Presale: Benefit Street Partners CLO XXXV Ltd./Benefit Street Partners CLO XXXV LLC
Preliminary ratings
CLASS | PRELIMINARY RATING | BALANCE (MIL. $) | OVERCOLLATERALIZATION (%) | PAR SUBORDINATION (%) | INTEREST RATE (%) |
A | AAA (sf) | 349.25 | 157.48 | 36.50 | Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.530 |
B | AA (sf) | 68.75 | 131.58 | 24.00 | Three-month CME term SOFR + 1.950 |
C (deferrable) | A (sf) | 33.00 | 121.95 | 18.00 | Three-month CME term SOFR + 2.300 |
D (deferrable) | BBB- (sf) | 33.00 | 113.64 | 12.00 | Three-month CME term SOFR + 3.300 |
E (deferrable) | BB- (sf) | 22.00 | 108.70 | 8.00 | Three-month CME term SOFR + 6.100 |
Subordinated notes | NR | 47.75 | N/A | N/A | Residual |
Executive Summary
Benefit Street Partners CLO XXXV Ltd. is a $553.75 million broadly syndicated collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by BSP CLO Management LLC, a subsidiary of Franklin Templeton.
Based on provisions in the transaction documents and the portfolio characteristics:
- The transaction will be collateralized by at least 90% senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments.
- Of the identified underlying collateral obligations, 99.62% have credit ratings (which may include confidential ratings, private ratings, and credit estimates) assigned by S&P Global Ratings.
- Of the identified underlying collateral obligations, 90.41% have recovery ratings (which may include confidential and private ratings) assigned by S&P Global Ratings.
Key Credit Metrics
Selected credit metrics
BENEFIT STREET PARTNERS CLO XXXV LTD. | THREE-MONTH AVERAGE(I) | |
Total leverage (x)(ii) | 10.60 | 10.06 |
Par subordination ('AAA'/'BBB') (%) | 36.50/12.00 | 34.97/11.90 |
WA cost of debt (%)(iii) | 1.95 | 2.04 |
Portfolio WAS (excluding floors) (%) | 3.72 | 3.68 |
SDR ('AAA'/'BBB') (%) | 59.51/40.58 | 58.84/40.07 |
WA portfolio recovery ('AAA'/'BBB') (%) | 41.06/62.36 | 41.36/63.08 |
Transaction Timeline/Participants
Transaction timeline
Expected closing date | June 6, 2024. |
Effective date | To be determined. |
Debt payment frequency | Quarterly, beginning Oct. 25, 2024. |
Non-call period end date | June 6, 2026. |
Reinvestment period end date | April 25, 2029. |
Stated maturity date | April 25, 2037. |
Participants
Collateral manager | Benefit Street Partners LLC. |
Placement agent | J.P. Morgan Securities LLC. |
Trustee | U.S. Bank Trust Co. National Association. |
Rationale
The preliminary ratings assigned to Benefit Street Partners CLO XXXV Ltd./Benefit Street Partners CLO XXXV LLC's floating-rate debt reflect our assessment of:
- The diversification of the collateral pool, which consists primarily of broadly syndicated speculative-grade (rated 'BB+' and lower) senior secured term loans.
- The credit enhancement provided through subordination, excess spread, and overcollateralization.
- The experience of the collateral manager's team, which can affect the performance of the rated debt through portfolio identification and ongoing management.
- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be bankruptcy remote.
We may choose to make qualitative adjustments to our analysis when rating CLO tranches to reflect the likelihood that changes to the underlying assets' credit profile may affect a portfolio's credit quality in the near term. This is consistent with paragraph 15 of our criteria for analyzing CLOs (see "Global Methodology And Assumptions For CLOs And Corporate CDOs," published June 21, 2019). To do this, we may review the likelihood of near-term changes to the portfolio's credit profile by evaluating the transaction's specific risk factors. Based on our review of these factors, we believe there is adequate cushion between this CLO tranches' break-even default rates (BDRs) and scenario default rates (SDRs) to address the possibility of near-term changes to the portfolio's credit quality.
Environmental, Social, And Governance
We regard the exposure to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors in the transaction as being broadly in line with our benchmark for the sector (see "ESG Industry Report Card: Collateralized Loan Obligations," published March 31, 2021). For CLOs, we view the exposure to environmental credit factors as below average, to social credit factors as below average, and to governance credit factors as average, primarily due to the diversity of the assets within the sector.
The transaction documents prohibit assets related to certain activities, including but not limited to the following industries:
- Speculative oil and gas extraction;
- Palm oil production;
- Controversial weapon production. manufacturing, or trading;
- Manufacturing or selling of tobacco;
- Manufacturing or selling of alcohol;
- Manufacturing of selling of federally prohibited drugs; and
- Manufacturing or selling of weapons or firearms.
Accordingly, since the exclusion of assets from these industries does not result in material differences between the transaction and our ESG benchmark for the sector, we made no specific adjustments in our rating analysis to account for any ESG-related risks or opportunities.
Rating Considerations
In our analysis, we considered the factors in table 1, among others.
Table 1
Rating considerations
RISK | RISK DESCRIPTION | MITIGATING FACTORS |
Reduction in cash flow | Defaults, adverse interest rate movements, and low recoveries can reduce the cash flow generated by the underlying portfolio and affect the issuer's ability to meet its obligations in a timely manner. | S&P Global Ratings' quantitative analysis simulates various default patterns and interest rate movements under various stress scenarios, considering portfolio characteristics, payment mechanics, covenants, collateral quality tests, and excess spread. |
Excess concentration in certain types of collateral obligations | The collateral manager's ability to invest in certain types of collateral is outlined in the indenture. Larger concentrations in certain obligations can introduce additional risks to the rated debt. | S&P Global Ratings' cash flow analysis generally assumes that the underlying portfolio contains the maximum allowable amount of certain types of collateral obligations to stress test the transaction for concentration risk. Examples include obligations that are current-pay, fixed-rate, fully deferrable, and long-dated, as well as assets rated 'CCC+' or lower and assets paying less frequently than quarterly. For current-pay, long-dated, and 'CCC+' or lower obligations, we generally apply stresses when the exposure is greater than 10.0%, 5.0%, and 7.5%, respectively. For more details on allowable maximum concentrations for this transaction, see tables 8 and 9. |
Collateral manager trading performance | During the reinvestment period, the collateral manager can change the underlying portfolio's composition, thus exposing the transaction to potential deterioration in credit enhancement. The collateral manager can reinvest all proceeds received during the reinvestment period. For this particular transaction, after the reinvestment period, the collateral manager can also continue to reinvest proceeds from credit risk sales or unscheduled prepayments, subject to additional restrictions. | After the reinvestment period, in addition to some other requirements, any asset purchased must have the same or higher S&P Global Ratings' credit rating and the same or lower stated maturity than the asset being replaced and the coverage tests must be satisfied. |
Divergence of the effective date portfolio from preliminary assumptions | Most underlying portfolios are not fully purchased by the transaction's closing date. Therefore, there is a risk that the fully ramped-up portfolio at the transaction's effective date will be materially different than the one presented to S&P Global Ratings for its preliminary analysis. | S&P Global Ratings offers collateral managers a formula-based version of its CDO Monitor at the transaction's closing. This tool is intended to assist the collateral manager in maintaining a similar credit risk and cash flow profile to what was initially presented for our preliminary analysis. |
Exposure to covenant-lite loans | The collateral manager can purchase covenant-lite loans (those that do not contain regular financial maintenance covenants for the lending party's benefit) for up to a certain percentage of the underlying portfolio (see table 8). Exposure to these types of loans may reduce the transaction's recovery prospects. | For covenant-lite loans that do not have an asset-specific recovery rating, we apply reduced recovery rates in our cash flow analysis (41.0% under a 'AAA' stress scenario versus 50.0% for a senior secured first-lien loan that is not covenant-lite). In addition, the transaction documents mandate that any loan that is pari passu with a non-covenant-lite loan of the same obligor, or that contains a cross-default provision with such loan, will also use the reduced recovery rates regardless of whether these pari passu or cross-defaulted loans are counted as covenant-lite for the purposes of portfolio concentration limits.For covenant-lite loans that do have an asset-specific recovery rating, the absence of financial maintenance covenants is factored into our recovery analysis and generally results in lower estimated recovery rates. |
Long-dated collateral obligations can introduce market value risk | A portfolio containing long-dated collateral obligations exposes a transaction to market value risk. To repay the debtholders at the transaction's maturity, the collateral manager will be forced to sell those obligations at the prevailing market price, which may be below par. | According to the transaction documents, the collateral manager cannot purchase any long-dated collateral obligations or, generally, may not vote in favor of any amendment that would extend a collateral obligation's maturity beyond the debt's stated maturity. Any long-dated collateral obligations will receive a haircut in the O/C numerator. The weighted average life test must generally be satisfied following any maturity amendment. |
Collateral Manager
BSP CLO Management LLC currently manages 41 CLOs and has $18.5 billion in total CLO assets under management (AUM). Including non-CLO assets, BSP CLO Management LLC and its affiliates has $76.0 billion in total AUM.
Analysis of past CLO 2.0 transactions (i.e., deals issued after the financial crisis) that are managed by BSP CLO Management LLC and its affiliates and rated by S&P Global Ratings reveals:
- An average overlap in collateral composition of 67.46%, which is higher than the average of 58.01% for all CLO 2.0 transactions rated by S&P Global Ratings.
- An average portfolio turnover rate of 16.06% over the past 12 months, which is higher than the average of 15.84% for all CLO 2.0 transactions rated by S&P Global Ratings.
- An industry concentration that favors software and capital markets.
- That of the transactions that are still in the reinvestment period, 81.25% have a current par amount above the effective date target par.
- An average senior overcollateralization cushion of 10.31% at the transaction's closing date.
Quantitative Analysis
In analyzing this transaction, S&P Global Ratings conducted a quantitative review consisting of two analyses: a portfolio analysis and a cash flow analysis.
Understanding our portfolio and cash flow analyses
For the portfolio analysis, S&P Global Ratings ran the portfolio presented to us through the CDO Evaluator model, which defaults portions of the underlying collateral based on the default probability and correlation assumptions defined in S&P Global Ratings criteria. This resulted in a set of SDRs that represent expected default levels for the portfolio under the different stress scenarios associated with each rating level (see chart 1).
For example, the 'AAA' stress scenario assumes an extreme level of stress, one similar to what was experienced during the Great Depression, while the 'BBB' stress scenario assumes a high, but less severe, level of stress that is more akin to the 2008 recession. As a result, the portfolio will experience a higher level of defaults in the 'AAA' stress scenario than the 'BBB' stress scenario.
For the cash flow analysis, we input the transaction-specific structural features presented to us into the Standard & Poor's Cash Flow Evaluator model to generate a base case set of cash flows. These cash flows are then subjected to various default timing and interest rate stress scenarios to arrive at a BDR for each rated class of debt (see chart 2).
For each class, the BDR represents the maximum amount of defaults that the class can withstand while still being able to pay timely interest and ultimate principal to its debtholders. Classes with higher subordination typically have higher BDRs.
Chart 1
Chart 2
Connecting the portfolio and cash flow analyses
For a tranche to achieve a particular rating, it must be able to withstand the level of defaults projected by the CDO Evaluator and still pay timely interest and principal (see chart 3).
Chart 3
The results shown in table 2 indicate that the rated debt has sufficient credit enhancement to withstand our projected default levels.
Table 2
Credit enhancement
CLASS | PRELIMINARY RATING | BDR (%) | SDR (%) | BDR CUSHION (%) |
A | 36.50 | 62.59 | 59.51 | 3.08 |
B | 24.00 | 59.09 | 51.81 | 7.27 |
C (deferrable) | 18.00 | 52.01 | 45.93 | 6.08 |
D (deferrable) | 12.00 | 42.68 | 36.94 | 5.74 |
E (deferrable) | 8.00 | 33.24 | 30.13 | 3.11 |
Supplemental tests
We also conduct a largest-industry default test and a largest-obligor default test according to "Global Methodology And Assumptions For CLOs And Corporate CDOs," published June 21, 2019. Under these assumptions, the debt can withstand the loss amounts indicated in table 3 at their preliminary rating levels.
Table 3
Supplemental tests
CLASS | PRELIMINARY RATING | PRELIMINARY AMOUNT (MIL. $) | LARGEST-INDUSTRY DEFAULT TEST LOSS AMOUNT (MIL. $) | LARGEST-OBLIGOR DEFAULT TEST LOSS AMOUNT (MIL. $) |
A | AAA (sf) | 349.25 | 41.75 | 23.06 |
B | AA (sf) | 68.75 | 33.96 | 18.88 |
C (deferrable) | A (sf) | 33.00 | N/A | 14.70 |
D (deferrable) | BBB- (sf) | 33.00 | N/A | 10.36 |
E (deferrable) | BB- (sf) | 22.00 | N/A | 7.84 |
Collateral Quality Tests
In addition to the quantitative framework, we produce and review collateral quality metrics to assess specific risks inherent in a transaction. Results for the collateral quality tests, based on the identified portfolio provided to us, are shown in table 4.
Table 4
Collateral quality metrics--performing identified collateral
TEST | WA | COVENANT | MARGIN |
WA life (years)(i) | 4.89 | 9.00 | 4.11 |
WAS (including floors) (%) | 3.72 | 3.65 | 0.07 |
WA fixed coupon (%)(ii) | 3.19 | 6.00 | (2.81) |
WA rating | B | N/A | N/A |
Portfolio Characteristics
Metrics based on the portfolio presented to S&P Global Ratings and the level of ramp-up completion are shown in tables 5A and 5B.
Table 5A
Target collateral obligations
Target par balance (mil. $) | 550.00 |
Par balance of identified collateral (mil. $) | 522.07 |
Par balance of collateral not yet identified (mil. $) | 27.93 |
S&P Global Ratings' ratings and confidential indications (% of identified collateral)(i) | 99.62 |
Table 5B
Identified collateral obligations (obligors)
No. of obligors | 255 |
Avg. obligor holding (%) | 0.39 |
Largest-obligor holding (%) | 0.57 |
Smallest-obligor holding (%) | 0.04 |
In the portfolio data referenced for this analysis, the issuer identified approximately 94.92% of the portfolio's collateral. As the portfolio composition changes, the information and results presented in tables 6 and 7 and charts 4-7 are also likely to change.
Obligor concentration
Table 6 shows the top five obligor holdings of the underlying portfolio presented to S&P Global Ratings as of the date of this publication.
Table 6
Top five obligor holdings
NOTIONAL AMOUNT (MIL. $) | NOTIONAL AMOUNT (%) | ||||||||
OBLIGOR REFERENCE | INDUSTRY | SECURITY TYPE | S&P GLOBAL RATINGS' CREDIT RATING | S&P GLOBAL RATINGS' IMPLIED RATING | CREDITWATCH/OUTLOOK | OBLIGOR | CUMULATIVE | OBLIGOR | CUMULATIVE |
1 | Hotels, restaurants. and leisure | Senior secured | BB | No | Positive | 3.00 | 3.00 | 0.55 | 0.55 |
2 | Wireless telecommunication services | Senior secured | N/A | No | N/A | 2.75 | 5.75 | 0.50 | 1.05 |
3 | Software | Senior secured | B- | No | Stable | 2.75 | 8.50 | 0.50 | 1.55 |
4 | Capital markets | Senior secured | B | No | Stable | 2.75 | 11.25 | 0.50 | 2.05 |
5 | Health care providers and services | Senior secured | B+ | No | Stable | 2.75 | 14.00 | 0.50 | 2.55 |
Industry and ratings distribution
Chart 4 shows the top five industry distribution in the portfolio, and chart 5 shows the ratings distribution in the portfolio.
Chart 4
Chart 5
Recovery rating and maturity distribution
Table 7 and chart 6 present a summary of the S&P Global Ratings loan recovery rates for the identified portfolio. Chart 7 shows the maturity distribution in the identified portfolio.
Table 7
Performing identified collateral modeled WARR
LIABILITY RATING CATEGORY | WARR (%) | MIN. COVENANTED WARR (%) |
AAA (sf) | 41.06 | 40.06 |
AA (sf) | 50.42 | 49.62 |
A (sf) | 56.08 | 55.33 |
BBB (sf) | 62.36 | 61.78 |
BB (sf) | 67.87 | 66.98 |
Chart 6
Chart 7
Portfolio Investment Guidelines
The underlying portfolio will consist primarily of U.S. dollar-denominated senior secured loans to broadly syndicated corporate borrowers. The collateral portfolio's investment guidelines are expected to comply with the limitations shown in table 8.
Table 8
Collateral pool guidelines
LIMIT (%) | |
TYPE OF OBLIGATION | |
Other than senior secured loans, cash, and eligible investments | 10.0 |
Bonds | 5.0 |
Covenant-lite loans(i) | 60.0 |
Current-pay obligations(ii) | 2.5 |
Debtor-in-possession obligations | 7.5 |
Deferrable obligations: fully(ii)/partially | 0.0 / 5.0 |
Delayed-drawdown and revolving obligations | 7.5 |
Discount obligations | 25.0 |
Fixed-rate obligations(ii) | 5.0 |
Long-dated obligations(ii) | 2.0 |
Obligations purchased at a price less than 60.0% [but greater than 55.0%] of its principal balance | 5.0 |
Obligations that pay interest less frequently than quarterly (but not less than semiannually)(ii) | 7.5 |
Obligor and its affiliates: single/up to five | 1.5/2.5 |
Participation interests | 10 |
S&P Global Ratings' industry classification: single/ third largest/ second largest/ largest | 10.0/12.0/12.0/15.0 |
S&P Global Ratings' credit rating of 'CCC+' or below(ii) | 7.5 |
S&P Global Ratings' derived from Moody's rating | 10.0 |
Second-lien, unsecured loans and bonds | 10.0 |
Structured finance obligations | 0.0 |
LOCATION | |
Other than the U.S. | 20.0 |
Emerging markets | 0.0 |
Risk of concentration in certain obligation types
S&P Global Ratings considers larger concentrations of the obligation types shown in table 9 to pose additional risk to the transaction. If the transaction can purchase those collateral obligations, our quantitative analysis would consider the associated risk (see table 8 above for transaction-specific limitations).
Table 9
Risks of obligation types
OBLIGATION TYPE | RISK SPECIFIC TO THE OBLIGATION |
Current-pay obligations | S&P Global Ratings' criteria allow transactions to purchase current-pay obligations as long as the collateral manager reasonably believes the obligor will remain current on all contractual payments (as well as other factors). Due to the increased risk associated with these obligations, they may be carried at the higher of their issue credit rating or 'CCC' in the portfolio analysis, which may increase the SDRs produced by the CDO Evaluator. In addition, any excess holding allowance above 10% is carried as defaulted in the cash flow analysis, which will decrease the BDRs produced by the Cash Flow Evaluator. |
Deferrable obligations | Obligations where interest payments may be deferred can result in a discrepancy in the timing of cash inflows and outflows. If this mismatch is significant, it may result in a shortfall in cash available to pay the rated debtholders. S&P Global Ratings conducts its cash flow analysis assuming that the transaction holds the maximum amount of deferrable obligations permitted. The timing differences will be captured in the BDRs generated by the Cash Flow Evaluator. |
Fixed-rate obligations | Because interest payments for most of the rated debt is tied to a floating reference rate (initially, three-month SOFR), obligations in the underlying portfolio that pay a fixed rate create exposure to interest rate movements. Excess spread may decline if market rates change significantly over the transaction's life. To account for this risk, S&P Global Ratings' cash flow analysis assumes the transaction holds the maximum amount of fixed-rate obligations permitted. The results are captured in the BDRs generated by the Cash Flow Evaluator. |
Long-dated obligations | Collateral obligations scheduled to mature after the transaction's stated maturity date introduce market value risk because the collateral manager must sell the obligations at the prevailing market price to pay the rated debtholders. To account for this risk, if the allowable bucket exceeds 5% of the asset balance, absent any other risk mitigating factors, S&P Global Ratings' cash flow analysis haircuts the par amount of these obligations (10% per year after the transaction's stated maturity), which will lower the BDRs produced by the Cash Flow Evaluator. This stress may also be considered for long-dated assets that the transaction can hold after any maturity amendments. |
Obligations that pay interest less frequently than quarterly | Because CLO transactions typically require quarterly interest payments to be made to the debtholders, a portfolio consisting of collateral obligations that pay interest less frequently creates a discrepancy in the timing of cash inflows and outflows. If this mismatch is significant, it may result in a shortfall in cash available to pay the rated debtholders. S&P Global Ratings conducts its cash flow analysis assuming that the transaction holds the maximum amount of non-quarterly obligations permitted. The timing differences will be captured in the BDRs generated by the Cash Flow Evaluator. |
Obligations rated 'CCC+' or below by S&P Global Ratings | The transaction documents typically limit the amount of obligations rated 'CCC+' or below that the collateral manager can purchase. A higher concentration of these obligations will increase the SDRs produced by the CDO Evaluator. |
Debt Payment Considerations
Overcollateralization, interest coverage, and reinvestment overcollateralization tests
The rated debt benefits from certain structural features that require sequential mandatory redemption upon a breach of any overcollateralization or interest coverage test. In addition, during the reinvestment period, the rated debt benefits from potential diversion of excess interest proceeds captured upon breach of the transaction's reinvestment overcollateralization test as described in the payment priorities (see tables 10-12).
Table 10
O/C, I/C, and reinvestment O/C tests
CLASS | ACTUAL O/C (%) | MIN. O/C REQUIRED (%) | MIN. I/C REQUIRED (%) |
B | 131.58 | 121.58 | 120.00 |
C | 121.95 | 113.95 | 110.00 |
D | 113.64 | 107.64 | 105.00 |
E | 108.70 | 103.70 | N/A |
Reinvestment O/C(i) | 108.70 | 104.70 | N/A |
Payment priorities
Under the transaction documents, the collateral's interest and principal collections are payable according to separate payment priorities. On each payment date during and after the reinvestment period, unless an acceleration following an event of default occurs, the proceeds will be distributed in the priorities outlined in tables 11 and 12.
Table 11
Interest waterfall payment priority
PRIORITY | PAYMENT |
1 | Taxes and fees, and then administrative expenses (capped). |
2 | Senior management fee. |
3 | Class A note interest. |
4 | Class B note interest. |
5 | Class A/B coverage test(i)(ii). |
6 | Class C note interest. |
7 | Class C note deferred interest. |
8 | Class C coverage test(i)(ii). |
9 | Class D note interest. |
10 | Class D note deferred interest. |
11 | Class D coverage test(i)(ii). |
12 | Class E note interest. |
13 | Class E note deferred interest. |
14 | Class E coverage test(i)(ii). |
15 | Effective date ratings confirmation. If it is not obtained, pay according to the note payment sequence(ii) or purchase collateral obligations (each to the extent necessary to obtain a rating agency confirmation or until the notes are paid in full). |
16 | Interest diversion test (during the reinvestment period only). If it fails, deposit to collection account to purchase additional collateral obligations and/or pay according to the note payment sequence(ii). |
17 | Subordinated management fee. |
18 | Deferred subordinated management fee. |
19 | Administrative expenses (uncapped). |
20 | To the contributors, pro rata. |
21 | To the subordinated noteholders to realize an IRR of 12%. |
22 | 20% of remaining proceeds to the incentive management fee, and 80% of remaining proceeds to the holders of the subordinated notes. |
Table 12
Principal waterfall payment priority
PRIORITY | PAYMENT |
1 | Items 1-4 of the interest waterfall. |
2 | Item 5 of the interest waterfall(i)(ii). |
3 | Item 6 of the interest waterfall(iii). |
4 | Item 7 of the interest waterfall(iii). |
5 | Item 8 of the interest waterfall(i)(ii). |
6 | Item 9 of the interest waterfall(iii). |
7 | Item 10 of the interest waterfall(iii). |
8 | Item 11 of the interest waterfall(i)(ii). |
9 | Item 12 of the interest waterfall(iii). |
10 | Item 13 of the interest waterfall(iii). |
11 | Item 14 of the interest waterfall(i)(ii). |
12 | Principal proceeds that the collateral manager has determined cannot be practicably reinvested in additional collateral obligations, pay according to the note payment sequence(ii). |
13 | During the reinvestment period, purchase additional collateral obligations and/or eligible investments. After the reinvestment period, invest in eligible investments and/or purchase substitute obligations, provided that in either case such payment would not, in the collateral manager's reasonable determination, cause a retention deficiency. |
14 | Note payment sequence(ii) |
15 | Item 17 of the interest waterfall. |
16 | Item 18 of the interest waterfall. |
17 | Item 19 of the interest waterfall. |
18 | To the contributors, pro rata; |
19 | Item 21 of the interest waterfall. |
20 | 20% of remaining proceeds to the incentive management fee, and 80% of remaining proceeds to the subordinated noteholders. |
Application Of Standard & Poor's CDO Monitor/Compliance With Standard & Poor's CDO Monitor Test
Standard & Poor's CDO Monitor is a tool that collateral managers use during the reinvestment period to determine if a particular trade or series of trades increases the risk to the rated liabilities.
The CDO Monitor Test will be considered passing if the results indicate that the current portfolio produces an SDR that is equal to or below the transaction's BDR. There is no requirement that the CDO Monitor Test be considered after the reinvestment period, or when reinvesting proceeds from the sale of a credit risk or a defaulted obligation or proceeds from an equity security.
For this transaction, the non-model version of CDO Monitor may be used as an alternative to the model-based approach. This version of CDO Monitor is built on the foundation of six portfolio benchmarks, which are used to provide insight into the characteristics that inform the way S&P Global Ratings assesses credit quality. These benchmarks are meant to enhance transparency for investors and other CLO market participants by allowing them to compare metrics across transactions and assess changes within a given CLO over time (for more details, see "S&P Global Ratings' Updated Assumptions For CDO Monitor Non-Model Version," published June 21, 2019, and "Standard & Poor's Introduces Non-Model Version Of CDO Monitor," published Dec. 8, 2014).
Table 13 shows the benchmarks for Benefit Street Partners CLO XXXV Ltd. in the context of average values by vintage.
Table 13
CDO Monitor metrics
BENEFIT STREET PARTNERS CLO XXXV LTD. | TRAILING 12-MONTH AVERAGE | DIFFERENCE | TYPICAL VALUES | |
S&P Global Ratings' weighted average rating factor(i) | 2,615.86 | 2595.59 | 20.27 | 2,500.00-3,000.00 |
Default rate dispersion(ii) | 768.07 | 853.42 | (85.35) | 500.00-1,000.00 |
Obligor diversity measure(iii) | 261.53 | 219.46 | 42.07 | 100.00-250.00 |
Industry diversity measure(iv) | 26.22 | 23.59 | 2.63 | 12.00-22.00 |
Regional diversity measure(v) | 1.17 | 1.19 | (0.03) | 1.00-1.30 for U.S. CLOs (higher for European CLOs) |
Weighted average life (years)(vi) | 4.81 | 4.59 | 0.22 | 4.00-7.00 |
Surveillance
S&P Global Ratings will maintain active surveillance on the rated debt until the debt matures or is retired, or until its credit ratings on the transaction have been withdrawn. The purpose of surveillance is to assess whether the rated debt is performing within the initial parameters and assumptions applied to each rating category. The issuer is required under the terms of the transaction documents to supply periodic reports and notices to S&P Global Ratings to maintain continuous surveillance on the rated debt. For more information on our CLO surveillance process, see "CLO Spotlight: S&P Global Ratings' Surveillance Process For Monitoring CLO Transactions," published Oct. 14, 2022.
Related Criteria
- General Criteria: Environmental, Social, And Governance Principles In Credit Ratings, Oct. 10, 2021
- Criteria | Structured Finance | General: Global Framework For Payment Structure And Cash Flow Analysis Of Structured Finance Securities, Dec. 22, 2020
- Criteria | Structured Finance | General: Methodology To Derive Stressed Interest Rates In Structured Finance, Oct. 18, 2019
- Criteria | Structured Finance | CDOs: Global Methodology And Assumptions For CLOs And Corporate CDOs, June 21, 2019
- Criteria | Structured Finance | Legal: U.S. Structured Finance Asset Isolation And Special-Purpose Entity Criteria, May 15, 2019
- Criteria | Structured Finance | General: Counterparty Risk Framework: Methodology And Assumptions, March 8, 2019
- Criteria | Structured Finance | General: Incorporating Sovereign Risk In Rating Structured Finance Securities: Methodology And Assumptions, Jan. 30, 2019
- Legal Criteria: Structured Finance: Asset Isolation And Special-Purpose Entity Methodology, March 29, 2017
- General Criteria: Guarantee Criteria, Oct. 21, 2016
- Criteria | Structured Finance | General: Global Framework For Assessing Operational Risk In Structured Finance Transactions, Oct. 9, 2014
- Criteria | Structured Finance | CDOs: CDOs Of Project Finance Debt: Global Methodology And Assumptions, March 19, 2014
- General Criteria: Global Investment Criteria For Temporary Investments In Transaction Accounts, May 31, 2012
- Criteria | Structured Finance | CDOs: Global CDOs Of Pooled Structured Finance Assets: Methodology And Assumptions, Feb. 21, 2012
- General Criteria: Principles Of Credit Ratings, Feb. 16, 2011
- Criteria | Structured Finance | CDOs: Surveillance Methodology For Global Cash Flow And Hybrid CDOs Subject To Acceleration Or Liquidation After An EOD, Sept. 2, 2009
- Criteria | Structured Finance | General: Structured Finance Criteria Introduced For Cayman Islands Special-Purpose Entities, July 18, 2002
Related Research
- Credit FAQ: A Closer Look At Uptier Priming And Asset Drop-Down Provisions In U.S. CLOs, July 26, 2023
- Global Structured Finance 2023 Outlook, Jan. 11, 2023
- Scenario Analysis: How Resilient Are Middle-Market CLO Ratings (2022 Update), Oct. 19, 2022
- CLO Spotlight: S&P Global Ratings' Surveillance Process For Monitoring CLO Transactions, Oct. 14, 2022
- Scenario Analysis: How The Next Downturn Could Affect U.S. BSL CLO Ratings (2022 Update), Aug. 4, 2022
- ESG Industry Report Card: Collateralized Loan Obligations, March 31, 2021
- Credit FAQ: Anatomy Of A Credit Estimate: What It Means And How We Do It, Jan. 14, 2021
- All You Need To Know About CDO Monitor, March 26, 2020
- Credit FAQ: Understanding S&P Global Ratings' Updated CLO And Corporate CDO Criteria, June 26, 2019
- CLO Spotlight: S&P Global Ratings' Updated Assumptions For CDO Monitor Non-Model Version, June 21, 2019
- Credit FAQ: Key Considerations For September 2018 Updates To CDO Evaluator Industry Codes, Sept. 26, 2018
- Global Structured Finance Scenario And Sensitivity Analysis 2016: The Effects Of The Top Five Macroeconomic Factors, Dec. 16, 2016
- New Version Of CDO Evaluator (7.1) Includes Updated Corporate Industry Codes, Sept. 13, 2016
- CLO Spotlight: How S&P Global Ratings Assesses Operational And Administrative Risks Of CLO Collateral Managers, April 19, 2016
- S&P Adds Transparency To Its Effective Date Process For CLOs, April 20, 2015
- How Typical CLO Document Provisions Affect Maintenance Of Collateral Characteristics For Managed CLOs, Nov. 6, 2013
- CDO Spotlight: How Deferrable Assets In CLOs Are Treated Under Standard & Poor's Methodology, Oct. 1, 2012
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com(subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: research_request@spglobal.com.