United States

Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw Sept. 26, 2025: Today the Commission poses the question of whether there are “regulatory impediments to issuer and investor access to the registered Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) market,”[1] which are causing the market to be depressed. We further ask whether the “current framework for registration and reporting is serving the needs of the current ABS market.”[2] Among those impediments, we consider: (i) whether asset-level disclosure requirements for Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) are too onerous;[3] (ii) whether issuers are foregoing registered RMBS offerings because they cannot provide investors with sensitive asset-level information such as 5-digit zip codes or credit scores; and (iii) whether the definition of ABS for the purpose of registration is too narrow. First, I encourage commenters to question the premise driving the release. We appear, for example, to presume that registered RMBS market levels are artificially depressed and that the cause is regulatory.[4] It is possible, however, that market levels reflect the degree of investor interest in these products. In other words, the supply may reflect demand. For example, the Release notes that only one issuer has publicly issued private-label RMBS since 2009, and there have been no registered private-label RMBS offerings since June 2013. But, the Commission first adopted asset-level disclosure requirements in 2014, one year after the last registered private-label RMBS offering.[5] It’s hard to peg a problem on a regulatory burden that existed prior to the enactment of such regulation. It is worth looking at other market trends and risks related to private-label RMBS (including some exposed during the 2008 financial crisis) and not rush to adjudge that purportedly burdensome regulations are at the root of all problems.[6] It may be that depressed interest is a symptom of continued investor wariness around the asset class (which might still …

Source: MyPR International

Commissioner Hester M. Peirce Sept. 26, 2025: Today, the Commission is soliciting comments on our regulatory framework for asset-backed securities (“ABS”), narrowly and broadly. Narrowly, the Commission is seeking comment on whether to amend the asset-level disclosure requirements for residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) in Item 1125 of Regulation AB, with particular attention given to the potentially sensitive nature of the information disclosed. Broadly, the Commission also is asking whether the definition of “asset-backed security” in Regulation AB should be revised to harmonize it with other definitions of “asset-backed security” elsewhere in our rules. Even more broadly, the Commission invites comment on other aspects of ABS regulation. I look forward to robust public feedback. Since 2013, the registered RMBS market has been in a state of torpor.[1] While some activity still exists in the private markets, RMBS securitizations have been occurring mostly at the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and the Government National Mortgage Association (collectively, the “Agencies”). Notably, securities issued by the Agencies are exempt from the Commission’s registration and reporting requirements.[2] In 2014, the Commission adopted, among other amendments, Item 1125 of Regulation AB and the Appendix to Item 1125 (“Schedule AL”) to satisfy certain requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). If an issuer were to attempt to register an RMBS, adequate disclosure pursuant to Item 1 of Schedule AL could require up to 270 different data points for each underlying mortgage.[3] In contrast, RMBS offerings by the Agencies generally have approximately 110 different data points.[4] Private-label RMBS transactions existing solely in the unregistered space is a unique phenomenon among the varying types of consumer loan ABS.[5] Understanding why the market exists in …

Source: MyPR International

Paul S. Atkins, Chairman Sept. 26, 2025: Today, the Commission issued a concept release to solicit public feedback on disclosure requirements for public offerings of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), as well as certain aspects of the agency’s regulations of asset-backed securities (ABS) generally.[1] Home ownership has long been the cornerstone of the American Dream. Yet, this dream remains out of reach for too many Americans today due, in part, to mortgage costs.[2] A vibrant public market for RMBS can have downstream effects of reducing these costs and benefitting the U.S. housing sector.[3] Unfortunately, there have been no public offerings of RMBS since June 2013. In contrast, there have been over $100 billion in RMBS issuance annually in the Rule 144A market for five of the past six years.[4] It is important for the Commission to hear from market participants on steps it can take to revive the public RMBS market. A public market for RMBS provides market benefits and investor protections that a Rule 144A market cannot, including increased liquidity, a broader investor base, and greater transparency and public disclosure.[5] While several factors may be contributing to the drought in public market, the Commission must consider whether its rules – including amendments to Regulation AB (known colloquially as Regulation AB II) that were adopted to implement mandates of the Dodd-Frank Act[6] – have had an adverse effect. One requirement of Regulation AB II is for RMBS issuers engaged in public offerings to provide asset-level disclosures about the underlying residential mortgages.[7] For each mortgage, this disclosure calls for approximately 105 data points as a baseline and up to another 165 data points upon the occurrence of certain events.[8] Market participants have identified these asset-level disclosure requirements as a barrier to public offerings of RMBS.[9] Therefore, I am pleased that the concept release is seeking comment on how to …

Source: MyPR International

Commissioner Hester M. Peirce Washington D.C. Sept. 26, 2025: Thank you for that introduction and thank you to Coin Center for inviting me back. I am sorry that a regulator—rather than a developer, founder, or funder—stands before you today. Let’s hope that we can make quick progress to a place where people are free to build interesting and valuable projects without a regulator like me at the front of the room. Speaking of regulators, before I begin, I must remind you that my views are my own as a Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners. The number of times I have repeated that disclaimer is one of many indications that I have been in this job too long. Even my own very patient mother has tired of hearing me say the same thing over and over. All who share her perspective should draw comfort from the fact that my days at the SEC are numbered; my term ended in June, but don’t put your party hats on just yet—the statute allows me to serve until I am removed, my replacement is confirmed, or the start of the next session of Congress, whichever comes first.[i] A lot of people have asked me what is next. I could leave the government and do a 180 on crypto, but that career path is too well-trodden for me. My plan long had been to transition to beekeeping—honey is delicious and nutritious, and bees sting with less glee than most of my Twitter commenters. Casting doubt on the practicality of that vocation, however, was my encounter with my parents’ actual beehive. Dressed in a white suit, gloves, and beekeeper’s veil, I attempted to lift a screen out of the hive as my family looked on. My normally kind father could barely contain his incredulity at my ineptitude; my mother was incensed that I was killing her “precious bees”; and my brother, unprotected by a beekeeper’s suit, pushed me aside to finish the job with an enviable nonchalance. A natural beekeeper I am not. After considerable …

Source: MyPR International

Paul S. Atkins, Chairman Sept. 26, 2025: Since returning to the Commission, I have examined different processes to ensure that the Commission effectively and efficiently carries out its three-part mission to protect investors; facilitate capital formation; and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets. One area I consider ripe for change is the way the Commission evaluates settlement offers in Commission enforcement actions that are accompanied by contemporaneous requests for Commission waivers from automatic disqualifications and other collateral consequences that result from the underlying Commission enforcement action.[1] In consultation with the Divisions of Enforcement, Corporation Finance, and Investment Management, I believe that it is appropriate to restore the Commission’s prior practice of permitting a settling entity to request that the Commission simultaneously consider an offer of settlement that addresses both an underlying Commission enforcement action and any related waiver request. This salutary practice promotes fairness and economy of Commission resources but unfortunately was changed by the prior Administration.[2] An offer of settlement in a Commission enforcement action that includes a contemporaneous waiver request will be presented to the Commission by the staff for simultaneous consideration.[3] This approach will enable the Commission to consider both the proposed settlement and waiver request together, within the context of the relevant facts, conduct, and consequences, and with the benefit of the analysis and advice of the relevant Commission Divisions, to assess whether the proposed resolution of the matter in its entirety achieves the Commission’s three-part mission more generally. This approach will enhance efficiency and certainty in the settlement process and avoid a siloed internal consideration of the matter, which are critical factors in reaching comprehensive settlements that are in the best interests of …

Source: MyPR International