Uncategorized

Interest shortfalls hit prime 2.0

admin | October 23, 2019

This document is intended for institutional investors and is not subject to all of the independence and disclosure standards applicable to debt research reports prepared for retail investors.

Elevated prepayments, along with a handful of other factors, have caused certain prime jumbo MBS deals to come up short on the interest required to pay all deal classes. These shortfalls have been borne by investors across the capital structure and may continue if prepayment speeds remain elevated. The recent spate of shortfalls have driven prices on impacted bonds lower and caused certain issuers to change the mechanism for interest shortfall compensation in newly issued deals.

What’s driving the shortfalls?

The shortfalls reflect the lack of requisite funds to cover interest due when loans prepay over the course of a month. For example, if a loan prepays on the third day of the month where it is still an asset of the trust, the borrower owes just two days of interest while the trust is owed 30 days of interest on the loan. The servicer will compensate the trust to some extent, using some or all of the income they receive for servicing the loans.

While the shortfalls may have come as a surprise to some market participants, it is by no means a new risk. The risk, and how investors get compensated, has been addressed since well before the crisis. However, certain post-crisis developments have elevated the risk. Under Basel III, mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) became a much more capital intensive asset for banks to hold. Risk-based capital that banks have to hold on all MSRs has increased 2.5 times and the size of the institution’s MSRs relative to their core capital could generate even greater capital charges if they breached a certain threshold. In response to the more onerous capital treatment, banks changed how they were compensated for servicing loans. Often eschewing the traditional 25 bp servicing strip as compensation in exchange for variable fee based structures where they may be paid as little as $20 a month to service a performing loan.

The overwhelming majority of prime 2.0 deals have minimum servicing of 25 bp or more but some do not. Unsurprisingly, deals with less than 25 bp of servicing are localized to JP Morgan and Flagstar, both bank issuers. In some cases, these deals have as little as 4 bp of servicing compensation and are localized to later vintages. Wells Fargo, the other major bank issuer under their WFMBS shelf still maintains a 25 bp strip. Other non-bank issuers including CIM, PFMT, SEMT and TBMLT all have a 25 bp or greater strip across all their respective trusts. (Exhibit 1)

Exhibit 1: Certain bank-issued PLS have small servicing strips to cover shortfalls

Source: Loan Performance, Intex, Amherst Pierpont Securities

In addition to the reduction in servicing compensation, other factors influence the potential exposure to elevated prepayments and interest shortfalls. A deal’s definition of the prepayment period has an impact. In some cases, the prepayment month is the month before the remittance. In other cases, the prepayment period straddles two remittance periods, covering the first 15 days of the former and fourteen days of the latter. In the case where the prepayment period straddles the remittances, the servicer’s exposure in a given month may be materially reduced.

Given this structural difference, the exact same events can generate a very different obligation to the servicer. Assume for example, Loan A prepays on October 3, generating a 28-day potential shortfall to the trust while Loan B prepays on October 16, generating a 15-day day shortfall. In the prior month structure, the potential shortfall to the November remittance is $4,479 or 43 days of accrued assuming a $750,000 balance and 5% note rate. In the straddle structure, the potential shortfall in November is just $1,354, as the 28 days of lost interest totaling $2,917 plus two days of paid interest on Loan A would be due to the October payment date generating a $208 ‘credit’ for the two days of interest the borrower paid in the November remittance. (Exhibit 2)

Exhibit 2: Prepayment period matters when calculating shortfalls

Source: Amherst Pierpont Securities

One final factor is the percentage of servicing compensation available to cover shortfalls. This will vary across shelves, with either 50% or 100% of the total servicer’s compensation available to cover shortfalls. The combination of prepayment period structure, a low cap and a variable servicing structure affords investors with very little protection against potential interest shortfalls. Under a traditional 25 bp servicing compensation structure where 100% of it is available to cover potential interest shortfalls, the trust would have just over $150 per month to cover shortfalls, assuming a $750,000 loan balance. In a variable compensation structure capped at 50%, the trust would have as little as $10 to cover interest shortfalls irrespective of loan size. To compound this, in deals with multiple servicers, there may be different arrangements within the deal where some servicers are obligated to advance 50% of compensation while others are required to advance 100%. This leads to potential servicer concentration issues as loans prepay from the pool, potentially exposing investors to greater concentrations of servicers with lower compensation structures or lower caps on compensating interest.

Market Implications

While the shortfalls in and of themselves have driven affected bond prices lower, second order concerns could have further impact on affected trusts. Since the interest shortfall is borne of a prepayment event and not a credit event, these shortfalls are by and large distributed pro-rata across the capital structure. Given this, some investors and other market participants have raised concerns about potential downgrades on senior bonds. At this time, there does not appear to be any imminent downgrade risk since these are prepayment and not credit events. It appears that operative documents in certain impacted trusts have addressed the issue to some extent. Per the JPMMT 2019-3 prospectus,

“A security rating does not represent any assessment of the yield to maturity that investors may experience in the event of rapid prepayments and/or other liquidations of the Mortgage Loans. In general, the ratings on the Offered Certificates address credit risk and not prepayment risk.”

That being said, issuers appear to be addressing these shortfalls to some extent. In their recently issued JPMMT 2019-LTV3 transaction, JP Morgan; increased the base servicing fee from $20 to $40 per loan, increased the compensating interest cap from 50% to 100% and localized prepayment interest shortfalls to subordinate and IO bonds. The last development will clearly impair IO execution, potentially making deal arbitrage less attractive. For existing trusts, this may be a case of closing the barn door after the horse is out as there is no mechanism in the operative documents to pay back these incurred shortfalls.

admin
jkillian@apsec.com
john.killian@santander.us 1 (646) 776-7714

This material is intended only for institutional investors and does not carry all of the independence and disclosure standards of retail debt research reports. In the preparation of this material, the author may have consulted or otherwise discussed the matters referenced herein with one or more of SCM’s trading desks, any of which may have accumulated or otherwise taken a position, long or short, in any of the financial instruments discussed in or related to this material. Further, SCM may act as a market maker or principal dealer and may have proprietary interests that differ or conflict with the recipient hereof, in connection with any financial instrument discussed in or related to this material.

This message, including any attachments or links contained herein, is subject to important disclaimers, conditions, and disclosures regarding Electronic Communications, which you can find at https://portfolio-strategy.apsec.com/sancap-disclaimers-and-disclosures.

Important Disclaimers

Copyright © 2024 Santander US Capital Markets LLC and its affiliates (“SCM”). All rights reserved. SCM is a member of FINRA and SIPC. This material is intended for limited distribution to institutions only and is not publicly available. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited.

In making this material available, SCM (i) is not providing any advice to the recipient, including, without limitation, any advice as to investment, legal, accounting, tax and financial matters, (ii) is not acting as an advisor or fiduciary in respect of the recipient, (iii) is not making any predictions or projections and (iv) intends that any recipient to which SCM has provided this material is an “institutional investor” (as defined under applicable law and regulation, including FINRA Rule 4512 and that this material will not be disseminated, in whole or part, to any third party by the recipient.

The author of this material is an economist, desk strategist or trader. In the preparation of this material, the author may have consulted or otherwise discussed the matters referenced herein with one or more of SCM’s trading desks, any of which may have accumulated or otherwise taken a position, long or short, in any of the financial instruments discussed in or related to this material. Further, SCM or any of its affiliates may act as a market maker or principal dealer and may have proprietary interests that differ or conflict with the recipient hereof, in connection with any financial instrument discussed in or related to this material.

This material (i) has been prepared for information purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities, related investments or other financial instruments, (ii) is neither research, a “research report” as commonly understood under the securities laws and regulations promulgated thereunder nor the product of a research department, (iii) or parts thereof may have been obtained from various sources, the reliability of which has not been verified and cannot be guaranteed by SCM, (iv) should not be reproduced or disclosed to any other person, without SCM’s prior consent and (v) is not intended for distribution in any jurisdiction in which its distribution would be prohibited.

In connection with this material, SCM (i) makes no representation or warranties as to the appropriateness or reliance for use in any transaction or as to the permissibility or legality of any financial instrument in any jurisdiction, (ii) believes the information in this material to be reliable, has not independently verified such information and makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy or completeness of such information, (iii) accepts no responsibility or liability as to any reliance placed, or investment decision made, on the basis of such information by the recipient and (iv) does not undertake, and disclaims any duty to undertake, to update or to revise the information contained in this material.

Unless otherwise stated, the views, opinions, forecasts, valuations, or estimates contained in this material are those solely of the author, as of the date of publication of this material, and are subject to change without notice. The recipient of this material should make an independent evaluation of this information and make such other investigations as the recipient considers necessary (including obtaining independent financial advice), before transacting in any financial market or instrument discussed in or related to this material.