Article

Securitization obligations on Issuers are not getting any easier – is your firm properly tooled for the future?

Marc Levine
Moody's Analytics

Marc Levine is Managing Director of the Issuer Solutions business at Moody’s Analytics. The Issuer Solutions business focuses on supporting the full spectrum of structured finance issuance and lending requirements. Its flagship product, ABS Suite Plus is the industry leading solution for end to end structured finance administration, accounting, funding optimization and analytics and used extensively to manage the structured finance programs of Issuers – both large and small - worldwide.

September 9, 2021
Download PDF

Securitization has been around longer than you may know.

And the obligations on Issuers are not getting any easier. Is your firm properly tooled for the future?

When most people think about the beginnings of the securitization market, they think about Ginnie Mae, Lewis Ranieri, the Collateralized Mortgage Obligation and perhaps even Sperry Corporation who issued the first non-mortgage deal in 1985. However, a form of securitization was actually happening, for a brief period of time long before then, according to Investopedia¹ which specifically cites Texas Christian University research. Namely, in the early 18th century, Great Britain restructured its debt and sold it to a variety of wealthy corporations who in turn sold shares backed by the payments from the British government.

While the complexity of early 18th century financing was likely far less than today’s structures, the fact of the matter is that securitization in any form is a unique and often complicated form of debt issuance. Over the years, different types of collateral, with far reaching payment forms, have been securitized. Likewise, deal structures ranging from simple pass-throughs to master trusts, synthetics and other extremely complicated arrangements have been implemented. And unlike the financing of the 1700s, a myriad of reporting, regulatory, tax, and analytical obligations fall on those who are involved in the securitization market.

With respect to some of the above-mentioned “obligations,” it may not always be obvious just how challenging they can be. Afterall, one would think it should not be all that complicated to administer a securitization program since most Issuers already have servicing and accounting systems in place. However, it is this often misunderstood, and seemingly minor, nuance of having to view and report on an asset or collateral from the point of view of an investor that introduces challenges. In fact, it turns out that this “minor nuance” isn’t really minor at all and instead requires Issuers to put in place a whole new operational infrastructure that is generally not supported by servicing and accounting systems.

Take a traditional auto loan issuance for example. When doing this type of securitization, a variety of data elements, typically not tracked or calculated on other internal systems must make their way onto reports to Investors. ABS contract status, repurchase amounts, delinquencies, losses, pay-aheads, advances, investor balances and more all need to come from somewhere. Likewise, waterfall structures which incorporate payment prioritizations, credit enhancements, how to handle shortfalls, swap obligations and much more have to be set up. In addition, Issuers need to consider how to operationalize all of this in a manner which is automated, controlled, auditable and conforms to the appropriate risk, governance and regulatory controls required by corporations, audit firms, rating agencies and other third parties.

The preceding paragraph is not only applicable to auto issuance. In fact, each asset class has its own set of unique challenges. Credit card and asset classes which utilize a master trust structure have complex structural features like sharing across series. Leasing introduces concepts such as securitization value. Mobile device financing has its unique set of calculations with the added challenge of handling significant volumes of data. And on it goes.

Furthermore, beyond the items described above, today’s securitizations bestow many other requirements upon the Issuers. For example, how does one select assets that are currently in a warehouse into a structure while  keeping the warehouse in compliance and at the same time ensuring the selected assets meet the eligibility criteria and compliance rules of the new deal? Or, how does an organization scale so that staff is able to support multiple deals, each with its own set of reporting requirements? Additionally, given the reps and warranties in the issuing documents, how does the Issuer make sure that its reporting is accurate; given the amount of data, the complex rules and the various events that could occur.

Fortunately, technology today is more advanced than it was in the 1700s. Rather than pen and paper, Issuers have at their disposal, capabilities to streamline their operational requirements. That said, the only thing that is really certain is that there is no certainty with regard to the type of calculations, reporting, accounting and analytics that will be required.  Every year new, innovative structures are brought to market which test the limits of mainstream securitization technology.

In fact, building technology that truly addresses all requirements that Issuers may face across many different asset classes is an expensive and non-trivial task with many “hidden musts.” Technology has to be flexible and expandable enough to handle the unknowns of the future yet locked down enough to also address audit, compliance and other operational obligations. It takes significant knowledge, massive ongoing investment, a vision of the future and perhaps most often unaccounted for– time.  Furthermore, since it is not just one stakeholder within an issuer organization that has requirements, it also takes an architecture that can support many needs. For example, those responsible for reporting require different capabilities than those who are responsible for structuring deals, to those who determine which assets to include in which deals at a given point in time.

The good news for Issuers is that technology solutions that address some or all of these challenges do exist. However, in selecting a solution it is critical that Issuers do their due diligence, think long term, and deeply consider the key words “some or all.” What may, on the surface, seem like a solution could in fact be missing one or more of the “hidden musts” needed to support the inevitable nuances and future uncertainties of a structured finance issuance program.  Unless of course, pen and paper is an option.

References

¹ Sean Ross, “How Debt Securitization Got Started”, Investopedia, 2020

© 2021 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved
CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. AND/OR ITS CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, “PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE MOODY’S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE CREDIT RATINGS. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.
MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT
MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSON AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN THEM BEING CONSIDERED A BENCHMARK.
All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing its Publications.
To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S.
To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.
NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CREDIT RATING, ASSESSMENT, OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $2,700,000. MCO and Moody’s investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of Moody’s Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody’s Investors Service and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”
Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors.
Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.
MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY125,000 to approximately JPY250,000,000.
MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements.