Asset Backed Commercial Paper Criteria Report

Methodology
Asset-Backed Commercial Paper

Criteria Report: U.S. & European ABCP
Conduits - Request for Comment
November 2013
contact information
Matthew La Capra, CPA
Senior Vice President - Head of U.S. & European ABCP
+1 212 806 3259
mlacapra@dbrs.com
Jerry van Koolbergen
Managing Director - Structured Credit
+1 212 806 3260
jvankoolbergen@dbrs.com
DBRS is a full-service credit rating agency

established in 1976. Privately owned and operated
without affiliation to any financial institution,
DBRS is respected for its independent, third-party
evaluations of corporate and government issues,
spanning North America, Europe and Asia.
DBRSs extensive coverage of securitizations
and structured finance transactions solidifies our
standing as a leading provider of comprehensive,
in-depth credit analysis.
All DBRS ratings and research are available in
hard-copy format and electronically on Bloomberg
and at DBRS.com, our lead delivery tool for
organized, Web-based, up-to-the-minute information. We remain committed to continuously
refining our expertise in the analysis of credit
quality and are dedicated to maintaining
objective and credible opinions within the global
financial marketplace.
This methodology replaces and supersedes all

related prior methodologies. This methodology
may be replaced or amended from time to time
and, therefore, DBRS recommends that readers
consult www.dbrs.com for the latest version of its
methodologies.
Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Criteria Report: U.S. & European ABCP Conduits Credit and Liquidity
November 2013
Introduction 6
The DBRS Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Conduit Rating
6
Primary Risks of ABCP
6
DBRS Short-Term Rating
6
General 6
More Gradations
6
Commercial Paper Fundamentals
7
Basic Mechanics of ABCP Structures
7
ABCP Conduit Revolving Phase
7
ABCP Conduit Wind-Down Phase
7
Key Conduit Types
8
Multi-Seller Conduit
8
Single-Seller Conduit
9
Collateralized Commercial Paper (CCP) Program
Conduit Liabilities
Commercial Paper
Callable / Puttable Feature
Conduit Credit Variations
Credit Risk
Transaction-Specific Credit Enhancement
Types of Analysis at the Transaction Level
Transaction Characteristics
Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement
Revolving Transactions Sizing Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement
Amortizing Transactions Sizing Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement
Revolving and Amortizing Transactions
Public Explicitly Rated Transactions
Transaction-Level Triggers
Program-Wide Credit Enhancement
PWCE Rationale
Risk Factors
Risk-Mitigating Factors
Net Effects
Sizing PWCE
Excess PWCE
Program-Level Structural Features
Key CP Cease Issuance/Asset Purchase Tests
Program Waterfall
Minimum PWCE Test
Other General Program-Level Structural Features
Other Risks
Interest Rate Risk
Interest Rate Mitigant Transaction-Level
Additional Interest Rate Mitigant Transaction-Level
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
3
Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Criteria Report: U.S. & European ABCP Conduits
November 2013
Interest Rate Mitigants Program-Level

Foreign Exchange Risk
Foreign Exchange Mitigants Transaction-Level
Foreign Exchange Mitigant Program-Level
Commingling Risk
Commingling Mitigant Transaction-Level
Additional Commingling Mitigant Transaction-Level
Commingling Mitigant Program-Level
Dilution Risk
Dilution Mitigant Transaction-Level
Additional Dilution Mitigant Transaction-Level
Dilution Risk Mitigant Program-Level
Liquidity Risk
General
Forms of Liquidity Agreements
Same-Day Funding
Liquidity Funding Formula
Rating Thresholds for Liquidity Support
Liquidity Covering Other Risks
Liquidity Covering Credit Risks
Exceptions to Liquidity Funding
Legal Risk
Bankruptcy Risk
Conduit-Level Risk
Conduit Level Structural Mitigants:
Review of Organizational Documents
Conduit & Transaction Level Risk
Preference Risk
Mitigants to Preference Risk
Stay Risk
Mitigants to Stay Risk:
Review of Excess Funds, Limited Recourse, Non-Petition and Rating Agency Condition
Excess Funds / Limitation on Payments
Limited Recourse
No Proceeding / Non Petition
Rating Agency Notification (RAN)
Legal Opinions
Conduit Level
Transactional Level
Necessary Legal Opinions
Operational Risk
Review of the Administrator/Sponsor
Review of the Program Documents
Origination & Execution Advisory Services
4
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
24
24
24
24
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Criteria Report: U.S. & European ABCP Conduits Credit and Liquidity
November 2013
Issuing & Paying Advisory Services

Day to Day Operational Services
Operational Risk Mitigants
Surveillance
Monthly Review
Ongoing Periodic Reviews
Rating Process and Documentation Review
Rating Process Initiation
Conduit Rating Program Analysis
Conduit Confirmation Transaction Analysis
Asset Transfer Agreement / Receivable Purchase Agreement
Liquidity Agreement
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
November 2013
Introduction
This publication outlines the updated proposed DBRS methodology for rating Asset-Backed Commercial
Paper (ABCP) in the United States and Europe. DBRS requests comments be received on or before
December 30, 2013. Please submit comments to DBRS_SC_Methodology_Comments@DBRS.com.
DBRS publishes on its website all comments received from a comment period, except in cases where confidentiality is requested by the respondent. Following the review and evaluation of all submissions, DBRS
will publish a final version of this methodology.
The criteria in this publication should not be seen as static. DBRS continually reviews market developments on an on-going basis to ensure that its policies and criteria remain relevant. In addition, DBRS
analysis and processes may deviate from this methodology if the circumstances applicable to a particular Commercial Paper (CP) Program so require. DBRS may publish updates to this criteria, as well as
addenda to address country-specific issues. Updates will be publicly available on www.dbrs.com.
The rating process outlined herein represents an update to the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper
Criteria Report: U.S. & European ABCP Conduits methodology published in August 2009.
This framework is applied in conjunction with a number of other DBRS publications, including:
Legal Criteria for European Structured Finance Transactions; and
Legal Criteria for U.S. Structured Finance Transactions.
The DBRS Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Conduit Rating

PRIMARY RISKS OF ABCP
ABCP is a short-term debt instrument issued by a conduit and backed by a variety of individual assetbacked transactions. In order to issue a short-term rating on CP issued by an ABCP conduit, DBRS
analyzes the comprehensive risk profile of the conduit, focusing on the four primary risk areas. They are
as follows:

Credit Risk.
Liquidity Risk.
Legal Risk.
Operational Risk.
DBRS SHORT-TERM RATING

General
Regardless of the debt instrument the conduit issues, DBRS rates to the CP investor being paid in whole
and on time. Payments that are not timely or complete constitute a default.
More Gradations
With more short-term rating gradations than other rating scales, DBRS offers CP investors more information and transparency. DBRSs ratings of R-1 (high), R-1 (middle) and R-1 (low) on an ABCP conduit
range from a AAA to an A (low) risk profile. DBRS believes that investors can better understand risks
inherent in ABCP portfolios through more granular short-term ratings.
November 2013
Commercial Paper Fundamentals

An ABCP conduit is a special-purpose vehicle that is structured to be bankruptcy remote and legally
separate from its sponsor. The conduit acquires assets via an asset purchase or a secured lending transaction. Some common assets or asset interests that ABCP conduits finance are trade receivables, auto
and equipment loans and leases, credit-card receivables, mortgages and collateralized debt obligations
(CDOs). ABCP tenors are generally limited to 365 days, but can be as long as 397. Both are issued on
either a discount or interest bearing basis.
BASIC MECHANICS OF ABCP STRUCTURES

ABCP Conduit Revolving Phase
An ABCP conduit is a vehicle that is usually intended to last until a program wind-down occurs. CP is
issued against transactions that have been accumulated over time. During the revolving phase, an ABCP
conduit typically acquires and retires transactions at the same time as it issues and retires CP.
Payment of Interest on Commercial Paper and Conduit Fees: Although interest is typically covered on
the transaction level by the liquidity facilities, the conduits sponsor and/or administrator designs the
program to cover interest and CP conduit fees in one of two ways:
Interest-Bearing Assets: For transactions that have underlying interest-bearing assets, typically
interest collected on the assets pays the interest on the CP and the conduit fees.
Non-Interest-Bearing Assets: For transactions that have non-interest-bearing assets, typically

additional reserves in the form of overcollateralization are established to cover interest and
conduit fees.
Payment of Principal on Commercial Paper: During the revolving phase, the conduit will issue new
CP and generally use the proceeds thereof to pay maturing CP in a process called rolling the CP.
CP can generally be rolled against performing transactions. The ABCP program contains limits (see
Program-Level Structural Features on page 16) on the amount of CP that can be issued at any time
based on a variety of factors, including the amount of performing assets in the conduit. Rolling the
CP typically repays 100% of the principal component of maturing CP.
ABCP Conduit Wind-Down Phase

Voluntary Wind-Down: For various reasons, program sponsors may choose to wind down a CP conduit.
In this case, the portfolio of transactions may naturally amortize. During the natural amortization of the
transactions within the conduits portfolio, maturing CP is typically paid by both collections from the
assets and from issuing new CP. This will recur until the conduits transactions are completely amortized.
Alternatively, banks may choose to fund some or all of the transactions with a liquidity facility, thereby
immediately removing any or all of the investor exposure to such transactions. Involuntary Wind-Down:
An involuntary conduit wind-down may occur if the conduit breaches specific program triggers that are
set out at the conduits inception. The section entitled Program-Level Structural Features on page 16
outlines some of the material triggers that would invoke an involuntary conduit wind-down.
November 2013
KEY CONDUIT TYPES
Multi-Seller Conduit
General: A multi-seller conduit is a limited-purpose, bankruptcy-remote vehicle that provides funding
to a multitude of unaffiliated originators/sellers in exchange for asset interests.1 Individual sellers
assets are acquired transaction by transaction, typically accumulating into a diversified portfolio
across asset types and industries to support the CP issued by the program.
Credit: Each transaction that is added to the conduits portfolio must be structured and/or credit
enhanced so that the resulting risk profile of the CP conduit is commensurate with its CP rating.
Program-wide credit enhancement (PWCE) is available as a fungible layer of credit enhancement
across all transactions. (Please see Program-Wide Credit Enhancement on page 14 for more details.)
An integral part of assessing the CP risk profile of a conduit is the size of its PWCE relative to the size
and composition of its portfolio of transactions.
Liquidity: A liquidity bank, typically the conduits bank sponsor, provides a liquidity facility for each
transaction to address timing mismatches between the payment streams of the assets and the CP
maturity dates or to repay CP investors in the event that CP cannot be rolled, namely a market disrup-
1. The conduits portfolio consists of transactions collateralized by underlying assets. Such underlying assets are referred to
herein as underlying assets, assets or collateral. The conduits interest in these transactions is referred to herein
as asset interests.
November 2013
tion. Liquidity facilities generally will support a transaction in one of three ways; 1) They may cover
the vast preponderance of risks except for defaulted assets, they may cover a portion of the credit risk
by short tailing a transaction, (see page 23), or 3) they may fully wrap a transaction by covering
all credit risks. Sponsor banks providing liquidity, in the form of a liquidity funding agreement, may
use the facility to transfer the transaction out of the conduit for any reason.
Single-Seller Conduit
General: A single-seller conduit is a limited-purpose, bankruptcy-remote vehicle that provides funding
to a single seller in exchange for interests in its pool of receivables. Single-seller programs are popular
among large credit-card issuers, major auto manufacturers and mortgage originators.
Credit: As is the case for multi-seller conduits, single-seller conduits acquire transactions that are
structured and/or credit enhanced so that the resulting risk profile of the CP conduit is commensurate
with its CP rating. Credit enhancement addresses historical and projected asset deterioration at a
particular rating level commensurate with the risk to the CP investors.
Liquidity: As in the case of multi-sellers, the liquidity provider(s) address timing mismatches between
the payment streams of the assets and the CP maturity dates or issues that arise when CP cannot be
rolled, including a market disruption. If the sellers short-term rating is high enough, it may serve as
the liquidity provider. If not, one bank or a syndicate of liquidity banks may serve as the liquidity
provider(s). If a syndicate of over 10 liquidity banks is utilized, DBRS will assess the overall risk of
the portfolio of liquidity banks as compared to ratings sought. In this case, there will likely be an
expectation of additional liquidity coverage.
Collateralized Commercial Paper (CCP) Program

General: A Collateralized Commercial Paper program is similar to the repo-backed ABCP conduits
that have been around since the 90s. While ABCP conduits in general are backed by 100% liquidity usually provided by the sponsor bank, conduits that use repurchase agreements as their source
of liquidity use those repurchase agreements to match fund asset and liability cash flows. Some differences are that CCP notes are typically direct unconditional obligations of the parent (or joint
obligation with an LLC set up by the parent) rather than of a legally separate SPV, like a conduit.
The other notable difference is the ultimate borrowers of ABCP conduits are often anonymous to the
investors. For CCP programs the obligation of the parent is known. Thus, CCP is functionally similar
to unsecured corporate CP as it relies on the parent to fund. The added benefit to investors though is
that if the parent (and their related SPV, if applicable) fails to meet their obligation, investors can take
possession of the collateral under the repo.
Credit: Relies primarily on the unconditional obligation of the issuer/parent to pay the CCP on a
timely basis. An additional feature is that investors have access to repo collateral.
Liquidity: Legally, there is no formal traditional liquidity facility like an ABCP conduit. Instead the
reliance is on the parent to honor their obligation to pay the CCP notes. However, like Repo-Backed
ABCP conduits the repurchase agreements may be match funded with the notes issued.
November 2013
CONDUIT LIABILITIES
Commercial Paper
ABCP is generally limited to maximum maturities of 365 but can be as long as 397 days.
CP can be issued on a discount or interest-bearing basis.
Discounted CP: The investor purchases discounted CP for a price that is less than the face amount
due at maturity. The interest is imputed from the difference between the purchase price and the face
value. This is the most common form of issuance.
Interest-Bearing CP: Interest-bearing CP accrues interest on the amount of the investors purchase
price paid for the CP. The investor will collect all interest and principal at the maturity of the CP.
Callable / Puttable Feature

Following recent developments on the regulatory front, specifically in response to the impending Liquidity
Coverage Requirements, many CP conduits have amended their programs to include puttable/callable CP.
These features respectively provide the investor the ability to put the CP note back to the Issuer at par
and the Issuer the ability to redeem the note prior to its stated maturity.
Callable CP is typically structured such that 1) The CP tenor is longer than 30 days and 2) it can be
redeemed or called by the issuer any time before 30 days of the legal maturity date. It is generally
presumed the issuer will invoke this call. The typical notice given to the investor is 1 day.
Puttable CP provides the investor the flexibility to sell or put the CP note back to the Issuer. The
typical notice that the Investor must provide the issuer to put is at least 30 days.
CONDUIT CREDIT VARIATIONS

Fully Supported: Fully supported ABCP conduits are distinguished from partially supported programs
because they are 100% credit enhanced by an appropriately rated entity, often the sponsor but sometimes a third party financial guarantor. For these conduits, the analysis is not focused on the underlying
collateral, but rather on the party providing the credit enhancement. The risk to the CP investor is
that the credit enhancer itself becomes insolvent. The documents must dictate that the enhancer will
irrevocably and unconditionally pay the liabilities in full and on time. The rating of the provider of
the credit enhancement typically determines the maximum rating that can be assigned to the ABCP.
Partially Supported: Partially supported programs are characterized by having less than 100% credit
enhancement. The analysis for partially supported conduits focuses on the transactions within the
conduit and on the PWCE available.
10
Transaction-Level: The transaction analysis focuses on the credit quality of the underlying collateral, the liquidity-funding formula, the transaction-level credit enhancement and the structural
and legal protections. Credit enhancement at the transaction level represents the first-loss protection to the CP investors.2
Program-Level: The program-level analysis focuses on the size of the PWCE relative to the overall
composition of the conduits portfolio of transactions as well as program structural and legal
features. PWCE is generally regarded as second-loss protection to the CP investors.
2. For the sake of simplicity, this criteria ignores any first-loss equity tranches.
November 2013
Credit Risk
In order to protect the CP investor, conduit sponsors typically structure their vehicles to employ credit
enhancement on two levels: the transaction-specific level and the program-wide level. Thus, for the CP
investor to actually take a loss, the asset deterioration must be greater than the credit enhancement
provided on the transaction level and it must deplete the entire program-wide credit enhancement that is
available across all transactions.
TRANSACTION-SPECIFIC CREDIT ENHANCEMENT

Transaction-specific credit enhancement is first-loss protection used to absorb any deterioration of the
collateral on specific transactions within the conduits portfolio. DBRS checks whether each transaction
added to the underlying pool has been structured and/or credit enhanced such that the resulting risk
profile of the CP conduit is commensurate with its CP rating. Common forms of transaction-specific
credit enhancement are overcollateralization, subordination, excess spread, seller recourse, cash reserves,
third-party guarantees, structured liquidity and total return swaps. Transaction-level credit enhancement
is specific to each transaction and cannot be applied to other conduit transactions.
Types of Analysis at the Transaction Level

In order to rate ABCP, DBRS formulates a credit opinion on each underlying transaction. At the transaction level, DBRSs analysis can take the form of an internal assessment or a public explicit rating.
Internal Assessment: Many transactions acquired by a conduit do not carry public explicit ratings.
For these transactions, DBRS performs a credit evaluation that is called an internal assessment. These
assessments are used by DBRS as part of the analysis of the CP. An internal assessment is similar
to the analysis of explicitly rated transactions, with some exceptions. For internally assessed transactions, DBRS relies on the conduits administrator to perform an in-depth review of the sellers
operations. Further, an internal assessment relies on many protections offered by the liquidity facility.
For example, dilution and commingling risks are often covered by the liquidity facilities. DBRS,
therefore, relies on the rating of the liquidity provider for many risks in internally assessed transactions. Detailed explanations of what the liquidity facility typically covers with respect to the above
risks, as well as other risks, can be found in the Other Risks section beginning on page 17.
Public Explicit Ratings: Explicitly rated transactions are analyzed on a stand-alone, or term,
basis.3 However, the payments from the explicitly rated transaction to the conduit often do not match
the payments from the conduit on the CP. Thus, there is a need for traditional liquidity support to
mitigate cash flow timing mismatches, as well as any market disruption risk.
Transaction Characteristics
Revolving Transactions: A revolving transaction continually finances its receivables through the
conduit until the date at which it terminates. New collateral enters the transaction and pays down on
an ongoing basis. Transactions of this nature can theoretically finance their receivables indefinitely. The
assets in revolving transactions typically must conform to eligibility criteria that are reviewed by DBRS.
Generally, revolving transactions are characterized by having amortization triggers that are typically checked monthly. These triggers are generally in place to ensure that the transaction has the
3. Stand alone, or term, transactions are rated such that the internal cash flows must be adequate to pay periodic
interest and ultimate payment of principal at the legal final date.
11
November 2013
proper credit enhancement on an ongoing monthly (reporting period4) basis. If breached and left
uncured, an amortization of the transaction will occur. (Please see Revolving Transactions Sizing
Transaction-Specific Credit Enhancement on page 11 for more details on the credit aspects of revolving transactions.) Many public explicitly rated transactions initially revolve and subsequently, at a
predetermined date, amortize.
Amortizing Transactions: An amortizing transaction is characterized by assets that typically amortize
from the transactions inception until the assets completely wind down. Amortizing transactions
often have a static asset pool. That is, the asset pool composition is set from inception. (Please
see Amortizing Transactions Sizing Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement on page 13 for more
details on the credit aspects of amortizing transactions.)
Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement

DBRS analyses both the credit enhancement for a transaction (using rating methodologies relevant to the
particular asset class) as well as the risks covered by the liquidity. The major factors that are considered
include, but are not limited to, the following:

Eligibility criteria or static pool characteristics.

The history of delinquencies.
The historical payment characteristics (e.g., seasonality).
The historical timing of losses on vintage pools.
Seller concentrations.
The originators risk profile.
The quality of the servicer.
Underwriting procedures and policies and recent changes therein.
The quality of the data.
Idiosyncratic factors specific to the particular asset type.
Industry/asset-type comparisons.
The type of analysis of underlying transactions will vary based on the asset sector (e.g., mortgages versus
auto loans versus trade receivables). The type of analysis will also vary depending on whether the transaction is a revolving transaction or an amortizing transaction.
Revolving Transactions Sizing Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement

Topping up the Reserve in Revolving Transactions: Generally, for revolving transactions, the proper
credit enhancement must be in place and fully intact at the start of each reporting period. This is often
accomplished via monthly (reporting period) credit triggers tied to a CP issuance test.
Generally, the most prevalent monthly credit trigger in a revolving transaction is known as the borrowing base test. This test ensures that the assets and the necessary credit enhancement are fully
intact on a go-forward basis. Any depletion of the credit enhancement resulting from asset deterioration is typically cured by the seller in the form of contributing more receivables to the transaction.
This ensures that after each monthly (reporting period) report, the transactions credit enhancement
is fully intact. This procedure of restoring the necessary credit enhancement each month (reporting
period) is called topping up the reserve. If the reserve is not topped up, the transaction will wind
down and amortization begins.
Ascertaining the Exposure Horizon in Revolving Transactions: The key to accurately sizing the
transaction-level credit enhancement requirement focuses on the exposure horizon, which is the time
4. The reporting period is usually conducted on a monthly basis but may be shorter. It represents the frequency of reports
on which key asset performance tests often rely.
12
November 2013
during which the transactions collateral can experience losses.

For revolving transactions, as noted above, the credit enhancement is typically topped up on a monthly
basis. Therefore, revolving pools in effect have a fresh start each month (reporting period) because
the credit enhancement is restored to its requisite level. If the credit enhancement is not topped up,
the conduit is precluded from issuing CP supported by that transaction. Therefore, the transaction
cannot purchase additional assets, thus causing the transaction to amortize.
The maximum time during which the collateral can experience losses, the exposure horizon, is typically calculated by adding the time it takes for the assets to naturally amortize to the length of the
reporting period.
Amortizing Transactions Sizing Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement

Ascertaining the Exposure Horizon in Amortizing Transactions: As is the case for revolving transactions, the key to accurately sizing the transaction-level credit enhancement requirement for amortizing
transactions is the exposure horizon, which is the time during which the transactions underlying
assets can experience losses. Calculating the exposure horizon for amortizing transactions is simpler
than for revolving transactions. Generally, the exposure horizon is the time it takes for the assets to
amortize. Hence, the sizing of credit enhancement is based on the amortization period.
Revolving and Amortizing Transactions

Shortening the Exposure Horizon Via Structural Features: Most revolving or amortizing, non-explicitly
rated transactions that are in a conduits portfolio are sized as per their exposure horizon. However,
there are structural features that may shorten the exposure horizon. For example, an appropriately
rated takeout provider may promise to purchase a transaction at a particular time or a transaction
may be short-tailed as detailed in the Short-Tail Exposure summary on page 23. The sale shortens
the exposure horizon for that transaction.
Public Explicitly Rated Transactions

Explicitly rated transactions can be characterized as either revolving or amortizing.
Explicitly rated revolving transactions typically have a set revolving period followed by an amortization
period, the end of which is the legal final date. During the revolving stage, these transactions typically
have amortization triggers that ensure that the transaction has the proper credit enhancement on a goforward basis. These various triggers can be checked daily, weekly or monthly, depending on the type of
trigger. If breached and left uncured, an early amortization of the transaction will occur. This occurrence,
along with greater-than-anticipated asset deterioration, could lead to the downgrade of the explicitly
rated transaction.
Similarly, for explicitly rated amortizing transactions, among other factors, poor asset performance
beyond the expected defaults could lead to a downgrade of the explicitly rated transaction. In both cases,
the focus for ABCP is the downgrade itself.
If the explicitly rated transaction deteriorates more than anticipated and a ratings downgrade occurs, a
conduits program and/or transaction documents will set forth a course of action. Areas addressed by the
documents may include, but are not limited to, the following:
The actions that the rating downgrade will compel the conduits administrator to perform (e.g., sell
the asset, fund the asset with liquidity).
13
November 2013
The timing by which the liquidity facility must fund upon certain events (e.g., a downgrade to a particular level).
The additional credit enhancement that may be provided upon a downgrade.
In any event, DBRS must be confident that the documents detail the conduits course of action and that
action sufficiently mitigates the risk to the CP investor of a downgrade of the transactions rating to a
rating level lower than that of the rating of the CP issued by the conduit.
Transaction-Level Triggers
DBRS typically relies on structural triggers for many transactions. These triggers often necessitate remedies
that ensure that the transaction has the proper credit enhancement on a go-forward basis or, if not, cause
an amortization of that transaction. However, while certain triggers are integral to many transactions,
such as the borrowing base test for revolving transactions, they are not necessarily required. For example,
the sponsor bank may elect to 100% credit enhance or wrap a particular transaction with a liquidity
facility (liquidity will fund for the principal and interest on the CP). In this case, DBRS will rely on the
liquidity banks rating. The Liquidity Covering Credit Risks section on page 22 addresses the possible
varying magnitudes of credit coverage by liquidity facilities.
Because some triggers are more vital than others, the remedies for the breach of structural triggers vary
according to their importance. Some triggers may not result in a particular transaction winding down but
rather may invoke another action. For example, a credit deterioration trigger may invoke the trapping of
excess spread from the assets to bolster the transactions credit enhancement. Some common triggers are
explained below.
Borrowing Base Test: The borrowing base test (Please see Revolving Transactions Sizing
Transaction- Specific Credit Enhancement on page 11 for details) ensures that the transaction has
the requisite credit enhancement each time the test is calculated. The frequency of its calculation can
be monthly, twice a month, weekly or daily.
Performance Triggers: Additionally, many transactions contain performance triggers that address
underperforming collateral. Varying asset types command different quantitative triggers. Common
performance tests include excess spread, delinquency and dilution triggers.
Seller Triggers: Qualitative seller triggers on the transaction level include, but are not limited to, the
following:
A seller/servicer insolvency.
A seller/servicer downgrade.
A material decline in the servicers ability to perform its duties.
A breach of material representations and warranties.
The cross-default of the seller with respect to other debt obligations.
Conditions Precedent to Issuing CP: The conditions by which CP can be issued are an important part
of revolving transactions. The breach of these conditions will preclude the conduit from issuing CP
until cured. Thus, they ensure that some key elements on which the transactions rating was based
are fully intact each time the conduit issues CP. For example, the borrowing base test is a key condition precedent to issuing CP as it ensures that upon each CP issuance, the proper credit reserves are
in place.
Transaction Wind-Down: Uncured breaches of transaction-specific triggers may invoke certain
remedies, including a cease issuance of CP and/or no new purchases of assets. If such a breach is left
14
November 2013
uncured, remedies such as this will effectively amortize the transaction.
PROGRAM-WIDE CREDIT ENHANCEMENT

Program-wide credit enhancement (PWCE) is a fungible layer of protection generally available to all
transactions within a conduits portfolio. PWCE is typically drawn after a transactions liquidity facilities
have funded for the good (i.e. non-defaulted) assets. If, after the liquidity facility funds, a particular transactions credit enhancement is insufficient to cover the deterioration of such a transaction, PWCE then
absorbs the excess loss. Thus, the transaction-specific credit enhancement acts as a first-loss enhancement
and the PWCE is typically regarded as second-loss enhancement.
DBRS views PWCE as an additional layer of protection much like a subordinated tranche of a CDO. The
size of the PWCE relative to the risks inherent within the conduits portfolio of transactions is important
to the overall risk profile of the conduit.
PWCE can take many forms but is typically an LOC, a surety bond, a third-party guarantee, a credit asset
purchase agreement or an irrevocable loan facility. The entities providing the PWCE instrument should
provide an irrevocable commitment, have an appropriate rating, and possess the capability of providing
same-day funding. If same-day funding presents a problem, an entity with an appropriate short-term
rating must contractually agree to front the necessary funds for the program enhancer. The rating of the
provider of the credit enhancement and/or any entity fronting the necessary funds for that entity typically
determines the maximum rating that can be assigned to the ABCP.
PWCE Rationale
PWCE is an integral part of the risk profile of an ABCP conduit for the following reasons:
First, for transactions that are internally assessed, DBRS relies on the sponsors review of each seller
and the related assets. This includes the sponsor banks ongoing reviews of such seller. PWCE provides
protection for the variation, if any, between the banks evaluation of a seller and what DBRSs opinion
is or may have been had it reviewed the seller.
The second reason, substantially more complex, addresses how the growth of a CP conduit affects its
risk profile. As the number of transactions increases within the conduit and the conduit grows in size,
there are factors that counterbalance one another (see Risk Factors, Risk-Mitigating Factors and
Net Effects below) and thus affect the risk profile of the conduit.
Risk Factors
As the number of transactions within a conduit increases, the probability that any one or more of those
transactions will default also increases. Further, there is a correlation between the transactions within a
conduits portfolio, increasing the likelihood that if one transaction defaults, so will another. DBRS considers the effect of these risk factors when analyzing the risk profile of a CP conduit.
Risk-Mitigating Factors
In contrast, increasing the number of transactions will likely increase the size of the PWCE. Increasing
the size of the PWCE has positive effects on a conduits risk profile. These positive effects counter the
aforementioned corrosive factors. First, as the size of the PWCE increases, the smaller each transaction
becomes relative to the PWCE available to it. Therefore, the probability of any one transaction having
a negative impact on a CP investor is decreased. Thus, as the PWCE grows with the CP conduit, more
transactions will have to default simultaneously to reach the threshold that would affect the CP investor
negatively. Also, to the extent that the number of transactions increases the diversity across asset and
industry lines, the reduction in default correlation among such transactions decreases the risk to the CP
investor.
15
November 2013
Net Effects
The overall net effect of the counterbalancing factors on the conduits risk profile will vary depending on
the composition of the portfolio and the relative size of the PWCE. Nevertheless, PWCE is in place to
absorb the potential net negative effects, if any, of increasing the number of transactions within a conduits portfolio.
Sizing PWCE
As described above, PWCE is the fungible layer typically available to all transactions within the conduits
portfolio when first-loss protection has been exhausted. DBRS evaluates the amount of PWCE considering the projected composition of transactions within a conduits portfolio to ensure that the total risk
profile of the conduit is commensurate with the rating on the CP. Generally 5% is the minimum amount
of PWCE provided but conduits often provide more. In any case, DBRS will expect the greater of 5% or,
in the case of under 10 transactions within a conduit, covering off the any transaction or transactions
entirely that may be below the rating of the conduit. It should be noted that aforementioned minimums
may or may not be adequate as a credit quality portfolio assessment is part of the analysis.
Excess PWCE
DBRS believes that the size of the PWCE relative to the composition of the portfolio of transactions
within a CP conduit is an important factor in assessing the overall risk profile to the CP investor. For
example, the difference between a CP program that has 5% PWCE and 10% PWCE is material and
should be reflected in the rating of the CP, all else being equal. For example, if a conduits portfolio comprised A, AA and AAA transactions and had 5% PWCE, that conduit may command a rating of R-1
(low). However, if that conduit had the same portfolio with 10% PWCE, an R-1 (middle) or R-1 (high)
may be more accurate (depending on the rating level of the liquidity support). DBRS believes ratings
that more accurately reflect the overall risk profile of a CP program will provide CP investors with more
information and more transparency.
PROGRAM-LEVEL STRUCTURAL FEATURES

Key CP Cease Issuance/Asset Purchase Tests
Key tests at the program level include, but are not limited to, the following:
Program Asset Test: The principal of the non-defaulted assets of all the transactions within the conduits portfolio should be greater than or equal to the principal of all of the conduits liabilities at any
time.
Program Liquidity Test: The total available liquidity commitments must exceed the principal and
interest of all outstanding CP at any time.
Remedies for Breach of Key Program Tests: Any failure to satisfy these tests typically prohibits the
conduit from issuing CP and purchasing additional asset interests, until cured. If left uncured for a
specified period of time (usually a very short time frame), the cease issuance may become permanent
or a program termination event will be officially invoked. Either way, the program will wind down
if breach is left uncured.
Program Waterfall
Often there are two distinct priority of payment sections for conduits that are in the revolving phase and
amortizing phase. DBRS reviews whether in either scenario, contingent, un-sized, and uncapped fees are
subordinated to the CP Investor in the program waterfall.
16
Minimum PWCE Test

The PWCE may be reduced if the program size decreases. Nonetheless, erosion of the PWCE below
November 2013
a particular level as a result of defaulted assets may invoke a CP cease-issuance trigger or, if severe
enough, may cause the program to wind down. If a program wind-down occurs, PWCE typically is
subject to a fixed floor amount to mitigate the potential for losses resulting from adverse selection5
from within the conduits portfolio of transactions.
Other General Program-Level Structural Features

The key material triggers that will wind down a conduit if left uncured for a short period of time include,
but are not limited to, the following:
The program documents cease to be in full force and effect.
A breach of any material representation or warranty by the conduit as per the program documents.
Other Risks
The following are various other conduit risks and their respective mitigants. They are present at both the
transaction and program level. Liquidity facilities play a large role in covering many of these risks.
INTEREST RATE RISK

Interest rate risk arises when the interest collected from the conduits underlying assets may be insufficient to pay the conduits cost of funds on a timely basis. The transactions in the conduits portfolio are
made up of fixed, floating and non-interest-bearing assets. CP interest rates, although typically fixed for
the term of the CP, fluctuate as new CP is issued. Therefore, the potential for variability in the conduits
transactions as well as in CP rates over time represents interest rate risk.
Interest Rate Mitigant Transaction-Level

Liquidity Facility: Generally, the transaction liquidity banks are required to fund the interest accrued
at the time of funding and the interest that will accrue to the maturity of the CP. Thus, the risk to
the CP investor reflects the rating on the transaction liquidity provider. Typically, the sponsor bank
provides the liquidity facility for each transaction.
Additional Interest Rate Mitigant Transaction-Level

DBRS reviews other features that may serve to mitigate this risk. The following are examples:
Reserve Account: Conduit sponsors generally have incentive to properly address interest rate risk
because in cases where the sponsor bank is also the liquidity provider, the bank does not want to
take a loss if liquidity funds. As a result an interest rate reserve account may be established such that
if liquidity is drawn, cash will be available from the interest rate reserve to reimburse the liquidity
provider. If liquidity does not fund, which is unlikely, cash is available from the reserve fund to pay
CP.
Additional Safeguards: Other safeguards to the CP investors include the following:
Typically, the conduit assets are structured to pay, at a minimum, the conduits cost of funds.
5. Adverse selection may occur when the conduits portfolio is negatively affected because as shorter-term transactions pay
off, the conduit may be left with a longer-dated, less-diversified portfolio of transactions. Generally, the longer a portfolio of transactions is exposed to losses, the lower the credit quality of such a portfolio, all else being equal.
17
November 2013
The conduits floating-rate assets are generally hedged. That is, the conduit will typically swap
out the assets yield and receive the conduits cost of funds.
Rather than rely on the above safeguards, DBRS typically relies on the liquidity support to cover interest
rate risk on the transaction level.
Interest Rate Mitigants Program-Level

PWCE: Any losses on the transaction level (namely, a liquidity bank not funding) will be covered to
the extent there is available program-wide credit enhancement.
Program Liquidity Tests: DBRS relies on program-level tests that are designed so that the liquidity
will always be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the outstanding CP in full. As described
under Key CP Cease Issuance/Asset Purchase Tests on page 16, there is a liquidity program test
that will prohibit any CP from being issued if, after considering such issuance, the available liquidity
is less than the principal and interest on the then outstanding CP. (Please see Is 102% Enough to
Cover Interest?)
Is 102% Enough to Cover Interest?

Typically, liquidity facilities are sized at 102% of the transaction limit. The extra 2% is designed to cover
the interest component of ABCP. Is this enough? In a high-interest economic cycle and/or CP issued with
longer maturities, interest due on the CP may be more than 2%. Therefore, DBRS does not rely on the
actual size of the liquidity facility, but rather on the program-level liquidity test. This test prohibits the
conduit from issuing any ABCP if, after such issuance, the available liquidity amount cannot cover the
principal and interest on all of the outstanding CP. Therefore, DBRS relies on the program liquidity test
and thus the liquidity facilities to cover interest rate risk. For those few programs that issue floating-rate
CP, a transaction-by-transaction analysis is required to assess interest rate risk.
FOREIGN EXCHANGE RISK

Foreign exchange risk arises when a conduit has assets that pay in a currency other than the currency in
which the CP is issued. If the assets currency were to weaken relative to the CP currency, the cash flow
from those assets would lose value and could be insufficient to pay the CP.
Foreign Exchange Mitigants Transaction-Level

Foreign exchange risk is typically addressed at the transaction level, although the program documents
will set forth the general approach that will be taken. There are three primary ways to mitigate this risk
on the transaction level: hedging, liquidity support and reserve account. For the first two, the goal of the
administrator is to transfer the foreign exchange risk to an appropriately rated entity. The third mitigant
is a reserve, based on an evaluation of the foreign exchange risk. The following are summaries of these
common mitigants.
Hedging: A conduits administrator may hedge foreign currency exchange (FX) risk by entering into
a FX rate swap with an acceptably rated counterparty. See Legal Criteria for US Structured Finance
Transaction and/or Derivative Criteria for European Structured Finance Transactions. The risk
reflects the rating of the hedge counterparty for payment.
18
A conduits administrator may hedge FX risk by matching spot and forward contracts. Matching
the spot and forward contracts will shore up full payment when the CP matures.
November 2013
Liquidity Support: Sometimes liquidity will fund in the currency of the CP and thus liquidity will take
the foreign exchange risk. The risk reflects the rating of the liquidity bank for payment. Behind the
scenes, and irrelevant to the CP investor, the liquidity bank will most likely hedge the risk for its own
internal risk management.
Reserve Account: Another mitigant is a reserve account based on the evaluation of the possible
foreign exchange movement between the currencies, the exposure period to such movement and the
environment of the applicable currencys sovereign location. The key factors modeled when DBRS
analyzes F/X reserves are, possible variances between the relevant currencies, the time exposure of
such currencies, and the rating level sought.
Foreign Exchange Mitigant Program-Level

Any losses on the transaction level in excess of the transaction-specific enhancement will be covered to the
extent there is available program-wide credit enhancement.
COMMINGLING RISK
Commingling risk arises in the event that the seller, acting as the servicer on a transaction, becomes
bankrupt and the collections due to the conduit are commingled with its general funds. In this situation,
the amounts due to the conduit are at risk.
Commingling Mitigant Transaction-Level

Liquidity Facility: Commingling risk is typically covered by the transactions liquidity facility. The
liquidity funding formula, via document language, will include funds due from the seller that have not
been received. Typically, liquidity funding formulas only reduce for defaulted assets. The definition
of a defaulted asset generally does not include funds collected by the seller, but not remitted to the
conduit. Therefore, liquidity banks typically take commingling risk. Thus, the risk to the CP investor
reflects the rating of the liquidity bank.
Where commingling risk is not covered by the transactions liquidity facility, DBRS reviews the structure
to determine whether other mitigants exist. These might include:
Additional Commingling Mitigant Transaction-Level

Lockboxes: In the US, lockboxes are very common. Lockboxes are segregated accounts specifically set
up to separate the sellers funds from those due to the conduit. Setting up accounts in the name of the
conduit is a typical safeguard used to mitigate commingling risk.
Other Mitigants: Different jurisdictions in Europe mitigate commingling risk in varying ways. DBRS
looks at each mitigant carefully with respect to probability and severity of risk considering the characteristics of the underlying assets. It should be noted, that if liquidity is covering this risk, which is
typically the protocol, this analysis is inconsequential.
Conduits have incentive to properly address commingling risk because in cases where the sponsor
bank is also the liquidity provider, the bank does not want to take a loss if liquidity funds and
commingling risk is not properly addressed.
19
November 2013
Commingling Mitigant Program-Level

Any losses on the transaction level (namely, a liquidity bank not funding) will be covered to the extent
there is available program-wide credit enhancement.
DILUTION RISK
Primarily relevant in trade receivable and credit-card transactions, dilutions are non-cash adjustments to
the receivables. These include, but are not limited to, discount incentives to customers for early payment,
errors in invoice amounts and returned goods. Dilutions are a normal recourse item back to the seller. If
the seller becomes bankrupt, these amounts owed to the conduit by the seller are in jeopardy. When dilutions occur, they reduce the amount of receivables and thus can leave the conduit short of funds.
Dilution Mitigant Transaction-Level

Liquidity Facility: Similar to commingling risk, dilution risk is also typically covered by the conduits
liquidity facility. The liquidity funding formula, via document language, will include funds due from
the seller that have not been received. Liquidity funding formulas typically only reduce for defaulted
assets. The definition of a defaulted asset typically excludes any diluted items. Therefore, liquidity
will take dilution risk. Thus, the risk to the CP investor reflects the rating of the liquidity bank.
Where commingling risk is not covered by the transactions liquidity facility, DBRS reviews the structure
to determine whether other mitigants exist. These might include:
Additional Dilution Mitigant Transaction-Level

Reserve Account: Conduit sponsors generally have an incentive to properly address dilution risk
because in cases where the bank sponsor is also the liquidity provider, it does not want to take a
loss if liquidity funds and the dilution risk is sized improperly. As a result a dilution reserve account
may be established such that if liquidity is drawn, cash will be available from the dilution reserve to
reimburse the liquidity provider. If liquidity does not fund, which is unlikely, cash is available from
the reserve fund to pay the CP investors. In rare cases, some transactions may not cover this risk
via liquidity. In these cases, DBRS will review the reserve to ascertain risk is commensurate with the
internal assessment of the transaction.
Dilution Risk Mitigant Program-Level

Any losses on the transaction level (namely, a liquidity bank not funding) will be covered to the extent
there is available program-wide credit enhancement.
20
November 2013
Liquidity Risk
GENERAL
Liquidity support is vital to an ABCP conduit. Most CP conduits do not match the maturity of their assets
to the maturity of their liabilities. Therefore, there may be mismatches between the cash flow from the
assets and the requirements to pay CP in whole and on time. Should the conduit be unable to roll CP for
any reason, such as during a period of market disruption, the liquidity is available to pay outstanding CP
as it matures. This is the main reason for liquidity support in ABCP programs.
Liquidity agreements are typically an integral part of each transaction. They generally fund for the good
(non-defaulted) assets before PWCE is drawn. PWCE is designed to cover the defaults in excess of the
transactions first-loss credit enhancement.
Liquidity support is typically a facility provided by liquidity banks, predominantly sponsor banks, that
support transactions within the ABCP program. They are typically sized up to 102% of the transaction.
Liquidity risk is one of the primary areas of focus when analyzing ABCP transactions.
FORMS OF LIQUIDITY AGREEMENTS

Liquidity support can take many forms and is typically provided on the transaction level for ABCP
programs. The following are common forms:
Liquidity Asset Purchase Agreement: The most prevalent form of liquidity facility is the Liquidity
Asset Purchase Agreement (LAPA). LAPA banks purchase the entire asset interest and thus take
the transaction out of the conduit and onto its own balance sheet. The LAPA bank will fund for
the funding formula, which is reviewed by DBRS for inclusion of the transaction into the conduit.
Assuming the credit is sized properly, the funding formula will be adequate to retire CP in whole
and on time. This is because the liquidity funding formulas typically cover everything but defaults. If
credit enhancement is adequate to cover defaults, then the amount the LAPA bank funds should be
ample.
Liquidity Loan Agreement: A Liquidity Loan Agreement (LLA) differs from a LAPA in that the
provider agrees to lend to the conduit in the amount of the funding formula. The conduit must pay
the liquidity bank back for this loan. Any outstanding liquidity loans should be properly counted as
a liability of the conduit for both the program asset test and the program liquidity test.
Other Liquidity Facilities: Total return swaps and repurchase agreements are examples of other forms
of liquidity facilities that can support transactions within a CP conduit.
The counterparties providing these facilities must be appropriately rated or otherwise assessed by DBRS
to be of a credit quality commensurate with the risk profile of the CP conduit.
SAME-DAY FUNDING
Liquidity facilities must fund on a same-day basis and thus the provider must have an adequate short-term
rating (See the Rating Thresholds for Liquidity Support section below). Same-day funding mitigates
any timing mismatches and market disruption risk.
21
November 2013
LIQUIDITY FUNDING FORMULA

The liquidity funding formula describes the amount that a liquidity provider will fund when asked to do
so. Typically, liquidity funding formulas exclude defaulted assets. This formula is analyzed by DBRS to
understand how the funding formula works in concert with the credit enhancement for that particular
transaction.
There are three prevalent types of funding formulas: asset-based, capital-based and liquidity-event. The
first two are commonly used in internally assessed transactions; the last is often used in explicitly rated
transactions.
Asset-Based Liquidity Funding Formula: Asset-based formulas typically provide for the funding of
the good (non-defaulted) asset balance. Defaults are usually accumulated from the last good borrowing base test. The initial balance as of each good borrowing base test report includes the requisite
reserves appropriate to the rating level commensurate with the CP issued.
Capital-Based Liquidity Funding Formula: Capital-based formulas typically provide for the funding
of the capital that is equivalent to the principal and the interest on the CP minus the defaults that are
in excess of the necessary credit enhancement for that specific transaction.
RATING THRESHOLDS FOR LIQUIDITY SUPPORT

The rating of the liquidity provider typically determines the maximum rating that can be assigned to the
ABCP. In cases where DBRS does not maintain a public or private rating in respect of an institution, the
DBRS Financial Institutions Group may provide an internal assessment of the relevant institution (which
will be monitored over the life of the transaction). In certain cases, DBRS may rely on public ratings
assigned and monitored by other credit rating agencies.
LIQUIDITY COVERING OTHER RISKS

In many transactions, particularly non-explicitly rated transactions, external-liquidity support covers
more than market disruption risk and timing mismatches. These risks are detailed in the Other Risks
section beginning on page 17.
LIQUIDITY COVERING CREDIT RISKS

In addition to covering market disruptions, timing mismatches and other risks, liquidity is sometimes
used to cover credit risks. The degrees to which liquidity will cover credit risk can vary. In some instances,
the liquidity facility may elect to cover more of the credit risk, as detailed in Short-Tail Exposure on
page 23. In other instances, liquidity will cover the entire credit risk by wrapping the transaction. In this
case, liquidity will fund for the principal and interest on the outstanding CP under all circumstances
except for the acceptable bankruptcy related, exceptions to Liquidity Funding listed below.
EXCEPTIONS TO LIQUIDITY FUNDING

Liquidity facilities are committed and obligated to fund upon request except under remote circumstances.
Generally, the only exception to liquidity funding, other than with respect to defaulted assets, is the bankruptcy of the conduit.
22
November 2013
Short-Tail Exposure
Whether transactions are revolving or amortizing, the exposure horizon is the maximum time the
collateral pool can be subject to losses. However, the exposure horizon can be shortened by the use of
liquidity facilities. This is explained and illustrated below.
A transactions structural features may shorten the time period during which the underlying assets are
subject to losses. This is referred to as short-tailing the exposure horizon. A common way to short-tail
the exposure horizon is via a funding mechanism within the Liquidity Asset Purchase Agreement (LAPA).
For example, if a revolving transaction* were to amortize in five months and had a monthly reporting
period (borrowing base test) then the exposure horizon would be 180 days (equal to the underlying
assets amortization plus the reporting period). If, however, the CP tenor were limited to 30 days and
had a liquidity funding mechanism tied to a monthly borrowing base test, then the exposure would be
shortened to approximately two months. This is so because upon a borrowing base breach, CP could no
longer be issued and liquidity would be invoked. The example below illustrates this concept.
Structural Features of Short-Tail Example
Without the following structural features, the exposure to losses on this collateral pool would have been
180 days.
CP tenor will be limited to 30 days.
A borrowing base breach will invoke a cease-issuance trigger on the CP.
Liquidity will fund the CP (excluding defaults) upon maturity.
Worst Case Scenario Timeline
Exposure to losses is from day 2 to day 60.

The exposure to losses on the transaction in this example has been reduced from 180 days to approximately 60 days because of the short-tail feature. It is important to note that there are various ways to
short-tail exposure. The above example is among the more common ways used.
* Assuming that the tenor of the CP can be up to 150 days or more.
23
November 2013
Legal Risk
Legal Risk is one of the primary risks that must be analyzed when rating an Asset Backed Commercial
Paper (ABCP) program. Risk of bankruptcy of parties involved in conduit transactions, the effective
transfer of assets, and the security interest in the securitized assets are at the forefront of risk analysis and
contemplation of mitigants in the review process.
The unique feature of ABCP programs is the disbursement of the allocation of risk among conduit parties.
In this report, in the Credit Risk and Other Risk Sections, it is demonstrated how liquidity facilities can
be structured to absorb some of these risks. Legal risks can also be partly mitigated by liquidity facilities.
This report will describe Legal Risk as it pertains to ABCP conduits and some of the mitigants to those
risks. This section classifies the risks by conduit level and transaction level.
BANKRUPTCY RISK
Bankruptcy risk arises if either the conduit or a particular transactional seller goes bankrupt. The following structural risks and mitigants are therefore discussed from those varying viewpoints: Conduit Level
and Transaction Specific Level.
With respect to bankruptcy risk, DBRS generally:

Conducts a bankruptcy remoteness analysis of the ABCP conduit.

Analyzes the organizational documents of the conduit.
Analyzes Preference and Stay Risk with respect to each transaction that enters the conduit.
Reviews specific legal language in the conduit documents and with each transaction that enters the
conduit, namely, limited recourse, non-petition, excess funds and rating agency condition (RAC)
language for material amendments.
Reviews legal opinions as necessary.
CONDUIT-LEVEL RISK
Conduit Level Structural Risk: If the conduit itself were to become insolvent, a bankruptcy court would
likely impose an automatic stay on all payments from the conduit. The court would then assess the
validity and priority of claims against the conduit. The result would likely be late or non-payment from
the conduit to the CP investors. The occurrence of either of these events would constitute a default.
Further, if the payments from the conduit were stayed, and the CP holders could potentially be paid in
full at some time in the future, the conduits liquidity facilities would not be there to make up the timing
mismatch as liquidity is typically not compelled to fund upon a conduit bankruptcy. Therefore, it is
imperative that the conduit is structured as a bankruptcy remote special purpose vehicle. The design of
the conduit must contemplate both involuntary and voluntary bankruptcy petitions as well as potential
consolidation into a bankrupt third party.
Conduit Level Structural Mitigants:

Voluntary bankruptcy risk is the risk that the conduit will file a bankruptcy petition on its own behalf.
24
November 2013
Mitigants:
Typically the conduit has a requirement that the board of directors must unanimously vote the vehicle
into bankruptcy.
At least one member of the board of directors should be independent and not affiliated with any party
that has an economic interest in the conduit.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the independent member is charged with considering the interests of the conduit and its investors when voting on the bankruptcy issue.
Involuntary bankruptcy risk is the risk that a third party files a bankruptcy petition against the conduit.
Mitigants:
Restricting the scope of the operations of the conduit generally limits the conduit to issuing and
paying CP, buying particular types of assets and engaging in activities that support these functions.
Limiting the debt the conduit may incur generally means that the conduit is restricted from incurring
debt beyond that which is contemplated in the program documents.
Ensuring that all parties agree not to file a bankruptcy petition for at least one year and one day after
the outstanding CP of the conduit has been retired. This is what is commonly referred to as a nonpetition clause.
Ensuring that all parties agree that amounts owed to them can only constitute a claim in a bankruptcy
petition if the conduit has funds in excess of that required to pay CP. This is commonly known as
excess funds language.
Consolidation of the conduit into the conduit owner is the risk that the owner of the conduit enters
into bankruptcy and the conduit, by virtue of court order, becomes part of the bankruptcy estate via
consolidation.
Mitigants:
The owner of the conduit must also be structured as a bankruptcy remote entity. This greatly diminishes the risk of the owner becoming bankrupt.
The ownership structure of the conduits are typically structured as orphan entities.
The conduit must establish and maintain itself as a separate entity from its owner (as well as sellers
and service providers to avoid consolidation upon their bankruptcy also). When considering consolidation, historically the courts have considered the separateness of the two entities as a key factor in
their decisions.
It should be further noted that there are a handful of management companies specifically in the business
of owning conduits. Generally DBRS will review a non-consolidation opinion from a law firm if the
owner is a party that hasnt been reviewed in prior transactions.
25
November 2013
REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENTS

U.S. special purpose vehicles often are organized in the state of Delaware. They generally take the form
of one of the following:

Corporation
Limited Liability Corporation
Partnership
Limited Partnership
With respect to non-US entities, different geographic locations dictate and influence the legal considerations and the form the conduit may take. While Delaware based entities are preferred in the United
States, Jersey Channel Islands and other off shore jurisdictions are often used depending on the tax ramifications and securities law considerations. The above legal forms are also generally used internationally.
CONDUIT & TRANSACTION LEVEL RISK

Preference Risk
Preference Risk, in general, is the risk that upon a seller bankruptcy, a bankruptcy court would rule that
the creditor (conduit) received funds that constitute a preference payment within the applicable preference
period6 due to its preferential position. The payments can then be avoided under section 547 of the bankruptcy code and therefore required to be clawed back (returned to the bankruptcy estate of the seller). The
conduit would therefore suffer a loss and its bankruptcy remoteness and the ability to pay the CP in full
and on time, could then be in jeopardy. For conduits organized outside the US, preference considerations
are also addressed consistent with insolvency laws of such jurisdiction.
Mitigants to Preference Risk
The Issuers being fully collateralized and having a First Priority Perfected Security Interest (FPPSI)7 is
important in mitigation of preference risk. DBRS will generally place reliance typically on any of the following to verify the issuers status as a fully secured creditor:
The Issuer can submit an Officers Certificate which certifies that the issuer (collateral agent or trustee)
has obtained its own counsel and counsel has advised that there is either a true sale and/or a First
Priority Perfected Security Interest (FPPSI) at each level of transfer.
DBRS will rely on Article 9 representations and warranties. In most cases, they adequately address
concerns that the issuer (collateral agent or trustee) has a valid, perfected, first priority security
interest in, and is fully secured by, the underlying collateral.
An opinion as to Preference Risk.
STAY RISK
If a seller, at the transaction specific level, were to become insolvent, a bankruptcy court would likely
impose an automatic stay on all payments from the seller and review any preferential payments potentially paid by the seller. The impact to the conduit would include:
All collections on the receivables due to the conduit could be stayed (delayed).
6. The US preference period is 90 days unless the seller and the issuer are affiliated, in which case it is 1 year.
7. Under US Law or its equivalent under non-US law.
26
November 2013
All payments already owed to the conduit, including any dilution amounts, would also be stayed.
Any payments made within the preference period, could possibly be clawed back to the bankrupt
seller estate as a preferential payment. (See Preference Risk & Mitigants).
Mitigants to Stay Risk:

The liquidity facility typically absorbs stay risk. Typically the liquidity funding formula will fund for
either an asset base or a capital base minus the excess of defaulted receivables over credit reserves. Both
formulas, via document language, include funds due from the seller that have not been received, but
deemed received. Thus, liquidity funding formulas fund for deemed collections. Said differently, since
liquidity funding formulas typically only reduce for defaults, and the definition of defaults will not include
deemed collections of receivables, liquidity facilities will fund amounts stayed but not defaulted.
REVIEW OF EXCESS FUNDS, LIMITED RECOURSE, NON-PETITION AND

RATING AGENCY CONDITION LANGUAGE
Excess Funds / Limitation on Payments
This generally states that the conduit shall not be obligated to pay a particular party unless it has excess
funds over and above those required to retire CP. DBRS reviews whether all conduit counterparties (other
than CP holders) have agreed to this excess funds language.
Limited Recourse
The recourse that the liquidity bank has to the conduit is typically limited to the assets in the case of
a Liquidity Asset Purchase Agreement (LAPA) and the cash flows from the receivables in the case of a
Liquidity Loan Agreement (LLA). The limitation is present to provide a disincentive for liquidity banks
to file a claim against the conduit.
No Proceeding / Non Petition
This generally states that counterparties (other than CP holders) agree not to institute or join any filing of
the conduit into bankruptcy for one year and one day after the last maturing CP is retired.
Rating Agency Notification (RAN)
DBRS reviews whether all material amendments are required to be reviewed by DBRS before they become
effective. DBRS will ask for an appropriate lead time to ensure a proper review while maintaining an
efficient execution for the CP issuer. This notification is a protection against the risk that program amendments could be to the detriment of the CP investors.
LEGAL OPINIONS
Conduit Level
The type of legal entity the conduit is will dictate the type of opinions DBRS expects. Nonetheless, at
the forefront are the formation of the conduit, its authority to enter into conduit business, jurisdictional
issues, and any other opinions DBRS deems necessary to ensure the integrity of the conduits structure.
Transactional Level
As stated prior in this report, DBRS will typically ask for an Officers Certificate with respect to each
transaction that enters the conduit. The Officers Certificate certifies that the issuer (collateral agent or
trustee) has obtained its own counsel and counsel has opined that there is either a true sale and/or a First
Priority Perfected Security Interest (FPPSI) at each level of transfer.
Necessary Legal Opinions
It is common for ABCP conduits to have a diversified portfolio of transactions. Each transaction is
reviewed considering all risks that may jeopardize full and timely payment of the CP. DBRS will consider
27
November 2013
each asset and each transaction on a case by case basis and ask for the legal opinions it deems necessary
to ensure full and timely payment of the liability rated.
Operational Risk
Operational risk arises if the procedures described in the program documents are not properly adhered
to. There are many moving parts in managing an ABCP Program. The administrator oversees, enforces,
and is ultimately responsible for all parties carrying out their respective support duties. The duties of
the administrator are outlined below. The skill and experience of the administrator is of paramount
importance in mitigating operational risk. The outcome of the operational risk review must adhere to the
standards that DBRS expects in high quality sponsors of ABCP programs.
REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR/SPONSOR

One of the primary goals in the review of the structure of the vehicles is to ensure that the administrator
has the experience and expertise to carry out its extensive responsibilities. The administrator/sponsor
plays a vital role in the success of the conduit. Therefore, DBRS conducts a thorough on-site visit with the
administrator/sponsor. Some of the key topics covered are:

Business strategy of conduit team and purpose of vehicle.

Originating and underwriting policies and procedures.
Experience and acumen of the executive team of professionals.
Resources dedicated to the conduit operation.
Prospective asset mix of portfolio.
Compliance procedures with program documentation, including the procedures for repaying CP.
Information Systems capabilities and back-up systems.
In cases where the administrator and sponsor are separate entities, DBRS conducts a separate on-site
business review for each. In such cases, DBRS considers the following:
The experience and capabilities of the third party administrator.
Third party administrators may not have the same level of incentive to ensure success of the conduit.
While their very business relies on their skills as an administrator, and in that sense, they have a financial stake in the conduits success, they typically do not provide credit enhancement and/or liquidity.
DBRS is therefore particularly mindful of the resources that are allocated to the conduits operation.
The conduit is typically indemnified for losses arising from the third party adminstrators negligence.
DBRS considers the credit quality of the party providing such an indemnity. In some cases the sponsor
will provide an indemnification to the conduit for third party negligence.
REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM DOCUMENTS

The primary document in the conduit review phase is the administrative agreement. The extensive duties
of the program administrator generally include:
28
November 2013
Origination & Execution Advisory Services

Originating, structuring and executing new deals.

Obtaining and maintaining credit and liquidity facilities.
Obtaining and maintaining any credit support facilities that are necessary (i.e. hedging).
Providing all necessary information to rating agencies.
Monitoring the performance of each deal within the conduit.
Issuing & Paying Advisory Services

Paying CP via rolling new CP or paying from assets.
In the absence of sufficient cash flows from assets or from rolling CP, paying CP via liquidity, program
wide credit enhancement or other available facilities.
Enforcing agreements with respect to paying CP on a timely basis.
Ensuring procedural adherence to program documents.
Day to Day Operational Services

Preparing monthly portfolio reports.

Safeguarding all program documents.
Preserving all accounting records.
Preparing financial statements and arranging for audits.
Maintaining all operating accounts.
Ensuring all parties adhere to all program documents.
OPERATIONAL RISK MITIGANTS

DBRS conducts an Operational Review with each new conduit.
DBRS will conduct periodic business reviews as necessary for each conduit it rates.
DBRS expects surveillance reports at least monthly for review. Administrators are expected to notify
DBRS of any material breach of triggers, downgrade of any sellers, servicers or support providers for
any deal within the conduit immediately.
DBRS has ongoing interaction with program administrators via new transactions and amendments
within the conduit.
DBRS considers whether any entity that provides support services to the conduit has indemnified the
conduit for negligence or misconduct on its part. Typically there is also a broad stroke performance
indemnity supplied by the administrator as the responsible party for the overall operation of the
conduit.
Surveillance
MONTHLY REVIEW
DBRS monitors each conduit on a monthly basis, based on reports submitted by the respective conduit
administrators. The key elements of the monthly report are designed to identify any weaknesses within a
conduits portfolio in order to ascertain whether any rating action is necessary. These elements include,
but are not limited to, the following:
Each transactions name and rating.
Conduit liabilities outstanding.
29
November 2013
Seller concentrations.
Portfolio mix, including concentrations.
Actual transaction-specific credit enhancement levels.
Actual program-wide credit enhancement levels.
Liquidity bank commitments and ratings.
Any changes to support facilities.
The ratings on support counterparties, if applicable.
Portfolio performance as related to deal-specific amortization triggers.
Conduit performance as related to program amortization triggers.
ONGOING PERIODIC REVIEWS

Periodic operational reviews, along with monthly surveillance, are important elements that support the
ongoing rating of the ABCP conduit.
Rating Process and Documentation Review

RATING PROCESS INITIATION
The initial review of a new conduit usually begins with a proposal phase. The proposal phase is useful in
order to uncover any unusual or complex issues with respect to any credit, liquidity, legal or operational
risks. Thereafter, documentation is prepared and DBRS conducts its initial operational review of the prospective sponsor bank.
CONDUIT RATING PROGRAM ANALYSIS

After the proposal phase, the administrator, typically the sponsor bank, delivers the program documents.
These are the documents to which the administrator of a conduit must adhere. DBRS analyzes these
documents in order to issue a rating on the CP program. Typical program documents include, but are not
limited to, the following:

Administration Agreement.
The conduits corporate documents.
Management Agreement.
Depositary or Issuing and Paying Agency Agreement.
Placement Agency Agreement.
Any insurance or LOC agreement.
Any Liquidity Agreement.
Definitions (summary of terms).
CONDUIT CONFIRMATION TRANSACTION ANALYSIS

After reviewing the conduit program documents, DBRS will review the operative documents for each
transaction that the conduit acquires. Specifically, DBRS will analyze the documents that govern each
level of asset transfer as well as the liquidity agreement and any other documents that are salient to the
transaction rating. Upon the satisfactory completion of the document review together with the credit
30
November 2013
analysis of the transaction, a formal rating committee is conducted to consider whether the addition of
the transaction to the conduits portfolio might change the current rating of the CP issued by the conduit.
Asset Transfer Agreement / Receivable Purchase Agreement

The document that governs the transfer of asset interests from the seller (or special-purpose vehicle (SPV))
to the conduit will be reviewed. Key factors analyzed include, but are not limited to, the following:

Transaction-level conditions precedent to issuing CP (e.g., borrowing base test).

Eligible receivables.
Credit enhancement.
Key definitions.
Legal aspects of the transaction.
Liquidity Agreement
The other essential document on the transaction level is the liquidity agreement. The most prevalent
forms of liquidity agreements are the Liquidity Loan Agreement (LLA) and the Liquidity Asset Purchase
Agreement (LAPA). Key factors analyzed include, but are not limited to, the following:

Circumstances by which the liquidity bank will fund.

The liquidity funding formula.
Circumstances by which liquidity is not obligated to fund.
Timing of payment in order to retire the CP timely.
The other risks covered by the liquidity provider (see the Other Risks section on page 17)
Legal aspects of the document.
31
Copyright 2010, DBRS Limited, DBRS, Inc. and DBRS Ratings Limited (collectively, DBRS). All rights reserved. The information upon which DBRS ratings and reports are based is obtained by DBRS from sources DBRS believes to be accurate and reliable. DBRS does not audit the information it receives in connection with the rating process, and it does not and cannot independently verify that information in every instance. The extent of any factual investigation or independent verification depends on facts and circumstances. DBRS ratings,
reports and any other information provided by DBRS are provided as is and without representation or warranty of any kind. DBRS hereby disclaims any representation or warranty,
express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability, fitness for any particular purpose or non-infringement of any of such information. In no event shall
DBRS or its directors, officers, employees, independent contractors, agents and representatives (collectively, DBRS Representatives) be liable (1) for any inaccuracy, delay, loss of data, interruption in service, error or omission or for any damages resulting therefrom, or (2) for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, compensatory or consequential damages arising from
any use of ratings and rating reports or arising from any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of DBRS or any DBRS Representative, in connection with or related to obtaining, collecting, compiling, analyzing, interpreting, communicating, publishing or delivering any such information. Ratings and other
opinions issued by DBRS are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact as to credit worthiness or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold
any securities. A report providing a DBRS 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. DBRS receives compensation for its rating activities from issuers, insurers, guarantors and/or underwriters of debt securities for assigning
ratings and from subscribers to its website. DBRS is not responsible for the content or operation of third party websites accessed through hypertext or other computer links and DBRS
shall have no liability to any person or entity for the use of such third party websites. This publication may not be reproduced, retransmitted or distributed in any form without the
prior written consent of DBRS. ALL DBRS RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLAIMERS AND CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. PLEASE READ THESE DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITATIONS AT http://www.dbrs.
com/about/disclaimer . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DBRS RATINGS, INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, POLICIES AND METHODOLOGIES, ARE AVAILABLE ON http://www.dbrs.com.
www.dbrs.com
DBRS, Inc.
140 Broadway
35th Floor
New York, NY 10005
TEL +1 212 806 3277

Asset Backed Commercial Paper Criteria Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asset Backed Commercial Paper Criteria Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asset Backed Commercial Paper Criteria Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main risks of ABCP conduits?

What are the main risks of ABCP conduits?

What are the different types of ABCP conduit structures?

What are the different types of ABCP conduit structures?

Methodology

Asset-Backed Commercial Paper

DBRS is a full-service credit rating agency

This methodology replaces and supersedes all

Interest Rate Mitigants Program-Level

Issuing & Paying Advisory Services

The DBRS Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Conduit Rating

DBRS SHORT-TERM RATING

Commercial Paper Fundamentals

BASIC MECHANICS OF ABCP STRUCTURES

Non-Interest-Bearing Assets: For transactions that have non-interest-bearing assets, typically

ABCP Conduit Wind-Down Phase

KEY CONDUIT TYPES

Collateralized Commercial Paper (CCP) Program

Callable / Puttable Feature

CONDUIT CREDIT VARIATIONS

TRANSACTION-SPECIFIC CREDIT ENHANCEMENT

Types of Analysis at the Transaction Level

Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement

Eligibility criteria or static pool characteristics.

Revolving Transactions Sizing Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement

during which the transactions collateral can experience losses.

Amortizing Transactions Sizing Transaction-Level Credit Enhancement

Revolving and Amortizing Transactions

Public Explicitly Rated Transactions

uncured, remedies such as this will effectively amortize the transaction.

PROGRAM-WIDE CREDIT ENHANCEMENT

PROGRAM-LEVEL STRUCTURAL FEATURES

Minimum PWCE Test

Other General Program-Level Structural Features

INTEREST RATE RISK

Interest Rate Mitigant Transaction-Level

Additional Interest Rate Mitigant Transaction-Level

Interest Rate Mitigants Program-Level

Is 102% Enough to Cover Interest?

FOREIGN EXCHANGE RISK

Foreign Exchange Mitigants Transaction-Level

Foreign Exchange Mitigant Program-Level

Commingling Mitigant Transaction-Level

Additional Commingling Mitigant Transaction-Level

Commingling Mitigant Program-Level

Dilution Mitigant Transaction-Level

Additional Dilution Mitigant Transaction-Level

Dilution Risk Mitigant Program-Level

FORMS OF LIQUIDITY AGREEMENTS

LIQUIDITY FUNDING FORMULA

RATING THRESHOLDS FOR LIQUIDITY SUPPORT

LIQUIDITY COVERING OTHER RISKS

LIQUIDITY COVERING CREDIT RISKS

EXCEPTIONS TO LIQUIDITY FUNDING

Exposure to losses is from day 2 to day 60.

Conducts a bankruptcy remoteness analysis of the ABCP conduit.

Conduit Level Structural Mitigants:

REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENTS

CONDUIT & TRANSACTION LEVEL RISK

Mitigants to Stay Risk: