Oh, What a Tangled Web CMBS Hotel Loan Delinquencies Weave

Editor’s Note: It’s a safe bet that many hotel owners who signed loan documents for a new mortgage with a CMBS lender years ago never fully understood the complex, sometimes arcane, world of securitized financing that they were about to enter. This column examines the parties involved in a CMBS transaction and the critical roles they play during the life of the loan.

Since 2003, roughly $110 billion of lodging mortgage debt has been originated and securitized into real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs) in the United States, collateralized by slightly over 18,000 lodging properties. To put this number into greater context, there are by several estimates roughly 51,000 hotels in the entire U.S. hotel market.

So, the notion of financing hotels with a conduit or REMIC mortgage was by most measures successful, given the apparently large number of hotels financed with this method. This type of financing offered a ready source of senior mortgage debt, often at attractive pricing and terms.

The cycle continued until late 2007 and early 2008 when the music stopped rather abruptly because of the rapid deterioration of the credit markets. After the failure of Bear Stearns, and more dramatically Lehman Brothers, the game was really at an end.

Longstanding criticisms
Even when the securitization era was in full swing from 2005-2007, borrowers would often complain about what appeared to be overkill in documentation at closing. The necessity of placing the hotel asset in a special purpose entity and other seemingly arcane and annoying requirements, such as the need for a separate director who was not supposed to be affiliated with the real ownership entity, was bothersome to borrowers.

And the biggest complaint often voiced by borrowers was that there was apparently no real lender to talk to in the event that a question or difficulty arose in connection with the loan.

It is obvious that this financing market has clearly become sour, if not alarmingly depressed. Currently there is an estimated $66 billion to $70 billion of hotel mortgage debt still held in the universe of REMIC trusts. This difference in dollar amounts is based on how the measurement is calculated, such as whether foreclosed/REO hotels are included in the calculation.

The staggering news is that of the roughly $66 billion in currently outstanding hotel mortgage debt, over $17 billion (roughly 26%) is now in special servicing. And of that amount, nearly $13 billion (almost 20% of the $66 billion!) is listed as more than 60 days delinquent in debt-service payments. These numbers far exceed the most dire predictions made as recently as a year ago.

To further put these numbers into context, in normal times the rate of default as measured by the level of hotel mortgage loans in special servicing varies from 0.5% to 1%.

If a borrower’s property is in special servicing, or soon to enter into special servicing, or if it is likely that debt-service payments will soon be missed, what’s a borrower to do? Well, it’s a little tedious. For starters, the borrower should become rapidly familiar with the variety of parties that now somewhat collectively constitute the makeup of the lender, and understand how to interact with them.

What follows is an overview of the parties involved in a commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) loan and the vital roles they play.

Loan originator – This was the institution with which the borrower had initial contact when the loan was first granted. It was usually a large, well-known investment bank. Officials within the institution did the initial loan underwriting, submitted a loan term sheet, and ultimately closed the loan.

In most cases, very soon after the loan was closed it was then securitized by the loan originator. At that point, the loan originator essentially exited the deal, placing the loan into a REMIC pool. Pass-through certificates — generally referred to in the market as bonds — were sold to a variety of investors.

Although these bonds were structured to perform — in most cases as fixed-income securities — they technically are a fractional ownership of the commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) trust, and accordingly are in the underlying assets.

At the time of securitization, certain key documents were generated. Notable are the pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) and the intercreditor agreement/participation agreement.

These are collectively the governing documents in the administration of the loans and are designed to govern the lenders’ actions in case of a loan workout. However, the borrowers are not a party to these agreements, and most borrowers never see a copy of them.

Trustee – This entity doesn’t play an obvious role in sub-performing and non-performing debt issues. Essentially, the trustee is the nominal owner of all the assets in a CMBS trust, whose primary responsibility is to hold the assets in trust for CMBS investors.

Borrowers won’t generally hear from the trustee. Via power of attorney, the trustee delegates the day-to-day administration of the loans to the master servicer or the special servicer. In the event of a foreclosure, however, such action is taken in the name of the trustee. After title passes, it is held in the name of the trustee.

Servicers – Although individual mortgage loans in CMBS pools are routinely tranched into varying classes of interests, which in turn are held by multiple investors, they still represent interests in single loans secured by individual properties, or pools of properties in some cases.

It then follows that various investors do not have their own special servicer for their portion of a mortgage loan. Common sense would have it that there can only be a single master servicer and a special servicer for any single mortgage loan.

Mayhem would result if there were multiple servicers with potentially conflicting servicing strategies on a single loan (or collateral package).

It is important to note that during negotiations, servicers are required to adhere to a servicing standard, which requires that they service each mortgage loan in a manner that benefits all investors in the REMIC with a view toward maximization of proceeds on a net present value basis.

Master servicer – This is the entity with which most borrowers have contact. A master servicer is responsible for servicing performing mortgage loans, including collecting payments, handling routine but minor borrower requests, and performing a general review of borrower compliance with the terms of the loan.

This entity also prepares periodic reports concerning the property for the benefit of the trustee. Any request by a borrower for a significant loan modification is pointless while the loan is still overseen by the master servicer. Only when a loan has been transferred to the special servicer will the borrower be able to meaningfully negotiate for some relief in the form of a modification or restructuring.

The master servicer also is required to cover any delinquent payments on the underlying loans so that the CMBS holders do not experience shortfalls as a result of borrower delinquencies.

In addition, the master servicer also funds such items as may be necessary to protect the collateral position, such as delinquent taxes or overdue insurance premiums, as well as any other costs associated with servicing or enforcing the loans. This is true even for loans that have been transferred to special servicing.

In return, the master servicer receives a “super-superior” right to be reimbursed for these advances. Advances are repaid as a priority from the first funds realized on a defaulted loan.

If for any reason the advance is not recoverable from the proceeds of the loan on which the advance was made, the master servicer may reimburse itself from the proceeds of other loans in the CMBS pool. These advances are not intended as a form of credit support. Master servicer advances are intended as liquidity for the CMBS.

Special servicer– Upon certain uncured monetary defaults — such as a loan 60 days or more past due, or other circumstances including failure in non-monetary default covenants that could affect the CMBS — the master servicer can refer the loan file to the special servicer.

Special servicers have significantly greater powers to consider restructuring the debt. Prior to late 2009, special servicers generally did not permit loan modifications unless there was an actual default on the loan. Some borrowers actually defaulted on their loans in order to initiate a dialogue with the servicers, generally a bad move.

However, certain changes made to the rules governing REMICs in September 2009 now allow for some loan modifications when default is either imminent or anticipated in the future. Specifically, the 2009 changes referred to two items: the principally secured test, and the imminent default test.

In the principally secured test, the REMIC rules were modified to permit changes to collateral and credit enhancement relating to a mortgage loan (even a performing mortgage loan), so long as the mortgage loan remains principally secured by real property after the modification.

Principally secured means either (1) that the mortgage loan has a loan-to-value ratio of 125% or less, taking into account only the real property collateral; or (2) for mortgage loans with loan-to value ratios above 125%, there is no reduction in the fair market value of the real property after the modification.

The principally secured test applies to all releases, including those contemplated by the parties when a loan was closed, and releases on loans in default or for which default is reasonably foreseeable.

This latter requirement may present difficulty to servicers who are often obligated under mortgage loans originated prior to these REMIC rule changes to release property if the borrower meets certain specified conditions under the mortgage loan, without regard to whether the principally secured test is satisfied.

The securitization industry has requested the IRS modify these rules to prevent difficulties for servicers and potential liability for securitization trusts.

In the imminent default test, Revenue Procedure 2009-45 has been interpreted as follows: The “IRS will not challenge the tax status of a REMIC due to the REMIC’s modification of a commercial mortgage loan that is currently a performing mortgage loan but where, in the view of the commercial mortgage loan servicer, a significant risk of default exists, even if the default is expected to occur only at some distant future date.”

Controlling class — Finally, any brief overview of CMBS and workouts would not be complete without mentioning the controlling class. The most subordinate tranche of CMBS holders within a REMIC constitute the controlling class of CMBS holders. This tranche is “controlling” because it is in a first-loss position and will suffer the most immediate loss if the value of a loan deteriorates.

In other words, most CMBS structures will designate one investor as the “controlling holder” of a mortgage loan, with rights to influence the servicing of the loan. The controlling holder is generally the holder of the most junior tranche of the mortgage debt.

The concept of giving servicing control to the most junior investor is distinctive to CMBS. In virtually all other forms of commercial lending, the most senior lender has control in a default situation, and subordinated debt is left to fend for itself.

However, in CMBS, the so-called “B-piece” investor is sometimes affiliated with the special servicer, and having the first-loss risk at stake in the event of default is therefore thought to make this class the most motivated. Moreover, because of the provisions in the PSA, this class has the most tools at its disposal and is best positioned to achieve a favorable result in a default scenario.

A controlling class can lose its controlling status if the value of the pool of securitized loans declines below a minimum value. If this occurs, the next most subordinate tranche of CMBS holders will become the controlling class. Servicing control can shift from the most junior investor upward in the capital stack as a result of an appraisal.

A “control appraisal event” will occur if, following application of appraisal reductions from the bottom tranche of the mortgage loan upward through the capital stack, the current controlling holder is not deemed secured in an amount at least equal to 25% of its portion of the loan balance.

Appraisal reductions are calculated by comparing 90% of the appraised value of the property on the one hand, to all amounts owed on the related loan and all expenses to be reimbursed from the loan or the collateral, on the other. If 90% of the value is insufficient to pay all such amounts, then the negative difference is called an “appraisal reduction amount.”

One right of the controlling class is the ability to terminate and replace the special servicer with a new special servicer. Another right is the power to approve or disapprove certain actions taken by the special servicer.

For example, unless it has obtained the consent of the controlling class, the special servicer may not commence a foreclosure, accept a discounted loan payoff, or modify the monetary terms of a loan.

However, there is an exemption to the requirement that the special servicer obtain the consent of the controlling class to these actions. The special servicer can take any action without the advice and consent of the controlling class, if taking such action is required to comply with the servicing standard.

In a future column, I will examine the specific steps in a typical CMBS workout. Of course, that presumes that there are typical workouts. With some patience and understanding of who the parties are on the lenders’ side of the table, what challenges they face, and the rules governing their actions, usually a satisfactory resolution to a hotel workout can be achieved.

Michael Sullivan is managing director of HVS Capital Corp., and is based in Denver. The company’s services include financing, investment sales and capital advisory for hotels, fractional ownership and golf courses.

Reprints and Licensing
© 2014 Penton Media Inc.

Acceptable Use Policy
blog comments powered by Disqus

Most Recent

More Recent Articles

Career Center

Quick Job Search
Enter Keyword(s):
Enter a City:

Select a State:

Select a Category:

Franchise Fact File Top Brands
Brand Company Basics Top Management Companies
Owners & Operators Industry Consultants
Industry Associations Industry Events
Design Firms Purchasing Companies
Top Ownership Groups  


Click here to view all of the Lodging Hospitality Photo Galleries

Accor Best Western
Carlson Rezidor Choice
Hilton Hyatt
IHG La Quinta
Marriott Starwood
Vantage Wyndham

Free Product Information
News and Trends for the Hotel, Motel, and Hospitality Markets.

Lodging Hospitality eReport
Lodging Hospitality electronic newsletters are FREE to requested subscribers.

Lodging Hospitality Resource Center
The Lodging Hospitality Resource Center is the ultimate resource to find products and services to build, equip, and renovate hotels, motels and resorts.

Subscribe / Renew
Visit our subscription center to subscribe or renew your subscription to Lodging Hospitality.

Visit our webinars page to view all our upcoming and on demand webinars.

Visit our White Papers page to view all our current White Papers.