Mixed Trends in CMBS Underwriting

November 30, 2017

Mixed Trends in CMBS Underwriting Photo

Nearly a year ago, the commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) market officially adopted risk retention rules as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The rules were designed to align the interests of sponsors and investors. Risk retention requires lenders originating loans to retain a 5% slice of each CMBS deal for five years, thereby forcing issuers to have “skin in the game.”

Risk retention had been the biggest regulatory challenge the CMBS industry faced since the financial crisis. This commercial real estate cycle has been characterized by greater restraint on the part of creditors and regulators. As a result, banks are reporting tighter lending standards. Since the financial crisis, we are seeing an improvement in some underwriting metrics, as seen in this week’s chart. The average issuer loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of pooled conduit deals so far in 2017 is 57%, compared to 60% in 2016, 64% in 2015 and 66% in 2014. A similar improvement has been observed in debt-service coverage ratios (DSCR) with an average of 2.15x in 2017, up from 2.01x in 2016, 1.8x in 2015 and 1.73x in 2014. While risk retention has influenced loan underwriting trends, investor sentiment has also played a role. AAA-rated CMBS market spreads have seen a corresponding downward trend as investors are more willing to pay up for lower leverage.

However, CMBS conduit transactions are also signaling some credit concerns which should be carefully monitored. The increasing presence of full-term interest-only loans could signal greater maturity default risk as these loans lack amortization. In addition, the increased use of subordinate debt can underestimate true leverage risk. Subordinate debt can also increase default risk and complicate the loan resolution process.

Key Takeaway:

While trends in metrics such as DSCR and LTV have notably improved in recent years, it is important to be aware of all potential risks within CMBS conduit transactions. Headline credit metrics should be deconstructed to paint a more accurate picture of true credit risk. The inclusion of large, low leverage, high quality loans can mask tail risk within the pool. We have had an up in quality bias as we move into the later stages of the current real estate cycle and remain cautious going down in credit given the current risk reward opportunity.





Tags: Chart of the Week | CMBS | Commercial real estate | Credit risk | Risk retention | Debt-service coverage ratios | Real estate cycle

< Go to Chart of the Week

The material provided here is for informational use only. The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Penn Mutual Asset Management.

This material is for informational use only. The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Penn Mutual Asset Management.  This material is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice, and it is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy.

Opinions and statements of financial market trends that are based on current market conditions constitute judgment of the author and are subject to change without notice.  The information and opinions contained in this material are derived from sources deemed to be reliable but should not be assumed to be accurate or complete.  Statements that reflect projections or expectations of future financial or economic performance of the markets may be considered forward-looking statements.  Actual results may differ significantly.  Any forecasts contained in this material are based on various estimates and assumptions, and there can be no assurance that such estimates or assumptions will prove accurate.

Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.  Past performance is no guarantee of future results.  All information referenced in preparation of this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the information and Penn Mutual Asset Management shall have no liability for decisions based upon such information.

High-Yield bonds are subject to greater fluctuations in value and risk of loss of income and principal. Investing in higher yielding, lower rated corporate bonds have a greater risk of price fluctuations and loss of principal and income than U.S. Treasury bonds and bills. Government securities offer a higher degree of safety and are guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest if held to maturity.

All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. This material may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission.

Subscribe to Our Publications