery that defaults are picking up, but the real question is what’s going to happen in 2009 and 2010.

I have posted charts here before showing maturities broken down by loan tenor and term, and combined with maturities at commercial banks, I have believe there are $1 trillion in CRE maturities through 2013.

CMBS is dead and TALF, in my view, won’t bring it back. Without a market for the B piece, holders of which are NOT the beneficiaries of TALF largesse, I can’t see it restarting in any volume. That leaves insurance companies, regional banks and specialty lenders. The latter category is getting more active, but the former two aren’t singlehandedly going to bail out CRE. Cap rates in secondary and tertiary markets are already over 10, and they will go higher.

I see a lot of bad debt being sold, but not the volume you would expect given the above numbers. I am still waiting for the sh*tstorm to happen. I think, based on all available facts, that it will start in Q4 2009 and extend through 2010.

So What’s over that horizon? Nobody knows, but your thoughtful conjecture on that would be more useful than ripping apart some tape from 2006.

Great comments though, keep it up! Anybody who feels like writing more substantively on these topics, email me and I will publish and/or ghost write it.

Cheers, RW

May 30, 2009 9:51 AM

================================================================
Kevin Kleen rpakkleen@gmail.com said…
RW, I think many of those maturing deals will get extended through Chapter 11 plans. Borrowers can usually come up with an appraisal which shows equity, and if they can make payments at current floating rates I think BK judges will go along. Back a few years I was on the lender side of a Fannie multifamily deal where the borrower was able to get a plan confirmed reducing a 7.5% fixed rate to Prime+1% interest only. Today, that would be a 4.25% rate, which even a poorly underwritten deal done at the peak might be able to manage.

May 30, 2009 12:55 PM

================================================================
Anonymous said…
crabs, one last time for old times sake.
“The MF class was sold at quite a different spread than the non-MF AAAs.”

not sure which class you are talking about, but the A1A (the agency MF class) was typically sold to the agencies at the same spread as the final clearing level of the A4 (or similar) non-MF class. If you know differently, please provide me with details, as it would be news to me as I have personally seen these transactions happen.

Regarding LBUBS and other deals: yes, they didnt always follow the CMSA template, which was a suggestion and not a requirement. You did have one thing correct, i appologize.

RW, my appologies for talking away from the point of your post, it wont happen again.
i agree, CMBS is definitley dead. I could see the potential for interest in new CMBS bonds if the economy stabilizes and CRE valuation declines start seeing a floor…with conservative underwriting, lower leverage deals, lower valuations and with the leverage that TALF would provide to cetain bond buyers, they could be very attractive deals.

Also, maybe a B-Piece buyer wouldnt be needed if the loan seller needs to retain some skin in the deal, maybe they could be the new B-Piece buyers by retaining the bottom most risk pieces. The securitized lender of tommorow could be like a hybrid lender/b-piece buyer. This would be hard today with valuation declines still happening, but maybe a year from now it could be easier to sell.

May 30, 2009 3:53 PM
Kevin Kleen rpakkleen@gmail.com said…
Anonymous – A model for your “seller as B piece buyer” would be Fannie’s DUS program for multifamily. Under that program, the seller takes the first 5% loss, then pari passu to a maximum seller loss of 20%. This crash will be the first real test of the program, but early indications are it’s outperforming CMBS multifamily originations.

In fact, it would not be totally crazy to staff Fannie Mae with some good office/industrial/retail underwriters and use the multifamily platform for other types of CRE. Obviously not Fannie’s original mission, but all the multifamily purchase, delivery, and securitization functions are already in place.

May 30, 2009 10:25 PM

=================================================================
REIT Wrecks said…
Anon – feel free to go off topic anytime. These were all really useful and interesting comments – definitely “ON” topic in this environment. I was just trying to keep the debate with crabs from turning into an indignant finger wagging session.

And I agree, crabs’ excuse that nobody should have to read a prospectus is a lot of crap. That interested me also though, because it highlights part of the problem: lots of people just didn’t understand much of what they were trading.

Kevin – that is an excellent point on the BK, ditto on the Fannie Mae first losses. Some of the Smuck defaults in Texas went BK, but not all. It’s funny that this doesn’t happen more often – Bethany apparently abandoned its portfolio and Babcock & Brown looks like they’re headed toward a civil exchange of keys. Is that an indication that a lot of the MF defaults thus far are so underwater that there is no equity left to preserve? (and by extension,..that they will be so in the future?) I think that may be the case.

So if you’re looking at these deals, you perversely need to be sure that it’s so screwed up that the borrower would have absolutely no chance of prevailing in court!

May 31, 2009 5:40 PM

===========================================================
crabsofsteel said…
I must pipe in if only to preserve my good crabsian name.
first, to my good friend Anonymous, yes I will agree that the MF tranche usually sold to Freddie Mac was priced at a spread close to the 10-year non-MF, but it wasn’t exactly equal. There was usually a bp or two difference, in either direction. Just check the coupons on the prospectus of any once-new issue to be sure, as these bonds were issued at par ou presque.

Now as to my other friend RW who claims that one should have to fully read a prospectus if buying a AAA instrument. I agree with you that a bond buyer should do their own due diligence. But they didn’t. And just about no one did. When a trader bids on a bond, they usually don’t have the time to reunderwrite a deal. The data (rent rolls, et al) are not immediately available to a prospective purchaser. Thus it becomes a market for the greater fool, who is willing to risk money against the lack of substantive data.

June 1, 2009 7:32 PM

====================================================================
Anonymous said…
hey crabs,
without actually doing any work on this, i am pretty sure the difference in coupon is the result of the difference in the average life of the A1A vs the A4.

In other words, the benchmark swap rate would be slightly different on the A1A and A4 depending on the shape of the yield curve and how different the average life of the two bonds are.
just a quick guess, but i think this is what you are seeing

many investors only buy bonds they have already ok’ed the credit on. That way they can bid on those bonds that are already on there “approved” list. Another way they buy them is from the bond dealers inventory, that way they do have plenty of time to analyze the deal over several days.

Thanks RW and Kevin for the comments. I will look into the DUS structure and learn more about.

June 1, 2009 11:13 PM

====================================================================
crabsofsteel said…
Not to belabor a point, but for a bond issued at par, coupon equals yield (if payment delay is 0), so average life doesn’t matter. For some transactions I reviewed where I was involved in pricing, the spread for the A1A was slightly different, but not a lot. So maybe we are both right.

June 3, 2009 6:00 PM

======================================================================
REIT Wrecks said…
Maybe has to with the mix of partial I/O vs. fully amortizing loans and when the I/O switches over to fully amortizing. Any partial I/O would obviously extend the average life of the loan, in which case that would matter, and more or less depending on the buyer. In any case, it would depend on the specific deal, and each deal is obviously different, so you probably are both right.

Yours in the study of prospectuses!

Cheers, RW

June 3, 2009 6:26 PM

=================================================================
Anonymous said…
Its all in good fun…

The pricing of bonds at new issue and is based upon the “swap rate” and “spread”, added together they equal the yield. To determine the benchmark “swap rate” value, you need to look at the average life of the bond.

EXAMPLE: Assume the average life of the A1A is 8.1 years and the average life of the A4 is 8.6 years. And assume the 8 year “swap rate” is 5.20% and the 9 year “swap rate” is 5.25%. you would use the linear interpolated “swap rate” between the 8 year “swap rate” and the 9 year “swap rate”. Thus, in this example, for the A1A it would be 5.205% and for the A4 it would be 5.230%. Now to get the yield for the bonds you just add the “spread”. So even with the same “spread”, they will result in different coupons.

Why Average Life is Different?

The A1A contains all the MF directed cash flows, thus it recieves any amortization and maturity payments (from 5 and 7 year loans) from any MF loan in any given month starting on month 1. The A4 does not recieve any amortization from non-MF loans because that principal paydown is paid to the A1, then A2, and then A3. Finally after about year 7 the A4 begins to recieve amortization payments and then maturity payments at year 10. Because the principal begins paying down sooner in the A1A, it results in a shorter average life for the A1A.

not a prospectuses fan,
anon

June 3, 2009 8:29 PM

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: