February 24, 2016 Newsletter
To ensure receipt of this newsletter, please add info@sfindustry.org to your address book. 
Problem viewing this email? Click here for our online version.
February 24, 2016

Issue Spotlight

Industry Jobs

SFIG Calendar



Advocacy Outlook

Industry News Highlights


This morning, SFIG Executive Director Richard Johns testified before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises at a hearing on “The Effects of Dodd-Frank and Basel Requirements on Liquidity in the Fixed Income Market and Securitizations.” 

Richard presented the membership’s views on liquidity in the ABS marketplace, with a focus on global regulatory issues that affect lending across all asset classes, including: (1) the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”) rules, (2) European and international regulatory efforts to create standards for high-quality securitizations, (3) Basel III capital rules that increase capital standards for bank balance sheets, and (4) the new Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (“FRTB”) rules that increase capital for the trading book.

“All of these rules, particularly when combined, pose a serious threat to securitization as a critical source of funding for the real economy,” stated Johns in his testimony.

SFIG’s testimony also discussed two bills under consideration by the committee: H.R. 4166, a bipartisan bill that would create an SFIG-supported workable option for CLO risk retention, and (b) a discussion draft that would modify the risk retention requirements for certain CMBS loans.

To view SFIG’s testimony, please click here. To view the webcast of the hearing, please click here.

To view SFIG’s position on the QCLO risk retention legislation, please click here. To view SFIG’s recent letter to the Basel Committee on capital treatment for simple, transparent and comparable securitizations, please click here. To view SFIG’s letter to the prudential regulators on the LCR rules, please click here. To view SFIG’s letter to the prudential regulators on the FRTB, please click here.

Please contact michael.flood@sfindustry.org for any questions regarding SFIG’s testimony.


We are pleased to announce that the “ABS Vegas 2016” App is now available! Simply search for "ABS Vegas 2016" in the Apple App Store or Google Play, and download to your iPhone, iPad or Android device.

To log-in, use the email address associated with your conference registration and the temporary password vegas2016 (all lowercase). You will be able to reset your password once you log-in to the App.

With the App you can now:

  • View a complete schedule of events and build your own agenda;
  • Get detailed speaker information including bios and presentations;
  • View the full attendee list with ability to direct message and share contact information;
  • View the list of sponsors and company profiles;
  • Find exhibitors and meeting rooms using the interactive maps;
  • Get notifications of important conference updates;
  • Follow SFIG on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn; and
  • Join the conversation using #ABSVegas2016

Be sure to make the most of your ABS Vegas event experience. Download the App and join the online #ABSVegas2016 conversation now!


There will be a lively Twitter conversation throughout ABS Vegas 2016. Share your thoughts with other attendees using #ABSVegas2016.

Follow Us on Twitter
Follow Us on LinkedIn
Like Us on Facebook

Now you can follow SFIG online through our ABS Vegas 2016 App here and join the conversation.


Registration is near capacity for SFIG’s Women in Securitization (“WiS”) ABS Vegas 2016 event, Winning Outside the Workplace. We invite you to join fellow industry women and men to take part in leveling the playing field outside of the board room. The event will offer educational activities such as wine tastings, gaming, and social engagement.

Sunday, February 28, 2016
3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. PT
The Aria Resort & Casino
Pinyon 1,2,3

Registration is open to all Vegas attendees, women and men alike. To register, please click here. Very few spots remain, so reserve your place today!


On Monday, February 29th, SFIG will host a demonstration, by technology companies, of potential solutions for enhancing bondholder communication at ABS Vegas 2016. The event is meant for current SFIG members interested in learning more about tools that may be available to better connect bondholders. SFIG’s RMBS 3.0 Bondholder Communications Working Group will be in attendance and plan to use these demonstrations to understand the market’s current ability to facilitate bondholder communications and identify gaps that need to be filled to meet the needs of investors in an RMBS 3.0 world.

To sign up for SFIG’s Bondholder Communications Working Group or any other RMBS 3.0 initiative, please contact Amanda.Bateman@sfindustry.org. Registered members of the Bondholder Communications Working Group will receive the details to attend this special demonstration and contribute to this major element of SFIG’s RMBS 3.0 2016 agenda.


As previously announced, SFIG’s Marketplace Lending Committee’s “Best Practices” initiative has established five work streams as part of its initial meeting and scope evaluation. Those work streams are:

  • Disclosure & Reporting
  • Representations & Warranties
  • Regulatory
  • Operational Considerations
  • Enforcement

SFIG will be launching the Disclosure & Reporting Work Stream this Friday, February 26th at 1:15pm (EST).

If you would like to participate in any one of these work streams or indeed have an interest in chairing any work stream, please contact Jennifer.Wolfe@sfindustry.org. To learn more about the initiative, click here.


Don’t forget to stop by the SFIG booth at ABS Vegas 2016. SFIG staff will be on hand to greet you and sign you up for our newsletter, committees, and Women in Securitization initiative. We look forward to seeing you next week at the largest capital markets conference in the world!


There will not be an SFIG Newsletter on March 2nd. The SFIG staff looks forward to seeing many of you in Las Vegas at the ABS Vegas 2016 conference from February 28th-March 2nd. Newsletter publications will resume on March 9th.

Issue Spotlight

By: T-REX Group

Following the conclusion of our three part series on Solar ABS, SFIG invites you to attend the following Solar ABS panels at ABS Vegas:

Solar ABS 101 - Sunday, Feb. 28, 3:50pm

Solar ABS: Understanding Market Potential and the Role of Securitization - Tuesday, March 1, 1:30pm

Solar ABS: Risk Management and Structuring Considerations - Tuesday, March 1, 2:20pm

Market Update

The U.S. solar industry has grown tremendously over the past 15 years. Annual installations of photovoltaic (“PV”) systems have grown from 4 megawatts (MW) in 2000, to over 7,000 MW today, resulting in a compound annual growth rate of over 60 percent. After the recent extension of the investment tax credit, the industry is well-positioned for continued rapid growth in the immediate future.

On January 13th, 2016, the solar ABS market saw its sixth deal price, SolarCity 2016-A. Notably, this transaction was the industry’s first to feature residential solar loans—not leases or power purchase agreements (“PPAs”)—as the underlying collateral. One of the interesting discussions regarding the deal has been around rate risk, after changes to net metering policies in Nevada had a substantial impact on the state’s solar industry.

In our first article in this “Spotlight on Solar” series, we provided an in-depth look at the drivers of growth and financing trends in the solar industry. In our second piece, we analyzed the rise of the solar loan, and how solar loans were affecting structures in solar ABS transactions. In this piece, our third and final in the “Spotlight on Solar” series, we provide an explanation of rate risk, how rate changes affect cash flows to solar companies, and how investors can assess and quantify this risk.

Which Rates Matter?

We will discuss two rates in this piece whose fluctuation can alter cash flows to solar companies. The first is the prevailing utility rate. The solar lease and PPA are based on the notion of allowing solar customers to pay less for solar energy than they would if they purchased electricity directly from the utility. The assumption in this value proposition is not only that PPA rates will be lower than utility rates in the short-term, but that PPA rates will also be lower 20-30 years in the future.

An example of rate risk posed by fluctuating utility rates presented itself in July of 2015 when the California Public Utilities Commission voted to alter the state’s utility rate structure from a four-tiered structure to a two-tiered structure. The reform implemented a time-of-use structure that raises electricity prices for energy-efficient houses, and reduces prices for larger energy consumers. Lower prices reduce the economic benefit of solar for customers that fall in this group, and increase the likelihood of contract renegotiation (as will be explained further in this article, contract renegotiation reduces cash flows to the solar company). While customers in existing contracts are unlikely to halt payments as long as PPA rates remain below utility rates, lower utility rates can increase the probability of renegotiation and decrease the likelihood of reassignment. If a solar customer sells his/her home, the new homeowner will be less likely to assume the solar contract connected to the home if lower electricity rates prevail, as the value proposition for solar with a lower cost of electricity would be weakened. For this reason, even if utility rates do not dip below PPA rates, lower utility rates can pose a risk to solar companies.

The second rate that is important to solar companies and consumers is the net metering rate. Through net metering, solar customers can sell unused energy back to the grid. When the rates that solar customers may receive for unused capacity are reduced, as occurred recently in Nevada, the value proposition for solar is diminished.

What is Rate Risk?

Rate risk is based upon the potential for changes to either one of these two types of rates. If utility rates dip below (or close to) PPA rates, or net metering rates are reduced, customers may re-evaluate and renegotiate their PPA. In SolarCity 2016-A, despite the small concentration of the portfolio in Nevada (0.1 percent of the aggregated discounted solar balance), there were some investor concerns regarding Nevada’s net metering reform potentially setting a precedent in net metering. However, due to the backlash the Nevada Public Utilities Commission has faced regarding the decision (particularly with respect to the lack of grandfathering), it is not likely that future reforms will be as extreme as those in Nevada.

Rate risk is different from other classes of risk, such as performance risk, in that it is not tied directly to the function or performance of the physical asset. Yet, rate risk has come to be acknowledged as one of, if not the most, significant risks for solar ABS investors. Investors must be able to quantify rate risk accurately to understand the risk and reward of investing in solar assets.

Quantifying the Impact of Rate Risk on Investor Returns

To properly assess and quantify rate risk, investors must analyze credit and rate risks. The following example demonstrates suggested steps in working through an analytical approach to quantify rate risk.

To understand the impacts that fluctuating rate levels have on cash flows, it is first necessary to compare contracted PPA rates to projected electricity rates in order to determine the probability of default.

Based on historical utility rate escalators with data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, this illustrative example looks at four scenarios of projected electricity rates:

Under each scenario, utility rates increase at varying rates based on the assumed escalators. The following graph shows how an example PPA compares to utility rate levels in each of the aforementioned scenarios. In this example portfolio, we begin with PPA rate of $0.14/kWh, and an annual escalator of 2.9 percent. Utility rates begin at $0.16/kWh.


As the above graph demonstrates, mapping out sample utility rates against PPA rates can provide insight as to when default is more or less likely to occur in a portfolio of PPAs. The higher the escalator on the utility rate, the more likely it is that the PPA will be below the prevailing utility rate, thus the lower the probability of default.

Investors can use this information to analyze the level at which the PPA will be in the money or underwater in various scenarios. Note that with a utility escalator of 3 percent, the PPA rate always remains below the utility rate, and the contract will never be underwater.

After going through the first phase of analysis by determining the level of customer default based on rate analysis, it is then necessary to forecast what percentage of the defaulted customer base will be recovered and sign back on. Additionally, it is important to consider and account for the potential that the renegotiated rate could be at a discount to the utility rate. Another factor is the timeline for the customers to sign on to a contract, or the “lag.”

The following table illustrates the yield sensitivity of this sample portfolio of PPAs, isolating the impacts from the utility rate escalator and lag. Note that this particular example assumes a base case yield of 6 percent on the PPAs. In the body of the table below are the yields on the sample portfolio for various rate escalator scenarios and lags.

As the utility rate escalates more slowly, the probability of the contract defaulting increases, which is reflected in the reduction in yield as the utility rate escalator declines. This effect on the yield is reduced with lower lag: The faster a company is able to renegotiate a contract with a customer, the less of an adverse impact on cash flows.

Conclusion: Scientific Approach to Rate Risk

The recent extension of the Investment Tax Credit will drive incredible growth and cost reductions in the solar industry. The 2020 volume in the solar market is forecasted to be twice the size that it would have been without the ITC extension, and this growth presents an exciting opportunity for investors with the ability to analyze solar assets. In the next five years we expect that the sources of financing to drive this growth will diversify, as loans gradually overtake PPAs and leases in the solar industry as the primary financing mechanism.

As the solar industry matures, structures in solar ABS transactions will continue to evolve. The industry recently saw the first deal to be backed by solar loans, rather than PPAs and leases; as solar loan volume increases, so too will the number of ABS deals backed by solar loans. In order to become comfortable with these varying structures, and solar as a growing asset class, it is important that investors know how to stress the types of risks specific to solar. This includes both performance risk of the solar panels themselves, and exogenous factors, such as rate risk.

Rating agencies involved in solar securitizations have recently emphasized the importance of rate risks. Continued customer payments on PPAs and leases rely on solar contracts’ value propositions, which is subject to utility and net metering rate levels. To accurately assess the risk-return profile of solar investing, it is necessary to understand the yield sensitivity to rate levels, customer default probability, and renegotiation timelines.


SFIG currently has open positions for:

  • Advocacy Manager: will be an integral member of SFIG staff, being second-in-command of the association’s Advocacy department. The successful candidate will design and execute advocacy strategies for SFIG’s policy priorities and support the association’s advocacy efforts through development and growth of its political action committee. Additional information on the position, as well as a link to the application, is available here.

  • Data/Policy Analyst: will help support group-wide strategy efforts and initiatives as they relate to the association’s database and various policy requirements. The Analyst will also support SFIG’s advocacy efforts through development of a political action committee database. Additional information on the position, as well as a link to the application, is available here.

  • Executive/Administrative Assistant: will be responsible for supporting the Executive Director and Directors of Policy and Advocacy while directing overall front office activities, including the reception area, mail, calendar coordination, meeting set-up, purchasing requests and overall office management. Additional information on the position, as well as a link to the application, is available here.

Some of the latest industry positions available include:

Credit Quant PeerIQ 02-22-2016
Mid-Level Corporate Trust Associate K&L Gates LLP 02-22-2016
Senior Analyst, Consumer ABS Kroll Bond Rating Agency 02-04-2016
Analyst, Financial Institutions Kroll Bond Rating Agency 02-03-2016
Associate Director, Structured Finance - Toronto Standard & Poor's 01-29-2016
Attorney- Project Finance/Corporates Kroll Bond Rating Agency 01-28-2016

Analyst – CMBS Analytics

Kroll Bond Rating Agency 01-28-2016

Structured Finance Analyst

Assured Guaranty 01-19-2016

Associate Director/Director, Asset Backed

Fitch Ratings 01-12-2016

Associate Director/Director, Residential
Mortgage Backed Securities

Fitch Ratings 01-07-2016

Please visit our Jobs page for a full listing of available positions.

For questions about positions at SFIG, please contact Jobs@sfindustry.org. For questions about the website jobs portal, please contact Website@sfindustry.org.


THURSDAY, February 25, 2016
10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. (EST)


SUNDAY, February 28, 2016 – WEDNESDAY, March 2, 2016
The Aria Resort & Casino
Las Vegas, NV
Registration is available here.


SUNDAY, February 28, 2016 
3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. PT
The Aria Resort & Casino
Las Vegas, NV


MONDAY, February 29, 2016 
11:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. PT
The Aria Resort & Casino
Las Vegas, NV


WEDNESDAY, March 16, 2016
12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. (ET)
Hogan Lovells LLP
New York, NY
Note: Closed Meeting


TUESDAY, May 31, 2016 – WEDNESDAY, June 1, 2016
Hyatt Regency Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
Registration is available here.


If you would like to participate in the work SFIG is undertaking through our committees as highlighted below, please e-mail Committees@sfindustry.org. For specific inquiries on any of SFIG’s advocacy efforts, please contact the staff member listed for the related project.

SFIG’s Marketplace Lending Committee was established in August 2015, as an SFIG participant committee and is open to all SFIG members who have a legitimate interest in marketplace lending. The committee was formed with two primary intentions: 1) to work with members involved in marketplace lending to educate the industry as a whole, with a particular focus on the securitization of assets generated through that lending channel; and 2) to determine appropriate securitization-specific policy and engage in related advocacy, leveraging SFIG’s prominence and experience across all asset classes to support the continued responsible growth of securitization in marketplace lending.

The committee recently launched its “Best Practices” initiative to establish industry consensus and provide recommendations around one or multiple accepted approaches. The five established Best Practices work streams are 1) Disclosure & Reporting 2) Representations & Warranties 3) Regulatory 4) Operational Considerations and 5) Enforcement.

The committee previously commented on the Treasury Department's Request for Input on Online Marketplace Lending on September 30th.

Members interested in participating should contact Alyssa.Acevedo@sfindustry.org.

SFIG’s Student Loan Committee recently responded to Fitch’s proposed amendments to FFELP student loan ABS rating methodology. The committee also submitted a response to the Proposed Changes to Moody’s Approach to Rating Securities Backed by FFELP Student Loans this past October.

To join SFIG’s Student Loan Committee and learn more, please contact Alyssa.Acevedo@sfindustry.org.

The RMBS 3.0 Task Force released its Third Edition RMBS 3.0 Green Papers in November 2015. The task force has continued its efforts to address key issues specific to private label mortgage securities through work-streams relating to (1) Representations, Warranties, and Repurchase Enforcement; (2) Due Diligence, Data, and Loan-Level Disclosure; (3) Role of Transaction Parties; and (4) Bondholder Communications. We encourage members to participate in any or all of the working groups to contribute towards the mission of RMBS 3.0. For its 2016 agenda, the task force will address topics including the inclusion of an independent Deal Agent in transactions, Bondholder Communications, Data and Loan-Level Disclosure, Repurchase Enforcement, and Settlements, as well as undertake a review of the previously published Green Papers.

For additional information on RMBS 3.0, please contact Amanda.Bateman@sfindustry.org.

SFIG, through its GSE Reform Task Force, along with several other trade associations, submitted a letter to the FDIC, Fed and OCC regarding the effect of homeowner’s association ‘super-liens’ on private-label RMBS and whole loan transactions. The task force also submitted comments on FHFA’s update to the single security initiative on October 7, 2015. The task force is expecting to receive an update from the SFIG participants on the Industry Advisory Group for the Common Securitization Platform and Single-Security following its second meeting on December 7th. The task force has also formed policy positions on the Carney-Delaney-Himes GSE Reform bill and updated its briefing book to support its advocacy efforts. With the release of the bill, SFIG staff also updated its GSE Reform Legislative Comparison, which analyzes key provisions in the five most recent housing finance reform bills.

To join SFIG’s GSE Reform Task Force and learn more, please contact Amanda.Bateman@sfindustry.org.

The Mortgage Loan-Level Disclosure Task Force is studying the recent Regulation AB II release of Schedule AL and comparing it to SFIG’s Schedule L submission to the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 2014. SFIG also continues to have weekly Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization calls to go through data elements that lenders should deliver in securitizations. The task force will also be conducting an analysis of the data elements included in SFIG’s Schedule L submission in order to determine any privacy concerns.

Please contact Amanda.Bateman@sfindustry.org for additional information on SFIG’s work on this topic.

The Volcker Task Force has been working with SFIG’s various asset class and legal counsel committees to identify areas within the Volcker Rule in need of clarification, particularly questions regarding covered funds and the loan securitization exemption.

Please contact Alyssa.Acevedo@sfindustry.org to participate on the Task Force.

The Risk Retention Industry Guide Working Group recently launched its interim Industry Guide, ahead of the RMBS compliance date, focused on issues either relevant to all asset classes or specific to RMBS. The working Group continues to work on a final guide focused on creating best practices and developing consensus positions around several areas within the Credit Risk Retention final rule.

Please contact Alyssa.Acevedo@sfindustry.org with any questions.

SFIG’s Chinese Market Committee continues to hold discussions with a focus on SFIG’s partnership with the Chinese Securitization Forum, potential upcoming educational discussions and the sharing of recent market developments in China.

If you would like more information on SFIG’s work with respect to Chinese securitization, please contact Alyssa.Acevedo@sfindustry.org.

The Regulation AB II Task Force has been focused on the disclosure and offering process requirements within the final rule. Asset specific work streams have been formed to develop comment letters on the outstanding proposals within the final rule and the Task Force submitted the first part of its comment letter this past June. SFIG submitted a supplemental comment letter covering credit card and equipment floorplan asset classes on January 12, 2016.  Future discussions across asset class committees and the Regulation AB II Task Force will focus on the remaining outstanding proposed rules, including potentially requiring issuers to provide the same disclosure for Rule 144A offerings as required for registered offerings.

SFIG members who are interested in joining this task force or asset specific committees should contact Alyssa.Acevedo@sfindustry.org

The Regulatory Capital and Liquidity Committee recently submitted a response to Basel’s Consultative Document regarding Capital Treatment for STC Securitisations. The committee is also addressing industry concerns related to the Federal Reserve Board’s Final Rule on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”). This committee will also develop a comment letter when U.S. regulators release their proposed Net Stable Funding Ratio (“NSFR”). 

To become involved in SFIG’s advocacy on the final LCR or NSFR rules, please contact Alyssa.Acevedo@sfindustry.org.

The Derivatives in Securitization Task Force obtained no-action relief from the CFTC giving swap dealers comfort that the CFTC would not take enforcement action against swap dealers that did not comply with certain CFTC Regulations when taking actions in response to the credit ratings downgrade of a counterparty to a legacy swap. The relief applies to swaps with SPVs that were in existence prior to October 10, 2013. The task force also commented on the CFTC’s proposal on margin requirements for uncleared swaps, as well as the prudential regulators’ proposal regarding margin and capital requirements for covered swap entities. In October 2015, the prudential regulators approved a Joint Final Rule on Swap Margin Requirements. In November 2015, the CFTC issued their final rule regarding margin requirements for uncleared swaps for swap dealers and major swap participants.

The High Quality Securitization ("HQS”) Task Force recently submitted a response to Basel’s Consultative Document regarding Capital Treatment for STC Securitisations. The task force previously responded to the European Commission’s consultation on an EU framework for simple, transparent and standardized securitization on May 12, 2015. The task force also previously responded to the BCBS-IOSCO consultation on its criteria for identifying simple, transparent and comparable securitizations. SFIG’s comments were built off of those sent to the European Banking Authority on January 14th (available here) regarding its proposed criteria and to the European Central Bank and Bank of England last summer (available here) regarding the development of a sustainable securitization market in Europe.

To join the HQS Task Force, please contact Alyssa.Acevedo@sfindustry.

According to a recent article in National Mortgage News, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has indicated that lenders will be given some leeway regarding their compliance with the Truth in Lending Act/Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act integrated disclosure rules, also known as TRID. Speaking at an industry conference last week, Allison Brown, program manager in mortgage servicing at the office of supervision policy, told National Mortgage News that the CFPB would be “very sensitive” to the implementation’s impact on the mortgage market. During initial TRID exams, the CFPB “will focus on compliance management systems – what you did to get ready for the new rules.”

“We understand that most industry members were ready on Oct. 3, but there are going to be implementation challenges that you wouldn't know about until the rules took effect and you started using those disclosures,” Brown stated. According to the article, loan-closing timelines have increased by approximately four days since the rules took effect, though some predict the slowdown will be temporary. 


Last Friday, February 19th, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Chair, Mary Jo White, stated that the SEC will focus on asset management, equity structure and disclosure effectiveness in 2016.

During her address, White said the SEC would continue to look at liquidity risk, and that "advancing proposals for transition planning and stress testing are among our 2016 priorities for the asset management industry." White also pointed out that sweeping changes in the securitization markets have been implemented in the past year and stated that the SEC “will continue in 2016 to complete the remaining mandates.”

However, as a recent Reutersarticle highlights, limited time remains for the SEC to accomplish their goals with the administration of President Barack Obama ending in less than a year. Traditionally, the politically appointed head of the SEC is replaced when a president leaves office. In addition to this, the SEC is currently down two members from its full complement of five.


According to a recent article in American Banker, consumer advocates are pushing the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to expand protections for borrowers who have defaulted on certain debts. The move is expected to particularly impact mortgage originators and auto lease providers who are both currently exempt from consumer challenges. The debate relates to a longstanding FTC rule regarding situations where a consumer finances the purchase of a product or service that is found to be defective or fraudulent. The FTC’s rule offers some protection to the consumer who decides to stop making loan payments, allowing that consumer to raise the seller’s misconduct in the ensuing dispute with the lender.

Consumer groups recently wrote a letter in which they asked the FTC to apply this rule to the auto-leasing business, which today accounts for approximately one-third of all financing for new vehicles. The letter also suggested similar protections should exist for residential mortgages, though the authors do not explicitly call for their inclusion in the regulations. According to American Banker, “consumer groups… argued that mortgage fraud was rampant during the 2000s because securitization trusts that purchased home loans had no incentive to police misconduct.” However, mortgage groups have countered that expanding the rule into the mortgage realm would disrupt investor confidence in the secondary market.


SFIG has a number of Committees and Task Forces meeting and working on many topics of interest to the securitization industry. Please email us for more information, including how to join.

SFIG is pleased to share this edition of its newsletter with our members, as well as our supporters in the structured finance community. To ensure that you receive future editions of the newsletter, please visit our website or email us to learn more about membership opportunities.

Contact Information

Richard Johns Executive Director

Kristi Leo Investor Relations

Sairah Burki Senior Director, ABS Policy

Michael Flood Director, Advocacy

Dan Goodwin Director, Mortgage Policy

Jennifer Wolfe ABS Policy Manager

Hua Liu Communications & Social Media Manager

Alyssa Acevedo Senior Analyst, ABS Policy

Amanda Bateman Senior Analyst, MBS Policy

Jennifer Serpas Office Manager

Sarah Clarke Events Coordinator

1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 625
Washington, DC 20006

Structured Finance Industry Group
WebsiteEmail Us | Web Archive
To unsubscribe from this email listing, please click here.


Sign Up for Our Newsletter


Connect with SFIG
LinkedIn logo
Join us on LinkedIn >
Twitter logo
Follow us on Twitter >
Wilmington ad

Quick Search

Advanced Search
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy