The leadership at C-MISMO (which I am a part of) has been trying to decide the next steps to promote standards adoption. Toward that end, we hosted a “MISMO Summit” in May to seek support. At the meeting, it was clear a group of people wanted to put the entire effort into a hibernation mode.

These people argue C-MISMO should be shut down because there is no interest in implementing common, industry-wide standards. Most of the existing industry players (especially mortgage bankers) are satisfied with the status quo. I’ve known they don’t want standardization, but I was surprised when they actually tried to kill it.

Coup Attempt

In late June there were both formal and informal efforts by certain members of the MBA to kill C-MISMO by shutting it down. A proposal letter was drafted and circulated through the MBA that stated “it is not a good use of resources at this time to continue to create new standards.” The letter recommended “the development of new standards by Commercial MISMO be halted.” The effort to kill C-MISMO was pursued all the way to the Board of Directors of the MBA, where it was formally discussed.

Fortunately, the recommendation to hibernate C-MISMO was rejected by MBA leadership. We have been given the green light to keep going and, from what I understand, the firms pushing for the C-MISMO shut-down have backed down.

Origination Standard

When the governance of C-MISMO found out about the proposal to kill our efforts, we initially laughed because we felt like we were being fired from volunteer jobs. But then we started to get annoyed. It is offensive that people would actively oppose open standards. So instead of shutting down shop, we are going on the offensive.

Yesterday, C-MISMO leadership voted to create a new standard we are calling the Origination Standard. This data standard will contain all the information needed to re-underwrite and make a commercial real estate loan. We are purposefully focused on the front end data package needed to make a loan versus the back end investor reporting package. While the goal is big, the existing C-MISMO data schema is complete enough that this should be a manageable effort. We are going to get started in September.

We also agreed to create a GSE MISMO Adoption Task Force, and we are going to pursue a Rating Agency Data Standard.

So much for going into hibernation.

— — —

Jim Flaherty is CEO of CMBS.com and the creator of the Backshop loan origination system. He is a trained credit professional with experience installing enterprise underwriting systems for commercial real estate lenders, rating agencies and investors.

www.cmbs.com

www.backshop.com

The industry trade group that controls the reporting standards for CMBS reporting, the CRE Finance Council, released the consensus version of the new reporting requirements for CMBS 2.0. The trade group spent over a year with investors, issuers and servicers trying to reach consensus on best practices and disclosure levels.

Standardized Annex A

The biggest part of the release is standardization of investor disclosures when initially selling CMBS bonds. In the past, each issuer would define what they would disclose in the initial prospectus, with the actual data fields being defined in Annex A to the prospectus. While there were plenty of similarities in the Annex A disclosures from one issuer to the next, they were not standardized. The new disclosures (see attached) made good progress on standardizing and requiring data disclosure related to:

1) The data needed to model the debt both within and outside the trust (the entire capital stack)

2) More details on historical operating statements (income and expenses)

3) Better data on escrows and reserves

Download pdf: CREFC Standardized Annex A – December 2010

CREFC also addressed standardization of the “typical” Reps and Warranties issuers make to bond investors, as well as the repurchase language/process the parties go through if there is a breach claim. Definitely an important step.

Effort Falls Short

In my view, despite the progress, the consensus disclosure standard falls short, specifically as it relates to disclosing the in place rent on the collateral (full rent rolls). Instead of agreeing to disclose this critical data, the “consensus” was to add information on two additional tenants so investors will now get information on the top 5 tenants in each property instead of just the top 3.

Instead of complying with Dodd-Frank and disclosing enough information to allow the investors/rating agencies to recreate their own underwriting models by disclosing the full rent roll, CREFC issued a 33-page “Principals Based Underwriting Template” in an effort to describe a “good” underwriting.

With all due respect, people in the business know how to underwrite, and a 33 page manual is a complete waste. Instead, the counterparties to the securitizations need the data to recreate an underwriting and make their own conclusions. Having an issuer state they “followed the manual” is nowhere near the same as disclosing the data to allow all parties to reach their own conclusions. The investors agreed and initially asked for full rent rolls but were not able to reach “consensus” on this issue so, instead, we are left with limited information on the “top 5.”

Active Few Weeks

I think the timing of these market standards indicates the “rules” from the SEC/regulators will soon be released. Later this week the regulators will release their conclusions on risk retention, and there is a rumor the SEC will be issuing its rules on Reg AB reform in the next few weeks/months. We will see if the regulators step up and require additional rent data or if CMBS 2.0 is really a lot more like CMBS 1.5.

— — —

Jim Flaherty is CEO of CMBS.com and the creator of the Backshop loan origination system. He is a trained credit professional with experience installing enterprise underwriting systems for commercial real estate lenders, rating agencies and investors.

www.cmbs.com

www.backshop.com

I helped draft letters from CREFC, MBA and MISMO to the SEC commenting on the proposed Regulation AB changes. The letters were filed Aug. 2. While all of them supported the concept of transparency, none of them proposed a data list to actually achieve transparency.

So I also wrote my own letter.

Read more

I am just returning from New York City where I attended MBA’s Commercial/Multifamily Servicing and Technology Conference 2010. Most of the major master, special and primary servicers attended. The proposed SEC changes to Regulation AB were discussed at almost every panel.

XML acceptance

A well-attended special session focused on the proposed new regulations and the MBA response.

After a fair amount of discussion on what the changes entailed, the moderator took a survey of which firms were in favor, opposed or indifferent to reporting in XML. For the first time, not one servicer stated they were opposed to reporting in XML (a few were in favor and most voted indifferent).

It seemed that either the fear of a negative reaction from the SEC or just plain acceptance of the inevitability of the rule changes eliminated at least public disagreement with converting to XML. To be sure, there will be great debate on which data elements should be included in the XML, and if the IRP itself will change, or if there will be a new XML report solely for SEC compliance. But public resistance from the servicers, which has always killed the discussion in the past, was absent.

MISMO: What a difference a year makes

There were two dedicated MISMO panels and a MISMO meeting. I attended all three sessions and spoke on the last panel titled “Making MISMO Work for You.” Download the Powerpoint slide show. The Dilbert comic on slide 2 is classic.

While I would not say attendance was bursting at the seams, all three sessions generated fairly good crowds. People actually asked questions and showed interest in learning more about standards and XML.

Last year at this conference in New Orleans, there was virtually no discussion about MISMO and XML standards. Everyone was focused on servicing issues as opposed to reporting/transparency issues. This year, the focus and sense of urgency provided a much-needed boost of energy to all the folks who have been working on data standards.

Next steps

The MBA, CREFC and MISMO are all working on their responses to the SEC proposals. The comment period ends August 2, so all responses must be finished by mid July.

I am participating in all the conference calls and was elected to be co-head of the MISMO response committee. MISMO will make sure the XML schema for the final list of data elements is workable and consistent with the MISMO data model, and ideally with the CREFC IRP 6. The next several weeks will be very interesting as the responses get finalized.

— — —

Jim Flaherty is CEO of CMBS.com and the creator of the Backshop loan origination system. He is a trained credit professional with experience installing enterprise underwriting systems for commercial real estate lenders, rating agencies and investors.

www.cmbs.com

www.backshop.com