VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 10 POSTED ON: 2/9/2013
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN SECURITIZATION INBRIEF* UPDATED AS OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011 (UPDATES IN BLUE) UPCOMING AGENCY ACTION FDIC, OCC, FR: Additional Revisions to the Market Capital Risk Rules o Release Date 12/7/11 o Comment Deadline 2/3/12 o The initial NPR included modifications to the agencies’ market risk capital rules for banking organizations with significant trading activities. The amended NPR includes alternative standards of creditworthiness to be used in place of credit ratings to determine the capital requirements for certain debt and securitizations positions covered by the market risk capital rules. Prohibition against Conflicts of Interest in Certain Securitizations o Release Date 9/19/11 o Comment Deadline 12/19/11 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Treatment of Asset-Backed Issuers under the Investment Company Act o Release Date 8/31/11 o Comment Deadline 11/7/11 o Proposed Rule to determine if the conditional exclusion provided to certain asset-backed issuers from the definition of investment company is necessary or beneficial. Concept Release: Companies Engaged in the Business of Acquiring Mortgages and Mortgage Related Instruments o Release Date 8/31/11 o Comment Deadline 11/7/11 o Concept Release to determine if companies engaged in the business of acquiring mortgages and mortgage related instruments should be covered under the investment company act instead of relying on exclusions from the definition of investment company. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Rep. Scott Garrett GSE Proposal: December 7, 2011 o The House Financial Services Hearing held a hearing to discuss Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Market and Government-Sponsored *This is not an all-inclusive list of agencies and market participant actions related to this issue. It is a snap-shot of the most recent, most relevant activity at the agencies and in the marketplace with regard to securitization issues under the Dodd-Frank Act of importance to the Association of Institutional INVESTORS’ members. 5204418 Enterprises (GSEs) Rep. Scott Garrett’s proposal title the Private Mortgage Market Investment Act. The Act would abolish the Dodd-Frank Act risk retention requirements, prevent regulators from unilaterally forcing investors to reduce the principal of loans invested in, and develop uniform securitization agreements. o Democrats at the hearing were opposed to the bill, specifically objecting to eliminating the risk retention requirements, and calling for some governmental assistance in the housing finance market. o Republican members argued that the government is an overbearing force in the home financing market, and that removing the GSEs would be a positive start to returning private capital to the housing finance market. Rep. Scott Garrett - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Proposal: October 27, 2011 o Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, offered a proposal to reform the secondary mortgage market. One key point in the proposal would be to abolish the risk-retention provisions included in the Dodd-Frank Act. o Rep. Garrett’s proposal would direct the Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA) to create several categories of mortgages with uniform underwriting standards for each, develop standard and uniform securitization agreements and representations and warranties, and provide the FHFA with authority to ensure underwriting and securitization standardization compliance. o The proposal would also prevent regulators from unilaterally forcing investors to reduce the principal of loans they have invested in, allow the appointment of an independent third party to act for the benefit of investors in mortgage-backed securities, and require mandatory arbitration on disagreements between investors and issuers on reps and warranties. o The proposal also aims to provide additional transparency and disclosure by ensuring investors have sufficient time to review and analyze disclosed information before making investment decisions and require the creation of an individualized marker for each loan within a securitization. House Financial Services Committee: Vote on July 20, 2011 o The House Financial Services Committee voted, 31-19, in favor of undoing a section of the Dodd-Frank Act that exposes ratings firms to liability for the ratings they attach to asset-backed bond deals. The Dodd-Frank Act’s rule would shine a bright light on the quality of the credit rating provided. o Analysis suggests that the House Financial Services Committee measure may not pass the Senate. COMMENTS LETTERS: CONCEPT RELEASE: COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ACQUIRING MORTGAGES AND MORTGAGE RELATED INSTRUMENTS American Securitization Forum: Submitted Letter to SEC on November 7, 2011 o ASF believes that any investor protections that might result from narrowing the Investment Company Act Section 3(c)(5)(C) exception would be dwarfed by the harm that would be done to market efficiency, competition, and capital formation if certain Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and others were required to comply with the strictures of the Investment Company Act. o ASF argues that mortgage companies relying on section 3(c)(5)(C) fall within the scope of the exclusion as originally intended by Congress. 5204418 o ASF believes the existing disclosure and reporting regimes contained in the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the related regulations mitigate the potential for abuse, including misvaluation and overreaching by insiders. o Section 3(c)(5)(C) allows companies to take on leverage or engage in affiliate transactions not available to investment companies promotes competition, efficient markets, and the availability of capital. A change that subjects companies such as REITs to the Investment Company Act could harm competition, according to ASF. Legg Mason: Submitted Letter to SEC on November 7, 2011 o Legg Mason asks the Commission to affirm that REITs may continue to rely on the exclusion from the definition of “investment company” provided in Section 3(c)(5)(C). o Legg Mason stated that most mortgage-related pools and other real-estate-related assets do not allow equity investors to earn their cost of capital without leverage. o Legg Mason believes the best way to help markets better assess the risks associated with mortgage-related pools would be to require more comprehensive disclosure from these companies. SIFMA: Submitted Letter to SEC on November 7, 2011 o SIFMA believes changes to the existing regulator framework under which mortgage- related entities have developed and thrived could potentially curtail capital formation throughout the sector and make it more difficult and expensive for homebuyers or existing home owners to obtain residential mortgages. For example, the amount and type of leverage that mortgage-related entities incur is one of several factors impacting dividends. o SIFMA argues that mortgage-related entities are vitally important to the U.S. real estate markets. o SIFMA argues that many strong regulatory safeguards applicable to publically traded mortgage related-entities exist including disclosure requirements, corporate governance requirements of national securities exchanges, annual financial statements, Exchange Act proxy rules, and code of ethics requirements. ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING: TREATMENT OF ASSET-BACKED ISSUERS UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT American Securitization Forum: Submitted Letter to SEC on November 7, 2011 o ASF believes Rule 3a-7 is well suited to serve the purposes for which it was adopted and that any changes to it are unwarranted as it could diminish the availability of credit to consumers and businesses and exacerbate the current fragile economic environment. o ASF writes that Rule 3a-7 adequately addresses issues such as self-dealing by insiders, misvaluation of assets, inadequate asset coverage as they relate to the structure and operation of the asset-back issuer, and preservation and safekeeping of the asset-backed issuer’s eligible assets and cash flow. o ASF argues the use of intermediaries should be facilitated by Rule 3a-7. Certain securitization structures use one or more intermediate entities to hold eligible assets. o ASF urges that Rule 3a-7 should remain a viable exemption from the Investment Company Act for Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Conduits. o ASF argues the trading restriction that “the acquisition or disposition of the assets does not result in a downgrading in the rating of the issuer’s outstanding fixed-income securities” is unnecessary. o ASF believes that credit rating agencies should continue to serve their current role with respect to asset-backed securities transactions in which fixed-income securities are offered to the public under Rule 3a-7. It would be a mistake to require additional review 5204418 of asset-backed securities transactions by new or different independent reviewers or additional opinions or certifications. Investment Company Institute: Submitted Letter to SEC on November 7, 2011 o If the Commission is intent on replacing credit rating conditions, ICI believes it should bear in mind Rule 3a-7’s purpose of distinguishing those ABS issuers that rely on the rule from registered investment companies. It should also ensure that those conditions are not duplicative of, and are consistent with, requirements that already are applicable to ABS. o The Commission should ensure that applying such conditions under the Investment Company Act would not result in unintended consequences in the ABS markets which include possible increased costs that exceed the benefits of any new conditions. o ICI urges the Commission when considering whether to apply the shelf eligibility criteria and strengthening Regulation AB as a condition of Rule 3a-7 eligibility, the Commission should note that some issuers might be unable to comply with the rule. RE-PROPOSAL: SHELF ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES’ MetLife: Submitted Letter to SEC on October 4, 2011 o MetLife believes the re-proposal bolsters sound governance and adequate disclosure. o MetLife encourages the SEC to adopt shelf-life eligibility requirements, but recommends that the SEC consider extending basic enhancement such as those in the re-proposal to all forms of securitization issuance. o MetLife urges the SEC to consider using the ANPR and Concept Release regarding ABS issuer exclusions under Rule 3a-7 and Section 3(c)(5)(c) of the Investment Company Act to introduce the same enhancements for all forms of securitization issuance, regardless of whether a public or private issuance of securities is made under the Securities Act. o MetLife disagrees with many comment letters arguing that risk retention