252 6.4.2 Risk retention methods and security design Ti nh Te arbelseu 6l t.s4 .o Wf oeu cr otm- t epsatrse btahsee ds eocnu rtiht ye edsetsi img na toe fs tohfeEtqrua na tcihoens (t6h. 2a t) ha raev ep rt oh ve i dF eLTd as the retention method with those that have the VES, OBS, and FLE retention method. Panel A of Table 6.4 suggests that the security design significantly differs between the retention methods. In particular, we observe that both the VES and Od eBaSl ; mi i )e tl ho owdesr ht raavnec, hoen sai zvee;r aa gn ed, isi ii )g nl oi fwi cearn tt rl ya ni )s ahcitgi oh ne rs inzuem, cboemr poaf r terda nt oc ht ehse iFnLTa method. For example, the average transaction size for the FLT method is €1.210 million, while the size is significantly smaller for the VES and OBS method, with €954 million and €1.030 million, respectively. For the FLE method, we only observe that securitization with the FLE method have, on average, a significantly h( 4i g. 1h1e rt rnaunmc hbeesr)o. fI nt r as un mc h, esseicnuar idt iezaalt (i o4 n. 8s7wt ri at hn cthhees V) , EcSo ma npda rOe Bd St omt he et hFoLdT sme ee mt h ot do hd ae va el , lwo hwi el er st er ac nu cr hi t ei z aa nt ido nt rsawn si tahc ttihoen FsLi zEe sm, eb tuht oad gsreeeamt e rt on hu amvbe ear gorf etartaenrcnh ue ms ibne ar of tranches in a deal than those with the FLT method. Next, we split our ‘full’ sample between tranches issued by frequent (larger) oC r. Wi g ienoa bt os resr,vPeatnhealt Bt h, ea ns edc tuhroi tsye di se ss ui gend cbhya ri na cf rt ee qr ius et incts (osfmt hael l ve ar )r ioorui sg irni sakt orrest ,ePnat inoenl mo neet sh. oFdosr deixf af emr pt ol ea, wg ree ao tbesreer xvtee tnht af to rf otrh fer ferqeuqeunetnot roi rgiigni antaotrosr, ss tehc aunr i ftoi zr ai tni of rnesq wu ei nt ht the VES and OBS method have significantly higher number of tranches and lower torbasnecrhvee at hnadt tt rhaens sea sc et icounr i tsiizzaet, i ot hnas nh at hv ee , FoLnT a vmeer tahgoed, .h iFgohre rt hter aFnLc Eh e mc eo tuhnot ds , awn de lower subordination levels, compared to the FLT method. While for the infrequent originators (Panel C), we only find significant differences for the number of tranches and tranche size of the VES and OBS method. In addition, we observe
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw