roof cee 2006- 1 transaction rating agency...

7
Tycjan Bielecki AVP- Analyst Structured Finance Group ROOF CEE 2006 ROOF CEE 2006 - - 1 transaction 1 transaction Rating agency perspective Rating agency perspective Friday, May 16 2008 Friday, May 16 2008 Bratislava Bratislava

Upload: vunhu

Post on 27-Apr-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Tycjan BieleckiAVP- Analyst Structured Finance Group

ROOF CEE 2006ROOF CEE 2006-- 1 transaction1 transaction

Rating agency perspectiveRating agency perspective

Friday, May 16 2008Friday, May 16 2008

BratislavaBratislava

2

Transaction Tranching

New Issue Report published on March 23rd 2006

3

Strengths of the transaction

KfW as swap counterparty;

Elimination of country, foreign exchange risk and legal transfer issues;

Benefit of synthetic excess spread;

Only obligors with an internal bank rating of 3.5 or better may be included in the reference portfolio;

High level of borrower diversity;

A 50% minimum level of collateral for the reference portfolio is covenanted by the protection buyers.

4

Weaknesses and mitigants of the transaction

Synthetic structure

KfW as intermediary protection buyer

Defined termination events

Originator’s risk management developed and monitored on group level

Both originators and major shareholder unrated nor guaranteed by rated entity

Existence of some regional and industry concentrations within each country

Using additional data such as historical delinquency and loan loss provisioning

Limited availability of data on losses and recoveries

MitigantRisk

5

Weaknesses and mitigants of the transaction cont.

As a result of modelling gross recovery rate has been reduced by accrued interest and associated workout costs

Realised loss includes also interest accrued and enforcement costs

Eligibility and replenishment criteria

Early amortisation triggers

Minimum WA margin criterion

Possibility of portfolio change as result of structure (replenishment)

MitigantRisk

6

Moody’s Analysis

Lognormal distribution assumed to model default rate pattern on individual sub-portfolios

Sub-pools individually assessed and modelled

Timing of default: a default rate implied idealised timing of default curve used per sub-pool

Amortisation of the portfolio

Recovery Recovery rates: fixedrates: fixedLiability side Liability side

modelling in modelling in line with line with documentationdocumentation

Calculation of the Calculation of the expected loss expected loss on the on the tranchestranches and and derivation of derivation of the ratingthe rating

7

www.moodys.com/structured www.moodys.com/structured [email protected]

© Copyright 2008, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. and/or its licensors including Moody’s Assurance Company, Inc. (together, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.