Tip:

View  and share The Cover Covered Bond Map 2013 - featuring new covered bond jurisdictions and including data tables and graphs. Click here

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
  • All fields are compulsory




EMAIL A FRIEND

  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
  • All fields are compulsory

Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.







3CIF and AIB: a tale of two bonds

Comments This article has 5 comments

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

This article has five comments: Securitisation was blamed for causing the financial crisis that was triggered in 2007. But the technique must now be recognised for its potential to resuscitate fragile banks. There was a startling contrast in the market last week between two European issuers, 3CIF and Allied Irish Banks. At the very point that 3CIF was falling from grace, AIB glided, phoenix-like, back into the capital markets.

AIB issued the first unguaranteed bank bond for an Irish institution since 2009 through its Tenterden RMBS. Meanwhile, 3CIF’s covered bonds, which are collateralised by RMBS, were suspended from trading on Euronext (but still trade OTC).

The French issuer boasts a robust core tier one capital, but the prospect of a multi-notch rating downgrade from Moody’s suggests its overall cost of funding will become uneconomic.

With Moody’s taking negative actions on 114 banks across 16 European countries, the burden of linking what is generally high quality collateral with an issuer is, only now, starting to dawn on the market.

The disastrous outcome for 3CIF — and who knows who else — illustrates just how reliant covered bonds are on the credit perception of the issuer. Compare that to securitisation, where de-linkage from the issuer is what it is all about.

The ability to create a bankruptcy remote vehicle was supposed to be a strength of covered bonds too. But with the assets remaining on balance sheet, the link could never really be broken.

It is worth noting that AIB's deal involved all-UK collateral. A truer test of securitisation might have been if the pool of mortgages had been Irish. But there were still other crucial aspects to the structure that drew on the strengths of securitisation and helped distance the link from collateral to issuer.

The use of a live back-up servicer that can be in place within a fraction of the time it usually takes, and the outsourcing of critical roles like cash manager and account provider, gave enhanced de-linkage.

Many factors were at work in the two very separate cases of 3CIF and AIB, but there can be little doubt that their respective choice of funding vehicle played a crucial role in determining the two very different outcomes.

Thankfully, it seems that some regulators, like the European Banking Authority, are starting to shift their stance. The EBA’s latest comments on the viability of securitisation funding (describing it as an important component of reducing the reliance on central banks) give reason to hope that it will only be a matter of time before the technique receives preferential treatment.

And not before time. After all, European prime RMBS has proved more rating-resilient than covered bonds. In the wake of the US subprime crisis, regulators in Europe were quick to tar the entire securitisation market with the same brush — and have been slow to recognise that the world has moved on. For the sake of the European banking sector, a change of heart is long overdue.

What do you think? Please comment. All feedback is anonymous.


View all comments (5)

  • I concur with all the comments and the tone and content is spot on. However, I dont believe that we or anybody should just be looking at the banks to buy the issuance. The demand for asset backed collateral delivering above libor fixed income (or close to fixed) over a reasonable term should be coming from those who are stuck in low yielding government bonds.
    So where are the pensions and life funds in this play? I suspect their asset managers and risk committees are stuck in the rut of looking at these structured investments through the same lenses that the regulators are using - namely that they are 'contaminated'.
    As we know not so, at least not when structured and managed in the middle of the normal distribution curve rather than at the extremes!
    Mark Davies: Interim Head of Finance at Hermes Fund Manager

  • Securitization inherited problems for which it cannot be blamed, and then crystallized the bad press (after lousy performance) of a few asset classes. And yet the performance of certain structures and underlying collateral has proven to be bullet proof.

  • Carlos Terre • Indeed, it is about time that securitisation gets credited for its virtues, seldom acknowledged these days. The main pilar or securitisation is the isolation from related parties. The hybrid nature of covered bonds, linked to the issuing financial corporate, creates a dangerous credit risk that is being captured in the ratings.

    Yet the regulator, with its pretension of knowledge, still considers capital charges that ignore this fact. It is hard to tell whether investors stay away from securitisations because of lack of confidence in the underlying collateral, or because of the bias created by regulation.

    But there is no doubt that securitisation (particularly pass-through structures with static underlying pools) is and will continue to be a sound way of funding by distributing risk tailored to the appetite of investors. When will this truth be acknowledged?

  • • Indeed, it is about time that securitisation gets credited for its virtues, seldom acknowledged these days. The main pilar or securitisation is the isolation from related parties. The hybrid nature of covered bonds, linked to the issuing financial corporate, creates a dangerous credit risk that is being captured in the ratings.

    Yet the regulator, with its pretension of knowledge, still considers capital charges that ignore this fact. It is hard to tell whether investors stay away from securitisations because of lack of confidence in the underlying collateral, or because of the bias created by regulation.

    But there is no doubt that securitisation (particularly pass-through structures with static underlying pools) is and will continue to be a sound way of funding by distributing risk tailored to the appetite of investors. When will this truth be acknowledged?

    Carlos Terre: Director at Fitch Ratings (Structured Finance) & IESE Executive MBA


  • CIFEUR Covered Bonds have not been delisted, just suspended from trading via the stock market due to missing signings by auditor Deloitte. They (CCCI/CIFEUR) are planned to be bought by either Banque Postal or similar. CIFEUR CBS are an OTC product anyway, hence CIFEUR are being traded OTC all day long.
    It is a bit of a pain to compare the new AIB originated RMBS with CIFEUR. CIFEUR Covered Bonds are sizable, many maturities are outstanding, they have two layers of securities (Bank pays/ if bank cannot pay you do have access to the cover pool as an investor). CIFEUR and the unsecured CCCIs both have agency character as they they have the political order/duty from the French government to hand out mortgages to socially disadvantaged citizens form France. Hence, they enjoy strong political backing.
    AIB RMBS are illiquid, very thin investor base, no two claims, they are tranched, they are issued by an SPV, no political backing, and so on. They are not regulated like Covereds and they are not guaranteed by anybody.

    That is why you "only" get ASW+150 for CIFEUR but DM=300 for the most senior tranche of the AIB RMBS (which are OTC products as well). CIFEUR CBs and CCCI unsecured are a steal at current levels, AIB RMBS are okish priced.


Also in this section



COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
  • All fields are compulsory




EMAIL A FRIEND

  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
  • All fields are compulsory

Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.







Covered bonds €500m+


Lead manager Amount
€(bn)
No of Issues Share %
1 UniCredit 3.46 22 8.4
2 Credit Agricole CIB 3.39 20 8.2
3 Barclays 3.35 18 8.1
4 BNP Paribas 2.75 13 6.6

 league table builder