Uncategorized

Bad credit news may be good news for MTA IO

admin | July 10, 2020

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. This material does not constitute research.

One asset that could offset some of the credit risk from the ongoing Covid crisis is interest-only classes of legacy pay-option ARM MBS. The sector should benefit from depressed prepayment speeds driven by elevated levels of borrower forbearance. And while all IO would benefit from slower speeds, certain types of basis IO also benefit from Fed easing and potentially the transition from LIBOR to SOFR at the end of next year.

A refresher on MTA basis IO

MTA basis IOs are bonds structured off of option ARM deals issued before the 2008 financial crisis. The interest rate on loans behind these deals floats with 12-month MTA, or monthly Treasury average, while the interest rate on the MBS float with 1-month LIBOR, hence the basis IO. MTA is calculated as the 12-month moving average of 1-year constant maturity Treasury rates, so MTA and LIBOR can differ substantially. While structures will vary deal to deal, these bonds usually benefit from an increase in the spread between a high value of 12-month MTA and a lower value of 1-month LIBOR.

These bonds have become increasingly attractive given the recent decline in 1-month LIBOR. Over the past 2.5 years, the average difference between 12-month MTA and 1-month LIBOR has been just 12 bp. That spread has gapped out to more than 100 bp as of June. Admittedly, forward MTA rates predict that this gap will narrow significantly over the next year. But given the lagging nature of the index, investors still can still benefit from greater carry associated with the difference between the two indices in the near term. (Exhibit 1)

One example of an MTA basis IO is CWALT 2006-OA21 X. The X class is stripped off of the entire collateral balance. The bond’s coupon is derived from the difference between the collateral net WAC and coupons of the senior and subordinate bonds. The IO gets paid at the top of the interest payment waterfall, where, absent the need to repay interest shortfalls, its coupon will be paid pro-rata with the senior certificates. The senior and subordinate bonds in the deal are structured as 1-month LIBOR floaters. Therefore, as LIBOR decreases and MTA lags, the basis IO coupon will increase.

Exhibit 1: MTA IO benefits from wide spread between MTA and LIBOR

Source: Intex, Bloomberg LP, Amherst Pierpont

Why Option ARM IO may outperform

Option ARM IO may outperform other non-agency derivatives due to a few other factors. First, outside of legacy subprime, where it is difficult to find pure IO exposure, option ARM collateral has the highest absolute amount of loans either delinquent or modified and in forbearance than any other sector of the legacy market including recently securitized legacy loans. Elevated forbearance and delinquency rates should suppress prepayments on option ARM loans, enhancing carry on IOs backed by the collateral (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2: Option ARMs have higher delinquencies than most other cohorts

Source: Amherst Insight Labs, Amherst Pierpont

Additionally, option ARM collateral by and large has outsized exposure to judicial foreclosure states like New York, New Jersey and Florida relative to other cohorts. Given the long liquidation lags that already exist in judicial foreclosure states, specifically New York and New Jersey, which will likely only further extend due to Covid-19 related foreclosure moratoriums and court closures, it seems unlikely that these delinquencies will materialize into losses that would cause write-downs and curtail the IO any time in the near future.

In fact, given the amount of built-up borrower equity in the cohort, it seems that there is a greater likelihood of modification than foreclosure and subsequent liquidation on loans that roll into late stage delinquencies. If a greater amount of previously always-performing option ARM loans become modified, historical prepayment rates suggest speeds should slow down materially. Trailing prepayment rates show that always-performing loans have prepaid almost 20 CRR faster than modified re-performing ones, which have paid roughly in-line with non-performing loans where the prepayment was likely the function of liquidation with no loss severity (Exhibit 3). Admittedly, a high concentration of RPLs may mean the coupons on modified loans may be fixed for some period and capped at a certain rate, potentially mitigating the effect of the MTA-LIBOR basis.

Exhibit 3: Option ARM RPLs prepay much slower than always performing loans

Source: Amherst Insight Labs, Amherst Pierpont

Application for MBS portfolios

MTA basis IO may be an attractive addition to MBS portfolios for a couple of reasons. In addition to offering attractive yield and carry, unlike traditional IO, MTA basis IO trades with positive duration, similar to agency inverse IO, because even though the cash flow is getting shorter due to rising prepayments, the bond’s coupon is increasing. Given the drop in rates and overall duration shortening of MBS portfolios associated with the rally, it likely makes sense to add IO with positive duration rather than further exacerbate duration shortening by adding IO that trades with negative duration. The key difference between MTA IO and most agency inverse IO is that the loans backing these bonds are burned out and often credit impaired. As a result the prepayment risk and subsequent cash flow contraction is mitigated to some extent, increasing the benefit of the larger coupon as interest rates fall. Additionally, while the coupon is capped on agency inverse IO as a function of the strike and the level of 1-month LIBOR, MTA basis IO is not capped. And while challenging given the incongruity of index replacement language across the legacy market, MTA IO may have significant potential upside to LIBOR going away at the end of 2021 as language in certain trusts would effectively fix coupons on liabilities pegged to LIBOR at its last observed value.

With that said, MTA IO is not without its own unique underlying risks. As stated earlier, large scale modifications would potentially mitigate the benefit of the MTA LIBOR basis if the underlying loans’ coupons were converted to fixed rates. And while prepayment risk in these bonds may be mitigated by the underlying collateral, call risk may not be and remains one of the biggest risks associated with seasoned non-agency IO. However, as delinquency rates in these pools increase, all else equal, the value of the collateral should fall, pushing a par clean-up call option further out of the money.

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 © 2024 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.