NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Fitch Ratings expects to rate Mill City Mortgage Loan Trust 2016-1 as follows:
–$322,152,000 class A1 notes ‘AAAsf’; Outlook Stable;
–$32,543,000 class M1 notes ‘AAsf’; Outlook Stable;
–$27,750,000 class M2 notes ‘Asf’; Outlook Stable;
–$21,948,000 class M3 notes ‘BBBsf’; Outlook Stable;
–$24,975,000 class B1 notes ‘BBsf’; Outlook Stable;
–$19,677,000 class B2 notes ‘Bsf’; Outlook Stable.
The following classes will not be rated by Fitch:
–$34,057,000 class B3 notes;
–$21,443,264.44 class B4 notes.
KEY RATING DRIVERS
Distressed Performance History (Concern): The collateral pool consists primarily of peak-vintage seasoned re-performing loans (RPLs), including loans that have been paying for the past 24 months, which Fitch identifies as ‘clean current’ (79.2%), and loans that are current but have recent delinquencies or incomplete paystrings, identified as ‘dirty current’ (20.8%). All loans were current as of the cutoff date. 70.1% of the loans have received modifications.
Due Diligence Findings (Concern): The third-party review (TPR) firm’s due diligence review resulted in approximately 282 loans (14%) graded ‘C’ and ‘D’, of which 122 were subject to a loss severity adjustment for issues regarding high cost testing. In addition, timelines were extended on 71 loans that were missing final modification documents. Fitch also assumed a 100% loss on 12 loans that did not receive a compliance review to account for the potential risk for high cost issues. The TPR firm did not review the servicing comments for the 62 loans that experienced a delinquency in the past 12 months. However, Fitch received and reviewed the servicing comments for these loans and the comments did not indicate any impending foreclosure.
No Servicer P&I Advances (Mixed): The servicers will not be advancing delinquent monthly payments of P&I, which reduces liquidity to the trust. However, as P&I advances made on behalf of loans that become delinquent and eventually liquidate reduce liquidation proceeds to the trust, the loan-level loss severity (LS) are less for this transaction than for those where the servicer is obligated to advance P&I. Structural provisions and cash flow priorities, together with increased subordination, provide for timely payments of interest to the ‘AAAsf’ and ‘AAsf’ rated classes.
Sequential-Pay Structure (Mixed): The transaction’s cash flow is based on a sequential-pay structure whereby the subordinate classes do not receive principal until the senior classes are repaid in full. Losses are allocated in reverse-sequential order. Furthermore, the provision to re-allocate principal to pay interest on the ‘AAAsf’ and ‘AAsf’ rated notes prior to other principal distributions is highly supportive of timely interest payments to those classes, in the absence of servicer advancing.
Potential Interest Deferrals (Mixed): To address the lack of an external P&I advance mechanism, principal otherwise distributable to the notes may be used to pay monthly interest. While this helps provide stability in the cash flows to the high investment grade-rated bonds, the lower rated bonds may experience long periods of interest deferral that will generally not be repaid until such note becomes the most senior outstanding.
Under Fitch’s ‘Criteria for Rating Caps and Limitations in Global Structured Finance Transactions,’ dated June 2016, the agency may assign ratings of up to ‘Asf’ on notes that incur deferrals if such deferrals are permitted under terms of the transaction documents, provided such amounts are fully recovered well in advance of the legal final maturity under the relevant rating stress.
Limited Life of Rep Provider (Concern): CVI CVF III Lux Master S.a.r.l., as rep provider, will only be obligated to repurchase a loan due to breaches prior to the payment date in September 2017. Thereafter, a reserve fund will be available to cover amounts due to noteholders for loans identified as having rep breaches. Amounts on deposit in the reserve fund, as well as the increased level of subordination, will be available to cover additional defaults and losses resulting from rep weaknesses or breaches occurring on or after the payment date in September 2017. The rep provider for this transaction is different from the prior two MCMLT transactions and is an indirect owner of the sponsor, Mill City Holdings, LLC.
Tier 2 Representation Framework (Concern): Fitch generally considers the representation, warranty, and enforcement (RW&E) mechanism construct for this transaction to be generally consistent with a Tier 2 framework due to the inclusion of knowledge qualifiers and the exclusion of loans from certain reps as a result of third-party due diligence findings. Thus, Fitch increased its ‘AAAsf’ loss expectations by approximately 235 basis points (bps) to account for a potential increase in defaults and losses arising from weaknesses in the reps.
Timing of Recordation and Document Remediation (Neutral): An updated title and tax search, as well as a review to confirm that the mortgage and subsequent assignments were recorded in the relevant local jurisdiction, was also performed. The review confirmed that all mortgages and subsequent assignments were recorded in the relevant local jurisdiction or were in the process of being recorded.
While the expected timelines for recordation and remediation are viewed by Fitch as reasonable, the obligation of CVI CVF III Lux Master S.a.r.l. to repurchase loans, for which assignments are not recorded and endorsements are not completed by the payment date in September 2017, aligns the issuer’s interests regarding completing the recordation process with those of noteholders. While there will not be an asset manager in this transaction, the indenture trustee will be reviewing the custodian reports. The indenture trustee will request CVI CVF III Lux Master S.a.r.l. to purchase any loans with outstanding assignment and endorsement issues two days prior to the September 2017 payment date.
Clean Current Loans (Positive): Fitch’s analysis of loans that have had clean pay histories for 24 months or more found that, for these loans, its loan loss model projected a probability of default (PD) that was more punitive than that indicated by actual delinquency roll rate projections. To account for this difference, Fitch reduced the pool’s lifetime default expectations by approximately 20%.
Deferred Amounts (Negative): Non-interest-bearing principal forbearance amounts totaling $19.5 million (3.87% of the unpaid principal balance) are outstanding on 520 loans. Fitch included the deferred amounts when calculating the borrower’s LTV and sLTV, despite the lower payment and amounts not being owed during the term of the loan. The inclusion resulted in higher PDs and LS than if there were no deferrals. Fitch believes that borrower default behavior for these loans will resemble that of the higher LTVs, as exit strategies (that is, sale or refinancing) will be limited relative to those borrowers with more equity in the property.
Bulk Sale Rights: On the first payment date in which the aggregate pool balance is less than 20% of the initial balance, the controlling holder will have the option to have the issuer sell the remaining loans in total as long as the proceeds are not less than the minimum price. The minimum price is set as the greater of the fair value price of all remaining loans (including any fees) and the outstanding class principal balance.
Solid Alignment of Interest (Positive): The sponsor, Mill City Holdings, LLC, will acquire and retain a 5% interest in each class of the securities to be issued. In addition, the rep provider is an indirect owner of the sponsor.
CRITERIA APPLICATION
Fitch’s analysis incorporated one criteria variation. The TPR firm did not conduct a BPO reconciliation on a sample of the loans as described in the ‘U.S. RMBS Seasoned and Re-performing Loan criteria’. There is no rating impact as the review is a cursory check to determine if the BPOs were conducted on the correct property. This review is conducted by an appraisal company, which Fitch reviewed, providing the BPOS as part of their quality control process.
RATING SENSITIVITIES
Fitch’s analysis incorporates sensitivity analyses to demonstrate how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs) than assumed at both the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and national levels. The implied rating sensitivities are only an indication of some of the potential outcomes and do not consider other risk factors that the transaction may become exposed to or be considered in the surveillance of the transaction.
Fitch conducted sensitivity analysis determining how the ratings would react to steeper MVDs at the national level. The analysis assumes MVDs of 10%, 20%, and 30%, in addition to the model-projected 38.6% at ‘AAAsf’. The analysis indicates there is some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with the model projection.
Fitch also conducted sensitivities to determine the stresses to MVDs that would reduce a rating by one full category, to non-investment grade, and to ‘CCCsf’.
USE OF THIRD-PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G-10
Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (‘Form 15E’) as prepared by JCIII & Associates (JCIII), AMC Diligence LLC (AMC) and Meridian Asset Services (Meridian). The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on regulatory compliance, pay history, the presence of key documents in the loan file and data integrity. In addition, Meridian was retained to perform an updated title and tax search, as well as a review to confirm that the mortgage and subsequent assignments were recorded in the relevant local jurisdictions.
A pay history and data integrity review was competed on 100% of the pool. A regulatory compliance review was conducted on 99% of the pool. A servicing comment review was not performed.
Fitch considered this information in its analysis and as a result, Fitch made the following adjustment(s) to its analysis:
Fitch made an adjustment on 122 loans that were subject to federal, state and/or local predatory testing. These loans contained material violations including an inability to test for high cost violations or confirm compliance, which could expose the trust to potential assignee liability. These loans were marked as ‘indeterminate.’ Typically, the HUD issues are related to missing the Final HUD, illegible HUDs, incomplete HUDs due to missing pages, or only having estimated HUDs where the final HUD1 was not used to test for high cost loans. To mitigate this risk, Fitch assumed a 100% LS for loans in the states that fall under Freddie Mac’s ‘do not purchase’ list of high cost or ‘high risk.’ 21 loans were impacted by this approach.
For the remaining 101 loans, where the properties are not located in the states that fall under Freddie Mac’s “do not purchase” list, the likelihood of all loans being high cost is lower. However, Fitch assumes the trust could potentially incur additional legal expenses. Fitch increased its LS expectations by 5% for these loans to account for the risk.
There were 71 loans missing modification documents or a signature on modification documents. For these loans, timelines were extended by an additional three months, in addition to the six-month timeline extension applied to the entire pool.
The statute of limitations had not expired for one loan for TILA. As a result, Fitch increased its loss severity expectations by 5% for this loan to account for the risk of the possibility of challenges to foreclosure and associated legal costs.
Twelve loans did not receive a compliance review due to incomplete loan files. Fitch assumed a 100% loss on these loans due to the potential risk for high cost issues and assignee liability.
REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
A description of the transaction’s representations, warranties and enforcement mechanisms (‘RW&Es’) that are disclosed in the offering document and which relate to the underlying asset pool is available by accessing the appendix referenced under ‘Related Research’ below. The appendix also contains a comparison of these RW&Es to those Fitch considers typical for the asset class as detailed in the Special Report titled ‘Representations, Warranties and Enforcement Mechanisms in Global Structured Finance Transactions,’ dated May 2016.
Additional information is available at www.fitchratings.com.
Applicable Criteria
Counterparty Criteria for Structured Finance and Covered Bonds (pub. 18 Jul 2016)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=884963
Criteria for Interest Rate Stresses in Structured Finance Transactions and Covered Bonds (pub. 17 May 2016)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=879815
Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria (pub. 27 Jun 2016)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=883130
Rating Criteria for U.S. Residential and Small Balance Commercial Mortgage Servicers (pub. 23 Apr 2015)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=864368
U.S. RMBS Cash Flow Analysis Criteria (pub. 15 Apr 2016)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=880006
U.S. RMBS Loan Loss Model Criteria (pub. 12 May 2016)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=880673
U.S. RMBS Master Rating Criteria (pub. 27 Jun 2016)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=882350
U.S. RMBS Seasoned and Re-Performing Loan Criteria (pub. 12 May 2016)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=880720
U.S. RMBS Surveillance and Re-REMIC Criteria (pub. 17 Jun 2016)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=881806
Related Research
Mill City Mortgage Loan Trust 2016-1 (US RMBS)
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=886413
Mill City Mortgage Loan Trust 2016-1 Appendix
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=886436
Additional Disclosures
Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form
https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/press_releases/content/ridf_frame.cfm?pr_id=1010335
ABS Due Diligence Form 15E 1
ABS Due Diligence Form 15E 2
Solicitation Status
https://www.fitchratings.com/gws/en/disclosure/solicitation?pr_id=1010335
Endorsement Policy
https://www.fitchratings.com/jsp/creditdesk/PolicyRegulation.faces?context=2&detail=31
ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY’S PUBLIC WEBSITE ‘WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM‘. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH’S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE ‘CODE OF CONDUCT’ SECTION OF THIS SITE. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH WEBSITE.
Fitch Expects to Rate Mill City Mortgage Loan Trust 2016-1; Presale Issued - Business Wire (press release)
No comments:
Post a Comment