1

Self-reporting under SEC Reg AB and transparency in securitization: evidence from loan-level disclosure of risk factors in RMBS deals

by

Joseph R. Mason, Louisiana State University

Michael B. Imerman, Lehigh University

Hong Lee, Louisiana State University

First Version: May 22, 2014

This Version: June 30, 2014

Abstract

Purpose – This paper is designed to illustrate the limitations and potential bias in securitized residential mortgage data and examine the importance of such data issues for typical studies of RMBS market and the financial crisis.

Design/methodology/approach – We use trustee data on mortgage characteristics provided by BlackBox Logic – the BBx data – to study the extent to which undisclosed mortgage characteristics distort the available data and impact risk analysis of RMBS collateral pools.

Findings – We illustrate that substantial amounts of loan characteristic data in crucial fields like Occupancy, Property Type, Loan Purpose, and FICO are missing from the trustee data. The frequency of missing values is staggering, ranging from just under 9% for Property Type to 29% for FICO, up to almost 85% for Originator Name, all variables used in recent studies. The omissions are correlated to some degree with the securitization sponsor and even more dramatically with the identity of the deal trustee.

Research limitations/implications – Analysis of RMBS collateral should be built not upon the entirety of mortgage databases, but on stratified samples and should otherwise control for important sponsor and trustee fixed effects.

Practical implications – The revisions for Regulation AB which require loan-level disclosure should be adopted in order to standardize mortgage disclosure.

Originality/value – This is the first paper that examines selection bias in loan characteristics relied upon for a wide variety of mortgage market research that has substantially affected policy decisions in the post-crisis era.

Keywords Private-label mortgage securitization, Loan-level disclosure, Regulation AB

Paper type Research paper.

2

§1. Introduction

The financial crisis gave rise to an influx of new research and regulatory action on securitization. In this paper we examine the importance of loan-level data for risk analysis of RMBS with implications for regulatory reform and academic research. For instance, it has become common for academics to use loan-level data reported on trustee web sites in research. There are two tiers of loan-level data. The first is sometimes called loan “attributes,” loan “characteristics,” or the “loan tape.” That data set (potentially, as shown below) contains characteristics of the loan such as FICO, LTV, the amount of the loan, the interest rate, and other items, reported for 1st and 2nd lien closed end loans (and some HELOCs).

Those attributes are originally produced by the originator. The originator conveys those to the servicer so that the servicer knows what types of loans they are servicing. If the loans are securitized, the loan characteristics would be conveyed to the sponsor and investment bank as the basis for representations made in the prospectus supplements and other offering documents. Those attributes (or a subset of them, as described below) may also be posted on the trustee’s web site in order to inform investors about the loans. It is these attributes that we deal with in the paper.

The second tier is the “remittance” data. That is the monthly record of payments attributed to each loan, including interest, principal, and also delinquency history and other things the servicer tracks each month, again reported for 1st and 2nd lien closed end loans (usually not HELOCs). Again, if the loans are securitized, those may be posted on the trustee’s web site and updated monthly at each deal’s specified reporting date.

Securitization trustee web sites convey the loan characteristics and the monthly remittance data to the investing public (loan tapes may be sent to rating agencies and certain investors prior to the deal closing). The vendors of securitized loan data – including BlackBox Logic’s BBx, LoanPerformance, LPS, ABSNet, and others – all pull the data from SQL access points at each trustee and then provide header standardization and (in some cases) logical checks on the data to make it more useful for analysts and researchers. Some vendors also provide analytical platforms, news feeds, and other elements to make their products worthwhile. Anyone can purchase those vendor products for a price.1

Many academic studies have used the trustee data in recent research. Mian and Sufi (2009) was one of the first to emphasize, generally, the importance of micro-level data to explore the origin of the subprime mortgage crisis. Papers such as Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010), Demyanyk and Van Hermert (2011) and Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) use LoanPerformance. Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010), and Ghent and Kudlyak (2011), Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012), and Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012), use LPS reporting on securitized loans. Demiroglu and James (2012) 2 use

1 Another component of LPS, McDash, is something completely different. McDash collects detailed loan-level data such as that described above, but for loans on bank portfolios that have not been securitized. McDash was started by a consortium of banks who wanted to analyze their own books the same way the vendor platforms for securitized loans are set up. The data is therefore generally not publicly available (academics could not just buy it and use it for research), although Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas, 2012 used LPS to study how the quality of loans varies depending on whether they stay in lenders’ balance-sheets or sold through the securitization process.

2 Demiroglu and James (2012) note that risk may not be correctly measured in the deal-level analysis, but do not analyze the potential for such data shortcomings.

3

ABSnet. Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) and the present paper and use BBx.

As academic research has progressed, other authors have shown that some of the reported data can be incorrect. For instance, Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) present the evidence that lien and occupancy types have been misreported for substantial portion of private-label mortgages. Yet every one of the studies cited previously has not only assumed the data is correct, but also assumed that all (or nearly all) of the data fields are reported for every (or nearly every) loan. More pointedly, each and every study has assumed – implicitly or explicitly – that any omissions of data fields for certain loans are random so that there exists no selection bias in loan-level characteristic reporting. Below, we discuss the extent to which missing data and bias may exist in these studies.

But even before we begin our analysis, we suggest that there is no reason to believe that bias is not a significant factor in such data, since such data is voluntarily disclosed with little or no regulatory, accounting, or legal guidance. Therefore, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, a natural way to address the data shortcomings is through the ongoing regulatory reform.

While the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted Regulation AB (Reg AB) in 2005 in order to govern generally the disclosure of risk characteristics for RMBS loan pools, Reg AB provides specific guidance only for pool level disclosures.

In April 2010, the SEC released Proposed Rules (33-9117) to revise the existing Reg AB (colloquially referred to as “Reg AB II”). As summarized by Cadwalader3 at that time:

To ensure that investors receive sufficient information to evaluate an investment in ABS, the Proposed Rules require ABS issuers to disclose granular asset-level data (or with respect to credit card receivables, grouped account data) relating to the terms, obligor characteristics, and underwriting of each asset backing an ABS (or group of assets, as applicable).4 In proposing rules for standardized asset-level disclosure in ABS transactions, the SEC is embracing an approach that it declined to take in the original adoption of Reg AB, where it concluded that it would not be “practical or effective to draft detailed disclosure guides for each asset type that may be securitized.5 [References in the original; emphasis added.]

Under the Proposed Rules for Reg AB II, 28 items must be disclosed at the loan level regardless of asset types, and 137 additional items are required to be disclosed for residential mortgage loans. Nonetheless, the proposed regulation is currently in its third comment period, due in part to concerns about how much individual loan data can be disclosed without violating consumer privacy laws. Thus, loan-level attribute data remains voluntarily disclosed.

In summary, the key data crucially relied upon in previous academic research is simply not reported for a substantial number of loans included in securitized pools because there are no formal reporting requirements.

3 “SEC Proposes Significant Enhancements to Regulation of Asset-Backed Securities,” Apr 20, 2010, at http://www.cadwalader.com/resources/clients-friends-memos/sec-proposes-significant-enhancements-to-regulation-of-asset-backed-securities

4 See Proposed Rule 17 C.F.R. § 229.1111(h) at 383. The SEC is proposing to exempt ABS backed by stranded costs from the obligation to provided asset-level data. Stranded costs are certain capital costs incurred by public utilities which are permitted, by action of a state legislature or other regulatory authority, to be recouped over time from rate payers.

5 See page 1509 of the adopting release for Regulation AB (Release Nos. 33-8518 and 34-50905).

4

The implication is that the source data used commonly in academic studies and cited in policy development is affected by systematic biases from missing loan-level data. This paper is designed to illustrate patterns of securitized residential mortgage data omissions and how they likely impact the findings in recent academic studies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that explores loan-level disclosures (or lack thereof). We find evidence that missing risk factors in the data are not random, but rather disclosures are largely lacking for loans from certain sponsors and trustees; failure to account for such omission can, therefore, lead to biased inferences in loan-level analyses and poor policy recommendations.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 identifies key loan-level variables that appear recent academic studies. Section 3, then, gives a detailed look at the loan characteristic data reported by vendors and draws connections to the variables that are used in the academic literature. Section 4 discusses some basic observations about loan-level disclosure and suggests how these might be addressed by future research and policy implications. The last section, Section 5, concludes.

§2.Key loan-level variables found in the literature

The extant literature relies crucially on several key data fields for capturing loan characteristics and mortgage risk factors. Table 1 shows which variables appear in each of the 9 studies reviewed in this article. Despite each database labeling the data items differently and every paper using different variable names, we were able to identify 22 loan attributes that best capture the specific usage in the studies.6 The average number of data fields used is just over 12. The paper that includes the most is Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) with 15, followed closely by Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) who include 14 of the loan characteristics we identified. Three papers include 13 of the identified attributes: Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011), Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012), and Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013).

While, generally, additional (uncorrelated) variables should lead to an improvement to the quality of an analysis, when variables are missing from observations in a non-random pattern the inclusion of additional variables subjects the empirical analysis to selection biases.

First, we will go through how the key variables are used in each of the studies. Four of the papers use the LPS data, which as discussed above, differs from the loan-level data we use in that it has mortgages that are both securitized and retained on banks’ balance sheets. Although the remaining five papers may use different data vendors, those vendors all retrieve the data from the same trustees: the base data is, therefore, all the same. Comparisons across those datasets are, therefore, more consistent and provide a better platform on which to shed light on the extent that missing data impacts their results. We will also emphasize any data screens or filters that are used by each of the studies as well as how the authors address any potential biases (if at all).

6 In the next section we map these attributes to the specific data items in BBx.

5

Table 1. Major risk factors used in previous micro-level analysis

6

FICO score, the generally accepted proxy for credit-worthiness, appears in all 9 papers. FICO is the only data item included in every one of the studies we reviewed; however, it is used not just as a regressor, but in different ways in some studies. As one of the first academic studies to highlight the importance of the “620 cutoff rule”, Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) use FICO to distinguish between loans made to borrowers with FICO scores above 620 from those at or below 620. Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012) follow along the lines of this usage as well. Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) filter the data so that only loans with FICO scores greater than 500 and less than 850 are included; they then incorporate dummy variables for FICO<620 and 620 ≤ FICO < 680 to examine the impact of FICO on loan delinquency with finer granularity.

The FICO score, being one of the few observable characteristics of borrower creditworthiness, is almost uniformly used as either a control variable or as an explanatory variable in the studies. As such, it is critical to have valid FICO scores. The result is that many of the studies drop observations with missing or invalid FICO values. For example, Demiroglu and James (2012) note 53 deals were dropped from their sample due to missing FICO scores.7 Although the practice of dropping observations with missing values is standard in corporate finance papers, we will later argue that because of the nature of the loan-level data this is a particularly dangerous practice in securitization studies.

Property type – i.e. if the property underlying the mortgage is a single-family residence, etc. – is used in six of the studies. In many cases this is used as a filter or screen on the dataset; for example, Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010), Ghent and Kudlyak (2011), and Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012) filter the data to include only mortgages on single-family homes, townhouses, or condominiums. Similarly, Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012) note that single-unit loans account for more than 90% of the loans in their sample from the LPS data and therefore only keep mortgages on single-family residences, townhouses, or condominiums. Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) impose a restriction that only mortgages on one to four unit homes be included in their sample. Demiroglu and James (2012) include a property type dummy variable, "‘family owned", that is equal to 1 if the loan is for a single-family home and 0 otherwise.

Loan amount is used in all but two of the studies we reviewed. Sometimes the loan amount is used as a filter. Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) use loan amount as a filter on their dataset and also drop observations with missing values for the origination amount. Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012) exclude mortgages with loan amounts greater than $650,000. Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) report the “average loan size” in their data for low documentation loans ($189,400) and full documentation loans ($148,500). Some studies look at the origination amount [e.g., Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013)] whereas others look at the loan balance [e.g., Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013)].

Documentation is typically used as another classification variable. Some of the studies look at subsamples of no- or low-documentation loans versus full-documentation loans [e.g. Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010), Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012)]. Since Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) are interested in the risk of prepayment, they focus on the differential effects of the high-risk groups: low doc versus no doc. Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) include a “documentation” dummy variable in their regressions. Borrower documentation plays an important role in the analysis of Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013), where they include it as a key loan characteristic and are able to draw some interesting conclusions regarding misrepresentation of asset quality in the collateral

7 Considering that the average deal in Demiroglu and James (2012) has around 4,000 loans in it, dropping 53 deals results in dropping over 200,000 loans from the sample.

7

pool for RMBS.

Loan purpose – whether the mortgage is for a new home purchase or refinancing – may also be used as a classification variable for sample selection or as a dummy variable in regressions, and is included in all but one of the studies. Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) run all of their primary tests on loans used to purchase homes; they do, however, repeat the tests for refinancing, essentially as a robustness check, and find similar results. Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) include a dummy variable for cash-out refinancing. Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) include a loan purpose dummy variable that is 1 if not for purchase, 0 otherwise, and then also run purchase versus refinance regressions. Demiroglu and James (2012) include a loan purpose dummy variable “purchase loan” that is equal to 1 if the loan purpose is to purchase a house and 0 if the purpose is to refinance an existing mortgage. Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012) include a dummy variable for loan purpose but also use it as a filter. Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) and Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) include a dummy variable if the loan is a refinance or cash-out refinance; the former is a study on prepayment and the latter is looking at asset quality misrepresentation (Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) cite Mayer, Pence, and Sherlund (2009) to note that refinancings appear to be overrepresented in the LP dataset). Both Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) and Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) consider cash-out refinancing a significant risk factor.

Loan-to-value ratio (LTV) is used in seven of the studies reviewed. Quite often LTV is employed as a control variable for loan characteristics or as a risk factor, since higher LTVs are generally associated with greater risk of default. However, some studies filter observations on LTV before running regressions: for instance, Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) only include mortgages with original LTV less than 150. Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) examine LTV patterns over time and see how LTV ratios differ above and below the 620 credit score threshold. Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012) provide descriptive statistics and look at the mean LTV ratio over time and across different classes of loans (e.g. low documentation versus full documentation). Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012) provide descriptive statistics on LTV in their sample and also use it as a control variable in their regressions. Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) and Demiroglu and James (2012) look at LTV at origination in their analysis. Some studies use LTV in conjunction with FICO to differentiate between “prime” versus “non-prime” mortgage loans. LTV is also used to provide information about a second lien being present. Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) also have a dummy variable that is equal to 1 if LTV is exactly equal to 80% and use this to gain insight on whether or not there is a second lien present. Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) use LTV to impute the seniority status of the loan when it is listed as “unknown” in the data. We discuss more of how the relative positions of loans in the data are treated in the literature later in this section. Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) is the only paper to not explicitly include the simple LTV ratio, however their CLTV measure subsumes LTV; i.e. if there is only one lien they use LTV, otherwise they use the combined-lien LTV (CLTV) (see below for discussion of CLTV).

For fixed rate mortgages, the interest rate on the loan is typically an important loan characteristic and therefore is controlled for in most empirical tests across the studies. Sometimes the data is filtered on interest rate and observations with missing interest rates are often dropped from the sample [Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010)]. Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) look at the spread between the interest rate at origination and the current market interest rate in their analysis of prepayment; they construct several “rate” binary variables indicating where the current market rate is in relation to the interest rate and use this to quantify prepayment risk.

Interest rate type refers to variables that contain information about the adjustability of interest rates on the underlying mortgage. Eight of the nine studies account for interest rate type. A popular

8

way of including information about interest rate type is to have a dummy variable. Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011), Ghent and Kudlyak (2011), and Demiroglu and James (2012) all include a dummy variable that is 1 if the loan is an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) and 0 otherwise. Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) use a dummy variable “FIX” that is 1 if the underlying mortgage is fixed rate (FRM) or 0 otherwise. Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010), Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011), and Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012) report the percentage of ARMs in their data. Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) include both ARM and Option ARM as loan characteristic variables in their analysis. In addition to their ARM dummy variable, Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) also incorporate FRMs later in the paper when looking at recourse. Some use interest rate type as a filter; for instance, in their analysis of prepayment behavior Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) include only FRMs so as to avoid any complicating issues arising from low teaser rates on ARM products before the crisis.

Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) incorporate prepayment penalty into their analysis and see whether or not prepayment behavior differs across the 620 credit score threshold. Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) and Demiroglu and James (2012) include a prepayment penalty dummy variable in their regressions. Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012) report the percentage of loans that have a prepayment penalty, both for the entire sample and across subsamples such as low documentation versus full documentation loans. Since the Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) study is specifically focused on prepayment, the prepayment penalty status is of clear importance for their analysis.

Data on the geographic location is a controversial item in the ongoing regulatory reform dealing with the securitization of mortgages (or, more generally, the securitization of any consumer loan). Privacy advocates are concerned that including geographic variables in loan-level data would allow users to reverse engineer the data and be able to identify the borrower. However, it is clear that this information is highly important for researchers – whether academics or investors – since housing prices in different locations may behave differently and therefore would have differential impacts as a risk factor in the analysis of the loans collateralizing the RMBS. Indeed, all nine of the studies incorporate geographic location in one way or another. This information may appear in the data in the form of either the MSA [Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010), Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013)] or zip code [Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010), Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011), Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013)]. Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012) note that they cross-reference FICO scores with conforming standards for each geographic region, but do not explicitly mention the specific data item nor is it included in any of the analysis. Similarly, Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) do not make reference to any geographic identifier variable (i.e. zip code, MSA); however, since the nature of their study is to examine how mortgage defaults differ across states with or without recourse, the authors must have mapped the property location at the loan level to their categorization of state-specific foreclosure laws. 8

For econometric purposes, researchers typically control for variation across geographic regions by including fixed effects. Additional uses for geographic location include filtering or matching the data. An example of filtering the data by geographic location is Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) who, in addition to having MSA-based fixed effects in their regressions, only keep mortgages in continental United States (i.e. Alaska and Hawaii loans are dropped). Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) match the loan to housing price indexes via the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Demiroglu and James (2012) do a similar type of matching of MSA to housing price indexes and also account for geographic clustering in their standard errors. Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012) do not include geographic

8 We know that since Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) and Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012) both use LPS data, it must be at the MSA level.

9

location in their primary analysis; however, in footnote #6 (p. 2082) they note that a dummy for whether the loan was made in a high-cost state was included in a probit regression to predict whether a loan was agency or private label. Including certain variables in a selection regression may bias results further when the empirical specification already suffers from potential selection bias.

Mortgage type refers to any information included about non-standard features or exotic mortgages in the data. Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) consider features such as whether there is a balloon payment or if the loan is interest-only (IO). Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) include dummy variables for three different types of mortgages: hybrids, ARMs, and balloons. Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) have an IO dummy variable. Interest-only loans are included in the aforementioned probit regression in Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012), though it does not appear elsewhere in the analysis.

Whether or not the property underlying the mortgage is owner occupied is used in six of the studies. Usually it appears as either a dummy variable or as a data filter. For instance, Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) include a variable, “Investor,” that is 1 if the property is not owner-occupied and 0 if it is. Demiroglu and James (2012) have a variable, “owner occupied,” which is 1 if the owner lives in the house and 0 otherwise. These two should actually be complementary sets, but interestingly, it is not clear how loans with unreported occupancy status are treated—presumably they are dropped, the implications of which we discuss later in this article. Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010), Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012) and Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) filter the data to include only mortgages on owner occupied properties.

Occupancy status plays a critical role in the study of Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013). Recall that here the authors are examining the extent to which mortgage quality was misrepresented when being securitized in the years leading up to the financial crisis. Owner occupancy turns out to be a key variable in their analysis of misrepresentation; they find that 6.42% of loans reported as “owner occupied” are associated with a different primary address indicating that the occupancy status was misrepresented and further state that “more than 27% of loans obtained by non-owner occupants misreported their true purpose.” (pp. 13-14)

Only a few studies (three) control for whether or not there is a second lien present, although twice as many do incorporate information about the subordination status or relative standing of the loan in question. Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) include both variables in their analysis: a dummy variable “Senior Has Juniors” which is 1 when the present loan is a first mortgage but there are other liens on the same property, 0 otherwise; and a variable “Subordinate” that is 1 when the loan is not in the first position, 0 if it is. Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) find that, much like the owner occupancy status, the presence of a second lien is also a critical data item for misreporting. Their results indicate that 7.13% of loans reported as having no second liens do in fact have, and when restricting the sample to loans with full documentation this number actually rises to 7.93%.

Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) also filter their data so that it only includes first liens. They do this by keeping only loans that have “Lien Type” = 1 or where “Lien Type” = U (unknown) and the LTV

55, which suggests that the loan is not likely to be subordinate. Since we use the same BBx data we will be able to provide more insight on the implications of this methodology later in the paper.

Other than Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) and Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013), Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) looks at whether there is a second lien reported for a robustness check. They do not, however, include a variable for the relative seniority of the particular loan in question (i.e. whether it is first or second lien, etc.). Most of the other studies that use information about the relative position of the particular loan do so in terms of screening and filtering the data. For instance, Ghent and Kudlyak (2011), Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012), and Keys, Seru, and

10

Vig (2012) only keep first liens in their datasets.

For those studies that do include second liens, the Combined-lien LTV ratio (or CLTV) becomes an important variable. Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) incorporate CLTV into their analysis mainly for robustness. To check the consistency of their results with respect to the “620 threshold”, the authors compare the CLTV when a second lien is present to see if the results differ from those computed using LTV; they find no difference. Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) and Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) include CLTV as loan characteristic variables in their studies. Again, this becomes a critical data item in the latter’s study of misrepresentation of assets in RMBS collateral pools. Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) identify CLTV as a key risk factor in their analysis.

Four studies look at the maturity, or term, of the mortgage. Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) and Mayer, Piskorski, and Tchistyi (2013) only consider 15, 20, or 30 year mortgages. Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) include a term variable as well as a variable for the age of the loan, both in months. Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012) collect data on the term of the loan and also include variables for the mortgage’s age and age-squared; this is important since the authors are examining banks’ decision to securitize and therefore must control for time (they note that the average time to securitize is between 4 to 6 months after origination).

Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012) note a potential survivorship bias in the LPS data which could result in left-censoring.9 In an attempt to mitigate this survivorship bias, the authors eliminate any loans entering into the LPS system more than four months after origination, relying upon the reported origination date. While such treatment results in a better representation of each loan’s performance over time, it also limits the number of observations in a non-random manner because earlier deals were likely to have a longer lag between origination and securitization than later deals. Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) also address survivorship bias in the LPS database.

Only two studies take into account private mortgage insurance. Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) use a dummy variable, “Insurance,” that is 1 if the borrower has mortgage insurance and 0 otherwise. Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) use it to filter the data and drop any mortgages with insurance.

Three of the studies use debt-to-income (DTI). Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) look at a subset of their sample, since many of the low documentation loans originated in the run-up to the financial crisis did not require borrowers report their income. However, their analysis of the subset that does include DTI shows that the results are consistent with respect to the 620-credit-score threshold across low documentation loans.

Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) use DTI as a risk factor in their analysis and also include a dummy variable that is 1 if DTI is missing and 0 otherwise. Their rationale for the use of a dummy variable appears to be twofold: first, there is considerable variation in how many of the loans reported DTI over their sample period, ranging from 19.7% in 2006 to 37.5% in 2002; and, second, they interpret missing debt-to-income data as a negative signal about the borrower.

To address the possibility of measurement error and potential bias on the results, Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) drop the observations that are missing DTI and find that they are “statistically and economically similar to those based on the entire sample of loans” (p. 1868). Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) conduct permutation tests with respect to DTI variable in an appendix.

9 Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012) note that LPS also seems to underrepresent subprime as well as low- and no- documentation loans.

11

However, our research suggests a need for more mathematically rigorous approaches to identifying, quantifying, and correcting for potential biases from missing data, rather than simple casual inference.

Agarwal, Chang, and Yavas (2012) find that subprime loans are typically associated with borrowers who have higher DTI ratios, which may have been a determinant of lenders decision to securitize or retain subprime mortgages in the years leading up to the crisis.

Of the remaining four variables in our analysis, three are used in one study each (IB Underwriter, Loan Originator, and ARM Margin), while NegAm is directly used in one study [Demiroglu and James (2012)] and appears in a selection regression mentioned in a footnote in another [Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012].

Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013) include fixed effects for deals offered by one of the top six investment bank underwriters in their sample.

The only study to include the loan originator identity directly into the analysis is Demiroglu and James (2012). This is of clear importance to their analysis as they are interested in the relationship between the institutions that originate the mortgage with those that serve as the RMBS sponsor, and how this relationship impacts performance.

The margin on ARMs also only appears in one study. Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) use it as on of their risk factors since higher margins would make it harder for a borrower to make payments. They find that the average ARM margin over their sample period is around 6%.

Negative amortization mortgages are considered riskier, yet only one study explicitly controls for it in their analysis. Demiroglu and James (2012) have a dummy variable that is 1 if the underlying mortgage is NegAm and 0 otherwise. Keys, Seru, and Vig (2012) mention that they use negative amortization in a selection regression to impute whether or not a mortgage was agency or private-label [footnote #6, p. 2082]. We find, in our analysis of the loan-level data, that this variable is particularly susceptible to selection bias and therefore could present major empirical problems. In the next section we discuss our data in detail and perform some basic high-level analysis. We are then able to tie our findings back to the papers covered in this section and hypothesize about how missing loan characteristics could impact pre-crisis securitization studies.

§3.Loan characteristics disclosed in securitization data

We use the trustee data covered by BlackBox Logic (BBx) to examine the pre-crisis loan-level disclosure practices by securitizers. As of March 2014, BBx contains data on 21,898,192 first and second lien loans and some HELOCs10 with original balances of more than $4.8 trillion.

The loan-level attributes reported by BBx include 76 “Raw Data [Fields] Supplied by Data Providers,” 48 of which are used to create “Cleansed and Standardized Fields,” resulting in 61 data fields that are “Cleansed and Standardized Across Data Providers.” (See, i.e., BBx March 2014 U.S. Non-Agency RMBS Production Cycle Documentation Package, BBx Data Elements.xlsx, sheet “Loans_Chars Table Layout”.) The full list of BBx data fields is reported in the Appendix A.

Loans_chars of BBx consists of 189 variables that fall into 36 categories.11 Blackbox collects

10 Dec 2013 BBx CHARs identifies 357,107 HELOCs (1.65%). 11 Blackbox Logic issued definitions of the 36 categories monthly until Nov 2011. See Appendix B for missing rate by data category.

12

information for 127 fields from trustees, which are standardized into 61 variables.12 This paper does not cover variables: 1) if they are associated with post-securitization characteristics rather than with loan underwriting; 2) if the coverage for a cleansed variable is substantially larger than a raw variable (hence the cleansed variable does not properly represent the reporting practices by lenders or securitizers); or 3) if they are rarely employed in loan-level analysis. As a result of this selection rule, we focus on 16 cleansed variables in the categories of credit documentation, credit equity, credit score, loan balance, loan features of I/O, negative amortization, and balloon, loan origination, interest rate, occupancy, property type, property value, purpose that appear the most frequently in previous studies.

Among the 61 loan-level variables in BBx that are “Cleansed and Standardized Across Data Providers,” we focus our analysis on the 16 variables that tend to be missing the most: various categorical variables related to loan types and numerical attributes at the time of origination such as Negative amortization (NEGAMSTATUSIND), Loan Originator Identity (ORIGINATORNAME), Balloon (BALLOONSTATUSIND), Combined-lien LTV ratio (COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC), Documentation (DOCTYPESUMMARY), Interest Only (IOSTATUSIND), Lien (LIENTYPE), FICO credit score (FICOSCOREORIGINATIONCALC), Property appraisal value (ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC), Purpose (PURPOSETYPE), Occupancy (OCCTYPE), Interest rate (ORIGINTRTCALC), Property (PROPTYPE), Simple LTV (ORIGLTVRATIOCALC), interest rate adjustability (INTRTTYPESUMMARY), and Loan amount (ORIGINALBALCALC).13

Of those 16, 13 overlap directly with typical variables used in key studies, 1 (appraisal value) overlaps indirectly with those key variables (since it is the basis for LTV), and two are subsumed into the summary measure “Mortgage Type” (BALLOONSTATUSIND and IOSTATUSIND) in the list of fields used in academic studies.

The data fields are a combination of numeric data about the loans and qualitative data about the loans. In terms of numeric data:

COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC considers every loan on the property, and is thought to be a more relevant risk factor than ORIGLTVRATIOCALC for second lien mortgages whose lender has claims subordinate to senior lenders.

FICOSCOREORIGINATIONCALC is a borrower’s credit score issued by credit bureaus such as TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax based on the software licensed from the Fair Isaac Corporation. FICOSCOREORIGINATIONCALC is deemed to be one of the summary measures for default risk because it captures the probability of negative events in two years.14

ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC is the property value estimated and provided by trustees. While this field is not used directly in the studies, it is the basis for computing the LTV fields.

ORIGINTRTCALC is the coupon rate charged to the mortgagor for the first month after origination. All these numeric variables are measured at the time of loan closing.

12 BBx also uses logic tests for data “cleansing.” See Loans_Chars_QA_201403.xls for BBx cleansing rules. Other data providers do not necessarily cleanse the data before providing it for use.

13 BBx data field names are in parentheses.

14 Piskortski, Seru, and Vig (2010) documented FICO score, loan-to-value ratio, and interest rate type are three basic components for the loan contracts.

13

ORIGLTVRATIOCALC is defined as a simple ratio of a single primary loan amount and the property value while

ORIGINALBALCALC is the dollar amount of loan principal.

In terms of qualitative data:

Negative amortization mortgages are indicated with NEGAMSTATUSIND.

ORIGINATORNAME for each loan is “the name of the entity that originated the mortgage.”

BALLOONSTATUSIND indicates loans for which a large lump-sum payment is scheduled near the maturity at the expense of low coupon payments during the first several years.15

DOCTYPESUMMARY means documentation type. This is a standardized code whose values indicate full, reduced16, low, no, or unknown amount of income17 documentation provided by mortgagors.

Borrowers may also be permitted to not pay principal for a certain period of time if they get interest-only (or IO) mortgages indicated with IOSTATUSIND in BBx.

LIENTYPE is indicated by the values 1, 2, or 3 denoting whether the loan is a first, second, or further subordinated loan, or “U” if the relative claim position is unknown.

PURPOSETYPE is associated with the reason for the loan such as purchase, refinancing, and cash-out refinancing.

OCCTYPE shows whether the mortgagor uses the property for primary residence, investment, or second home. Investor loans are said to be riskier than owner-occupied or second home loans.18

PROPTYPE indicates which the property belongs to among single family, planned urban

15 According to the prospectus supplement for FFML 2006-FF17, “Balloon loans pose a special payment risk because the borrower must make a large lump sum payment of principal at the end of the loan term.”

16 The prospectus for RALI 2006-QH1 documents that “Certain of the mortgage loans have been originated under “reduced documentation” or “no stated income” programs, which require less documentation and verification than do traditional “full documentation” programs. Generally, under a “reduced documentation” program, no verification of a mortgagor’s stated income is undertaken by the originator. Under a “no stated income” program, certain borrowers with acceptable payment histories will not be required to provide any information regarding income and no other investigation regarding the borrower’s income will be undertaken. Under a “no income/no asset” program, no verification of a mortgagor’s income or assets is undertaken by the originator. The underwriting for those mortgage loans may be based primarily or entirely on an appraisal of the mortgaged property and the LTV ratio at origination.”

17 Mortgagors are usually required to provide their “assets, liabilities, income, credit history, employment history and personal information.” (See the section of “underwriting guideline” in the prospectus supplement for RALI 2006-QH1.) However, the most recent cycle of BBx restricts the content of “documentation” only to income in its data definition file. (See the definition of DOCTYPESUMMARY in BBx_data_element.xslx, April 2014 version.)

18 See https://www.fanniemae.com/content/guide/selling/b3/2/02.html#Occupancy.20Type

14

development, condominium, etc.

INTRTTYPESUMMARY indicates whether the monthly coupon amount varies across time. If the interest rate is periodically variable depending on the value of an index, those mortgages are called an adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) while the others are called fixed rate mortgages (FRMs).

Financial researchers seem to at least partially recognize the potential for data errors and screen the data for obvious problems. Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010), for instance, use an algorithm to remove outliers and errors by excluding loans with non-traditional maturities and extreme values of FICO and LTV. But researchers still tend to ignore the magnitude and importance of missing data. Piskorski, Seru, and Witkin (2013), for instance, drop loans with missing values of CLTV or those with large difference between LTV and CLTV. But academic studies do not check to see how much data they are losing and how missing observations affect their sample and their research results. In fact, studies stand to lose substantial information and/or induce significant observation bias if they just winsorize or exclude loans with unknown or invalid entries of attributes.

The standard reporting accompanying vendor data sets report clearly the importance of the problem. Each month, BBx sends to customers a “documentation package” summarizing all available data fields, additions, and changes to its reporting. The BBx documentation packages contain two key files relating directly to our research. One, Loans_Chars_Frequency_201403.pdf, reports directly the number of entries for selected data fields with a value of “U”, or unknown. The other, Loans_Chars_QA_201403.pdf, reports the same measures for every non-numeric (categorical) loan characteristic data field. Both show directly that there exist “unknown” entries for a substantial number of loans. Table 2 illustrates the results for our 16 data fields.

15

Table 2. Unknown loan characteristic values reported by BBx

(1999-March 2014, all loans and liens)

% undisclosed

NEGAMSTATUSIND 94.8 ORIGINATORNAME 84.6 BALLOONSTATUSIND 61.5 COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC* 47.3 DOCTYPESUMMARY 41.1 IOSTATUSIND 43.9 LIENTYPE 26.5 FICOSCOREORIGINATIONCALC* 29.3 ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC* 18.5 PURPOSETYPE 13.6 OCCTYPE 10.2 PROPTYPE 8.6 ORIGLTVRATIOCALC* 6.3 ORIGINTRTCALC* 5.5 INTRTTYPESUMMARY 3.9 ORIGINALBALCALC* 0.6

*Based on authors’ calculation

Table 2 presents the percentages of loans whose attributes are reported as “U” in Loans_Chars_Frequency_201403.pdf and the reported (one minus) percentage of valid observations in Loans_Chars_QA_201403.pdf. Neither file provides the distributions for numerical variables (COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC, FICOSCOREORIGINATIONCALC, ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC, ORIGINTRTCALC, ORIGLTVRATIOCALC, and ORIGINALBALCALC) and ORIGINATORNAME. Hence, we calculate the missing rates for those variables from Dec 2013 BBx. The “percent undisclosed” and (one minus) “percent valid” from both files are identical for fields that are reported by BBx.

The number of loans whose characteristics are not reported vary dramatically across different data fields. INTRTTYPESUMMARY and PROPTYPE are reported for most of the population, with only 3.9% and 8.6% of observations unknown, respectively.

In contrast, NEGAMSTATUSIND is unknown 94.8% of the time, or for about 21 million out of 22 million loans. ORIGINATORNAME is missing 84.6% of the time.

BALLOONSTATUSIND and IOSTATUSIND are unknown in 61.5% and 43.9% of the cases reported. COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC is unknown in 47.3% of the cases reported. DOCTYPE – which 8 of the 11 cited studies rely upon – is unknown in 41.1% of the cases reported. LIENTYPE is unknown for 26.5% of the cases. FICOSCOREORIGINATIONCALC – used in every study cited above – is unknown in 29.3% of the cases reported. ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC is unknown in 18.5%% of the cases reported. OCCTYPE (used in 3 of the 11 studies) and PURPTYPE (used in 7 of the 11 studies) are unknown for 10.2% and 13.6% of the cases, respectively.

16

The statistics reported by BBx, however, cover the entire history of the data set and use all loans, including second liens. Still, the disclosures cited by BBx should alert researchers to the potential for selection bias. Since most research of interest focuses on some period associated with the recent financial crisis and focuses only on first liens, it is more illustrative to look only at first-lien loans securitized in 2005-2007. The next section examines our 16 characteristics to obtain some insight into how the lack of reporting could have affected recent empirical studies that use loan-level data and the broader implications on the risk analysis of RMBS.

§4. Major observations for loan-level disclosure

4.1. Disclosure rates for major risk factors

We start the description of loan-level reporting practices with the disclosure rates of 16 key attributes for the 11,956,563 first mortgages reported in BBx associated with securitizations issued during 2005, 2006, and 2007. The key attributes are chosen on the basis of their prevalence of missing values in the BBx data. As noted above, there is a significant overlap with the data fields typically used in academic research. The attributes are various loan types and numerical attributes at the time of origination associated with Negative amortization (NEGAMSTATUSIND), Loan provider identity (ORIGINATORNAME), Balloon (BALLOONSTATUSIND), Combined-lien LTV ratio (COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC), Documentation (DOCTYPESUMMARY), Interest Only (IOSTATUSIND), Lien (LIENTYPE), FICO credit score (FICOSCOREORIGINATIONCALC), Property appraisal value (ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC), Purpose (PURPOSETYPE), Occupancy (OCCTYPE), Interest rate (ORIGINTRTCALC), Property (PROPTYPE), Simple LTV (ORIGLTVRATIOCALC), Interest rate adjustability (INTRTTYPESUMMARY) , Loan amount (ORIGINALBALCALC).19

Figure 1 presents the proportion of mortgages that reported major risk factors. Among the 16 loan characteristics, the disclosure rates are below 90% for 7 factors including NEGAMSTATUSIND, ORIGINATORNAME, BALLOONSTATUSIND, COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC, DOCTYPESUMMARY, IOSTATUSIND, and ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC.20

The least reported factor is NEGAMSTATUSIND, or the indicator for negative amortization, which is followed by ORIGINATORNAME, or the institution that sold the mortgage into the pool. The low disclosure rates for key data fields used in academic studies in Figure 1 suggest that academic researchers may lack significant information upon which to base conclusions.

19 BBx data field names are in parentheses. 20 Note that LIENTYPE does not appear in Figure 1 as we are only considering first liens here.

17

Figure 1. The disclosure rate by major risk factors in 2005-2007 (first liens only)

While some studies describe how they address (some of) the missing data fields, others do not. For instance, Demyanyk and Van Hemert (2011) do not address how they deal with missing data other than the debt-to-income ratio (DTI). The authors find considerable variation in proportion of loans in their dataset that report DTI and note that this conveys information about the riskiness of the mortgages since voluntary nondisclosure of DTI could signal that the borrower has an excessive amount of debt relative to their income thereby making default more likely. To test this, they use a Missing DTI dummy variable, which they find has a significant positive marginal effect on the likelihood of default in their analysis. That analysis is the beginning of a reasonable approach.

Demiroglu and James (2012) drop observations with missing values. In the BBx data, the largest number of missing values is for missing ORIGINATORNAME, an important variable in the Demiroglu and James (2012) analysis whose main research question involves the relationship between mortgage originator and RMBS deal sponsor. Indeed, they note that 218 deals are dropped because of missing data on originator identity. Demiroglu and James (2012) also drop 53 deals that do not report FICO associated with the loans, a substantial loss in terms of the number of loans. Demiroglu and James (2012) do not drop second lien loans from their sample, but rather drop entire deals if they are made up entirely of securitized second mortgages (i.e. their criteria is that there must be some senior mortgages in the pool to be included in their analysis), leading to some mixture of loans in their sample.

Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) drop all observations with missing FICO, interest rate, origination loan amount, and appraisal value. We know that in the BBx data FICO score is missing around 8% in 2005-2007: Figure 1 shows that approximately a 92% disclosure rate over the 2005-2007 period which overlaps with Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010). However, since Piskorski, Seru, and Vig (2010) use LPS data, we may be comparing apples with oranges. Nonetheless, they have not disclosed what may be missing. Moreover, they do find that FICO is highly significant, which could be problematic

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

18

if missing data in LPS was a concern.

Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) also drop missing or “invalid” FICO scores, which is their “most important piece of information”21 in their analysis of loans from 2001-2006. Referring back to Table 2, we know FICO scores are missing almost 1/3 of the time in the entire universe of BBx data, from 1999 to 2014. But there is substantial variation in reporting rates for key loan characteristics over time. Figure 2-1 shows that during the period 2001-2006 the disclosure rate for FICO scores ranged from below 80% during 2001-2004, rising to above 90% in 2006. While Keys, Mukherjee, Seru, and Vig (2010) use LoanPerformance data, the source of the data is the same as BBx so that the incidence of missing FICO scores should be similar.

Ghent and Kudlyak (2011) also examine a very long sample period (1997-2008) based upon a 10% random sample. Again, such analyses need to take into account the variation in reporting in order to draw valid comparisons over time.

Figure 2-1 and 2-2 show how the loan-level disclosure rates in BBx have changed over time for major numeric and categorical loan characteristics. Figure 2 shows that there is substantial variation over time among individual variable disclosure rates. Figure 2 also shows that disclosure rates are not monotonically increasing, but that while disclosure rates increase over time for most of the loan characteristics, there are decreases in the disclosures of ORIGINTRTCALC and ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC. In terms of categorical data items, BALLOOONSTATUSIND has decreased, generally, over time except for 2005 and 2006.22

Figure 2-1. The yearly time-variation in the disclosure rate for numeric risk factors (first liens only)

21 p. 315. 22 According to The Mortgage Market Statistical Annual, option ARMs had increased from $145 billion in 2004 to $255 billion in 2006, and 40-year Balloon mortgages had increases from 0 to $90 billion during the same periods.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

ORIGINALBALCALC

ORIGINTRTCALC

ORIGLTVRATIOCALC

ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC

FICOSCOREORIGINATIONCALC

COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC

19

Figure 2-2. The yearly time-variation in the disclosure rate for categorical risk factors (first liens only)

There are (at least) two reasons such disclosure variation could come about. First, typical data providers like BBx and Loan Performance add trustee and deal coverage to their databases over time, so the set of deals covered at time y>x may be larger than the set covered at time x, even if the additional deals were outstanding at time x. Second, it is notable that the disclosure of originator identities dramatically increased from 2005 when Reg AB was adopted and the originators who provide 10% or more of the pool assets were required to be summarized in aggregate in the offering documents, even though those were not required to be disclosed at the loan level.23 In either case, different “missing data” rates can skew analytical comparisons across time. Thus, we would suggest a stratified sampling approach for studies evaluating such comparisons.

4.2. The relationship between loan-level disclosure and deal-level disclosure

Curiously, the comparison of the deal prospectuses and the loan-level BBx data reveals that some loan-level information summarized in prospectus supplements was not made available to investors before the crisis. For example, FICO score distributions are almost always presented in prospectuses. However, data fields for FICO scores can be missing in the loan-level data made available by trustees. Table 3 shows the summary statistics on FICO presented in the prospectus supplements for AMSI 2006-R1, sponsored by Ameriquest. The table shows FICO calculated for 9,046 loans. However, the loan-level data from trustee Deutsche Bank reports FICO scores for none of the loans in the collateral pool.

23 While an originator may be reported at the loan level, there is no regulatory guidance or rule on the definition of the originator that is reported in this field. Thus, it appears that institutions reported to be the “originator” in BBx can actually be any institution prior to the sponsor’s purchase in the securitization process.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

INTRTTYPESUMMARY

OCCTYPE

PROPTYPE

PURPOSETYPE

DOCTYPESUMMARY

IOSTATUSIND

BALLOONSTATUSIND

ORIGINATORNAME

NEGAMSTATUSIND

20

Table 3. A summary table in the prospectus for AMSI 2006-R1

4.3. The relationship between loan-level disclosure and deal sponsor

Table 4 breaks down the disclosure rate for each loan attribute by sponsor for securitizations issued in 2006. The loan attributes are listed in increasing order of aggregate disclosure rate; i.e. the first item is the least reported and the last item is the most reported characteristic. The table also shows the total number of loans associated with each of the ten largest sponsors in 2006. Since sponsor is not a legal designation it must be hand-assembled, limiting our present analysis to loans securitized in 2006. The results of our analysis show that the reporting of certain common loan characteristics is correlated with the deal sponsor.

Table 4 shows that NEGAMSTATUSIND is reported the least, for 10.77% of loans, with EMC Mortgage Corp. (EMC) reporting the field the most among sponsors (32.98% of the time) and Morgan Stanley (MS), DLJ Mortgage Capital (DLJ), and JP Morgan Chase (JPM) reporting 0.00% of the time. Bank of America (BOA) reports NEGAMSTATUSIND 0.19% of the time, Deutsch Bank (DB) reports the field 1.14% of the time, and Goldman Sachs (GS) 7.48% of the time. Residential Funding Corp (RFC) reports NEGAMSTATUSIND just under 12% of the time, while Countrywide (CW) and Lehman Brothers (LB) disclose at rates over 13%.

21

Table 4. Disclosure rate for major loan characteristics by ten largest sponsors in 200624 (first liens only)

24 The ten largest sponsors in BBx are Countrywide, Lehman Brothers, EMC Mortgage Corp, Residential Funding Corp, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsch Bank, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase.

22

ORIGINATORNAME is reported 30.47% of the time, although RFC reports the field for none of the loans (0.00% disclosure rate), CW only 0.72% of the time, and DLJ 11.24% of the time. The other sponsors report ORIGINATORNAME over 30% of the time, by number of loans. Goldman Sachs (GS) discloses ORIGINATORNAME the most at 64.84%.

In addition to NEGAMSTATUSIND and ORIGINATORNAME, BALLOONSTATUSIND and COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC were disclosed by the top ten sponsors in BBx for less than 80% of the loans in the aggregate; by individual sponsors, all had less than 90% disclosure rates with the exception of CW, RFC, and DLJ. BALLOONSTATUSIND was reported on average for 36.12% of loans, with a low of 1.23% (CW) and a high of 100.00% (RFC). COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC was reported on average for 76.2% of loans, with a low of 35.47% (RFC) and a high of 99.65% (CW).

The remaining loan characteristics were all reported over 80% of the time, on average, with some considerable variation across the sponsors. ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC was reported on average for 84.65% of loans, with a low of 48.79% (DLJ) and a high of 100.00% (RFC). DOCTYPESUMMARY was reported on average for 88.52% of loans, with a low of 75.69% (LB) and a high of 97.92% (CW). IOSTATUSIND was reported on average for 88.69% of loans, with a low of 52.39% (DLJ) and a high of 99.65% (CW).

ORIGLTVRATIOCALC, PROPTYPE, ORIGINALBALCALC, and INTRTTYPESUMMARY were all disclosed by the top ten sponsors for more than 98.00% of loans in 2006.

None of the 10 largest sponsors had a total disclosure rate above 85% for the 16 loan characteristics. JPM loans have the most missing data, with 75.69% of coverage for our 16 attributes, followed by DLJ (76.55%), DB (77.37%), and MS (78.40%). The highest disclosure rate is from GS, with 82.74% coverage. With such uneven coverage among deal sponsors, sample stratification among sponsors or – at the very least – sponsor fixed effects variables should be mandatory for academic research.

4.4. The relationship between loan-level disclosure and trustee

In Table 5, we calculate the disclosure rate for our 16 key loan characteristics by the top 10 trustees for 2006 securitizations (here we maintain the focus on 2006 for comparability with Table 4). Again the loan characteristics are presented in increasing order of aggregate disclosure. As described above, the individual loan characteristics are initially produced by the originator. The originator conveys those to the servicer so that the servicer knows what types of loans they are servicing. If the loans are securitized (as are all the loans used here), the loan characteristics would then be conveyed to the sponsor and investment bank as the basis for representation made in the prospectus supplements and other offering documents. Those attributes may also be posted on the trustee’s web site in order to inform investors about the loans. The hypothesis, therefore, is that the trustee may somehow be associated with reporting.

Here, we find that there is even greater heterogeneity in reporting of certain loan common attributes at the loan level among trustees, so that reporting is highly correlated with the deal trustee.

Again, disclosure of NEGAMSTATUSIND and ORIGINATORNAME are lowest, with 11.72% and 26.67%, respectively. JPM, LaSalle, and DB all report de minimis coverage of NEGAMSTATUSIND, ranging from 0.00% to 0.57%, while WaMu reports the most with coverage of 54.44%.

RFC, WaMu, and BONY all provide de minimis coverage of ORIGINATORNAME, ranging from 0.00% to 0.71%, while US Bank discloses 60.21%.

23

Table 5. Disclosure rate for major loan characteristics by top ten trustees in 2006 (first liens only)

24

The remaining characteristics are reported by trustees often at levels of 95.00% and above, but others report those same fields at rates down to 0.00%, resulting in average disclosure rates ranging from 36.33% (BALLOONSTATUSIND) to 99.98% (ORIGINALBALCALC). Reporting for BALLOONSTATUSIND ranges from 1.21% (BONY) to 100% (Citi, JPM, IndyMac, and US Bank), a 98.79% spread; COMBINEDLIENLTVCALC ranges from 6.22% (LaSalle) to 100.00% (IndyMac), a 93.78% spread; DOCTYPESUMMARY ranges from 4.83% (LaSalle) to 100.00% (WaMu), a 95.17% spread; IOSTATUSIND ranges from 14.11% (DB) to 100.00% (LaSalle and IndyMac), an 85.89% spread; ORIGAPPRAISALVALUECALC ranges from 26.62% (Citi) to 100.00% (DB, IndyMac, and RFC), a 73.38% spread; and FICOSCOREORIGINATIONCALC ranges from 73.35% (DB) to 99.95% (RFC), a 26.60% spread for a variable that is almost universally relied upon in academic studies and a critical factor in any risk analysis.

PURPOSETYPE is disclosed at the most extreme of ranges, going from 0.00% (LaSalle) to 100.00% (IndyMac, JPM, and WaMu). OCCTYPE ranges from 5.52% (LaSalle) to 100.00% for five different trustees, a spread of 94.48%.

ORIGINRTCALC, ORIGLTVRATIOCALC, PROPTYPE , INTRTTYPESUMMARY, and ORIGINALBALCALC are reported more than 90% of the time by all trustees, although only INTRTTYPESUMMARY and ORIGINALBALCALC are reported more than 99% of the time by each and every trustee.

Among our 16 characteristics, loans in deals for which LaSalle is trustee have the worst coverage (62.70%), followed by Citi (69.76%), DB (72.46%), and JPM (77.92%). The top trustee in disclosure of the characteristics is IndyMac (87.58%). With even more uneven coverage among deal trustees than deal sponsors, sample stratification among trustees or – at the very least – trustee fixed effects variables should be mandatory for academic research. Clearly, therefore, there is unexplained heterogeneity in the sample selection process used in common academic research.

§5. Conclusion

This paper shows patterns in data on securitized mortgage loans reported by trustees and used in popular academic research exploring the causes of the financial crisis. Using representative loan-level data from trustees, we show that loan-level information does not exist for substantial portions of securitized loans. Thus, the trustee data used in many popular studies comprises nowhere near the population of loans, yet it is not a valid statistical sample either. In such cases, it is becoming apparent in “big data” research that observational biases can be crucial to academic and policy research on the financial crisis – but “big data” cannot be assumed to be “complete data.”

We also provide empirical evidence that loan-level disclosure is correlated with sponsor and trustee fixed effects, both fields that are not typically accounted for in academic research.

Such observations have at least two important implications. First, if we blindly drop the mortgages with missing values for major risk factors, then the resulting data set used in typical academic research may be skewed from the characteristics of the population and may constitute a biased sample.

Second, the spotty reporting submitted under Reg AB highlights the importance of effective regulation. But while the subject of whether the lack of mortgage data hindered investors’ ability to analyze RMBS may be tempting to explore, it is important to remember that this data was and is pursued to meet investor demands for additional data. It is not at all clear that investors asked for additional data and were refused or that securitization prices and bond ratings did not reflect the lack of such data. In other words, the missing data was, most likely, not a proximate cause of the

25

crisis, but most likely created additional uncertainty to fuel the crisis once it began. Thus, the SEC is probably right to pursue increased reporting pursuant to Reg AB II, which will increase investors’ ability to model accurately loan performance when investing in future mortgage products.

References

Agarwal, S., Chang, Y., & Yavas, A. (2012). Adverse selection in mortgage securitization. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 640-660.

Demyanyk, Y., & Van Hemert, O. (2011). Understanding the subprime mortgage crisis. Review of Financial Studies, 24(6), 1848-1880.

Demiroglu, C., & James, C. (2012). How important is having skin in the game? Originator-sponsor affiliation and losses on mortgage-backed securities. Review of Financial Studies, 25(11), 3217-3258.

Ghent, A. C., & Kudlyak, M. (2011). Recourse and residential mortgage default: evidence from US states. Review of Financial Studies, 24(9), 3139-3186.

Keys, B. J., Mukherjee, T., Seru, A., & Vig, V. (2010). Did securitization lead to lax screening? Evidence from subprime loans. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 307-362.

Keys, B. J., Seru, A., & Vig, V. (2012). Lender screening and the role of securitization: evidence from prime and subprime mortgage markets. Review of Financial Studies, 25(7), 2071-2108.

Mason, Joseph R. and Lee, Hong. “Selection Bias and the Estimation of Sponsor Affiliations in Mortgage Risk,” Working Paper, 2014.

Mayer, Christopher, Karen Pence, and Shane M. Sherlund. (2009) “The rise in mortgage defaults,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(1), 27-50.

Mayer, C., Piskorski, T., & Tchistyi, A. (2013). The inefficiency of refinancing: Why prepayment penalties are good for risky borrowers. Journal of Financial Economics, 107(3), 694-714.

Mian, A., & Sufi, A. (2009). The consequences of mortgage credit expansion: Evidence from the US mortgage default crisis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1449-1496.

Piskorski, T., Seru, A., & Witkin, J. (2013). Asset quality misrepresentation by financial intermediaries: Evidence from RMBS market (No. w18843). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Piskorski, T., Seru, A., & Vig, V. (2010). Securitization and distressed loan renegotiation: Evidence from the subprime mortgage crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 97(3), 369-397.

Prospectus supplements for ACE 2006-ASP2

Prospectus supplements for AMSI 2006-R1

Prospectus supplements for BAFC 2006-1

Prospectus supplements for BSABS 2006-IM1

Prospectus supplements for BSARM 2006-4

Prospectus supplements for CMLTI 2006-HE1

Prospectus supplements for CMLTI 2006-WFH4

Prospectus supplements for FFML 2006-FF17

26

Prospectus supplements for RALI 2006-QH1

Prospectus supplements for TBW 2006-5

Prospectus supplements for TBW 2006-6

Final Rule: Asset-Backed Securities; Release No. 33-8518 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8518.htm)

Proposed Rule: Asset-Backed Securities; Release No. 33-9117 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2010/33-9117.pdf)

Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT press.

27

Appendix A. BBx Loan Characteristics Data Elements

28

29

30

31

Appendix B. Missing rate by data category and cleansing

Data category Raw item missing rate Cleansed item missing rate

ARM Adjustment Factor ArmRoundCd 67.05%

ArmRoundDesc 75.04%

ArmRoundFactor 64.47%

NoArmLookBkDays 63.21%

ARM Conversion ArmConvertCd 81.96% ArmConvertStatusInd 49.57%

ARM Index IndexCd 45.29%

IndexShortName 61.99%

OrigIdxValue 38.16%

ARM Payment FirstPaymtAdjDt 70.70% FirstPaymtAdjDtCalc 65.21%

PayAdjFreq 17.83%

PeriodicPayCapPct 32.64%

ARM Rate Adjustment IntRtAdjFreq 17.44% IntRtAdjFreqCalc 17.44%

ARM Rate Cap/Floor ArmRtLifeCap 56.84% ArmRtLifeCapCalc 56.89%

LifeMaxIntRtCeiling 15.67%

LifeRtFloor 17.82% LifeRtFloorCalc 17.91%

PeriodicRtCap 17.95%

PeriodicRtFloor 95.40%

ARM Rate Initial Period FirstPerRtCap 78.14%

FirstRtAdjDt 64.95% FirstRtAdjDtCalc 61.08%

InitialFixedRtPer 99.94% InitialFixedRtPerCalc 64.14%

Credit Documentation DocCd 73.33%

DocCdDesc 75.82%

DocType 40.23% DocTypeSummary 40.33%

32

DocTypeDesc 38.82%

NoRatioID 97.95%

Credit Equity CombinedLienLTV 24.62% CombinedLienLTVCalc 47.26%

LienStatus 27.04% LienType 26.02%

OrigLTVRatio 8.30% OrigLTVRatioCalc 6.35%

PledgedAssetAmt 92.85%

PledgedAssetMrtgInd 59.51% PledgedAssetMortgageStatusInd 59.51%

Credit FICO FicoRawScore 58.87%

FicoScoreOrigination 22.70% FicoScoreOriginationCalc 29.30%

Credit MI LenderPaidMIFlag 90.08% LenderPaidMIStatusInd 90.08%

MIStatusInd 0.00%

PMICovPct 50.75% PMICovPctCalc 50.75%

PMIIndicator 37.71%

PMIInsurerCd 38.41%

PMIInsurerName 81.12%

PMIPercentage 91.70%

Credit Rating CreditGrade 84.76% CreditCatLoan 10.65%

Duration FundingDtTm 89.92%

MaturityDt 7.50% MaturityDtCalc 3.41%

OrigDtNoteDt 22.44% OrigDtNoteDtCalc 1.37%

OriginalTerm 5.28% OriginalTermCalc 3.38%

AmortizationTerm 67.43% AmortizationTermCalc 8.34%

Loan Balance IssuanceBal 45.14% IssuanceBalCalc 14.19%

OriginalBal 0.75% OriginalBalCalc 0.56%

SaleBalance 39.16%

33

SchedLnBalClosing 89.69%

Loan Feature I/O IntOnlyEndDt 74.56%

IntOnlyOrigTerm 44.22% IntOnlyOrigTermCalc 43.95%

IOFlag 44.05% IOStatusInd 43.39%

Loan Feature NegAm ArmNegAmortCap 55.77% ArmNegAmortCapCalc 62.92%

HELOCDrawPeriodYrs 99.91%

NegAmortCd 75.42% NegAmStatusInd 94.79%

NegAmPctg 88.67%

Loan Feature Teaser ArmTeaserPeriod 70.72%

PayTeaserind 70.90%

PayTeaserPeriod 70.90%

Loan Origination ChannelCd 94.99%

ChannelDesc 95.00%

OriginatorCd 99.87%

OriginatorName 84.60%

Seller 99.87%

Loan Type ARMInd 60.80% IntRtTypeSummary 3.98%

LoanType 26.22%

LoanTypeDesc 26.25%

NoteDesc 71.55%

NoteType 64.24%

ProductDesc 65.70%

ProductTypeCd 58.00%

ProgramCd 93.12%

ProgramName 93.88%

34

Loan Type Balloon BalloonInd 63.03% BalloonStatusInd 61.73%

Loan Type Hybrid HybridARMInd 87.33%

Loan Type Option ARM OptionARMInd 94.79%

Loan Type Heloc HelocInd 98.35%

Occupancy LeaseholdID 97.66%

OccStatusCd 9.60%

OccStatusDesc 9.07% OccType 10.42%

Payment FirstPaymtDt 8.82% FirstPaymtDtCalc 4.77%

FirstPrinPaymtDt 90.10%

IssuePI 14.01%

SchedPIAtIssuance 89.26%

OrigPI 97.49%

Prepayment Penalty PayoffPnltyType 94.85%

PrepayPenaltyAmt 39.12%

PrepayPenaltyEndDt 81.66%

PrepayPenaltyFlag 73.15%

PrepayPenaltyInd 31.97% PrepayPenaltyStatusInd 63.24%

PrepayPenaltyWaived 70.94%

Property Location PropertyCity 13.97% PropertyCityCalc 0.00%

PropertyCounty 84.62% PropertyCountyCalc 0.00%

PropertyCountyCd 87.34%

PropertyStAddress 96.69%

PropertyState 4.82% PropertyStateCalc 0.00%

PropertyZipCd 3.30% PropertyZipCdCalc 0.00%

Property Type NoUnits 76.95% NoUnitsCalc 76.96%

35

PropertyTypeCd 8.59%

PropertyTypeDesc 8.40% PropType 8.67%

Property Value ApprslTypeDesc 96.21%

CurAppraisalValue 97.54%

OrigAppraisalValue 10.35% OrigAppraisalValueCalc 18.50%

Purpose PurposeCd 12.07%

PurposeDesc 12.17% PurposeType 13.82%

RelocationInd 95.20%

Rate FixedRetYldRt 58.91%

InitialIntRt 66.17% InitialIntRtCalc 0.22%

IntRtAtIssuance 85.86% IssuanceRtCalc 94.16%

Margin 15.59% MarginCalc 15.59%

NoteRateAdjForLPMI 90.02%

OrigIntRt 0.47% OrigIntRtCalc 5.49%

Servicing EscrowBal 90.59%

MasterServFee 41.94%

ServicerCd 73.63%

ServicerName 11.74% ServicerNameCalc 12.38%

ServicerNo 69.48%

ServicingFee 27.05%

Loan Modifications NoMods 1.38%

ModLatestDt 90.58%

Key Events FirstActivityDt 0.00%

LatestActivityDt 0.00%

POActivityDt 27.02%