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.







Covered bonds: systemically too important to fail (two comments on this article)

Comments This article has 2 comments

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Despite long being lauded as one of the very few effective private sector solutions for wholesale mortgage funding, covered bonds are not quite so divorced from the state as they might seem. As the bank finance market evolves in Europe, is it possible that the implied state support seen in the most longstanding regime is, over time, replicated in other regimes?

Covered bonds are typically seen as an asset class capable of providing reliable private sector wholesale mortgage funding. In the wake of the subprime crisis, policymakers in the US are increasing seeing covered bonds as a funding saviour, particularly as they grapple with the prospective wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as a still defunct private label RMBS market.

But as longstanding jurisdictions show — not least through some extraordinarily cheap funding levels — the success of the asset class relies implicitly on state support. And this perception is only likely to become more entrenched.

Muenchener Hypo recently completed a 10 year at 10bp over mid-swaps — just 10bp back of where KfW's 10 year paper was trading. Not long after, French borrower Caisse de Refinancement de l’Habitat (CRH), a systemically important institution, priced a tap of a 12 year at 103bp over.

What MuHyp offered that CRH didn’t was a perception of greater state support. This is even more conspicuous for smaller German issuers like HSH Nordbank and Aareal Bank, who recently secured funding at low double digit spreads.

Domestic demand is fundamental for these German issuers, with 80% or more often going to those buyers. That is partly driven by the fact that some domestic holders can invest without attracting any capital charge, but the zero risk weighting that is applicable to the German Pfandbreife held on the balance sheets of many of Germany’s second and third tier investors may not fully reflect a genuine assessment of underlying credit risk. Some Pfandbriefe are backed by very large portions of commercial real estate mortgage loans, which, being much larger than residential mortgage loans, are generally perceived to be riskier.

In the case of one borrower, as much as 90% of the pool was backed by commercial mortgages. These mortgages, even in Germany, are not in such great shape. Germany has the second largest CMBS sector in Europe, after the UK, and the rate at which underlying commercial loans are due to mature is expected to escalate sharply over the next two years. With the CMBS market closed, loanholders risk being unable to refinance. They may be obliged to put their property up for sale, pushing down commercial property prices. In the recent German Opera Finance CMBS workout, all except the senior noteholders took a loss.

And not all collateral pools are backed by German loans. In one recent covered bond, more than 80% of loans were originated outside the country — including a double digit percentage exposure to Italy. That kind of collateral doesn’t stack up too well against covered bonds that are backed exclusively by large, granular pools of performing prime, first lien residential mortgages.

Ratings are another issue: the senior unsecured rating for many small German issuers is in the range of low single A to triple B, making the second recourse back to the borrower look deficient in comparison to the large range of covered bond issuers that are double A.

Other factors at work

Tight pricing is not just down to an overriding faith that the German state will protect covered bond investors at all costs.

There are technical factors too. Net Pfandbriefe supply this year has fallen by about €20bn — roughly the same drop as last year. Assuming steady demand, this shrinkage means prices go up.

And German funding is often startling cheap only on a mid swaps basis. Relative to Bunds, for example, Pfandbriefe spreads offer a hefty premium of 60bp-70bp, compared to the measly 15bp that CRH offered over the French sovereign.

Nonetheless, implied state support is an enduring factor in the pricing for the smaller German issuers in particular. With covered bonds now more important than ever for the financing of European banks, is it possible that this trend will spread to other parts of Europe?

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


View all comments (2)

  • We are convinced that implied state support is equally strong in all European countries when it comes to willingness. However in some countries the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak - and that is what makes the difference.

    Driving from primary market levels a stronger implicit sovereign support in Germany than in France is incorrect. Fundamental credit assessment is not the driver of spreads – it is as you point out the scarcity of issuance. From December 2011 to end March 2012 outstanding Pfandrief volume fell €20bn (from €586bn to €566bn) but during the full year it fell by €55bn.

    Mu Hyp benefits from the lower Bund level – but there is no indication that this is because a higher degree of implicit support. In fact the implicit support has proven equally frequent in France and given the experience of Dexia and CIF. The gap between CRH and OATs on 24 February was 35bp (120bp vs. 85bp) which, as you say, was a lot smaller versus Mu Hyp’s spread to Bunds of 60bp – a level I would not describe as hefty compared to Lloyds (Gilts +160bp) or most of the Nordic issuers that are in the same range as Mu Hyp

    Regarding capital charges: your reasoning only affects bank investors as these are the only one that have to care about capital charges. And it only affects cooperative banks buying WL Bank, Mu Hyp or DG Hyp or savings banks buying Landesbank Pfandbriefe. As such this benefit only affects a small fraction of the investor base and a small portion of Pfandbrief supply. Moreover Pfandbriefe issues such as HVB trade among the tightest in the market yet they do not have this benefit – even despite their Italian parentage.

  • I think your article touches on some important areas Bill. One is the dislocation between the current treatment and perception of ABS/MBS products (that are vital to providing good mortgage funding long term), and covered bonds/secured financing.

    While the actual credit risk in say, a highly rated Dutch RMBS, has proven to be very low, the regulatory regimes are still pinching the sector from a capital and liquidity point of view - both for issuers and investors. Solvency II for example, hammers ABS the most from a capital standpoint. With capital treatments like that in place of course investors would rather pile into covered bonds over ABS, and of course from an issuance perspective you want to sell the assets people will buy (outside of the ECB!). The issue of concentration risk surely then comes into play if too much emphasis is placed on covered bonds by the sell side and investors.

    Capital treatment should be tied to creditworthiness. The collateral backing the deal is what's important, not the brand. Commercial mortgages are the least well performing sector overall in the EU, experiencing the greatest losses. There is not a level playing field across asset classes based on the credit quality of the underlying. Clearly covered bonds are an important tool in the funding mix but it's important that we get to a stage where there is diversified pool of assets that can be originated and invested in and where people are not disincentivesed to issue and buy into securitisations too.

    Ben Jarrold
    Director of Marketing at Principia Partners

    United Kingdom
    Director of Marketing at Principia Partners, UK


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