Value Creation through Securitization: Evidence from the CMBS Market

  • Xudong An
  • Yongheng Deng
  • Stuart A. Gabriel


Despite recent volatility and constraints in secondary market funding, analysts have ascribed substantial value creation to the securitization of commercial mortgages. Such value creation likely emanates from liquidity enhancements, regulatory arbitrage, price discrimination and risk diversification by pooling and tranching, gains from specialization in origination, servicing, and holding of mortgages, and the like. Indeed, such value creation would be consistent with past accelerated growth in the mortgage- and asset-based securities markets and the sizable profits earned by secondary market intermediaries. In this paper, we estimate the pricing effects of commercial mortgage securitization. We do so by applying loan level data from 1992–2003 to compare the pricing of conduit and portfolio loans held in CMBS structures. In contrast to portfolio loans, which are held for investment by originating institutions, conduit loans are originated for the sole purpose of sale and securitization in the secondary market. If securitization creates value, it should be evidenced in the relative pricing of conduit loans sold into CMBS pools and in a lower cost of capital to loan originators. We estimate a reduced-form model, in which the interest rate spread between commercial mortgages and comparable-maturity treasury securities varies with loan characteristics, capital market conditions, and conduit loan status. Estimation results indicate that securitization of conduit loans leads to an 11 basis points reduction in commercial mortgage interest rates. We assess robustness of results via hazard model tests for omitted variables and originator-specific effects. We further estimate a simultaneous equations model that accounts for the potential endogeneity of mortgage loan terms to the mortgage-treasury rate spread. Results of that analysis suggest a larger 20 basis points reduction in loan pricing among conduit loans sold into CMBS structures.


Securitization Commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) Conduit loans Portfolio loans Mortgage-treasury rate spread Simultaneous equations model 


  1. Ambrose, B. W., LaCour-Little, M., & Sanders, A. B. (2004). The effect of conforming loan status on mortgage yield spreads: A loan level analysis. Real Estate Economics, 32(4), 541–569. doi: 10.1111/j.1080-8620.2004.00102.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrose, B. W., LaCour-Little, M., & Sanders, A. B. (2005). Does regulatory arbitrage, reputation or asymmetric information drive securitization. Journal of Financial Services Research, 28(1/2/3), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, W. R., Elmer, P. J., Harrison, D. M., & Ling, D. C. (2002). Determinants of multifamily mortgage default. Real Estate Economics, 30(3), 445–473. doi: 10.1111/1080-8620.t01-1-00012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley, M., Gabriel, S., & Wohar, M. (1995). The thrift crisis, mortgage credit intermediation, and housing activity. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 27(2), 476–497. doi: 10.2307/2077879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciochetti, B., Deng, Y., Lee, G., Shilling, J., & Yao, R. (2003). A proportional hazards model of commercial mortgage default with originator bias. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 27(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeMarzo, P. (2003). Portfolio liquidation and security design with private information. Stanford University working paper.Google Scholar
  7. DeMarzo, P. (2005). The pooling and tranching of securities: A model of informed intermediation. Review of Financial Studies, 18, 1–35. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhi008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeMarzo, P., & Duffie, D. (1999). A liquidity-based model of security design. Econometrica, 67, 65–99. doi: 10.1111/1468-0262.00004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenbaum, S. I. (1986). Securitization, asset quality and regulatory reform, BRC working paper no. 147, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  10. Greenbaum, S. I., & Thakor, A. V. (1987). Bank funding modes: Securitization versus deposits. Journal of Banking & Finance, 11, 379–401. doi: 10.1016/0378-4266(87)90040-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hendershott, P. H., & Shilling, J. D. (1989). The impact of agencies on conventional fixed-rate mortgage yields. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 2, 201–115. doi: 10.1007/BF00159793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hess, A. C., & Smith Jr, C. W. (1988). Elements of mortgage securitization. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 1, 331–346. doi: 10.1007/BF00187071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Merton, R. C. (1974). On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates. Journal of Finance, 29(2), 449–470. doi: 10.2307/2978814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oldfield, G. S. (2000). Making markets for structured mortgage derivatives. Journal of Financial Economics, 57, 445–471. doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00064-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Riddiough, T. J. (2004). Commercial mortgage-backed securities: An exploration into agency, innovation, information, and learning in financial markets. Madison, Mimeo: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  16. Rothberg, J. P., Nothaft, F. E., & Gabriel, S. A. (1989). On the determinants of yield spreads between mortgage pass-through and treasury securities. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 2, 301–315. doi: 10.1007/BF00177950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Titman, S., Tompaidis, S., & Tsyplakov, S. (2004). Determinants of credit spreads in commercial mortgages. Real Estate Economics, 33(4), 711–738. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6229.2005.00136.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Todd, S. (2001). The effects of securitization on consumer mortgage costs. Real Estate Economics, 29(1), 29–54. doi: 10.1111/1080-8620.00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vandell, K. (2000). Multifamily finance: A pathway to housing goals, a bridge to commercial mortgage market efficiency. Fannie Mae Foundation Working Paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finance, College of Business AdministrationSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Lusk Center for Real Estate, School of Policy, Planning and DevelopmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Richard S. Ziman Center for Real Estate, Anderson School of ManagementUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations