A recent ruling by the Comptroller of the Currency, FDIC, and Federal Reserve adopted some new rules for the CRE world and are set to take effect next year. The two major implications of the rule are that more capital must be held in reserve for both banks taking positions in CMBS, and a formula has been enacted to calculate the risk level of a debt security, negating the former method which was based on the rating agencies. For now the formula is only in place for securitizations, corporate debt, and other debt on banks’ trading books but it may spread to include all bank holdings of these securities.
This formula, which is called the “Simplified Supervisory Formula Approach,” was born because of terms in Dodd-Frank stating that ratings cannot be used to determine credit risk. Under the terms, any bank involved in debt securities must analyze and evaluate data on the underlying loans to determine the credit risk of the holding. One exception to the SSFA rule is the case where a bank already has an approved internal model and will be allowed to continue using that instead of the new formula. The majority of banks do not have this approval though, and will now have until January 1, 2013 to get set up. This could have an adverse effect on CMBS and RMBS pricing performance as well as liquidity in times of turmoil.
The real problem is that regulations such as this do nothing to prevent the type of crises that we experienced in 2008 and 2009, while at the same time they vastly increase costs to the bank and at some level this will discourage banks from participating in the mortgage market.
While it is logical to us as money managers that we want to scrutinize loan-level data when making investment decisions in MBS, regulating as much on a bank is at best unfair from the perspective that they do not have the same requirements in other securities. For instance, if the bank were to buy GE corporate debt (AA- rated), they are not regulated in a manner that forces them to analyze all of its subsidiaries or even GE’s top level financials. In fact, under the legislation there is an investment in the corporate debt of GE Capital (AA-) is treated no different from CIT Group (B+); despite vast differences in their credit quality they each receive a flat 8% “specific risk weighting”. An even better example would be ETFs – the bank could easily invest in a theoretical ETF, whose underlying holdings were solely subprime mortgages or corporate junk bonds, and never have to analyze the ETF’s holdings, whereas buying the bonds directly would require them to adhere to this needlessly onerous regulation.
