Risk retention rule

The Law and Lore of Repackaging →Go uptown 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. Repack Anatomy: Hedging exemption | Covenant to pay | Quoted Eurobond exemption | Pre-enforcement | The curious structure of an MTNIndex: Click ᐅ to expand: Repackaging 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 of an asset-backed securitisation 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 that collateral managers in “open-market” CLO transactions are not subject to the risk retention rule or any related regulations.

See also

• Cornell legislation resource