Risk Management & Analytics: Can trading of marketplace loans become more frequent?

Can trading of marketplace loans become more frequent?

The marketplace lending industry has experienced tremendous growth in recent years, with loan originations on the rise and numerous new entrants, including some banks that are starting their own platforms or teaming up with fintech companies.

The industry’s growth has been fueled by demand for loans from consumers and businesses that have been underserved by traditional lenders, as well as a desire for higher yields among investors with capital to lend. Any outside observer might conclude that this growth coincides with a high level of secondary market trading activity for marketplace loans (MPLs), but that is not the reality, according to an industry consultant.

“To date, there has not been much of a secondary market for these loans,” said Christopher Kennedy, a managing director at MountainView Financial Solutions, a Situs company. For several years, Kennedy has been leading the development of MountainView’s MPL valuation business, which includes work with some of the largest marketplace lending platforms. He also works on MountainView’s loan sale advisory team.

One fundamental reason for the low level of trading activity is that the loans have a short life, with pools typically consisting of 36-month term loans and typically just 12 to 24 months of duration after considering amortization and prepayments. But a larger reason is that the secondary market hasn’t evolved to the point of having a deep pool of buyers and solid mix of flow and bulk trades.

“Most of the major marketplace lending platforms and investors have become comfortable with specific buyers in a forward-flow agreement, where a pre-determined number of loans are delivered on a specified frequency,” said Kennedy. “In these flow relationships, the buyers have thoroughly vetted the lending platform and thoroughly reviewed the loan underwriting guidelines as well as prepayments and other aspects of loan performance. The flow segment is where the majority of deal activity exists today in the secondary market.”

The bulk segment, however, is very thin, according to Kennedy.

“It’s not a deep, 30-40 group of buyers or even a 10-15 buyer pool showing up for these auctions,” said Kennedy. “It’s less than a handful.”

He explained that in the bulk segment of the secondary market, the buyers typically don’t have a chance to thoroughly review the platform or the seller, while the sellers just want to get the trade done for one reason or another – perhaps their fund is closing or they’re leaving the investment strategy altogether. In this scenario, an investor may have a loan portfolio with $100-200 million of unpaid principal balance, but the investors’ expectations don’t match what buyers are willing to pay; most buyers want to buy the loans at a discount to par. For this reason, Kennedy says, many trades blow up.

To avoid this outcome and have more successful trades, Kennedy said frequent loan valuations are essential.

“MPLs are deep level 3 assets,” said Kennedy. “Investors should be getting multiple independent valuations on their portfolios, and there should be a level of understanding regarding the potentially large range of fair value estimates to help set their expectations about pricing levels should they decide to sell. The reason a lot of these trades don’t get done is because these investors don’t really understand where the market is … because they’re not getting the asset marked by a third party that is in touch with a variety of market participants.”

From the sellers’ perspective, they think they can get a premium price in their sale, because they have been achieving returns ranging from 8-9% to the low teens, according to Kennedy. But buyers don’t see it that way; they usually see the assumptions as aggressive, especially now, when we may be at the top of a credit cycle and could be going into a recession in the near future. In addition, a buyer may see significant counterparty risk if the seller’s fund isn’t going to exist in the near future.

Another issue for potential buyers is loan servicing. If buyers don’t have a loan servicing operation, they need to find a sub-servicer. Some sub-servicers specialize in MPLs, according to Kennedy, but this is just another issue that needs to be addressed prior to engaging with the secondary market, and an expense that may reduce returns.

“In short, it’s a complex process to trade these assets,” said Kennedy.

So what are the elements of successful trades of MPLs? Kennedy is part of diverse panel that will answer this question in a session at the Marketplace Lending & Alternative Financing Summit in Dana Point, CA. The session, Debt Sale Trends in the Marketplace/Alt Lending Sector, takes place Nov. 29 and includes panelists spanning across asset managers, loan sale advisors, loan auction platforms and loan valuation providers.


Many financial institutions don’t use operational risk management to challenge business models

Aligning operational risk management (ORM) with strategy could enable strategic change, improve business performance and enhance customers’ experience for financial institutions. However, only half of firms surveyed with less than $250 billion in assets leverage ORM to challenge business models, according to a report by KPMG and the Risk Management Association (RMA).

According to the Operational Risk Management Excellence Survey, larger institutions appear more advanced in aligning ORM with strategy, with 90% at or above $250 billion in assets leveraging ORM to challenge business models.

“Aligning ORM with business strategy enables financial institutions to identify, assess and mitigate risks, while adding business value,” said KPMG’s principal in operations and compliance risk services, Phillip Bray. “We’ve observed that, for many institutions, the first priority is to resolve regulatory issues and then take a broader look at how ORM is integrated into strategy.”

Read more: Asia Insurance Review


Easing continues on business, residential mortgage loans amid softer demand

In the previous quarter, banks eased terms and standards for business loans, while tightening slightly on commercial real estate loans and easing in most residential mortgage loan categories, according to the Federal Reserve’s latest senior loan officer opinion survey. On net, banks reported weaker loan demand across several lending categories.

On net, 16 percent of banks — the same as the period before — eased standards and terms for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to large and middle-market firms; just 3.1 percent of banks on net said they eased for smaller firms. For large and midsize firms, banks that eased terms were more likely to allow bigger credit lines, relax interest rate spreads and loosen up loan covenants. Every bank that eased cited more aggressive competition as an important reason. More banks saw weaker demand for C&I loans than saw stronger demand, with nearly two-thirds of those reporting weaker demand saying that customers were shifting to other loan sources.

On net, more banks tightened standards on CRE loans than eased them amid weaker demand. For residential mortgage loans, 11.3 percent reported easing on GSE-eligible mortgages. Banks on net reported easing in every mortgage loan type reported. Mortgage demand continued to slip during the previous quarter. Reversing the recent trend, in the consumer lending category, a net 2.2 percent of banks eased standards on credit cards, principally by lowering credit limits, increasing spreads and increasing the minimum required credit score, while a net 3.6 percent eased terms on auto loans.

Read more: American Bankers Association


Recessions always put banks in the path of the storm – which ones will be positioned to withstand reputational tornadoes?

The 10-year anniversary of the 2008 financial collapse brought with it voluminous reporting and analysis of what happened, how it happened and whether it could happen again. It also brought forth commentary from angry individuals who never expected to be affected by the crisis and who, in some cases, are still trying to recover from harm caused by “the system.”

That generalized anger poses a reputational threat to banks and other financial institutions that many hold responsible for the events of a decade ago. It is not a threat of negative media. There’s been plenty. Rather, it is a threat of real economic damage from angry stakeholders who will be let down and disappointed by “the system” yet again when the next economic downturn inevitably strikes.

Read more: Banking Exchange


Click here to subscribe to Situs Newswatch.

Thank you for choosing the Situs Newswatch. If you want to see your company here or have an idea for coverage, please respond to this email or email inquiries@situs.com for more information.

Disclaimers:

General. This disclaimer applies to this publication and the verbal or written comments of any person presenting it. In this publication Situs Group LLC taken together with its affiliates are collectively referred to as “Situs”.

Forward Looking Statements. Forward looking statements (including estimates, opinions or expectations about any future event) contained in this publication are based on a variety of estimates and assumptions. There can be no assurance that any such estimates and/or assumptions will prove accurate, and actual results may differ materially.

No advice. Situs advises that no statement in this publication is to be construed as advice of any kind, including, without limitation, as a recommendation to make any investment or to buy or sell any security or as investment advice. The examples contained in this publication are intended for use as background on the real estate industry as a whole, not as support for any particular real estate investment or security.

Information. Certain information contained in this publication includes articles, data, calculations and/or figures that have been prepared by and obtained from others, including publically available sources. Such information has not been audited or verified by Situs. This publication does not purport to be complete on any topic addressed. This publication may contain the subjective views of certain Situs employees and may not necessarily reflect the collective view of Situs or certain Situs business units.

Logos, trade names, trademarks and copyrights. Certain logos, trade names, trademarks and copyrights included in this publication are strictly for identification and informational purposes only. Such logos, trade names, trademarks and copyrights may be owned by companies or persons not affiliated with Situs. Situs makes no claim that any such company or person has sponsored or endorsed the use of any such logo, trade name, trademark and/or copyright.