Uncategorized

Pool WACs improve under UMBS

admin | June 21, 2019

This document is intended for institutional investors and is not subject to all of the independence and disclosure standards applicable to debt research reports prepared for retail investors.

For months investors have been dealing with a growing cohort of MBS pools issued by the GSEs that include loans with much higher note rates than typical. High excess servicing valuations have encouraged originators to retain as much servicing as possible by selling loans into lower coupon pools. These pools have much worse convexity, which has driven down the value of TBA contracts. This practice has especially hurt 3.5%s. With the debut of UMBS, that has changed.

Steps taken by the GSEs and FHFA in June appear to be improving the quality of new production UMBS pools. The average spread between the note rate of the loans and the net coupon of the pool is lower than in prior months, and far fewer pools with very high spreads are being created. These pools should have better convexity and be more valuable. Eventually the TBA contract should also improve, but it could take some time.

New pooling restrictions began in June

As part of the UMBS initiative the FHFA and GSEs decided to limit the ability of an originator to deliver a loan into lower coupon pools. These changes are part of the overall effort to ensure the two GSEs’ pools prepay similarly.

The first restriction limits the spread between a loan’s note rate and the net rate of the pool to no more than 112.5 bp. This means any loan is eligible for delivery into only two coupons. The second restriction is that an originator cannot retain more than 50 bp of servicing. Any additional spread must be paid to the GSE as a guarantee fee. No matter which coupon the originator chooses, the GSEs buyup/buydown grid can be used to retain the maximum 50 bp of servicing. Therefore the originator no longer has an incentive to deliver into the lower coupon solely to retain more servicing.

Average spreads are coming down

Spreads rose steadily during the latter part of 2018, and especially near the end of the year and into 2019. Exhibit 1 shows the spread by coupon for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 30 year fixed rate pools, excluding specified pools. This pooling practice particularly hurt 3.5%s, and more recently (as rates fell) 3.0%s. These coupons would otherwise not have seen much production, so they were primarily filled with high rate loans. This drove up spreads considerably. For example, 3.0% spreads peaked at 110 bp in January.

Exhibit 1: Average spreads of new pools are tightening

Note: Average spread between gross WAC and coupon for GSE 30-year pools. Source: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, eMBS, Amherst Pierpont Securities

However spreads have started to recover. With the advent of the UMBS rules in June spreads on 3.5% pools have fallen nearly to the same levels seen in 4.0%s. 3.0% pools remain a little higher; this may reflect that the lowest coupon may be best execution for loans with higher guarantee fees. Delivering into a higher coupon would require cash upfront to buy down the guarantee fee, which may not be feasible.

The spread distribution of new pools has also improved

The average spread is only part of the story; the distribution of pools also matters. The TBA tracks the worst to deliver pools, not the average pool, so a tighter distribution of pool spreads should eventually help the TBA. Exhibit 2 is a histogram of the balance-weighted distribution of pools created for 3.0%s through 4.5%s. The x-axis represents the spread of each pool, bucketed into 5 bp intervals. The y-axis is the percent (by balance) of pools that fall in that bucket. For each coupon and time frame the bars add to 100%. The distributions are run before and after the UMBS pooling requirements were implemented.

Exhibit 2: Fewer pools were created with wide spreads

Note: Histogram of pool spread between WAC and coupon, by coupon and issuance time. Spread is calculated for each pool; distribution is balance weighted; bars within each subplot add to 100%. Source: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, eMBS, Amherst Pierpont Securities

The distribution changes dramatically in June for 3.0% and 3.5% pools. Prior to June roughly 79% of 3.0% coupon pools and 43% of 3.5% coupon pools had a spread greater than 100 bp. That has fallen to 5.7% of June 3.0% pools and 0.4% of June 3.5% pool (measured on 6/19/2019). However there are also fewer pools being created with lower WACs, so the distributions are significantly narrower. Even though the average spread for 4.0% and 4.5% pools hasn’t changed much, both coupons benefit from lower dispersion.

admin
jkillian@apsec.com
john.killian@santander.us 1 (646) 776-7714

This material is intended only for institutional investors and does not carry all of the independence and disclosure standards of retail debt research reports. In the preparation of this material, the author may have consulted or otherwise discussed the matters referenced herein with one or more of SCM’s trading desks, any of which may have accumulated or otherwise taken a position, long or short, in any of the financial instruments discussed in or related to this material. Further, SCM may act as a market maker or principal dealer and may have proprietary interests that differ or conflict with the recipient hereof, in connection with any financial instrument discussed in or related to this material.

This message, including any attachments or links contained herein, is subject to important disclaimers, conditions, and disclosures regarding Electronic Communications, which you can find at https://portfolio-strategy.apsec.com/sancap-disclaimers-and-disclosures.

Important Disclaimers

Copyright © 2023 Santander US Capital Markets LLC and its affiliates (“SCM”). All rights reserved. SCM is a member of FINRA and SIPC. This material is intended for limited distribution to institutions only and is not publicly available. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited.

In making this material available, SCM (i) is not providing any advice to the recipient, including, without limitation, any advice as to investment, legal, accounting, tax and financial matters, (ii) is not acting as an advisor or fiduciary in respect of the recipient, (iii) is not making any predictions or projections and (iv) intends that any recipient to which SCM has provided this material is an “institutional investor” (as defined under applicable law and regulation, including FINRA Rule 4512 and that this material will not be disseminated, in whole or part, to any third party by the recipient.

The author of this material is an economist, desk strategist or trader. In the preparation of this material, the author may have consulted or otherwise discussed the matters referenced herein with one or more of SCM’s trading desks, any of which may have accumulated or otherwise taken a position, long or short, in any of the financial instruments discussed in or related to this material. Further, SCM or any of its affiliates may act as a market maker or principal dealer and may have proprietary interests that differ or conflict with the recipient hereof, in connection with any financial instrument discussed in or related to this material.

This material (i) has been prepared for information purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities, related investments or other financial instruments, (ii) is neither research, a “research report” as commonly understood under the securities laws and regulations promulgated thereunder nor the product of a research department, (iii) or parts thereof may have been obtained from various sources, the reliability of which has not been verified and cannot be guaranteed by SCM, (iv) should not be reproduced or disclosed to any other person, without SCM’s prior consent and (v) is not intended for distribution in any jurisdiction in which its distribution would be prohibited.

In connection with this material, SCM (i) makes no representation or warranties as to the appropriateness or reliance for use in any transaction or as to the permissibility or legality of any financial instrument in any jurisdiction, (ii) believes the information in this material to be reliable, has not independently verified such information and makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy or completeness of such information, (iii) accepts no responsibility or liability as to any reliance placed, or investment decision made, on the basis of such information by the recipient and (iv) does not undertake, and disclaims any duty to undertake, to update or to revise the information contained in this material.

Unless otherwise stated, the views, opinions, forecasts, valuations, or estimates contained in this material are those solely of the author, as of the date of publication of this material, and are subject to change without notice. The recipient of this material should make an independent evaluation of this information and make such other investigations as the recipient considers necessary (including obtaining independent financial advice), before transacting in any financial market or instrument discussed in or related to this material.