Special Purpose Entity Bankruptcy Concerns for Mortgage-Backed Securities

Let us continue the bankruptcy theme begun in my last post and discuss the effects of Special Purpose Entity (SPE) bankruptcies and their effect on mortgage-backed securities. Obviously, most bond covenants designate the bankruptcy of a SPE an event of default and restrict the likelihood of its happening. In the unlikely event that such a bankruptcy does happen however, here is an overview of the process.

As a quick review, I would like to restate that mortgage-backed securities are the result of a process of securitization that takes place when a real estate lender sells a package of its loans to an entity, called and SPE. The SPE receives the money to purchase the loans from the sale of either securities, beneficial interests in the entity or trust certificates from a trust set-up to hold the loans. If securities or trust certificates are sold, they are called mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Through the securitization process, real estate lenders are provided with cash to originate more loans and investors are able to purchase MBS and invest in the real estate market without having to hold real property. If you question why one would want to invest in the real estate market at all, please see my earlier post, “Why I Choose Real Estate.”

Lender Bankruptcy and Mortgage-Backed Securitization

Mortgage-backed securitization is an essential part of the mortgage secondary market, as it provides both liquidity and expanded sources of funding for real estate lender. Securitization also allows for more widespread participation in the real estate market, since MBS bonds are an asset class that can be held by classes of investors that are restricted by law from retaining extended ownership in real property. More participation in the real estate secondary market, of course, translates to a more robust market with more available real estate funding and more real estate activity.

Despite its role in the market down-turn of 2007/2008, securitization of real estate assets has been and continues to be an important part of the U.S. real estate finance market. Securitization, however, heavily depends on a bankruptcy remote structure.

Why I Choose Real Estate

A number of times throughout my career, I have been asked a very poignant question—why real estate? Admittedly, other asset classes do carry a certain level of prestige, which is typically more associated with the asset’s mystique, yet I find that real estate can be as involved and complex as any other asset class. Although the mathematics for risk curves and certain derivative transactions may be more intricate than those used in a typical commercial real estate property acquisition, such transactions and risk analysis can be structured around real estate financing structures. In fact, the mathematical aspects of some of the more “complex” investment vehicles are not as esoteric as they seem and most can be understood, given enough time and exposure to them. The legal issues specific to each class of investment can also be considered complex, but not beyond the comprehension of most competent lawyers. Ultimately, the decision to prefer one asset class over another boils down to a matter of preference.

So, why do I so closely follow real estate? The reason is that underlying any real estate-related transaction is a relationship to a tangible hard asset. A tangible hard asset that has a value influenced by easily understood factors. Real estate markets for every property class are motivated by the economy, real estate demand and the market for the business that the property serves. The real estate market is also relatively stable and changes over the course of years, not months or weeks. Finally, real estate is one of the few assets that lends itself to owner-operation in a way that a company or payment stream may not.

Second Mortgages: Why They Are Less Prevalent In Commercial Real Estate Than In Residential Real Estate

Early in my whole loan trading career, an investor once offered to fund a partnership that would purchase second position liens, also known as second mortgages, secured by commercial real estate. The investor promised to pledge a substantial amount of capital, if I was able to assemble a portfolio of target assets. Understanding the risk/reward profile of such an investment and desiring to deliver for what seemed to be a potential source of new business, I quickly began to work on finding commercial seconds to underwrite and select. After a few days on the phone with a number of commercial lenders, real estate debt funds and large financial institutions, I began to realize that commercial real estate second mortgages were not easy to find. Finally, after a few weeks of searching, I informed the investor that I was unable to find any asset worth purchasing that met his mandate.

Nearly ten years later, I now understand why the second mortgage, an established method of financing in the world of residential finance, is so infrequently used in commercial real estate. To state it plainly, the property-income focus of commercial real estate, makes commercial seconds more of a liability than an asset. It is this income focus that leads most commercial lenders to emphasize property performance over the qualifications of the borrower. As a result, most commercial financing is offered with no recourse to the buyer upon default, giving the lender as much control over a distressed asset as possible and incentivizing the owner of a distressed property to “walk away” when there are no more options. In order to maintain as much control over the property as possible, most commercial real estate lenders will insist that they be on the only creditor of the property and that the property be structured in such a way that it is remote from the bankruptcy of the borrower. These goals are typically accomplished by establishing a holding entity for the property to be financed, placing the borrower in the equity position of the entity and making the lender a creditor of the entity, secured by its largest asset.

Who Should Value the Property: BPO's Versus Appraisals

Appraisers and brokers are frequently considered integral components of a real estate transaction. Their roles are clearly defined in residential real estate, however, in commercial real estate, both professions frequently cross into a number disciplines. It isn’t uncommon for a commercial real estate broker to manage a property, arrange financing, market mortgage notes and even raise funds. Commercial appraisers are often asked to inspect buildings, estimate repair costs, estimate the value of construction materials and determine replacement costs. Brokers not only procure parties and assist in the negotiations of transactions, they are also frequently called on to value properties from a number of perspectives.

In light of the various demands on both the real estate broker and appraiser, there may be some questions as to the differences in the valuation reports that each professional issues. It has been my experience that a broker price opinion (BPO) and a property appraisal each serve different, but useful purposes. A broker price opinion typically reflects the value for which a property will generate either a successful lease or sale. The opinion can also suggest a value at which the property will generate substantial interest on the market. An appraisal, however, is typically useful as a justification of a given price, as may arise under a purchase contract, after an assessment or upon any other instance of valuation. Better stated, a broker price opinion can be seen as a forward looking valuation and the appraisal can be seen as a justification or backward looking valuation.

Return on Equity

Let’s keep this post short and sweet, by discussing Return on Equity (ROE). ROE is a measure of the rate at which a property’s after tax cash flow has performed in relation to either the equity in a property or initial investment. As a result, ROE has two definitions that yield different values:

1)   ROE = Cash Flow After Taxes/Initial Investment

2)   ROE = Cash Flow After Taxes/(Market Value – Mortgage Balance)

The first definition tends to be more useful to understand the first year of property ownership, where there is a negligible amount of mortgage reduction and market value has not changed much. The second definition is more useful to track the growth of ROE over time.

It is interesting to note, however, that as both cash flow and mortgage principal reduction increases over time, ROE decreases. There is a school of thought that advocates monetizing equity for reinvestment as ROE decreases. I tend to disagree, since I view debt reduction and equity build-up as benefits that must be considered. Additionally, ROE should not influence the decisions that one makes about other benefits of owning investment property--depreciation, tax shelter, appreciation, and improved utility.

What do you think?

IRR: Its Meaning, Its Uses, Its Benefits, Its Limitations and Capital Accumulation

It is time for this blog to take another step toward legitimacy in the ever growing world of real estate blogs. I am now going to address the frequently used and highly touted real estate metric of Internal Rate of Return. I remember being mesmerized by IRR when I was first learning about commercial real estate metrics. It was introduced to me as the magic number that could explain the true return of a property. I have since learned to respect it as one of the many tools that can be used to understand the return value of an investment property or ABS, while understanding its limitations.

In the interest of brevity, I am going to explain IRR as it pertains to investment property. I will not get into its uses in RMBS and CMBS bonds, as I will save that for a later post. I also will not go into detail on the iterative, successive-approximations technique by which the IRR value is derived. I am on the fence as to whether or not such a discussion would be helpful to this blog. Now that I have told you what I will not do, please allow me to begin my discussion of IRR.