Risk retention rule: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|repack|{{us disclaimer small}}}}The risk retention rule requires that those who sponsor of an [[asset-backed security]] to “retain an economic interest in a portion of the credit risk for any asset that the securitizer, through the issuance of an [[asset-backed security]], transfers, sells, or conveys to a third party”.  
{{a|repack|{{us disclaimer small}}}}The risk retention rule requires that those who sponsor an [[asset-backed security]] to “retain an economic interest in a portion of the credit risk for any asset that the securitizer, through the issuance of an [[asset-backed security]], transfers, sells, or conveys to a third party”.  


The key question is whether the [[ABS]] is collateralised by any type of “[[self-liquidating financial asset]] (including a loan, a lease, a mortgage, or a
The key question is whether the [[ABS]] is collateralised by any type of “[[self-liquidating financial asset]] (including a loan, a lease, a mortgage, or a secured or unsecured receivable)” for which payments “depend primarily on cash flow from the asset”.
secured or unsecured receivable)” for which payments “depend primarily on cash flow from the asset”.
===Self-liquidating financial asset===
===Self-liquidating financial asset===
A “[[self-liquidating financial asset]]” is generally viewed as one that is capable, pursuant to its terms, of generating sufficient income by way of distributions and payment at maturity to return the ABS investment.
A “[[self-liquidating financial asset]]” is generally viewed as one that is capable, pursuant to its terms, of generating sufficient income by way of distributions and payment at maturity to return the ABS investment.
Line 8: Line 7:
To be in scope for risk-retention, the sponsor needs to be offloading the assets in the first place. If it just originates them in the market (as is the case for certain CLO structures, for example) the requirement for there to be a “transfer” is not met. On February 9, 2018, the Circuit Court, reversing an earlier ruling, ruled<ref>See [https://www.lsta.org/news-resources/clo-risk-retention-ruling-analysis-from-the-trenches/ press release].</ref> that collateral managers in “open-market” CLO transactions are not subject to the risk retention rule or any related regulations.
To be in scope for risk-retention, the sponsor needs to be offloading the assets in the first place. If it just originates them in the market (as is the case for certain CLO structures, for example) the requirement for there to be a “transfer” is not met. On February 9, 2018, the Circuit Court, reversing an earlier ruling, ruled<ref>See [https://www.lsta.org/news-resources/clo-risk-retention-ruling-analysis-from-the-trenches/ press release].</ref> that collateral managers in “open-market” CLO transactions are not subject to the risk retention rule or any related regulations.
===[[Loan]]s===
===[[Loan]]s===
If you do your repack in non-securities format — such as a loan — then the risk retention rules don’t seem to apply. Which — if true — is nice. We think it has something to do with the definition of asset-backed secuirity]] which must be — you know — a ''security''. A bilateral, non-negotiable loan isn’t. Now it is not beyond the great wall of credibility that [[U.S. Attorney]]s and their regulators might confect a disposition that a loan is a security — many of them seem to think of a swap as a security, so why not — so be extra careful, young fool, when galloping into this terrain, sparsely-troubled with angel footsteps as it appears to be.  
If you do your repack in non-securities format — such as a loan — then the risk retention rules don’t seem to apply. Which — if true — is nice. We think it has something to do with the definition of “[[asset-backed security]]” which must be — you know — a ''security''. A bilateral, non-negotiable loan isn’t. Now it is not beyond the great wall of credibility that [[U.S. Attorney]]s and their regulators might confect a disposition that a loan ''is'' in fact a security — many of them seem to think of a [[swap]] as a security, so why not — so be extra careful, young fool, when galloping into this terrain, sparsely-troubled with angelic footsteps as it appears to be.  
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/part-246/subpart-B Cornell legislation resource]
*[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/part-246/subpart-B Cornell legislation resource]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}

Revision as of 10:49, 25 July 2023

The Law and Lore of Repackaging

This wiki frequently includes untutored and probably disrespectful views on matters of US law, regulation and general culture. To be clear: the JC’s predominant purpose is to troll, not to give constructive advice on how to live your life, much less how to organise your regulatory affairs. The JC is not a US attorney, does not want to be one, and claims no great expertise or insight into US securities regulation, other an abiding conviction that it is way, way more complicated than it needs to be, and the benefit of that abstrusity accrues exclusively to those who are US attorneys and the organs of state that are populated by them. If you read this and take it seriously, other than as a source of entertainment, more fool you.

Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

The risk retention rule requires that those who sponsor an asset-backed security to “retain an economic interest in a portion of the credit risk for any asset that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells, or conveys to a third party”.

The key question is whether the ABS is collateralised by any type of “self-liquidating financial asset (including a loan, a lease, a mortgage, or a secured or unsecured receivable)” for which payments “depend primarily on cash flow from the asset”.

Self-liquidating financial asset

A “self-liquidating financial asset” is generally viewed as one that is capable, pursuant to its terms, of generating sufficient income by way of distributions and payment at maturity to return the ABS investment.

Transfer

To be in scope for risk-retention, the sponsor needs to be offloading the assets in the first place. If it just originates them in the market (as is the case for certain CLO structures, for example) the requirement for there to be a “transfer” is not met. On February 9, 2018, the Circuit Court, reversing an earlier ruling, ruled[1] that collateral managers in “open-market” CLO transactions are not subject to the risk retention rule or any related regulations.

Loans

If you do your repack in non-securities format — such as a loan — then the risk retention rules don’t seem to apply. Which — if true — is nice. We think it has something to do with the definition of “asset-backed security” which must be — you know — a security. A bilateral, non-negotiable loan isn’t. Now it is not beyond the great wall of credibility that U.S. Attorneys and their regulators might confect a disposition that a loan is in fact a security — many of them seem to think of a swap as a security, so why not — so be extra careful, young fool, when galloping into this terrain, sparsely-troubled with angelic footsteps as it appears to be.

See also

References

  1. ↑ See press release.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Risk_retention_rule&oldid=76986"