Tag Archives: SEC

SEC Complaint on Improper Trading of MBS — Much Ado?

Posted on by

Floyd Norris, the only journalist to whom I have written fan mail (sorry Gretchen, you’re next), has another interesting column about a case that the SEC has brought against an MBS trader, Jesse Litvak.  The complaint alleges that

On numerous occasions from 2009 to 2011, Litvak lied to, or otherwise misled, customers about the price at which his firm had bought the MBS and the amount of his firm’s compensation for arranging the trades. On some occasions, Litvak also misled the customer into believing that he was arranging a MBS trade between customers, when Litvak really was selling the MBS out of Jefferies’ inventory. Litvak’s misconduct misled customers about the market price for the MBS, and, thus, about the transaction they were agreeing to. Litvak also misled customers about whether they were getting the best price for their MBS trades and how much money they were paying in compensation. MBS are generally illiquid and discovering a market price for them is difficult. Participants trading in the MBS market must rely on informal sources, including their broker, for this information.(1-2)

Norris is right to highlight what this case can reveal about the lack of transparency in the trading of MBS, a lack of transparency that does not exist in many other major secondary markets for securities.

But I was struck by how little is at stake in this SEC case.  The complaint alleges that the misconduct occurred in 25 (count ’em, 25!) trades from 2009 through 2011 (7) and that Litvak’s behavior “generated over $2.7 million in additional revenue for his firm.”  (2)  Not for him personally, mind you, but for his firm!  He, of course, should be punished if the allegations prove to be true.  And yet . . ..

Time after time, the government brings cases against mid-level players somehow involved in the financial crisis.  Time after time, people wonder why these are the best cases that can be brought.  My earlier thoughts about this can be found here and here.  Is it possible that even the SEC lacks the resources to investigate the massively document intensive cases that would get to the heart of the matter?

 

SEC To Focus on Structured Finance Ratings

Posted on by

A SEC staff study looks at three ways to reform the manner in which ratings are produced for structured finance securities.

The study, required by Dodd-Frank, addresses

(1) The credit rating process for structured finance products and the conflicts of interest associated with the issuer-pay and the subscriber-pay models;

(2) The feasibility of establishing a system in which a public or private utility or a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) assigns NRSROs to determine the credit ratings for structured finance products, including:

(a) An assessment of potential mechanisms for determining fees for NRSROs for rating structured finance products;
(b) Appropriate methods for paying fees to NRSROs to rate structured finance products;
(c) The extent to which the creation of such a system would be viewed as the creation of moral hazard by the Federal Government; and

(d) Any constitutional or other issues concerning the establishment of such a system;5

(3) The range of metrics that could be used to determine the accuracy of credit ratings for structured finance products;6 and
(4) Alternative means for compensating NRSROs that would create incentives for accurate credit ratings for structured finance products.

 

SEC 2012 Report on NRSROs

Posted on by

This SEC staff report has some interesting findings that relate to asset-backed securitizations.  Highlights include

  • The pie charts on page 6 that indicate the overall market share of NRSROs as well as their share by sector.  It is interesting to see that Fitch does significantly better rating Asset-Backed Securities (20%) than it does overall (13%).
  • “In some structured finance rating files, the Staff found incomplete rating recommendations relating to the final tranches and were unable to ascertain what the committee ultimately approved. In some instances, there was no rationale recorded for why the final rating recommendation deviated from the original.” (14)
  • “The Staff found that [one large] NRSRO placed certain European residential mortgage-backed securities tranches on watch for potential downgrades for over two years and failed to review the watch within the timetable specified in its policies. In doing so, the NRSRO failed to follow its policies and procedures with regard to the use of rating watch status and the timeliness of reviews conducted on the rating watch status. The NRSRO also failed to apply new criteria to these transactions within the time period required by its policies.”  (13)