United States: Industry And Advocacy Groups Respond To Proposed Changes To FDIC's Securitization Safe Harbor Rule

In July, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC") proposed a change (discussed here and here) to certain provisions of its securitization safe harbor rule (the "Rule") to eliminate the requirement that the securitization documents for non-grandfathered bank-sponsored securitizations not otherwise subject to Regulation AB (i.e. non-public transactions) require compliance with the disclosure and periodic reporting requirements of Regulation AB. If adopted in its proposed form, this would significantly ease the compliance burden associated with non-public bank-sponsored ABS issuances, potentially resulting in a greater volume of such transactions.

The proposed change was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2019, with a comment period that ended on October 21, 2019. Comments received by the FDIC included comments from several financial services industry groups, including the American Bankers Association ("ABA"), the Structured Finance Association ("SFA"), the Mortgage Bankers Association ("MBA") and SIFMA, as well as advocacy groups like the Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund ("AFREF") and Better Markets.

Comments from industry groups were generally supportive of the proposed change. ABA noted that the change represented an "appropriate balance of protection of the Deposit Insurance Fund and facilitation of insured institutions' prudent participation in the private securitization markets" and was "a reasonable step to improve the flow of credit in the residential mortgage market and other financial sectors appropriate for securitization funding."

SFA, MBA and SIFMA were also supportive of the rule change. SFA's comment letter noted that the change would eliminate the inconsistent regulation of sponsors of non-public ABS transactions (bank sponsors generally being subject to Regulation AB's disclosure requirements; non-bank sponsors generally being exempt). MBA and SIFMA noted the proposed rule change would afford relief with respect to bank-sponsored offerings of residential mortgage-backed securities, for which Regulation AB's disclosure (particularly loan-level disclosure) requirements have "significantly and unnecessarily limited the number of private RMBS transactions sponsored by" FDIC-insured banks.

However, SFA's letter noted the divergent concerns of its membership regarding the more general question of whether Regulation AB's disclosure requirements should apply to ABS issuances (whether bank-sponsored or otherwise) made in reliance on Rule 144A. SFA's investor members generally support such an extension of the disclosure requirements under Regulation AB, while SFA's issuer members do not.

While expressing support for the FDIC's proposed change to the Rule, industry groups noted other ongoing regulatory concerns, including capital requirements and other regulatory impediments to bank participation in the securitization markets. SIFMA's comment letter identified in particular the Rule's loan-level data disclosure requirements (which are generally parallel to but not wholly consistent with the requirements of Regulation AB) and the Rule's reserve fund requirement as areas for future consideration.

Comment letters were not uniformly supportive of the proposed change to the Rule. AFREF argued that bank-sponsored issuances of RMBS should not be exempted from the loan-level reporting requirements of Regulation AB merely by virtue of being non-public, noting that "the great majority of the mortgage securitizations" thought to have triggered the 2008-09 financial crisis were private offerings. Similarly, Better Markets, recalling the role of ABS and MBS markets in the financial crisis, argued that the proposed change "will increase systemic risk and decrease investor protection" and that the FDIC had not adequately justified the change or meaningfully evaluated the related risks identified in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, such as "reduced information flow to investors, less efficient allocation of credit, potential losses to investors, including banks and increased vulnerability of the mortgage market to periods of financial stress."

The FDIC is expected to consider the comment letters received and could issue a final rule during the first quarter of 2020.

Originally published October 29 2019

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2019. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.