Securitisation 2020

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Securitisation 2020 Securitisation 2020 A practical cross-border insight to securitisation work 13th Edition Featuring contributions from: Allen & Overy LLP Macfarlanes LLP Roschier Advokatbyrå AB Brodies LLP Maples Group Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP Cuatrecasas Mayer Brown Shearman & Sterling LLP Freshfields Bruckhaus McMillan LLP Sidley Austin LLP Deringer LLP Nishimura & Asahi VdA GSK Stockmann Oon & Bazul LLP Walder Wyss Ltd. King & Wood Mallesons Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Europe) Waselius & Wist Loyens & Loeff Luxembourg S.à r.l. LLP ISBN 978-1-83918-046-0 ISSN 1745-7661 Published by 59 Tanner Street London SE1 3PL United Kingdom Securitisation 2020 +44 207 367 0720 [email protected] th www.iclg.com 13 Edition Group Publisher Rory Smith Editor Jane Simmons Senior Editor Contributing Editor: Sam Friend Rupert Wall Head of Production Suzie Levy Sidley Austin LLP Chief Media Officer Fraser Allan CEO Jason Byles Printed by Stephens & George Print Group Cover image www.istockphoto.com ©2020 Global Legal Group Limited. All rights reserved. Unauthorised reproduction by any means, Strategic Partners digital or analogue, in whole or in part, is strictly forbidden. PEFC Certified Disclaimer This product is from sustainably managed forests and controlled sources This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehen- PEFC/16-33-254 www.pefc.org sive full legal or other advice. Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication. This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified professional when dealing with specific situations. Cross-Border Trade Receivables Securitisation – Opportunity Awaits Merryn Craske, François-Régis Gonon, Carol Hitselberger, Andreas Lange, Ariel Ramos, Linda E. Boss, Jeffrey R. Favitta, Mayer Brown Cory R. Miggins & Jessica Solis Trade receivables securitisation is one of the primary means through ■ whether payment by an Obligor to the applicable Originator which middle market and investment grade companies alike are (rather than the SPV) will discharge such Obligor’s payment able to obtain more efficient and cost-effective financing, manage obligation; their balance sheets and diversify their financing sources. While it ■ whether the Financing Parties or the SPV can enforce may not be as simple or straightforward as a trade receivables secu- against and sue an Obligor directly for its failure to pay the ritisation in a single jurisdiction, the opportunity and potential for applicable Receivable; and growth for a cross-border trade receivables securitisation can often ■ whether a third-party creditor or insolvency trustee may outweigh the time and cost of structuring it. While the inclusion of assert its interest in or rights over the applicable Receivables. each jurisdiction will mean that the parties will have to take addi- Determining the answers to these questions and the impact tional considerations into account, by partnering with experienced those answers have on the structure and implementation of a deal counsel and local counsel, the parties can be flexible and crea- trade receivables securitisation are critical both for protecting tive in order to achieve their operational and financial goals. the Financing Parties’ rights in the Receivables and for achieving This article presents an overview of key considerations when the Originators’ balance sheet and liquidity management objec- structuring a cross-border trade receivables securitisation, tives. Once all applicable local laws have been determined, including insight from some of our leading partners in England, further analysis should be performed in each relevant jurisdic- France, Germany, Mexico and the United States. tion, with the assistance of local counsel, to ensure that all juris- diction-specific legal formalities are satisfied. Structural Considerations The Rome I Regulation Choice of law In securitisation transactions with Originators and/or Obligors A typical trade receivables securitisation involves the sale by located in European Union (“EU”) countries (other than an originator or originators (each, an “Originator”) of trade Denmark) and/or the United Kingdom (the “UK”), the Rome I receivables (the “Receivables”) owed by certain account Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of 17 June 2008 on debtors (each, an “Obligor”) to a newly-formed, insolvency-re- the law applicable to contractual obligations) (“Rome I”) will mote, special purpose entity (the “SPV”), with the purchase of be relevant. Rome I provides that the relationship between the the Receivables by the SPV being financed by one or more banks assignor (i.e., the applicable Originator) and the assignee (i.e., or conduits (the “Financing Parties”). the SPV) is governed by the law of the contract between them A cross-border trade receivables transaction will require an (i.e., the Sale Agreement) (Article 14(1)). For matters concerning in-depth review of all relevant jurisdictions, including (a) the the assignability of any Receivable, the relationship between the location of the SPV, (b) the location of the Originators and the SPV and the Financing Parties, as assignees, and the Obligor, governing law of the sale agreement between each Originator enforceability against the Obligor and whether the Obligor’s and the SPV (each, a “Sale Agreement”), (c) the location of the payment obligations have been discharged, it is necessary to look Obligors, (d) the governing law of the Receivables, and (e) the loca- at the governing law of the applicable Receivable (i.e., the law of tion of any bank accounts, particularly where a security interest the Underlying Contract). will be granted in favour of the SPV or the Financing Parties in In addition, there is a draft regulation (Proposal for a regu- those bank accounts. Each additional jurisdiction will raise local lation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law and choice of law questions, which will need to be analysed and law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of considered in light of the objectives which the Originators and the claims) aimed at addressing the effectiveness of the transfer of Financing Parties wish to achieve in structuring the securitisation. Receivables as against third parties. This regulation is yet to Key questions include: be finalised but the effect of it could make this legal analysis ■ which law will apply to determine: more complicated. This is because, while the parties are gener- (a) whether there has been a “true sale” of the Receivables ally free under Rome I to choose the law of a contract, such as a between each Originator and the SPV; and Sale Agreement, the new regulation could make it necessary to (b) whether a Receivable is permitted to be assigned by comply with the law where the Originator has its habitual resi- the applicable Originator to the SPV in the event of dence in assessing whether a valid transfer has been achieved as a restriction on, or prohibition of, assignment in the against third parties (including a liquidator or other insolvency underlying contract between such Originator and the official). Obligor (the “Underlying Contract”); Securitisation 2020 Mayer Brown The Securitisation Regulation Diligence in relation to the Receivables and restrictions on assignment In transactions where the relevant entities are located in the EU or the UK, it will also be important to consider the require- It is common for the Financing Parties or the Originator (in ments of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 (the “Securitisation consultation with the relevant legal counsel) to review and Regulation”) and the related technical standards and guidance. perform diligence with respect to the Underlying Contracts. The Securitisation Regulation sets out certain obligations with One important purpose of such diligence is to determine the respect to originators, sponsors, securitisation special purpose extent to which there are any restrictions or prohibitions on entities and institutional investors (each as defined therein) with assignment in the Underlying Contracts. respect to securitisations (as defined therein) entered into from 1 In our experience, most jurisdictions outside the US will enforce January 2019 or which are no longer grandfathered. These obli- a restriction or prohibition on assignment which is included in the gations include the following: Underlying Contract. If there is such a restriction with respect ■ due diligence and ongoing monitoring obligations for to certain Receivables and the Originator desires to sell those institutional investors; Receivables to the SPV, in most cases the Obligor’s consent will ■ risk retention requirements; and be required. However, the Originator typically does not want ■ transparency requirements including the requirement to request that Obligors consent to the sale of the Originator’s to provide certain information using specified reporting Receivables for fear of disruption of the business relationship templates. (or providing leverage to Obligors for other concessions). The The Securitisation Regulation also includes a set of require- Originators and the Financing Parties will need to determine ments which will need to be met in order for a securitisation whether certain Obligors should be excluded from the securitisa- to be considered “simple, transparent and standardised” or tion and consider
Recommended publications
  • Structured Finance & Securitisation
    GETTING THROUGH THE DEAL Structured Finance & Securitisation Structured Finance & Securitisation Finance Structured Contributing editor Patrick D Dolan 2017 2017 © Law Business Research 2017 Structured Finance & Securitisation 2017 Contributing editor Patrick D Dolan Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Publisher Law The information provided in this publication is Gideon Roberton general and may not apply in a specific situation. [email protected] Business Legal advice should always be sought before taking Research any legal action based on the information provided. Subscriptions This information is not intended to create, nor does Sophie Pallier Published by receipt of it constitute, a lawyer–client relationship. [email protected] Law Business Research Ltd The publishers and authors accept no responsibility 87 Lancaster Road for any acts or omissions contained herein. The Senior business development managers London, W11 1QQ, UK information provided was verified between Alan Lee Tel: +44 20 3708 4199 February and March 2017. Be advised that this is a [email protected] Fax: +44 20 7229 6910 developing area. Adam Sargent © Law Business Research Ltd 2017 [email protected] No photocopying without a CLA licence. Printed and distributed by First published 2015 Encompass Print Solutions Dan White Third edition Tel: 0844 2480 112 [email protected] ISSN 2058-5594 © Law Business Research 2017 CONTENTS Global overview 5 Japan 31 Patrick D Dolan Motohiro Yanagawa, Takashi
    [Show full text]
  • GE Commercial Finance Meeting
    Mike Neal GE Commercial Finance Overview Organized for faster growth and lower cost 90’s 2002 Today GE Commercial Consumer Commercial Infrastructure Industrial NBCU Healthcare MID -MARKET FINANCING Vendor Financial Finance Finance Commercial Commercial Services Commercial Dave Calhoun John Rice Bob Wright Equipment European Finance Bill Castell Structured Vice Chairman Vice Chairman Vice Chairman Vice Chairman Financing Equipment Finance Joe Hogan Finance Finance Sr. Vice President3 Dave Nissen Mike Neal Card Services Finance Group Healthcare Sr. Vice President Vice Chairman Global Finance Real – Aircraft Engines – Cons. & Ind’l. – Network – Diagnostic Consumer Estate – Energy – Plastics – Film Imaging – Oil & Gas – Silicones/Quartz – Stations – Biosciences Finance – Rail – Security – Ent. Cable – Clinical Sys. – Water – Sensing – TVPD – Info. Tech. –Europe –Capital Solutions Financial Equity GE Consumer – Energy Fin. – Fanuc – Sports/Olympics – Services Assurance Svcs. – Inspect Tech. – Parks – Aviation Fin. – Equip. Svcs. –Asia –Real Estate CONSUMER SPECIALIZED FINANCING 2002 Svcs. (GECAS) SPECIALIZED SERVICES GE Capital SPECIALTY INSURANCE –Americas –Corp. Fin. Svcs. SPECIALIZED SERVICES SPECIALTY INSURANCE Finance Employers Capital Reinsurance –Australia –Healthcare Markets Reinsurance Corporation Re-org Fin. Svcs. Global Process Mortgage –Insurance Solutions InsuranceInsurance GE Insurance Technology Rail Financial Services Services Guaranty Aviation Insurance Penske Truck Services Mod Space Leasing Fleet Trailer European Equipment
    [Show full text]
  • Structured Finance & Restructuring
    Ian H. Giddy/NYU Structured Finance-1 Structured Finance & Restructuring Prof. Ian Giddy New York University Structured Finance z Corporate financial restructuring z Asset-backed securitization z Synthetic and whole business securitization z Credit-linked structured finance z Structured financing techniques Debt-linked Equity-linked z Leveraged finance Copyright ©2004 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 2 Ian H. Giddy/NYU Structured Finance-2 Structured Finance Copyright ©2004 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 3 Assignments z Individual 30% z Team 30% z Caselets 20% z Final 40% Copyright ©2004 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 4 Ian H. Giddy/NYU Structured Finance-3 Investor economics SPONSORING COMPANY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Rates Ratings Risk SALE OR Liquidity ASSIGNMENT SPECIAL PURPOSE Spread analysis VEHICLE ISSUES ACCOUNTS ASSET-BACKED RECEIVABLE CERTIFICATES Copyright ©2004 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 5 Bowie Rights: Where’s the Money? Copyright ©2004 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 6 Ian H. Giddy/NYU Structured Finance-4 Credit-Linked Notes BANK Credit Default Swap SPV Credit Guarantee Deposits Credit- REFERENCE Linked POOL OF LOANS Fee Notes (like spread on bond) T-bonds (ABS) Copyright ©2004 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 7 Structure of the US MBS Market MortgageMortgage Loan Loan BankBank (mortgage (mortgage originator) originator) makes makes a a whole whole loan loan Ancillary:Ancillary: brokers, brokers, servicers, servicers, insurers insurers MortgageMortgage Pass-Through Pass-Through FNMAFNMA or or GMAC GMAC (conduit) (conduit)
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Credit Rating Agencies in Structured Finance Markets
    THE ROLE OF CREDIT RATING AGENCIES IN STRUCTURED FINANCE MARKETS FINAL REPORT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF SECURITIES COMMISSIONS MAY 2008 BACKGROUND TO THE TASK FORCE WORK In 2003, the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions formed a task force of its members’ principal representatives to study issues related to the activities of credit rating agencies (CRAs). This Chairmen’s Task Force on Credit Rating Agencies (frequently referred to as the CRA Task Force) issued a report in September 2003 describing the role CRAs play in the global capital market and issues that CRAs currently face that may have an impact on the quality of the credit ratings they publish.1 At the same time that the Technical Committee published this report, it also published a set of principles that regulators, CRAs and other market participants might follow as a way to better guard the integrity of the rating process and help ensure that investors are provided with ratings that are timely and of high quality.2 The IOSCO CRA Principles are high-level and meant to be used by CRAs of all types and sizes, using all types of methodologies, and operating under a wide variety of legal and market environments. Shortly after the release of the IOSCO CRA Principles, several CRAs advised IOSCO’s Technical Committee that it would be helpful to them and other market participants, if the Technical Committee were to describe in more detail how the IOSCO CRA Principles might be applied in practice. Subsequently, the CRA Task Force drafted the Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies (IOSCO CRA Code of Conduct)3 designed to serve as a model upon which CRAs could base their own codes of conduct as a way of implementing the IOSCO CRA Principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Project-Finance-Second-Edition-Boj.Pdf
    The BOOK of JARGON ® Project Finance The Latham & Watkins Glossary of Project Development, Acquisition and Finance Slang and Terminology Second Edition Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Singapore and as affiliated partnerships conducting the practice in Hong Kong and Japan. Latham & Watkins practices in Saudi Arabia in association with the Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi. In Qatar, Latham & Watkins LLP is licensed by the Qatar Financial Centre Authority. Under New York’s Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding our conduct under New York’s Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 885 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-4834, Phone: +1.212.906.1200. © Copyright 2013 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved. 2 The purpose of this publication is to assist the newest members of the project finance community in learning to talk the talk of project finance. It is intended to be a “Berlitz Course” for recent law school and business school graduates seeking initiation into the industry, and a desktop reference for not-so-recent graduates. In this book, you will find the key to the secret verbal handshakes that make up the code of the project finance community. We love this stuff. The PF Book of Jargon is one of a series of practice area-specific Books of Jargon published by Latham & Watkins.
    [Show full text]
  • Structured Finance: Equity
    Ian H. Giddy/NYU Structured Finance-1 Structured Finance: Equity Prof. Ian Giddy New York University Structured Finance l Asset-backed securitization l Corporate financial restructuring l Structured financing techniques Copyright ©2002 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 2 Ian H. Giddy/NYU Structured Finance-2 When Debt and Equity are Not Enough Assets Liabilities Debt Contractual int. & principal Value Contractual int. & principal Value NoNo upside upside ofof futurefuture SeniorSenior claimsclaims Control via restrictions cashcash flowsflows Control via restrictions Equity ResidualResidual payments payments UpsideUpside and and downside downside ResidualResidual claims claims VotingVoting controlcontrol rightsrights Copyright ©2002 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 3 When Debt and Equity are Not Enough Alternatives Assets Liabilities n Collateralized Debt n Asset-securitized Contractual int. & principal n Project financing Value Contractual int. & principal Value NoNo upside upside ofof futurefuture SeniorSenior claimsclaims Control via restrictions cashcash flowsflows Control via restrictions n Preferred Equity n Warrants n Convertible ResidualResidual payments payments UpsideUpside and and downside downside ResidualResidual claims claims VotingVoting controlcontrol rightsrights Copyright ©2002 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 4 Ian H. Giddy/NYU Structured Finance-3 Case Studies l Ban Pu Convertible Bond; l Keppel T&T Convertible; l Singapore Warrant Bonds; l Lyons; l Endesa Copyright ©2002 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 5 A Day in the Life of the Eurobond Market l Examine the deals uWhich were structured financing? uWhy were each done in that particular form? uWhat determines the pricing? l Can you break the hybrids into their component parts? Copyright ©2002 Ian H. Giddy Structured Finance 6 Ian H. Giddy/NYU Structured Finance-4 A Day in the Life..
    [Show full text]
  • Structured Finance Bulletin Legal Insights and Trends in the Structured Finance Markets NOTES from the EDITORS JAMES J
    Spring 2020 Structured Finance Bulletin Legal Insights and Trends in the Structured Finance Markets NOTES FROM THE EDITORS JAMES J. ANTONOPOULOS CHRISTOPHER J. BRADY MICHAEL P. GAFFNEY In this Spring 2020 edition of our Structured Finance Bulletin, we highlight key trends to watch in 2020 in the fintech, banking and regulatory spaces and in the mortgage and residential and consumer asset-backed securitization spaces. We also take a deep dive into capital relief trades and structuring considerations in synthetic securitizations and discuss the latest in LIBOR replacement, transition preparedness, and the impact of LIBOR replacement on consumer loans. We also look at recent Volcker Rule revisions, developments in the EU securitisation regulation, and initiatives to market and promote green finance. Finally, we describe a recent case that delivered a surprising ruling regarding collateral descriptions in UCC financing statements. Please visit Mayer Brown’s new structured finance blog, Retained Interest, designed to provide clients updates and analysis on legal and regulatory developments impacting the structured finance industry. Our lawyers provide insights related to developments and innovations in the structured finance industry and concise and timely briefings on current issues affecting financial asset transactions. retainedinterest.com Additionally, the Consumer Financial Services Review blog provides insights from an industry-leading group of lawyers within Mayer Brown’s global Financial Services Regulatory & Enforcement practice. For more than 20 years, the Consumer Financial Services group has been recognized for its thought leadership and for providing high-caliber regulatory counseling, enforcement defense and transactional advice to a broad range of consumer financial services providers, including mortgage and auto lenders, consumer finance companies, payment companies, credit card issuers and investment banks.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiating Contractual Indemnity in M&A Deals
    Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Negotiating Contractual Indemnity in M&A Deals: Transactional and Litigation Considerations Structuring Terms to Minimize Financial Risks THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2017 1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific Today’s faculty features: Frank C. Koranda, Jr., Partner, Polsinelli, Kansas City, Mo. Jessica C. Pearlman, Partner, K&L Gates, Seattle Lisa R. Stark, Partner, K&L Gates, Wilmington, Del. The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10. Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-888-450-9970 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again. Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Treatment of Structured Finance Under the Investment Company Act
    Chapter 1 The Treatment of Structured Finance under the Investment Company Act I. Introduction and Summary of Recommendations Structured finance is a financing technique in which financial assets, in many cases illiquid, are pooled and converted into capital market instruments.' In a typical structured financing, a sponsor transfers a pool of assets to a limited purpose entity, which in turn issues non-redeemable debt obligations or equity securities with debt-like characteristics ("fixed income securities"). Payment on the securities depends primarily on the cash flows generated by the assets in the underlying pool. Typically, the securities are rated in one of the two highest categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization ("rating agency"). Issuers that have more assets or that expect to receive more income than needed to make full payment on the fixed income securities also may sell interests in the residual cash flow. Structured finance differs from conventional financing techniques in that it involves the pooling of financial assets, which are then removed from the sponsor's balance sheet. The risks inherent in holding the financial assets are shifted away from the sponsor to investors that believe they are in a better position to accept these risks? As a result, the sponsor may be able to manage its balance sheet better, while gaining access to alternative funding sources. 'Although "structured finance" is the term most commonly used to describe this financing technique, the terms "structured securitized credit," "asset-backed arrangement," "asset-backed financing," and "asset securitization" also are used. We use these terms interchangeably throughout this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 7 – Structured Finance (CDO, CLO, MBS, ABL, ABS)
    Investment Banking Prof. Droussiotis Lecture 7 – Structured Finance (CDO, CLO, MBS, ABL, ABS) There are several main types of structured finance instruments. Asset-backed securities (ABS) are bonds or notes based on pools of assets, or collateralized by the cash flows from a specified pool of underlying assets. Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) are asset-backed securities the cash flows of which are backed by the principal and interest payments of a set of mortgage loans. o Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, (RMBS) deal with Residential homes, usually single family. o Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS) are for Commercial Real Estate such as malls or office complexes. o Collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) are securitizations of mortgage-backed securities. Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) consolidate a group of fixed income assets such as high-yield debt or asset-backed securities into a pool, which is then divided into various tranches. o Collateralized bond obligations (CBOs) are CDOs backed primarily by corporate bonds. o Collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) are CDOs backed primarily by leveraged bank loans. o Commercial real estate collateralized debt obligations (CRE CDOs) are CDOs backed primarily by commercial real estate loans and bonds. Collateral Analysis Collateral is assets provided to secure an obligation. Traditionally, banks might require corporate borrowers to commit company assets as security for loans. Today, this practice is called secured lending or asset-based lending. Collateral can take many forms: property, inventory, equipment, receivables, oil reserves, etc. 45 Investment Banking Prof. Droussiotis Advance Debt Rates (ABL BV of Capacity Facility) Assets based on ($ mm) Collateral Cash 100% 50.00 50.00 A/R 85% 200.00 170.00 Inventory 50% 150.00 75.00 Fixed 50% Assets 300.00 150.00 Investments 50% 100.00 50.00 Total 800.00 495.00 A more recent development is collateralization arrangements used to secure repo, securities lending and derivatives transactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ratings Reform: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2011 Ratings Reform: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly John C. Coffee Jr. Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation John C. Coffee Jr., Ratings Reform: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, 1 HARV. BUS. L. REV. 231 (2011). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/615 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RATINGS REFORM: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY JOHN C. COFFEE, JR.* Although dissatisfaction with the performance of the credit rating agencies is universal (particularlywith regard to structuredfinance), reformers divide into two basic camps: (1) those who see the "issuer pays" model of the major credit ratings firms as the fundamental cause of inflated ratings, and (2) those who view the licensing power given to credit ratings agencies by regulatory rules requiring an investment grade ratingfrom an NRSRO rating agency as creating a de facto monopoly that precludes competition. After reviewing the recent em- pirical literature on how ratings became inflated, this Article agrees with the former school and doubts that serious reform is possible unless the conflicts of interest inherent in the "issuer pays model" can be reduced.Although the licens- ing power hypothesis can explain the contemporary lack of competition in the ratings industry, increasedcompetition is more likely to aggravate than alleviate the problem of inflated ratings.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Mix, Low-Volume Lean Manufacturing Implementation and Lot Size Optimization at an Aerospace OEM
    High-Mix, Low-Volume Lean Manufacturing Implementation and Lot Size Optimization at an Aerospace OEM by Jonathan M. Rheaume Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Tufts University (1995) Bachelor of Science in Chemical Physics, Tufts University (1995) Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Sloan School of Management in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering and Master of Science in Management In Conjunction with the Leaders for Manufacturing Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 2003 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Signature of Author______________________________________________________________ Department of Mechanical Engineering Sloan School of Management May 2003 Certified by____________________________________________________________________ Deborah Nightingale, Thesis Supervisor Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems Certified by____________________________________________________________________ Donald Rosenfield, Thesis Supervisor Senior Lecturer of Management Certified by____________________________________________________________________ Timothy Gutowski, Thesis Reader Professor of Mechanical Engineering Accepted by____________________________________________________________________ Margaret Andrews, Executive Director of Masters Program Sloan School of Management Accepted by____________________________________________________________________ Ain Sonin,
    [Show full text]