may cripple the securitization market. MetLife writes that the global securitization market contains vibrant sectors where risk retention is perverse. o MetLife supports establishing clear mechanisms for the independent review of breaches of representations and warranties. American Securitization Forum: Letter submitted to the SEC on October 4, 2011 o ASF argues the proposed performance certification is an unprecedented and inappropriate departure from the previous disclosure standards that have served as the basis for the content of prospectuses in both ABS and traditional debt and equity securities offerings. o ASF is concerned the proposed performance certification would significantly and inappropriately extend an officer’s liability exposure under the federal securities laws by making the officer responsible for predictive assessments. o ASF requests that the phrase “all risk factors” be changed to “the material risks” because “risk factors” refers to a section of the prospectus rather than to the actual risks and because the revised formulation mirrors the relevant disclosure standards. o Although the ASF endorses the principle of independent review of compliance with transaction representations and warranties in RMBS and ABS transactions, an independent review and dispute resolution process is not necessary, nor should be required, in transactions where breaches of representations and warranties have historically not been asserted. Prudential Investment: Letter submitted to the SEC on October 4, 2011 o Prudential recommends that the principles of the Regulation AB proposals should apply to all publicly registered structured products and for all securities sold with reliance on Securities Act Rule 144A. 5204418 o Prudential believes a credit risk manager, working on behalf of investors, should be responsible for ongoing monitoring of representations and warranties of the loan originator and the loan services, making claims for breaches when appropriate and following a claim through to resolution. o Prudential argues that trustees should maintain the current contact information for each noteholder and facilitate communication among transaction parties. o Prudential recommends that asset-level disclosures as currently proposed by the SEC, that is commercially reasonable for an issuer to provide and does not allow the identification of the obligor, should be provided at the offering and be ongoing through the life of the securitization. Investment Company Institute: Letter submitted to SEC on October 4, 2011 o ICI supports the revised shelf eligibility criteria that are revised from the ABII Proposal, and in particular supports the certification requirement. o ICI supports the re-proposal’s requirement that the underlying transaction documents of each ABS offering provide for the appointment of a credit risk manager to review the underlying assets upon the occurrence of certain events and provide a report of the findings and conclusions of its review to the trustee. o ICI supports the requirement that ABS issuers file copies of the underlying transaction documents, in substantially final form, at the same time as a preliminary prospectus. o ICI believes it would be overly narrow to limit asset-level disclosures to only those privately offered structured finance products that are backed by assets of an asset class for which there are prescribed asset-level reporting requirements in Regulation AB. SIFMA AMG: Letter filed with the SEC on October 4, 2011 o SIFMA AMG believes the certification requirement asks individual officers to assume too much responsibility and it will discourage able executives from taking such positions. o SIFMA AMG supports the appointment of a credit risk manager, who will review assets for compliance with the loan level representations and warranties in the transaction documents and determine the applicability of a repurchase obligation and in fact wants the credit risk manager to have more power. For example, SIFMA disagrees with allowing trustees the contractual right to evaluate the satisfaction of triggering events before invoking the protections of a credit risk manager. o SIFMA AMG supports the mandate for standardized disclosure at the asset level, but also supports an exemption for resecuritizations. PROPOSED RULE: NATIONAL RECOGNIZED STATISTICAL RATINGS ORGANIZATIONS Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and Americans for Financial Reform (AFR): Submitted Letter to SEC on August 8, 2011 o CFA and AFR oppose the proposed rules by the SEC to allow rating agencies develop appropriate internal controls. Rather, CFA and AFR argue that the SEC must establish a framework for assessing internal controls. o According to the CFA and AFR, the SEC should adopt rules to: (i) formulate a basic definition of internal controls; (ii) define “material weakness” in internal controls as a serious deficiency; (iii) define the steps for management of internal controls; and (iv) promote a level of assurance that internal controls are expected to provide. o Also, the two consumer advocates argue that internal controls should include strong requirements for consultation and quantitative testing, as well as providing for a documentation standard. o With regard to conflicts of interest, the CFA and AFR believe that a broad principles- based ban would need to be supplemented with more concrete guidance by, for example, adopting restrictions to ensure that communication between employees involved in sales 5204418 and marketing activities and those producing and developing ratings are limited and carefully monitored. Moody’s Investors Service: Submitted Letter to SEC on August 8, 2011 o Moody’s opposes the proposed rules to permit issuers and underwriters of ABS to shift to NRSROs their obligation to disclose the nature, findings, and conclusions of third- party due diligence reviews if the NRSROs hired to rate the ABS agree to publish the required disclosures at least five days before the first sale of the ABS. o Moody’s asks the SEC to reconsider the rating personnel participation in sales and marketing rule to reflect the Dodd-Frank Act language more closely – which would be designed to prevent sales and marketing considerations from influencing the quality or integrity of the credit rating process. o Moody’s argues that the SEC’s proposed definition of a “rating action” is overly broad. o Moody’s opposes equating “solicit” and “payment” in the proposed rule on labeling credit ratings as “solicited buy-side,” “solicited sell-side,” or “unsolicited” based on whether the rating is paid for and the type of market participant paying for it. Council of Institutional Investors (CII): Submitted Letter to SEC on August 8, 2011 o The CII strongly supports the provision that prohibits NRSROs from allowing sales and marketing considerations from influencing the production of ratings and rating methodologies. o The CII argues that NRSROs should be required to provide more complete, prominent, and consistent information and therefore agree with the provisions requiring that NRSROs publish a form with each credit rating that includes additional details about the rating, such as the version of methodology used, main assumptions underlying the methodology, and the potential limitations of the rating among other information. Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers (AFGI): Submitted Letter to SEC on August 8, 2011 o AFGI supports the consistent application of credit rating procedures and methodologies, and urges the SEC to adopt additional regulations that would ensure this. o AFGI believes the SEC should establish a formal transparent process whereby market participants could submit a notice to an NRSRO detailing any inconsistencies in credit rating procedures and methodologies of NRSROs. o AFGI asks the SEC to require NRSROS to establish internal control structures to review any such notice in a timely manner. o AFGI argues that an NRSRO should be required to provide that communications between market participants and NRSROs be accessible by the investing public. The Financial Services Roundtable: Submitted Letter to SEC on August 8, 2011 o The Roundtable argues that the SEC should suspend or revoke a credit rating agency’s status as an NRSRO only upon a showing that it is necessary to protect investors. o The Roundtable believes that a rating agency should fully investigate any potential conflict of interest relating to its hiring of an analyst before taking any action affecting a credit rating. o According to the Roundtable, the SEC should clarify the manner in which changes in methodology should be applied to outstanding ratings. o The Roundtable asks the SEC to exclude “agreed-upon procedure” engagements from any rules applicable to third-party due diligence procedures. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI): Submitted Letter to SEC on August 8, 2011 o Senator Levin opposes the deferral of issuing internal control standards because it is liable to result in NRSROs developing different internal control structures, making oversight and the implementation of minimum standards difficult and expensive. o Senator Levin argues that the proposed rule should identify the minimum components of an effective credit ratings internal control structure. o Senator Levin also supports proposed internal controls that would require an NRSRO to determine if it has sufficient competency and access to information before commencing 5204418 the rating of either a class of financial product that it has not previously rated, or before commencing the rating of an “exotic” or “bespoke” product. o According to Senator Levin, the proposed rules should ensure that NRSROs have the adequate staffing to conduct surveillance of existing ratings and adjust them as needed. PROPOSED RULE: CREDIT RISK RETENTION American Securitization Forum (ASF): Submitted Letter to SEC on August 1, 2011 o ASF supports the effort to align the incentives of originators and securitizers with those of securitization investors. The ASF argues the incentives should encourage sound loan underwriting. o ASF argues that requirements should be tailored to asset classes and take into consideration that the form of credit risk retention can vary by asset type. American Financial Services Association (AFSA): Letter Submitted to SEC on August 1, 2011 o Although sound underwriting criteria are important, AFSA argues that it should not restrict credit or impose artificially high requirements. o AFSA believes that the requirements to verify and document that, within 30 days of origination, the borrower was not currently 30 days or more past due, in whole or in part, on any debt obligation is overly burdensome and not feasible as that information is not available in any commercially reasonable fashion. o AFSA argues that the 5% risk retention requirements in the Exchange Act are reasonable and regulators should not impose additional requirements such as the premium capture cash reserve accounts. o AFSA believes that mandating risk retention for the life of the ABS is punitive and does not further align the interests of ABS securitizers or sponsors and ABS investors. Financial Services Roundtable: Submitted Letter to SEC on August 1, 2011 o The Roundtable states that although securitization can provide benefits such as lowering the cost of credit, abuses to the system were a major contributor to the financial crisis. o The Roundtable argues that risk retention would better align securitizers’ economic interests with those of ABS investors and therefore the Roundtable supports the agencies imposition of credit risk retention requirements. Investment Company Institute: Submitted Letter to SEC on July 29, 2011 o ICI argues that the proposed risk retention standards may not be appropriate or necessary for certain classes of ABS in which funds invest and specifically the proposed requirements do not sufficiently reflect differences among certain classes of ABS or market practice for those particular securities. o ICI supports a QRM standard under the proposed exemption from the risk retention requirements for RMBS that are backed solely by very high quality loans. o ICI is worried that certain MBS standards, in particular commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), may impair the viability of those markets. Blackrock: Submitted Letter to SEC on July 28, 2011 o Blackrock argues that high quality mortgage underwriting standards should be implemented. o Blackrock states that residential mortgage loans should be subject to national loan servicing standards. o Blackrock also urges that asset information, such as credit performance statistics, should be transparent and accessible. o According to Blackrock, the Commissions should reconsider the definition of Qualified Credit Standards as an exemption from the credit risk retention requirements. They also believe that forms of credit risk retention should be more flexible, allowing sponsors multiple means to meet the requirements. 5204418 o Blackrock asks the Commissions to eliminate the proposed premium capture cash reserve amount provisions. o Last, Blackrock supports broader relief from credit risk transfer requirements for asset classes where credit abuse has not been a large problem, such as in credit cards, auto loans, and student loans. Representative J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), U.S. House of Representatives: Letter Submitted to SEC on July 22, 2011 o Representative Forbes believes the proposed regulation does not follow the intent of Congress by imposing onerous down payment restrictions that will inhibit the ability of families to afford homes. o Also, Representative Forbes states that the proposed regulation establishes overly narrow debt to income guidelines that would reduce credit for many families. Representative Candice S. Miller (R-MI), U.S. House of Representatives: Letter Submitted to SEC on July 22, 2011 o Representative Miller argues that the minimum 20 percent down payment requirement would reduce the availability of affordable mortgage capital for many families who would otherwise qualify. She states that credit-worthy first time home buyers would be priced out of the market if these restrictions are in place. Senator Carl Levin: Submitted Letter to SEC on June 28, 2011 o Senator Levin supports the rule’s general approach to risk retention, but recommends against the horizontal risk alternative for residential mortgage. o Although retaining a horizontal residual interest tranche may be appropriate in other types of securitizations according to Senator Levin, it is not appropriate for residential mortgage backed securities. o Senator Levin argues for applying the risk retention requirement to synthetic asset back securities. o Senator Levin asks that the regulators charged with implementing Section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act include monitoring and compliance enforcement to their capabilities. Citigroup Global Markets: Submitted Letter to SEC on June 13, 2011 o Citigroup referenced the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs which urges the agencies to conduct rigorous cost-benefit and economic analyses with regard to any rulemaking. o Citigroup expressed concern regarding the meanings of “ABS interest,” “par value,” and “gross proceeds,” and their application to various forms of securitization. They also believe the Agencies should not apply risk retention to asset classes that are not true securitizations, including asset backed commercial paper or repackaging transactions. o Citigroup urges the Agencies to recognize other forms of risk retention including servicing fees, credit support and liquidity facilities, guarantees, funding loss reserves, and incentive or performance fees and excess spread. o Until the agencies can complete an analysis so that they can address various asset classes, a zero risk retention rate is the best option instead of a default 5% risk retention rate applicable across asset classes. Prudential Investment Management (PIM): Submitted Letter to SEC on June 13, 2011 o PIM argues that risk retention is an effective method to align the interests of issuers and investors and should be 5% of the net proceeds lent to the underlying borrowers. o PIM believes that after an appropriate period of time, risk retention should be allowed to be sold or hedged. They also maintain that an independent servicer or adviser is necessary to address conflicts of interest where horizontal risk retention is chosen. o Issuers, according to PIM, should not be permitted to realize any profit at the time of securitization because it rewards originators who maximize loan volume over loan underwriting quality. SIFMA, Asset Management Group (AMG): Submitted Letter to SEC on June 10, 2011 5204418 o SIFMA AMG supports the proposal’s establishment of a narrow exemption from the risk retention requirement for Qualifying Residential Mortgages (QRMs) and believes the Proposal’s definition of QRMs is a reasonable starting point. o SIFMA AMG has concerns about the servicing parameters that are required in the risk retention exception, including provisions that address what occurs after a default, rather than focusing on minimizing risk of default based on the original terms. o Also, they believe it is not clear why a 3% cap on up-front points and fees relates to the alignment of incentives between securitizers and investors. o SIFMA AMG generally supports the sponsor’s retention of the full scope of risk in the securitized transaction. However, SIFMA AMG argues that if the originator “funds” its portion of the risk up front then the ability of securitizers to share the risk of loss with the originator should not be lost. Amherst Securities Group: Submitted Letter to SEC on June 2, 2011 o Amherst argues the risk retention rules fail to address conflicts of interest in the securitization process. For example, originators who are also portfolio lenders may be incentivized to adversely select loans for securitization. Also, the problem of having rating agencies paid by issuers is not addressed in the risk retention rules. o The qualifying residential mortgage (QRM) exclusion from the credit risk retention rules are extremely restrictive in their definition as to what qualifies as a QRM. Amherst contends that the extremely restrictive nature of the definition is anti-competitive and provides additional benefits for the “too big to fail” banks. In the alternative a broader definition of QRMs would encourage private sector securitization, according to Amherst. SECURITIZATION NEWS European Central Bank: Weighing Credit Action: December 7, 2011 o The ECB is weighing measures to reduce the tightening credit and lack of eligible collateral in some financial transactions that has hit the continent. o Measures may include widening the share of eligible collateral for ECB loans by loosening the rules that govern asset-backed securities. Also the ECB may increase current 10 % limit that applies to uncovered bank bonds that can complete a lender’s collateral portfolio. Freddie Mac Will Begin Securitizing Previously Delinquent Loans: November 17, 2011 o Freddie Mac will begin securitizing loans that were once delinquent but now returned to performing status. o Freddie Mac executives argue that this will bring much needed liquidity to the markets. European Central Bank Increase Asset-Backed Bond Lending: October 21, 2011 o The European Central Bank (ECB) may increase its asset-backed bond lending if issuers provide more information regarding the loans supporting the securities. o The ECB is hoping to improve transparency in the asset-backed bonds that banks sell to investors and to increase market confidence. o This plan, according to some experts, may enhance standardization of the collateral. President Obama Revamps Mortgage Refinancing Program: October 24, 2011 o President Obama announced that his Administration will alter the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) to allow more people to take advantage of declining interest rates – even if home values have fallen. o The changes will allow borrowers the opportunity to refinance their mortgages regardless of the decline of their home value, but loans that exceed the current 125% loan-to-value limit will not be eligible to refinance until early next year. 5204418 o Some critics fear that the HARP alterations of mortgage-backed securities will lead to them being paid off sooner than expected as loans refinance – straddling investors with more cash to invest at lower rates. SEC Considering Suit Against S&P: September 27, 2011 o The SEC is considering legal action against Standard and Poor for its rating of 2007 mortgage debt. Fannie Mae Purchase Servicing Rights – September 16, 2011 o Fannie Mae purchased about $500 million in servicing rights from Bank of America. o They most likely bought the servicing rights to sell them to another servicing company who may be able to better “service” the loans, i.e. collect more, and therefore mitigate any losses Fannie may incur on the loans. o Fannie may sell the servicing rights to servicers who are better equipped to handle troubled loans. Fannie Mae Releases Servicer Ratings – September 14, 2011 o The Servicer Total Achievement and Rewards (STAR) program measures the performance of services in helping homeowners avoid foreclosure o Servicers on track to receive 3 STAR ratings include: GMAC Mortgage, CitiMortgage, Everhome Mortgage, and Wells Fargo Bank in Peer Group 1. In Peer Group 2, Fifth Third Bank, The Huntington national Bank, HSBC Mortgage Corporation, Aurora Financial Group, Regions Bank, and Central Mortgage Company are on pace to receive 3 STAR ratings. o 3 STARs represent median performance, 4 STARs represent above median performance, and 5 STARs represent superior performance. Peer groups are based on the number of loans they service. 5204418
"Securitization InBrief - Association of Institutional INVESTORS"