Canada: Risk Retention Redux: The International Context

In comparison to the ongoing regulatory onslaught in Europe and the United States, we in Canada appear to have gotten off pretty lightly and may even have felt that this was completely justifiable given our country's performance and the high performance standards maintained by Canadian assets throughout the financial crisis. Although there is little we enjoy more than a good dose of smugness, if we review the regulatory surge in its international context, we may have second thoughts about what may await us.

In their July 2011 report entitled "Report On Asset Securitization Incentives", the Joint Forum, consisting of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the International Organization of Securities Commissions and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, while recognizing the potential benefits of securitization, acknowledged that "reforms are necessary to address the incentive conflicts and misalignments highlighted during the crisis, which distorted risk transfer, increased structural complexity and opacity, and led to extreme leverage in the financial system. If such negative aspects of securitization are limited through rules and supervisory frameworks that better align incentives and promote appropriate disclosures, the foundation should be in place for a sustainable and responsible securitization market".

The Report goes on to say, however, that, due to a number of factors, a meaningful recovery in the securitization market is not imminent. Apart from negative perceptions of securitization as an investment class and other macro-economic factors, one of the main factors hampering the recovery is identified as concerns about the timing and content of regulations across sectors. In designing and implementing these regulations, "authorities should strive for consistency across global markets and sectors, taking into consideration local market circumstances, underlying business models, and each jurisdiction's legal system. Such consistency should help limit opportunities for cross-border and cross-sector regulatory arbitrage for products having the same economic profile, and should create a level-playing field for issuers as well as investors."

Some of the Joint Forum's main recommendations include increased transparency through disclosure, raising origination and underwriting practices and standards for assets that are securitized and developing measures requiring originators and securitizers to retain an appropriate level of risk in the securitization transaction.

These remarks echoed those of IOSCO's Task Force on Unregulated Financial Markets and Products contained in their Implementation Report of March 2011. They cite an earlier report which made recommendations about regulatory approaches to be considered by financial markets regulators. The key recommendations concerning securitizations dealt with:

  1. Disclosure,
  2. Retention of economic interest,
  3. Investor suitability, and
  4. International coordination and regulatory cooperation.

A survey had been circulated to members to determine the level of implementation of the recommendations. It was found that most jurisdictions, including Canada, were either enhancing or considering enhancement of their disclosure requirements. Most had also endorsed the skin-in-the-game concept and "are expected to implement the requirement for original sponsors to retain long term economic exposure to securitization." Apparently Canada, Hong Kong and Japan were the outliners and they were said to be "still considering the appropriateness of implementing this concept."

Based on the survey responses, the task force made two further recommendations. First, it recommended that regulators encourage improvements in disclosure standards for private or wholesale offerings of securitized products. Second it recommended that regulators engage in international co-operation toward convergence of national regulations where desirable.

As may be recalled, last year's CSA proposals did not include anything relating to risk retention, but merely asked whether such rules were necessary or appropriate. In recent discussions with OSC personnel engaged in the regulatory review, it was confirmed that they in fact are still considering these matters and are presently engaged in a review of whether or not risk retention rules should be mandated in the Canadian market. Most of all, they appear to be sensitive to the risk of regulatory arbitrage, the main remedy for which, if you will recall from the Joint Forum Report, is thought to be consistency of regulations across markets. Another consideration which may eventually have some bearing on this point involves the Dodd-Frank Act itself. There have been recent applications to the SEC by the Europeans and Australians to carve out from the application of the Dodd-Frank risk retention rules a broader exemption than the currently-proposed 10% safe harbour, in essence a blanket safe harbour for investments from jurisdictions which have functionally equivalent risk retention rules. If this proposal is accepted and if Canada does not implement such rules, Canadians would be comparatively disadvantaged in respect of financings to U.S. investors. Consequently, once the Dodd-Frank risk retention rules have been settled, I do not think we should be at all surprised if the CSA were to propose similar rules for the Canadian securitization market.

In any such deliberations, the CSA must take into account the differences between the Canadian and American markets. In their submission to the SEC, the Australian Securitization Forum set out characteristics of the Australian housing loan market that sets it apart from the U.S. market, characteristics which largely apply to the Canadian counterpart:

"First, all Australian housing loans are full recourse loans. Indeed, unlike the majority of housing loans in the US, if a borrower defaults on their home loan (or any other form of consumer financing), the borrower remains liable for the full amount of that loan, even if there are insufficient proceeds obtained from the enforcement and sale of a borrower's home to repay the outstanding balance of the loan. The lender has the ability to bankrupt the borrower in order to recoup this residual amount which significantly reduces borrower speculation and strategic defaults. Second, Australian housing loans are not tax deductible, which encourages the borrower's rapid repayment of such housing loan resulting in home equity creation. Third, the Australian housing loan market did not experience the "originate-to-distribute" phenomenon that encouraged imprudent mortgage originations in the US housing loan market, the consequence of which led to many of the defaults in US RMBS securitizations. The sponsors of securitisations of Australian housing loans are affiliated with the entities that originate the loans. Finally note the Australian residential mortgage loan-to-value ratios at origination have traditionally been relatively low. These factors have contributed to relatively low default rates in Australia and a tendency by Australian borrowers to make every effort to repay their housing loans. This objective, already accomplished in the Australian RMBS market, is the driving forces behind the QRM and other "qualified asset" exemptions from the risk retention requirements under the Proposed Rule.

Further, the U.S. housing bubble arose in circumstances which were to a significant degree created by the unique policies of U.S. governments. In Free Fall: How Government Policies Brought Down the Housing Market (Wallison and Pinto, April 2012), the authors describe how the government-imposed affordable housing goals of the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae), the Community Reinvestment Act, mortgage interest tax deductibility and other policies created artificial demand which also distorted the private mortgage market and fueled the mortgage asset bubble:

"If the government had not created a ten-year bubble by making massive investments in subprime and other low-quality mortgages, the private sector would never have been drawn into the subprime market in such a significant way. The weakening of financial institutions in the mortgage meltdown-and the resulting financial crisis-would never have occurred."

In an earlier paper, Dodd-Frank and Housing Finance Reform: A Cure That's Worse Than The Disease(April/May 2011), Wallison contended that the key flaw in the Dodd-Frank Act is its effort to control the quality of mortgages by imposing regulation and regulatory costs on lenders and securitizers. Wallison argued that it was demand for product, rather than supply, which was responsible for the quality of the mortgages that originators and securitizers produced. "But the notion that securitizers were responsible for the low quality of the mortgages they distributed led the framers of the Dodd-Frank Act to focus their regulations on securitizers, rather than on the quality of the mortgages themselves. The animating idea was that if securitizers were required to take risks through the risk-retention device, they would seek out and securitize higher-quality mortgages." This focus will, he argued, have significant adverse effects on the market. The five percent risk retention amount, which cannot be hedged or sold, can only be carried by a securitizer that has a substantial balance sheet thus providing the largest banks with a significant advantage. In addition, various provisions of the Dodd-Frank are so complex that "there is virtually no way small originators can be expected to comply. They will be driven out of the origination business as effectively as small securitizers will be driven out of the securitizion business."

Wallison suggested that mortgage lending and particularly securitization are by their natures susceptible to a gradual weakening of underwriting standards. "This is because housing prices frequently become a source of speculative investment, causing booms or busts. As housing prices rise in bubbles or booms, they tend to obscure delinquencies and defaults, and both lenders and investors come to believe that 'this time is different' or that continued rising prices will compensate for weak underwriting standards." He concluded as follows:

"The housing finance plan outlined in the [Dodd-Frank Act] is largely unworkable. If it goes into effect, the risks it imposes on regulators will substantially raise mortgage costs, and the risk-retention and [Qualified Residential Mortgage] provisions will not have the intended effect of reducing the origination of subprime or other weak and risky mortgages. Moreover, the act will impede the development of a robust private securitization market and, to the extent that a private market develops, ensure that the largest banks continue to dominate it."

In contrast to the flawed approach of the Dodd-Frank Act, Wallison instead proposed that the focus should be on the product entering the securitization chain: only prime mortgages (to be defined by statute) would be eligible for securitization, a simple measure which would prevent the deterioration of mortgage underwriting standards in the future. The elements of prime mortgages which he described are broadly similar to the eligibility criteria commonly applied in Canadian RMBS transactions. As an additional proxy for risk retention, consideration could also be given to allowing only seasoned mortgages to be securitized.

It should be apparent, however, that the implementation of any such proposal would have significant policy implications. While it may have a salutary stabilizing effect on the market for prime mortgages, it would almost certainly also result in a more restricted market for non-prime mortgages, at least in comparison to that which existed prior to the crisis, due to the consequential adverse effect on pricing and liquidity. As reported in this space on April 27, the introduction of the federal Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, by restricting eligible covered bond collateral to loans having an LTV ratio of less than 80%, will result in driving potential funders to non-prime borrowers into the private RMBS securitization market. Implementation of the proposal described above would frustrate any such movement thereby having a significant and, perhaps, permanent adverse effect upon the ability of non-prime borrowers to obtain mortgage financing at all. Whether or not to significantly dampen, if not eliminate, the non-prime mortgage loan market is obviously a significant policy choice which must be carefully considered by all of the relevant regulatory and governmental participants and not simply the CSA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions