NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)----30 November 2016: Fitch Ratings has assigned ratings to J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2016-4 (JPMMT 2016-4) as follows:
--$300,112,000 class A-1 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$300,112,000 class A-2 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$273,561,000 class A-3 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$273,561,000 class A-4 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$205,171,000 class A-5 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$205,171,000 class A-6 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$68,390,000 class A-7 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$68,390,000 class A-8 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$55,110,000 class A-9 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$55,110,000 class A-10 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$13,280,000 class A-11 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$13,280,000 class A-12 certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$26,551,000 class A-13 exchangeable certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$26,551,000 class A-14 certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$300,112,000 class A-X-1 notional certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$300,112,000 class A-X-2 notional exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$273,561,000 class A-X-3 notional exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$205,171,000 class A-X-4 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$68,390,000 class A-X-5 notional exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$55,110,000 class A-X-6 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$13,280,000 class A-X-7 notional certificates 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$26,551,000 class A-X-8 notional certificates 'AA+sf'; Outlook Stable;
--$4,506,000 class B-1 certificates 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$6,758,000 class B-2 certificates 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
--$4,667,000 class B-3 certificates 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
--$2,414,000 class B-4 certificates 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.
Fitch will not be rating the following certificates:
--$3,379,570 class B-5 certificates;
--$16,092,470 class RR exchangeable certificates.
KEY RATING DRIVERS
High-Quality Mortgage Pool (Positive): The collateral pool consists of high-quality 30-year, fully amortizing loans to borrowers with strong credit profiles, low leverage, and adequate liquid reserves. The pool has a weighted average (WA) FICO score of 752 and an original combined loan-to-value (CLTV) ratio of 72.2%. The collateral attributes of the subject pool are largely consistent with recent JPMMT transactions issued in 2015 and 2016.
Geographically Diverse Pool (Positive): The pool's primary concentration risk is in California, where approximately 36.8% of the collateral is located. Approximately 46.5% of the pool is located in the top five regions in the subject pool (Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Miami, and Seattle). However, these concentrations show significant improvement over many of the JPMMT deals rated by Fitch in 2015, in which over 50% of the pool was concentrated in California and over 80% in the top five regions. As a result, no geographic concentration penalty was applied.
Straightforward Deal Structure (Positive): The mortgage cash flow and loss allocation are based on a senior-subordinate, shifting-interest structure, whereby the subordinate classes receive only scheduled principal and are locked out from receiving unscheduled principal or prepayments for five years. The lockout feature helps maintain subordination for a longer period should losses occur later in the life of the deal. The applicable credit support percentage feature redirects subordinate principal to classes of higher seniority if specified credit enhancement (CE) levels are not maintained.
To mitigate tail risk, which arises as the pool seasons and fewer loans are outstanding, a subordination floor of 2.00% of the original balance will be maintained for the certificates. Additionally, there is no early stepdown test that might allow principal prepayments to subordinate bondholders earlier than the five-year lockout schedule.
Leakage from Reviewer Expenses (Negative): The trust is obligated to reimburse the breach reviewer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC (Pentalpha), each month for any reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred if the company is requested to participate in any arbitration, legal or regulatory actions, proceedings or hearings. These expenses include Pentalpha's legal fees and other expenses incurred outside its annual fee schedule and are not subject to a cap or certificateholder approval.
Furthermore, certificateholders are obligated to pay Pentalpha a termination fee of $140,000 from year two to five, $80,000 from year five to eight and $25,000 after year eight, to terminate the contract. While Fitch accounted for the potential additional costs by upwardly adjusting its loss estimation for the pool, Fitch views this construct as adding potentially more ratings volatility than those that do not have this type of provision.
Extraordinary Expense Adjustment (Negative): Extraordinary expenses, which include loan file review costs, arbitration expenses for enforcement of the reps and additional fees of Pentalpha, will be taken out of available funds and not accounted for in the contractual interest owed to the bondholders. This construct can result in principal and interest shortfalls to the bonds, starting from the bottom of the capital structure. To account for the risk of these noncredit events reducing subordination, Fitch adjusted its loss expectations upward by 50 bps at the 'AAAsf' level.
Tier 3 Representation and Warranty Framework (Negative): Fitch believes the value of the rep and warranty framework is diluted by the presence of qualifying and conditional language in conjunction with sunset provisions, which reduces lender breach liability. While Fitch believes the high credit-quality pool and clean diligence results mitigate these risks, it considered the weaker framework in its analysis.
Fitch's analysis incorporates a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines (MVDs) than assumed at the MSA level. The implied rating sensitivities are only an indication of some of the potential outcomes and do not consider other risk factors that the transaction may become exposed to or may be considered in the surveillance of the transaction. Three sets of sensitivity analyses were conducted at the state and national levels to assess the effect of higher MVDs for the subject pool.
This defined stress sensitivity analysis demonstrates how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines at the national level. The analysis assumes market value declines of 10%, 20% and 30%, in addition to the model-projected 4.8%. As shown in the table to the right, the analysis indicates that there is some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with the model projection.
Fitch also conducted sensitivities to determine the stresses to MVDs that would reduce a rating by one full category, to non-investment grade, and to 'CCCsf'.
Fitch's stress and rating sensitivity analysis are discussed in its presale report released today 'J.P. Morgan Mortgage Loan Trust 2016-4', available at 'www.fitchratings.com' or by clicking on the link.
USE OF THIRD-PARTY DUE DILIGENCE PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17G-10
Fitch was provided with Form ABS Due Diligence-15E (Form 15E) as prepared by AMC Diligence, LLC (AMC), Opus Capital Markets Consultants (Opus), and IngletBlair, LLC (IngletBlair). The third-party due diligence described in Form 15E focused on a compliance review, credit review and valuation review. The due diligence companies performed a review on 100% of the loans. Fitch considered this information in its analysis and it did not have an effect on Fitch's analysis or conclusions. Fitch believes the overall results of the review generally reflected strong underwriting controls.
REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
A description of the transaction's representations, warranties and enforcement mechanisms (RW&Es) that are disclosed in the offering document and which relate to the underlying asset pool is available by accessing the appendix referenced under 'Related Research' below. The appendix also contains a comparison of these RW&Es to those Fitch considers typical for the asset class as detailed in the Special Report titled 'Representations, Warranties and Enforcement Mechanisms in Global Structured Finance Transactions,' dated May 31, 2016.
Additional information is available at www.fitchratings.com.
Sources of Information:
In addition to the information sources identified in Fitch's criteria listed below, Fitch's analysis incorporated data tapes, due diligence results, deal structure and legal documents provided on the transaction's 17g5 website available on 'www.structuredfn.com'.
Counterparty Criteria for Structured Finance and Covered Bonds (pub. 01 Sep 2016)
Criteria for Interest Rate Stresses in Structured Finance Transactions and Covered Bonds (pub. 26 Oct 2016)
Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria (pub. 27 Jun 2016)
Rating Criteria for U.S. Residential and Small Balance Commercial Mortgage Servicers (pub. 23 Apr 2015)
U.S. RMBS Cash Flow Analysis Criteria (pub. 15 Apr 2016)
U.S. RMBS Loan Loss Model Criteria (pub. 29 Nov 2016)
U.S. RMBS Master Rating Criteria (pub. 27 Jun 2016)
U.S. RMBS Seasoned and Re-Performing Loan Criteria (pub. 12 May 2016)
U.S. RMBS Surveillance and Re-REMIC Criteria (pub. 15 Nov 2016)
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2016-4 -- Appendix
Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form
ABS Due Diligence Form 15E 1
ABS Due Diligence Form 15E 2
ABS Due Diligence Form 15E 3
Copyright (C) 2016 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY 10004. Telephone: 1-800-753-4824, (212) 908-0500. Fax: (212) 480-4435. Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch's factual investigation and the scope of the third-party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third-party verifications such as audit reports, agreed-upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third-party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch's ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third-party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward-looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected by future events or conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed.
The information in this report is provided "as is" without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers.
For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no. 337123) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale clients only. Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001.