Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. and Morgan Asset Management, Inc. v. Purdue Avenue Investors LP, Mary Ann Howard and Dana Howard, as Trustee of the Molly A. Howard Trust
INITIAL CERTIFICATE
CLASS PRINCIPAL BALANCE(1)
Page 391 of 1693
PASS-THROUGH
RATE
Tab 14, p. 1 of 34
Page 83 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 1
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 1/390
Jt.45-Page 1
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
RISK FACTORS
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, WHICH YOU SHOULD CONSIDER CAREFULLY, IDENTIFIES
SIGNIFICANT RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH AN INVESTMENT IN THE CERTIFICATES.
THE MORTGAGE LOANS WERE UNDERWRITTEN TO STANDARDS WHICH DO NOT CONFORM TO THE
STANDARDS OF FANNIE MAE OR FREDDIE MAC.
The underwriting standards of the originators are intended to assess the
ability and willingness of the mortgagor to repay the debt and to evaluate the
adequacy of the property as collateral for the mortgage loan. The originators
consider, among other things, a mortgagor's credit history, repayment ability
and debt service-to-income ratio, as well as the value, type and use of the
mortgaged property. As further described in this prospectus supplement, the
underwriting standards of the originators do not conform to Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac guidelines.
In addition, mortgage loans originated by the originators generally bear
higher rates of interest than mortgage loans originated in accordance with
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines and may experience rates of delinquency,
foreclosure and bankruptcy that are higher, and that may be substantially
higher, than those experienced by mortgage loans underwritten in accordance with
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines.
Furthermore, changes in the values of mortgaged properties may have a
greater effect on the delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss experience
of the Mortgage Loans than on mortgage loans originated in accordance with
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines. No assurance can be given that the values
of the related mortgaged properties have remained or will remain at the levels
in effect on the dates of origination of the related Mortgage Loans. SEE "THE
MORTGAGE POOL--UNDERWRITING STANDARDS" IN THIS PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT.
MORTGAGE LOANS WITH HIGH COMBINED LOAN-TO-VALUE RATIOS LEAVE THE RELATED
MORTGAGOR WITH LITTLE OR NO EQUITY IN THE RELATED MORTGAGED PROPERTY.
Approximately 39.15% of the Group I Mortgage Loans and approximately
42.68% of the Group II Mortgage Loans, in each case, by the related aggregate
principal balance as of the Cut-off Date, had a combined loan-to-value ratio at
origination in excess of 80%. No Mortgage Loan had a combined loan-to-value
ratio at origination in excess of 100%.
An overall decline in the residential real estate market, a rise in
interest rates over a period of time and the condition of a mortgaged property,
as well as other factors, may have the effect of reducing the value of the
mortgaged property from the appraised value at the time the Mortgage Loan was
originated. If there is a reduction in the value of the mortgaged property, the
combined loan-to-value ratio may increase over what it was at the time the
Mortgage Loan was originated. Such an increase may reduce the likelihood of
liquidation or other proceeds being sufficient to satisfy the Mortgage Loan, and
any losses to the extent not covered by the credit enhancement may affect the
yield to maturity of your certificates. There can be no assurance that the value
of a mortgaged property estimated in any appraisal or review is equal to the
actual value of that mortgaged property at the time of that appraisal or review.
Investors should note that the values of the mortgaged properties may be
insufficient to cover the outstanding principal balance of the Mortgage Loans.
Page 405 of 1693
There can be no assurance that the combined loan-to-value ratio of any Mortgage
Loan determined at any time after origination will be less than or equal Tab 14, p.
to2 ofits
34
Page 84 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 15
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 15/390
Jt.45-Page 15
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
combined loan-to-value ratio at origination.
S-9
DEVELOPMENTS IN SPECIFIED STATES COULD HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT ON THE
MORTGAGE LOANS DUE TO THE GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTIES.
Approximately 45.55% of the Group I Mortgage Loans and approximately
71.63% of the Group II Mortgage Loans, in each case, by the related aggregate
principal balance as of the Cut-off Date, are secured by mortgaged properties
located in the State of California. Approximately 0.59% of the aggregate
principal balance of the Mortgage Loans as of the Cut-off Date, are located in a
single California zip code, which is the largest concentration of Mortgage Loans
in a single zip code. If the California residential real estate market should
experience an overall decline in property values after the dates of origination
of the Mortgage Loans, the rates of delinquencies, foreclosures, bankruptcies
and losses on the Mortgage Loans may increase over historical levels of
comparable type loans, and may increase substantially. In addition, properties
located in California may be more susceptible than homes located in other parts
of the country to certain types of uninsured hazards, such as earthquakes,
hurricanes, as well as floods, mudslides and other natural disasters.
Various hurricanes during the 2004 hurricane season may have adversely
affected any mortgaged properties located in the southeast portion of the United
States. The Mortgage Loan Seller will make a representation and warranty that
each mortgaged property is free of material damage and in good repair as of the
closing date. In the event that a mortgaged property is materially damaged as of
the closing date due to hurricanes occurring during the 2004 hurricane season
and such damage materially and adversely affects the value or the interests of
the certificateholders in such Mortgage Loan, the Mortgage Loan Seller will be
required to repurchase the related Mortgage Loan from the trust. Damage to
mortgaged properties as a result of the hurricanes occurring during the 2004
season may or may not be covered by the related hazard insurance policies.
Approximately 3.65% of the Group I Mortgage Loans and approximately 2.11% of the
Group II Mortgage Loans, in each case, by the related aggregate principal
balance as of the Cut-off Date, are located in areas which may have been
affected by hurricanes occurring during the 2004 hurricane season. In addition,
no assurance can be given as to the effect of these events on the rate of
delinquencies and losses on the Mortgage Loans secured by mortgaged properties
that may have been affected by hurricanes during the 2004 hurricane season. Any
adverse impact as a result of this event may be borne by the holders of the
offered certificates, particularly if the Mortgage Loan Seller fails to
repurchase any Mortgage Loan that breaches this representation and warranty.
SECOND LIEN MORTGAGE LOANS RISK.
Approximately 7.04% of the Group I Mortgage Loans and approximately 9.82%
of the Group II Mortgage Loans, in each case, by the related aggregate principal
balance as of the Cut-off Date, are secured by second liens on the related
mortgaged properties. The proceeds from any liquidation, insurance or
condemnation proceedings will be available to satisfy the outstanding balance of
such Mortgage Loans only to the extent that the claims of the related senior
mortgages have been satisfied in full, including any related foreclosure costs.
Page 406 of 1693
In circumstances when it has been determined to be uneconomical to foreclose on
the mortgaged property, the servicer may write off the entire balance Tab 14,of
p. 3 such
of 34
Page 85 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 16
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 16/390
Jt.45-Page 16
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
Mortgage Loan as a bad debt. The foregoing considerations will be particularly
applicable to Mortgage Loans secured by second liens that have high combined
loan-to-value ratios because it is comparatively more likely that the servicer
would determine foreclosure to be uneconomical in the case of such Mortgage
Loans. The rate of default of second lien Mortgage Loans may be greater than
that of Mortgage Loans secured by first liens on comparable properties.
BALLOON MORTGAGE LOAN RISK.
Mortgage Loans that are balloon loans pose a risk because a borrower must
make a large lump sum payment of principal at the end of the loan term. If the
borrower is unable to pay the lump sum or refinance such amount, the servicer
will not be obligated to advance the principal portion of
S-10
that lump sum payment, you may suffer a loss. Approximately 4.99% of the Group I
Mortgage Loans and approximately 9.36% of the Group II Mortgage Loans, in each
case, by related aggregate principal balance as of the Cut-off Date, are balloon
loans.
INTEREST ONLY MORTGAGE LOAN RISK.
Approximately 8.42% the Group I Mortgage Loans and approximately 27.30% of
the Group II Mortgage Loans, in each case, by related aggregate principal
balance as of the Cut-off Date, require the borrowers to make monthly payments
only of accrued interest for the first two, three or five years following
origination. After such interest-only period, the borrower's monthly payment
will be recalculated to cover both interest and principal so that the Mortgage
Loan will amortize fully prior to its final payment date. If the monthly payment
increases, the related borrower may not be able to pay the increased amount and
may default or may refinance the related Mortgage Loan to avoid the higher
payment. Because no principal payments may be made or advanced on such Mortgage
Loans for two, three or five years following origination, the certificateholders
will receive smaller principal distributions during such period than they would
have received if the related borrowers were required to make monthly payments of
interest and principal for the entire lives of such Mortgage Loans. This slower
rate of principal distributions may reduce the return on an investment in the
Offered Certificates that are purchased at a discount.
THE MEZZANINE CERTIFICATES WILL BE MORE SENSITIVE TO LOSSES ON THE MORTGAGE
LOANS THAN THE CLASS A CERTIFICATES BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE CLASS A
CERTIFICATES.
The weighted average lives of, and the yields to maturity on, the Class
M-1, Class M-2, Class M-3, Class M-4, Class M-5, Class M-6, Class M-7, Class
M-8, Class M-9, Class M-10 and Class M-11 Certificates will be progressively
more sensitive, in that order, to the rate and timing of mortgagor defaults and
the severity of ensuing losses on the Mortgage Loans. If the actual rate and
severity of losses on the Mortgage Loans is higher than those assumed by an
investor in these certificates, the actual yield to maturity of these
certificates may be lower than the yield anticipated by the investor based on
such assumption. The timing of losses on the Mortgage Loans will also affect an
investor's actual yield to maturity, Page 407 ofif
even 1693the rate of defaults and severity
of losses over the life of the mortgage pool are consistent with anTab 14, p. 4 of 34
investor's
Page 86 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 17
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 17/390
Jt.45-Page 17
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
expectations. In general, the earlier a loss occurs, the greater the effect on
an investor's yield to maturity. Realized losses on the Mortgage Loans, to the
extent they exceed the amount of excess interest, overcollateralization and the
aggregate certificate principal balance of the Class B Certificates, following
distributions of principal on the related Distribution Date, will reduce the
certificate principal balances of the Mezzanine Certificates beginning with the
class of Mezzanine Certificates then outstanding with the lowest payment
priority. As a result of such reductions, less interest will accrue on each such
class of Mezzanine Certificates than would otherwise be the case. However, the
amount of any realized losses allocated to the Mezzanine Certificates may be
distributed to the holders of those certificates according to the priorities set
forth under "Description of the Certificates--Overcollateralization Provisions"
in this prospectus supplement.
THE MEZZANINE CERTIFICATES GENERALLY WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PRINCIPAL
PAYMENTS UNTIL NOVEMBER 2007 WHICH MAY RESULT IN A GREATER RISK OF LOSS RELATING
TO THESE CERTIFICATES.
Unless the aggregate certificate principal balance of the Class A
Certificates has been reduced to zero, the Mezzanine Certificates will not be
entitled to any principal distributions until at least November 2007 or a later
date as provided in this prospectus supplement or during any period in which
delinquencies on the Mortgage Loans exceed the levels set forth under
"Description of the Certificates--Principal Distributions on the Offered
Certificates and the Class B Certificates" in this prospectus supplement. As a
result, the weighted average lives of the Mezzanine Certificates will be longer
than would be the case if distributions of principal were allocated among all of
the certificates at the same time. As a result of the longer weighted average
lives of the Mezzanine Certificates, the
S-11
holders of these certificates have a greater risk of suffering a loss on their
investments. Further, because such certificates might not receive any principal
if the delinquency levels set forth under "Description of the
Certificates--Principal Distributions on the Offered Certificates and the Class
B Certificates" in this prospectus supplement are exceeded, it is possible for
such certificates to receive no principal distributions on a particular
Distribution Date even if no losses have occurred on the mortgage pool.
THE OFFERED CERTIFICATES WILL BE LIMITED OBLIGATIONS SOLELY OF THE TRUST FUND
AND NOT OF ANY OTHER PARTY.
The Offered Certificates will not represent an interest in or obligation
of the depositor, the servicer, the master servicer, the securities
administrator, the originators, the trustee or any of their respective
affiliates. Neither the Offered Certificates nor the underlying Mortgage Loans
will be guaranteed or insured by any governmental agency or instrumentality, or
by the depositor, the servicer, the master servicer, the securities
administrator, the originators, the trustee or any of their respective
affiliates. Proceeds of the assets included in the trust will be the sole source
of payments on the Offered Certificates, and there will be no recourse to the
depositor, the servicer, the originators, the master servicer, the securities
Page 408
administrator, the trustee or any other of 1693 in the event that these proceeds
entity
are insufficient or otherwise unavailable to make all payments provided Tab 14, p. 5 offor
34
Page 87 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 18
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 18/390
Jt.45-Page 18
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
under the Offered Certificates.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PASS-THROUGH RATES ON THE CLASS A CERTIFICATES AND
MEZZANINE CERTIFICATES AND THE MORTGAGE RATES ON THE MORTGAGE LOANS MAY RESULT
IN INTEREST SHORTFALLS ON SUCH CERTIFICATES.
The yield to maturity on the Class A Certificates and the Mezzanine
Certificates may be affected by the resetting of the mortgage rates on the
adjustable-rate Mortgage Loans included in the mortgage pool on their related
adjustment dates. In addition, because the mortgage rate for approximately
77.26% of the Mortgage Loans, by aggregate principal balance as of the Cut-off
Date, adjusts based on Six-Month LIBOR plus a fixed percentage amount, such rate
could be higher than prevailing market interest rates, and this may result in an
increase in the rate of prepayments on such Mortgage Loans after their
adjustments. Finally, the mortgage rates on such adjustable-rate Mortgage Loans
are based on Six-Month LIBOR while the pass-through rates on the Class A
Certificates and the Mezzanine Certificates are based on one-month LIBOR.
Consequently, the application to such certificates of the rate cap, which is
generally equal to the weighted average coupon on the Mortgage Loans, net of
certain fees of the trust, could adversely affect the yield to maturity on such
certificates. In addition, the rate cap will decrease if Mortgage Loans with
relatively high mortgage rates prepay at a faster rate than Mortgage Loans with
relatively low mortgage rates.
If the pass-through rates on the Class A Certificates or the Mezzanine
Certificates are limited for any Distribution Date, the resulting interest
shortfalls may be recovered by the holders of these certificates on the same
Distribution Date or on future Distribution Dates on a subordinated basis to the
extent that on such Distribution Date or future Distribution Dates there are
available funds remaining after certain other distributions on the Offered
Certificates, the Class B Certificates and the payment of certain fees and
expenses of the trust. SEE "YIELD ON THE CERTIFICATES--SPECIAL YIELD
CONSIDERATIONS" IN THIS PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT.
THE RATE AND TIMING OF PRINCIPAL DISTRIBUTIONS ON THE CLASS A CERTIFICATES AND
THE MEZZANINE CERTIFICATES WILL BE AFFECTED BY PREPAYMENT SPEEDS AND BY THE
PRIORITY OF PAYMENT ON SUCH CERTIFICATES.
The rate and timing of distributions allocable to principal on the Class A
Certificates and the Mezzanine Certificates will depend, in general, on the rate
and timing of principal payments (including prepayments and collections upon
defaults, liquidations and repurchases) on the Mortgage Loans and the allocation
thereof to pay principal on such certificates as described in "Description of
the Certificates--Principal Distributions on the Offered Certificates and the
Class B Certificates" in this
S-12
prospectus supplement. As is the case with mortgage backed pass-through
certificates generally, the Offered Certificates are subject to substantial
inherent cash-flow uncertainties because the Mortgage Loans may be prepaid at
any time. However, with respect to approximately 78.76% of the Mortgage Loans,
by aggregate principal balance of the Mortgage Loans as of the Cut-off Date, a
prepayment may subject the relatedPagemortgagor
409 of 1693 to a prepayment charge. A
Tab 14,related
prepayment charge may or may not act as a deterrent to prepayment of the p. 6 of 34
Page 88 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 19
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 19/390
Jt.45-Page 19
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
Mortgage Loan. SEE "THE MORTGAGE POOL" IN THIS PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT.
Generally, when prevailing interest rates are increasing, prepayment rates
on mortgage loans tend to decrease; a decrease in the prepayment rates on the
Mortgage Loans will result in a reduced rate of return of principal to investors
in the Class A Certificates and the Mezzanine Certificates at a time when
reinvestment at such higher prevailing rates would be desirable. Conversely,
when prevailing interest rates are declining, prepayment rates on mortgage loans
tend to increase; an increase in the prepayment rates on the Mortgage Loans will
result in a greater rate of return of principal to investors in the Class A
Certificates and Mezzanine Certificates at a time when reinvestment at
comparable yields may not be possible.
Distributions of principal will be made to the holders of the Mezzanine
Certificates according to the priorities described in this prospectus
supplement. The timing of commencement of principal distributions and the
weighted average life of each such class of certificates will be affected by the
rates of prepayment on the Mortgage Loans experienced both before and after the
commencement of principal distributions on such classes. For further information
regarding the effect of principal prepayments on the weighted average lives of
the Offered Certificates, SEE "YIELD ON THE CERTIFICATES" IN THIS PROSPECTUS
SUPPLEMENT, INCLUDING THE TABLE ENTITLED "PERCENT OF INITIAL CERTIFICATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE OUTSTANDING AT THE SPECIFIED PERCENTAGES OF THE PREPAYMENT
ASSUMPTION."
THE YIELD TO MATURITY ON THE OFFERED CERTIFICATES WILL DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF
FACTORS.
The yield to maturity on the Offered Certificates will depend on:
o the applicable pass-through rate thereon;
o the applicable purchase price;
o the rate and timing of principal payments (including prepayments and
collections upon defaults, liquidations and repurchases) and the
allocation thereof to reduce the certificate principal balance of the
Offered Certificates; and
o the rate, timing and severity of realized losses on the Mortgage Loans,
adjustments to the mortgage rates on the adjustable-rate Mortgage Loans
included in the mortgage pool, the amount of excess interest generated
by the Mortgage Loans and the allocation to the Offered Certificates of
certain interest shortfalls.
In general, if the Offered Certificates are purchased at a premium and
principal distributions thereon occur at a rate faster than anticipated at the
time of purchase, the investor's actual yield to maturity will be lower than
that assumed at the time of purchase. Conversely, if the Offered Certificates
are purchased at a discount and principal distributions thereon occur at a rate
slower than that anticipated at the time of purchase, the investor's actual
yield to maturity will be lower than that originally assumed.
The proceeds to the Depositor from the sale of the Offered Certificates
were determined based on a number of assumptions, including a prepayment
assumption of 28% CPR with respect to Page
the410 of 1693
Tab 14, p. 7 of 34
Page 89 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 20
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 20/390
Jt.45-Page 20
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
S-13
adjustable- rate Mortgage Loans and 100% PPC with respect to the fixed-rate
Mortgage Loans as described in this prospectus supplement under "Yield on the
Certificates" and weighted average lives corresponding thereto. No
representation is made that the Mortgage Loans will prepay at such rate or at
any other rate. The yield assumptions for the Offered Certificates will vary as
determined at the time of sale.
THE YIELD TO MATURITY ON THE MEZZANINE CERTIFICATES WILL BE PARTICULARLY
SENSITIVE TO THE RATE OF PREPAYMENTS ON THE MORTGAGE LOANS.
The multiple class structure of the Mezzanine Certificates causes the
yield of these classes to be particularly sensitive to changes in the rates of
prepayment of the Mortgage Loans. Because distributions of principal will be
made to the holders of such certificates according to the priorities described
in this prospectus supplement, the yield to maturity on such classes of
certificates will be sensitive to the rates of prepayment on the Mortgage Loans
experienced both before and after the commencement of principal distributions on
such classes. The yield to maturity on such classes of certificates will also be
extremely sensitive to losses due to defaults on the Mortgage Loans (and the
timing thereof), to the extent these losses are not covered by excess cashflow
otherwise payable to the Class CE Certificates, to the Class B Certificates or
to a class of Mezzanine Certificates with a lower payment priority. Furthermore,
as described in this prospectus supplement, the timing of receipt of principal
and interest by the Mezzanine Certificates may be adversely affected by losses
even if these classes of certificates do not ultimately bear such loss.
VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS MAY RESULT IN LOSSES ON THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AND YOUR CERTIFICATES.
Applicable state laws generally regulate interest rates and other charges,
require certain disclosure, and require licensing of the originators. In
addition, other state laws, public policy and general principles of equity
relating to the protection of consumers, unfair and deceptive practices and debt
collection practices may apply to the origination, servicing and collection of
the Mortgage Loans.
The Mortgage Loans are also subject to federal laws, including:
o the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act and Regulation Z promulgated
thereunder, which require certain disclosures to the mortgagors
regarding the terms of the Mortgage Loans;
o the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B promulgated
thereunder, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, race,
color, sex, religion, marital status, national origin, receipt of
public assistance or the exercise of any right under the Consumer
Credit Protection Act, in the extension of credit;
o the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which regulates the use and reporting of
information related to the mortgagor's credit experience; and
o the Depository Institutions Page 411 of 1693
Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of
1980, which preempts certain state usury laws. Tab 14, p. 8 of 34
Page 90 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 21
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 21/390
Jt.45-Page 21
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
Violations of certain provisions of these federal and state laws may limit
the ability of the servicer to collect all or part of the principal of or
interest on the Mortgage Loans and in addition could subject the trust to
damages and administrative enforcement. In particular, the failure of the
originators to comply with certain requirements of the Federal Truth-in-Lending
Act, as implemented by Regulation Z, could subject the trust to monetary
penalties, and result in the mortgagors'
S-14
rescinding the Mortgage Loans against the trust. In addition to federal law,
some states have enacted, or may enact, laws or regulations that prohibit
inclusion of some provisions in Mortgage Loans that have interest rates or
origination costs in excess of prescribed levels, and require that mortgagors be
given certain disclosures prior to the consummation of the Mortgage Loans and
restrict the servicer's ability to foreclose in response to mortgagor defaults.
The failure of the originators to comply with these laws could subject the trust
to significant monetary penalties, could result in the mortgagors rescinding the
Mortgage Loans against the trust and/or limit the servicer's ability to
foreclose upon the related mortgaged properties in the event of mortgagor
defaults.
The mortgage loan seller will represent that, as of the Closing Date, each
Mortgage Loan is in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and
regulations. In the event of a breach of such representation, the mortgage loan
seller will be obligated to cure such breach or repurchase or replace the
affected Mortgage Loan in the manner described in the prospectus. If the
mortgage loan seller is unable or otherwise fails to satisfy such obligations,
the yield on the Offered Certificates may be materially and adversely affected.
THE TRANSFER OF SERVICING MAY RESULT IN HIGHER DELINQUENCIES AND DEFAULTS WHICH
MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE YIELD ON YOUR CERTIFICATES.
Although the servicer has agreed to act as primary servicer pursuant to the
terms and provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the transfer of the
primary servicing obligations with respect to all of the Mortgage Loans was not
completed as of the cut-off date. The primary servicing obligations are expected
to transfer from the originators (or other parties that are currently servicing
a portion of the Mortgage Loans) to the servicer no later than December 1, 2004.
All transfers of servicing involve the risk of disruption in collections due to
data input errors, misapplied or misdirected payments, system incompatibilities
and other reasons. As a result, the rate of delinquencies and defaults is likely
to increase at least for a period of time. There can be no assurance as to the
extent or duration of any disruptions associated with the transfer of servicing
or as to the resulting effects on the yield on your certificates.
INTEREST GENERATED BY THE MORTGAGE LOANS MAY BE INSUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN OR
RESTORE OVERCOLLATERALIZATION.
The Mortgage Loans are expected to generate more interest than is needed
to pay interest owed on the Offered Certificates and the Class B Certificates
and to pay certain fees and expenses of the trust. Any remaining interest
Page 412
generated by the Mortgage Loans will then beof 1693
used to absorb losses that occur on
the Mortgage Loans. After these financial obligations of the trust are Tab 14, p. 9 of 34
covered,
Page 91 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 22
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 22/390
Jt.45-Page 22
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
available excess interest generated by the Mortgage Loans will be used to
maintain or restore the overcollateralization. We cannot assure you, however,
that enough excess interest will be generated to maintain or restore the
required level of overcollateralization. The factors described below will affect
the amount of excess interest that the Mortgage Loans will generate:
o Every time a Mortgage Loan is prepaid in full, excess interest may be
reduced because such Mortgage Loan will no longer be outstanding and
generating interest or, in the case of a partial prepayment, will be
generating less interest.
o Every time a Mortgage Loan is liquidated or written off, excess
interest may be reduced because such Mortgage Loan will no longer be
outstanding and generating interest.
o If the rates of delinquencies, defaults or losses on the Mortgage Loans
are higher than expected, excess interest will be reduced by the amount
necessary to compensate for
S-15
any shortfalls in cash available to make required distributions on the
Offered Certificates and the Class B Certificates.
o The adjustable-rate Mortgage Loans have mortgage rates that adjust less
frequently than, and on the basis of an index that is different from
the index used to determine, the pass-through rates on the Offered
Certificates and the Class B Certificates, and the fixed-rate Mortgage
Loans have mortgage rates that do not adjust. As a result, the
pass-through rates on the Offered Certificates and the Class B
Certificates may increase relative to mortgage rates on the Mortgage
Loans, requiring that a greater portion of the interest generated by
the Mortgage Loans be applied to cover interest on such certificates.
INTEREST PAYMENTS ON THE MORTGAGE LOANS MAY BE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY INTEREST ON
YOUR CERTIFICATES.
When a Mortgage Loan is prepaid in full, the mortgagor is charged interest
only up to the date on which payment is made, rather than for an entire month.
This may result in a shortfall in interest collections available for payment on
the next Distribution Date. The servicer is required to cover a portion of the
shortfall in interest collections that are attributable to prepayments in full
on the Mortgage Loans, but only up to the servicing fee payable to the servicer
for the related interest accrual period. If the credit enhancement is
insufficient to cover this shortfall in excess of the amount the servicer
covers, you may incur a loss. In addition, the servicer will not cover
shortfalls in interest collections due to bankruptcy proceedings or the
application of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (the "Relief Act") or similar
state or local laws.
On any Distribution Date, any shortfalls resulting from the application of
the Relief Act or similar state or local laws and any prepayment interest
shortfalls to the extent not covered by compensating interest paid by the
servicer will be allocated, first, toPage
the413 Class
of 1693 CE-1 Certificates, second, to
the Class B Certificates, third, to the Class M-11 Certificates, fourth,Tab 14, p. to
10 ofthe
34
Page 92 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 23
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 23/390
Jt.45-Page 23
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
Class M-10 Certificates, fifth, to the Class M-9 Certificates, sixth, to the
Class M-8 Certificates, seventh, to the Class M-7 Certificates, eighth, to the
Class M-6 Certificates, ninth, to the Class M-5 Certificates, tenth, to the
Class M-4 Certificates, eleventh, to the Class M-3 Certificates, twelfth, to the
Class M-2 Certificates, thirteenth, to the Class M-1 Certificates and
fourteenth, to the Class A Certificates, on a PRO RATA basis, based on their
respective senior interest distribution amounts for such Distribution Date
before such reduction. The holders of the Offered Certificates and the Class B
Certificates will be entitled to reimbursement for any such interest shortfalls
but only to the extent of available funds and in the order of priority set forth
under "Description of the Certificates--Overcollateralization Provisions." If
these shortfalls are allocated to the Offered Certificates and the Class B
Certificates the amount of interest paid to those certificates will be reduced,
adversely affecting the yield on your investment.
THE LIQUIDITY OF YOUR CERTIFICATES MAY BE LIMITED.
The Underwriter has no obligation to make a secondary market in the
classes of Offered Certificates. There is therefore no assurance that a
secondary market will develop or, if it develops, that it will continue.
Consequently, you may not be able to sell your certificates readily or at prices
that will enable you to realize your desired yield. The market values of the
certificates are likely to fluctuate; these fluctuations may be significant and
could result in significant losses to you.
The secondary markets for asset-backed securities have experienced periods
of illiquidity and can be expected to do so in the future. Illiquidity can have
a severely adverse effect on the prices of securities that are especially
sensitive to prepayment, credit or interest rate risk, or that have been
structured to meet the investment requirements of limited categories of
investors.
S-16
THE CAP AGREEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO COUNTERPARTY RISK
The assets of the trust include the Cap Agreements which will require the
counterparty thereunder to make certain payments for the benefit of the holders
of the Offered Certificates and the Class B Certificates. To the extent that
distributions on the Offered Certificates and the Class B Certificates depend in
part on payments to be received by the trustee under the Cap Agreements, the
ability of the trustee to make such distributions on the Offered Certificates
and the Class B Certificates will be subject to the credit risk of the
counterparty to the Cap Agreements. Although there is a mechanism in place to
facilitate replacement of the Cap Agreements upon the default or credit
impairment of the counterparty, there can be no assurance that any such
mechanism will result in the ability of the trustee to obtain suitable
replacement Cap Agreements.
THE RETURN ON YOUR CERTIFICATES COULD BE REDUCED BY SHORTFALLS DUE TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE RELIEF ACT.
The Relief Act and similar state or local laws provide relief to
Page 414 of 1693
mortgagors who enter active military service and to mortgagors in reserve status
who are called to active military service after the origination Tab 14,of
p. 11 of 34
their
Page 93 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 24
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 24/390
Jt.45-Page 24
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
mortgage loans. The ongoing military operations of the United States in Iraq and
Afghanistan have caused an increase in the number of citizens in active military
duty, including those citizens previously in reserve status. Under the Relief
Act the interest rate applicable to a mortgage loan for which the related
mortgagor is called to active military service will be reduced from the
percentage stated in the related mortgage note to 6.00%. This interest rate
reduction and any reduction provided under similar state or local laws could
result in an interest shortfall because neither the master servicer nor the
servicer will be able to collect the amount of interest which otherwise would be
payable with respect to such Mortgage Loan if the Relief Act or similar state or
local law was not applicable thereto. This shortfall will not be paid by the
mortgagor on future due dates or advanced by the master servicer or the servicer
and, therefore, will reduce the amount available to pay interest to the
certificateholders on subsequent Distribution Dates. We do not know how many
Mortgage Loans in the mortgage pool have been or may be affected by the
application of the Relief Act or similar state or local law.
POSSIBLE REDUCTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF RATINGS ON THE OFFERED CERTIFICATES.
Each rating agency rating the Offered Certificates may change or withdraw
its initial ratings at any time in the future if, in its judgment, circumstances
warrant a change. No person is obligated to maintain the ratings at their
initial levels. If a rating agency reduces or withdraws its rating on one or
more classes of the Offered Certificates, the liquidity and market value of the
affected certificates is likely to be reduced.
SUITABILITY OF THE OFFERED CERTIFICATES AS INVESTMENTS.
The Offered Certificates are not suitable investments for any investor
that requires a regular or predictable schedule of monthly payments or payment
on any specific date. The Offered Certificates are complex investments that
should be considered only by investors who, either alone or with their
financial, tax and legal advisors, have the expertise to analyze the prepayment,
reinvestment, default and market risk, the tax consequences of an investment and
the interaction of these factors.
ALL CAPITALIZED TERMS USED IN THIS PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT WILL HAVE THE
MEANINGS ASSIGNED TO THEM UNDER "DESCRIPTION OF THE CERTIFICATES--GLOSSARY" OR
IN THE PROSPECTUS UNDER "INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS."
S-17
USE OF PROCEEDS
DB Structured Products, Inc. (the "Mortgage Loan Seller"), will sell the
Mortgage Loans to Ace Securities Corp. (the "Depositor") and the Depositor will
convey the Mortgage Loans to the trust fund in exchange for and concurrently
with the delivery of the certificates. Net proceeds from the sale of the Offered
Certificates will be applied by the Depositor to the purchase of the Mortgage
Loans from the Mortgage Loan Seller. Such net proceeds together with certain
classes of certificates not offered by this prospectus supplement will represent
the purchase price to be paid by the Depositor to the Mortgage Loan Seller for
the Mortgage Loans. The Mortgage Loans were previously purchased by the Mortgage
Page 415 of 1693
Loan Seller directly from the originators.
Tab 14, p. 12 of 34
Page 94 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 25
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 25/390
Jt.45-Page 25
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
THE MORTGAGE POOL
GENERAL
The pool of mortgage loans (the "Mortgage Pool") will consist of
approximately 5,906 conventional, one- to four-family, first and second lien,
fixed-rate and adjustable-rate mortgage loans (the "Mortgage Loans") on
residential real properties (the "Mortgaged Properties") and having an aggregate
principal balance as of the Cut-off Date of approximately $1,105,596,756, after
application of scheduled payments due on or before the Cut-off Date whether or
not received, and subject to a permitted variance of plus or minus 5%. The
Mortgage Loans have original terms to maturity of not greater than approximately
30 years. For purposes of calculating interest and principal distributions on
the Class A Certificates, the Mortgage Loans have been divided into two loan
groups, designated as the "Group I Mortgage Loans" and the "Group II Mortgage
Loans." The Group I Mortgage Loans consist of 4,325 fixed-rate and
adjustable-rate mortgage loans having an aggregate principal balance as of the
Cut-off Date of approximately $638,781,694, after application of scheduled
payments due on or before the Cut-off Date whether or not received, and subject
to a permitted variance of plus or minus 5%. The principal balances of the Group
I Mortgage Loans at origination conformed to Fannie Mae loan limits. The Group
II Mortgage Loans consist of 1,581 fixed-rate and adjustable-rate mortgage loans
having an aggregate principal balance as of the Cut-off Date of approximately
$466,815,062, after application of scheduled payments due on or before the
Cut-off Date whether or not received, and subject to a permitted variance of
plus or minus 5%. The principal balances of the Group II Mortgage Loans at
origination may or may not have conformed to Fannie Mae loan limits.
Approximately 76.77% of the Mortgage Loans, by aggregate principal balance
as of the Cut-off Date, provide for level monthly payments in an amount
sufficient fully to amortize the Mortgage Loans over their terms or, in the case
of adjustable rate Mortgage Loans, monthly payments that will be adjusted to an
amount that will amortize such Mortgage Loans fully over their terms.
Approximately 6.83% of the Mortgage Loans, by aggregate principal balance as of
the Cut-off Date, are balloon loans (the "Balloon Loans"), which require the
related mortgagors to make balloon payments on the maturity date of such Balloon
Loans that are larger than the monthly payments made by such mortgagors on prior
due dates in order to amortize such Balloon Loans fully over their terms.
Approximately 16.39% of the Mortgage Loans, by aggregate principal balance as of
the Cut-off Date, are interest only loans (the "Interest Only Loans") which
require the related mortgagors to make monthly payments of only accrued interest
for the first two, three or five years following origination. After such
interest-only period, the mortgagor's monthly payment will be recalculated to
cover both interest and principal so that such Mortgage Loan will amortize fully
on or prior to its final payment date.
Approximately 91.79% of the Mortgage Loans, by aggregate principal balance
as of the Cut-off Date, are secured by first mortgages or deeds of trust or
other similar security instruments creating first liens on residential
properties ("First Lien Mortgage Loans"). Approximately 8.21% of the Mortgage
Loans, by aggregate principal balance as of the Cut-off Date, are secured by
second
S-18
Page 416 of 1693
Tab 14, p. 13 of 34
Page 95 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 26
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 26/390
Jt.45-Page 26
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
mortgages or deeds of trust or other similar security instruments creating
second liens on residential properties ("Second Lien Mortgage Loans"). The
Mortgaged Properties consist of attached, detached or semi-detached, one to
four-family dwelling units, individual condominium units and individual units in
planned unit developments.
References to percentages of the Mortgage Loans, unless otherwise noted,
are calculated based on the aggregate principal balance of the Mortgage Loans as
of the Cut-off Date.
The mortgage rate (the "Mortgage Rate") on each Mortgage Loan is the per
annum rate of interest specified in the related mortgage note as reduced by
application of the Relief Act or similar state or local laws and bankruptcy
adjustments. Approximately 22.74% of the Mortgage Loans are fixed-rate mortgage
loans and approximately 77.26% of the Mortgage Loans are adjustable-rate
mortgage loans. The adjustable-rate mortgage loans are referred to herein as
"ARM Loans". All of the ARM Loans provide for semi-annual adjustment to the
Mortgage Rates applicable thereto based on Six-Month LIBOR (as described below).
The first adjustment with respect to each ARM Loan will not occur until after an
initial period of six months or two, three or five years from the date of
origination thereof (each, a "Delayed First Adjustment Mortgage Loan"). In
connection with each Mortgage Rate adjustment, the ARM Loans have corresponding
adjustments to their monthly payment amount, in each case on each applicable
adjustment date (each such date, an "Adjustment Date"). On each Adjustment Date,
the Mortgage Rate on each ARM Loan will be adjusted generally to equal the sum
of Six-Month LIBOR and a fixed percentage amount (the "Gross Margin") for that
ARM Loan specified in the related mortgage note. The Mortgage Rate on each ARM
Loan, however, including each Delayed First Adjustment Mortgage Loan, will not
increase or decrease by more than the initial periodic rate cap (the "Periodic
Rate Cap") specified in the related mortgage note on the initial Adjustment Date
or increase or decrease by more than the subsequent periodic rate cap (the
"Subsequent Periodic Rate Cap") specified in the related mortgage note on any
subsequent Adjustment Date and will not exceed a specified maximum mortgage rate
(the "Maximum Mortgage Rate") over the life of the ARM Loan or be less than a
specified minimum mortgage rate (the "Minimum Mortgage Rate") over the life of
the ARM Loan. The weighted average initial Periodic Rate Cap and Subsequent
Periodic Rate Cap for the ARM Loans is approximately 2.170% per annum and 1.002%
per annum, respectively. Effective with the first monthly payment due on each
ARM Loan after each related Adjustment Date, the monthly payment amount will be
adjusted to an amount that will fully amortize the outstanding principal balance
of the related ARM Loan over its remaining term and pay interest at the Mortgage
Rate as so adjusted. Due to the application of the Periodic Rate Caps and the
Maximum Mortgage Rates, the Mortgage Rate on each ARM Loan, as adjusted on any
related Adjustment Date, may be less than the sum of the Index, calculated as
described in this prospectus supplement, and the related Gross Margin. See
"--The Index" in this prospectus supplement. None of the ARM Loans permit the
related mortgagor to convert the adjustable Mortgage Rate thereon to a fixed
Mortgage Rate.
Substantially all of the Mortgage Loans have scheduled monthly payments
due on the first day of the month (with respect to each Mortgage Loan, the "Due
Date"). Each Mortgage Loan will contain a customary "due-on-sale" clause which
provides that the Mortgage Loan must be repaid at the time of a sale of the
related Mortgaged Property or assumed by a creditworthy purchaser of the related
Mortgaged Property.
Page 417 of 1693
Approximately 78.76% of the Mortgage Loans provide Tab 14, p. by
for payment 14 ofthe
34
Page 96 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 27
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 27/390
Jt.45-Page 27
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
mortgagor of a prepayment charge (a "Prepayment Charge") in limited
circumstances on certain prepayments as provided in the related mortgage note.
Each such Mortgage Loan provides for payment of a Prepayment Charge on certain
partial prepayments and all prepayments in full made up to five years from the
date of origination of the Mortgage Loan, as provided in the related mortgage
note. The amount of the Prepayment Charge is as provided in the related mortgage
note, but, in most cases, is equal to six months' interest on any amounts
prepaid in excess of 20% of the original principal balance of the related
Mortgage Loan in any 12 month period, as permitted by law. The holders of the
S-19
Class P Certificates will be entitled to all Prepayment Charges received on the
Mortgage Loans, and these amounts will not be available for distribution on the
other classes of certificates. Under the limited instances described under the
terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, the servicer may waive the payment
of any otherwise applicable Prepayment Charge with respect to the Mortgage
Loans. As of July 1, 2003, the Alternative Mortgage Parity Act of 1982 (the
"Parity Act"), which regulates the ability of originators to impose prepayment
charges, was amended, and as a result, the originators will be required to
comply with state and local laws in originating mortgage loans with prepayment
charge provisions with respect to loans originated on or after July 1, 2003. The
Depositor makes no representations as to the effect that the prepayment charges
and the recent amendment of the Parity Act may have on the prepayment
performance of the Mortgage Loans. However, the recent amendment of the Parity
Act does not retroactively affect loans originated before July 1, 2003.
Investors should conduct their own analysis of the effect, if any, that the
Prepayment Charges, decisions by the servicer with respect to the waiver of the
Prepayment Charges and the recent amendment to the Parity Act, may have on the
prepayment performance of the Mortgage Loans. The Depositor makes no
representation as to the effect that the Prepayment Charges, decisions by the
servicer with respect to the waiver of the Prepayment Charges and the recent
amendment to the Parity Act, may have on the prepayment performance of the
Mortgage Loans. See "Certain Legal Aspects of the Loans-Enforceability of
Prepayment and Late Payment Fees" in the prospectus.
MORTGAGE LOAN CHARACTERISTICS
The average principal balance of the Mortgage Loans at origination was
approximately $187,372. No Mortgage Loan had a principal balance at origination
greater than approximately $850,000 or less than approximately $4,500. The
average principal balance of the Mortgage Loans as of the Cut-off Date was
approximately $187,199. No Mortgage Loan had a principal balance as of the
Cut-off Date greater than approximately $849,286 or less than approximately
$3,440.
The Mortgage Loans had Mortgage Rates as of the Cut-off Date ranging from
approximately 4.625% per annum to approximately 13.125% per annum, and the
weighted average Mortgage Rate was approximately 7.190% per annum. As of the
Cut-off Date, the ARM Loans had Gross Margins ranging from approximately 1.000%
per annum to approximately 9.750% per annum, Minimum Mortgage Rates ranging from
approximately 3.250% per annum to approximately 12.000% per annum and Maximum
Mortgage Rates ranging from approximately 8.375% per annum to approximately
Page 418 the
18.625% per annum. As of the Cut-off Date, of 1693weighted average Gross Margin was
approximately 5.874%, the weighted average Minimum MortgageTab 14,
Ratep. 15 ofwas
34
Page 97 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 28
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 28/390
Jt.45-Page 28
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
approximately 6.874% per annum and the weighted average Maximum Mortgage Rate
was approximately 13.313% per annum. The latest first Adjustment Date following
the Cut-off Date on any ARM Loan occurs on October 1, 2009 and the weighted
average next Adjustment Date for all of the ARM Loans following the Cut-off Date
is November 2, 2006.
The weighted average combined loan-to-value ratio of the Mortgage Loans at
origination was approximately 82.37%. At origination, no Mortgage Loan had a
combined loan-to-value ratio greater than approximately 100.00% or less than
approximately 17.24%.
The weighted average remaining term to stated maturity of the Mortgage
Loans was approximately 344 months as of the Cut-off Date. None of the Mortgage
Loans will have a first due date prior to January 1, 2000 or after November 1,
2004 or will have a remaining term to stated maturity of less than 42 months or
greater than 360 months as of the Cut-off Date. The latest maturity date of any
Mortgage Loan is October 1, 2034.
As of the Cut-off Date, the weighted average FICO Score for the Mortgage
Loans that were scored is approximately 640. No Mortgage Loan which was scored
had a FICO Score as of the Cut-off Date greater than 900 or less than 500.
S-20
The Mortgage Loans are expected to have the following additional
characteristics as of the Cut-off Date (the sum in any column may not equal the
total indicated due to rounding):
S-21
COLLATERAL TYPE OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
COLLATERAL TYPE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed - 5 Year ............... 1 $ 3,440 0.00%
Fixed - 15 Year .............. 100 10,501,546 0.95
Fixed - 20 Year .............. 21 2,221,645 0.20
Fixed - 30 Year .............. 995 163,114,904 14.75
Balloon - 20/30 .............. 7 271,977 0.02
Balloon - 15/30 .............. 1,210 75,278,126 6.81
ARM - 6 Month ................ 11 2,644,884 0.24
ARM - 2 Year/6 Month ......... 2,729 608,106,352 55.00
ARM - 2 Year/6 Month - IO .... 506 163,444,909 14.78
ARM - 3 Year/6 Month ......... 156 34,059,374 3.08
ARM - 3 Year/6 Month - IO .... 6 1,445,352 0.13
ARM - 5 Year/6 Month ......... 115 28,163,925 2.55
ARM - 5 Year/6 Month - IO .... 49 16,340,322 1.48
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906Page 419 of$1693
1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== Tab 14, p. 16 of 34
======
Page 98 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 29
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 29/390
Jt.45-Page 29
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
LIEN PRIORITY OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
LIEN PRIORITY LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Lien ................... 4,410 $ 1,014,783,288 91.79%
Second Lien .................. 1,496 90,813,468 8.21
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-22
PRINCIPAL BALANCES OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS AT ORIGINATION
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AT OUTSTANDING AT
AT ORIGINATION ($) LOANS ORIGINATION ORIGINATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.01 - 50,000.00 ...... 754 $ 26,162,322 2.36%
50,000.01 - 100,000.00 ...... 1,297 95,612,325 8.64
100,000.01 - 150,000.00 ...... 945 118,138,388 10.68
150,000.01 - 200,000.00 ...... 732 127,997,121 11.57
200,000.01 - 250,000.00 ...... 604 135,837,674 12.28
250,000.01 - 300,000.00 ...... 433 119,080,795 10.76
300,000.01 - 350,000.00 ...... 349 113,575,423 10.26
350,000.01 - 400,000.00 ...... 260 97,352,659 8.80
400,000.01 - 450,000.00 ...... 170 72,595,521 6.56
450,000.01 - 500,000.00 ...... 137 65,553,066 5.92
500,000.01 - 550,000.00 ...... 79 41,561,160 3.76
550,000.01 - 600,000.00 ...... 64 36,936,487 3.34
600,000.01 - 650,000.00 ...... 34 21,328,808 1.93
650,000.01 - 700,000.00 ...... 20 13,464,860 1.22
700,000.01 - 750,000.00 ...... 16 11,782,011 1.06
750,000.01 - 800,000.00 ...... 7 5,462,400 0.49
800,000.01 - 850,000.00 ...... 5 4,178,500 0.38
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,106,619,520 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-23
PRINCIPAL BALANCES OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AS OF THE CUT-OFF DATE
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER Page
OF 420 PRINCIPAL
of 1693 BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF Tab 14, p. 17
OUTSTANDING ASof 34
OF
Page 99 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 30
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 30/390
Jt.45-Page 30
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
AS OF THE CUT-OFF DATE ($) LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.01 - 50,000.00 ...... 754 $ 26,111,070 2.36%
50,000.01 - 100,000.00 ...... 1,300 95,829,396 8.67
100,000.01 - 150,000.00 ...... 944 118,023,947 10.68
150,000.01 - 200,000.00 ...... 732 127,970,161 11.57
200,000.01 - 250,000.00 ...... 602 135,301,588 12.24
250,000.01 - 300,000.00 ...... 433 118,972,182 10.76
300,000.01 - 350,000.00 ...... 349 113,485,108 10.26
350,000.01 - 400,000.00 ...... 261 97,676,826 8.83
400,000.01 - 450,000.00 ...... 171 73,035,599 6.61
450,000.01 - 500,000.00 ...... 135 64,601,724 5.84
500,000.01 - 550,000.00 ...... 79 41,522,387 3.76
550,000.01 - 600,000.00 ...... 64 36,898,771 3.34
600,000.01 - 650,000.00 ...... 34 21,307,368 1.93
650,000.01 - 700,000.00 ...... 20 13,455,314 1.22
700,000.01 - 750,000.00 ...... 16 11,773,906 1.06
750,000.01 - 800,000.00 ...... 7 5,456,420 0.49
800,000.01 - 850,000.00 ...... 5 4,174,990 0.38
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-24
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTIES OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
LOCATION LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California ................... 2,627 $ 625,353,356 56.56%
Florida ...................... 420 57,345,975 5.19
New York ..................... 184 45,473,605 4.11
Illinois ..................... 254 37,675,624 3.41
Maryland ..................... 199 34,772,113 3.15
Texas ........................ 297 31,102,351 2.81
Nevada ....................... 174 30,147,238 2.73
Virginia ..................... 180 28,221,217 2.55
Arizona ...................... 182 23,810,076 2.15
New Jersey ................... 107 22,956,145 2.08
Washington ................... 97 15,234,943 1.38
Connecticut .................. 68 14,115,162 1.28
Massachusetts ................ 65 13,598,951 1.23
Colorado ..................... 82 12,062,185 1.09
Pennsylvania ................. 96 11,701,230 1.06
Georgia ...................... 88 11,588,406 1.05
Ohio ......................... 91 9,127,536 0.83
Hawaii ....................... 35 8,942,572 0.81
Michigan ..................... 79 7,850,428 0.71
Louisiana .................... 90 6,833,801 0.62
Oregon ....................... 40 6,164,187 0.56
Rhode Island ................. 27Page 421 of 1693 5,096,637 0.46
North Carolina ............... 46 4,888,846 Tab 14, p. 18 of 34
0.44
Page 100 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 31
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 31/390
Jt.45-Page 31
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
Tennessee .................... 42 4,290,919 0.39
District of Columbia ......... 21 4,214,708 0.38
Indiana ...................... 49 4,084,614 0.37
Montana ...................... 27 3,947,997 0.36
Missouri ..................... 38 3,298,246 0.30
Utah ......................... 31 3,246,162 0.29
Minnesota .................... 19 2,650,186 0.24
New Mexico ................... 15 1,996,927 0.18
South Carolina ............... 16 1,691,238 0.15
New Hampshire ................ 12 1,641,325 0.15
Delaware ..................... 9 1,443,224 0.13
Oklahoma ..................... 15 1,323,790 0.12
Mississippi .................. 14 1,276,034 0.12
Idaho ........................ 17 1,187,780 0.11
Kentucky ..................... 13 1,185,111 0.11
Wisconsin .................... 12 1,087,738 0.10
Arkansas ..................... 9 657,138 0.06
Maine ........................ 3 594,933 0.05
Kansas ....................... 5 554,373 0.05
Iowa ......................... 4 313,667 0.03
West Virginia ................ 3 276,305 0.02
Alaska ....................... 1 224,841 0.02
Wyoming ...................... 1 214,291 0.02
Alabama ...................... 1 75,887 0.01
Nebraska ..................... 1 56,737 0.01
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-25
MORTGAGE RATES OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS AS OF THE CUT-OFF DATE
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
MORTGAGE RATE (%) LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.500 - 4.999 .............. 14 $ 5,214,393 0.47%
5.000 - 5.499 .............. 73 21,422,971 1.94
5.500 - 5.999 .............. 487 139,767,048 12.64
6.000 - 6.499 .............. 572 151,462,195 13.70
6.500 - 6.999 .............. 1,209 310,448,348 28.08
7.000 - 7.499 .............. 584 129,286,907 11.69
7.500 - 7.999 .............. 781 157,104,705 14.21
8.000 - 8.499 .............. 281 47,420,132 4.29
8.500 - 8.999 .............. 423 47,949,972 4.34
9.000 - 9.499 .............. 122 12,249,129 1.11
9.500 - 9.999 .............. 456 30,831,367 2.79
10.000 - 10.499 .............. 124 7,882,956 0.71
10.500 - 10.999 .............. 484 30,855,322 2.79
11.000 - 11.499 .............. 77 3,875,132 0.35
11.500 - 11.999 .............. 98 4,723,338 0.43
12.000 - 12.499 .............. 32Page 422 of 1693 1,565,015 0.14
12.500 - 12.999 .............. 88 3,488,449 Tab 14, p. 19 of 34
0.32
Page 101 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 32
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 32/390
Jt.45-Page 32
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
13.000 - 13.499 .............. 1 49,378 0.00
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
ORIGINAL TERM OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
ORIGINAL TERM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 months ................... 1 $ 3,440 0.00%
180 months ................... 1,310 85,779,672 7.76
240 months ................... 28 2,493,622 0.23
360 months ................... 4,567 1,017,320,022 92.02
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-26
REMAINING TERM TO STATED MATURITY OF
THE MORTGAGE LOANS AS OF THE CUT-OFF DATE
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
REMAINING TERM MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
TO STATED MATURITY LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 - 60 months .............. 1 $ 3,440 0.00%
121 - 180 months ............. 1,310 85,779,672 7.76
181 - 240 months ............. 28 2,493,622 0.23
301 - 360 months ............. 4,567 1,017,320,022 92.02
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
PROPERTY TYPES OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
PROPERTY TYPE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Family Residence ...... 4,224 $ 783,458,393 70.86%
PUD .......................... 798 146,272,345 13.23
Condominium .................. 548 97,323,992 8.80
2-4 Family ................... 336 78,542,025 7.10
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
=====Page 423 of===============
1693 ======
Tab 14, p. 20 of 34
Page 102 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 33
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 33/390
Jt.45-Page 33
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
ORIGINAL COMBINED LOAN-TO-VALUE RATIOS OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
ORIGINAL COMBINED MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
LOAN-TO-VALUE RATIO (%) LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than or equal to 50.00 .. 96 $ 12,348,361 1.12%
50.01 - 55.00 ............... 54 10,362,259 0.94
55.01 - 60.00 ............... 83 15,467,875 1.40
60.01 - 65.00 ............... 123 24,547,367 2.22
65.01 - 70.00 ............... 207 42,745,622 3.87
70.01 - 75.00 ............... 274 66,587,869 6.02
75.01 - 80.00 ............... 2,020 484,226,587 43.80
80.01 - 85.00 ............... 456 104,596,389 9.46
85.01 - 90.00 ............... 735 165,964,792 15.01
90.01 - 95.00 ............... 446 86,566,138 7.83
95.01 - 100.00 ............... 1,412 92,183,495 8.34
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-27
DOCUMENTATION TYPE OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
DOCUMENTATION TYPE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full/Alternative
Documentation .............. 3,383 $ 605,387,443 54.76%
Stated Income Documentation .. 2,045 391,638,651 35.42
Limited/Lite Documentation ... 473 107,731,672 9.74
No Income Documentation ...... 5 838,990 0.08
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
FICO SCORE FOR THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
FICO SCORE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 - 524 .................... 99 $ 16,447,273 1.49%
525 - 549 .................... 244 44,043,211 3.98
550 - 574 .................... 396 83,118,445 7.52
575 - 599 .................... 584 111,608,079 10.09
600 - 624 .................... 1,021Page 424 of 1693 193,617,600 17.51
625 - 649 .................... 1,179 210,604,439 Tab 14, p. 21 of 34
19.05
Page 103 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 34
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 34/390
Jt.45-Page 34
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
650 - 674 .................... 920 166,032,839 15.02
675 - 699 .................... 614 116,883,843 10.57
700 - 724 .................... 352 66,808,648 6.04
725 - 749 .................... 256 47,263,950 4.27
750 - 774 .................... 172 35,686,535 3.23
775 - 799 .................... 62 11,908,892 1.08
800 - 824 .................... 6 1,485,687 0.13
Greater than or equal to 900 . 1 87,314 0.01
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
LOAN PURPOSE OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
LOAN PURPOSE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchase ..................... 3,292 $ 553,143,875 50.03%
Refinance - Cashout .......... 1,994 428,296,723 38.74
Refinance - Rate Term ........ 620 124,156,158 11.23
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-28
OCCUPANCY STATUS OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
OCCUPANCY STATUS LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary ...................... 5,452 $ 1,031,590,011 93.31%
Investment ................... 358 57,190,969 5.17
Second Home .................. 96 16,815,776 1.52
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
The occupancy status of a Mortgaged Property is as represented by the mortgagor
in its loan application.
NEXT ADJUSTMENT DATES FOR THE ARM LOANS INCLUDED IN THE MORTGAGE POOL
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
NEXT ADJUSTMENT DATE ARM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
Page 425 of 1693
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 2004 ................ 1 $ 31,222 Tab 14, p. 22 of 34
0.00%
Page 104 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 35
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 35/390
Jt.45-Page 35
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
January 2005 ................. 1 114,203 0.01
February 2005 ................ 3 564,869 0.07
March 2005 ................... 8 2,151,276 0.25
August 2005 .................. 2 239,951 0.03
September 2005 ............... 1 47,064 0.01
December 2005 ................ 1 85,051 0.01
January 2006 ................. 1 80,260 0.01
February 2006 ................ 4 539,436 0.06
April 2006 ................... 3 838,349 0.10
May 2006 ..................... 3 418,221 0.05
June 2006 .................... 15 3,517,834 0.41
July 2006 .................... 67 17,896,974 2.10
August 2006 .................. 633 161,983,508 18.96
September 2006 ............... 2,474 579,752,085 67.87
October 2006 ................. 29 5,935,841 0.69
May 2007 ..................... 1 187,239 0.02
June 2007 .................... 1 186,951 0.02
July 2007 .................... 5 1,196,222 0.14
August 2007 .................. 34 7,732,516 0.91
September 2007 ............... 120 26,037,798 3.05
October 2007 ................. 1 164,000 0.02
July 2009 .................... 5 2,225,202 0.26
August 2009 .................. 34 8,943,709 1.05
September 2009 ............... 124 32,921,336 3.85
October 2009 ................. 1 414,000 0.05
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 3,572 $ 854,205,118 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-29
GROSS MARGINS OF THE ARM LOANS INCLUDED IN THE MORTGAGE POOL
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
GROSS MARGIN (%) ARM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.000 - 1.499 ................ 2 $ 178,798 0.02%
3.000 - 3.499 ................ 2 554,350 0.06
3.500 - 3.999 ................ 115 34,196,896 4.00
4.000 - 4.499 ................ 24 5,914,136 0.69
4.500 - 4.999 ................ 218 57,587,742 6.74
5.000 - 5.499 ................ 911 208,743,099 24.44
5.500 - 5.999 ................ 624 166,978,527 19.55
6.000 - 6.499 ................ 682 171,782,150 20.11
6.500 - 6.999 ................ 470 106,027,738 12.41
7.000 - 7.499 ................ 247 53,189,353 6.23
7.500 - 7.999 ................ 163 31,664,014 3.71
8.000 - 8.499 ................ 100 15,842,050 1.85
8.500 - 8.999 ................ 12 1,277,920 0.15
9.000 - 9.499 ................ 1 83,268 0.01
9.500 - 9.999 ................ 1 185,077 0.02
-----Page 426 of---------------
1693 ------
Total ................... 3,572 $ 854,205,118 Tab 14, p. 23 of 34
100.00%
Page 105 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 36
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 36/390
Jt.45-Page 36
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
===== =============== ======
MAXIMUM MORTGAGE RATES OF THE ARM LOANS INCLUDED IN THE MORTGAGE POOL
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
MAXIMUM MORTGAGE RATE (%) ARM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.000 - 8.499 .............. 1 $ 215,000 0.03%
10.000 - 10.499 .............. 1 175,359 0.02
10.500 - 10.999 .............. 1 129,911 0.02
11.000 - 11.499 .............. 22 7,069,395 0.83
11.500 - 11.999 .............. 109 29,114,588 3.41
12.000 - 12.499 .............. 478 137,256,368 16.07
12.500 - 12.999 .............. 527 141,264,995 16.54
13.000 - 13.499 .............. 872 228,239,859 26.72
13.500 - 13.999 .............. 548 124,525,400 14.58
14.000 - 14.499 .............. 508 107,560,035 12.59
14.500 - 14.999 .............. 236 42,339,534 4.96
15.000 - 15.499 .............. 164 25,137,054 2.94
15.500 - 15.999 .............. 62 7,507,007 0.88
16.000 - 16.499 .............. 26 2,650,517 0.31
16.500 - 16.999 .............. 9 586,191 0.07
17.000 - 17.499 .............. 3 193,029 0.02
17.500 - 17.999 .............. 4 209,655 0.02
18.500 - 18.999 .............. 1 31,222 0.00
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 3,572 $ 854,205,118 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-30
MINIMUM MORTGAGE RATES OF THE ARM LOANS INCLUDED IN THE MORTGAGE POOL
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
MINIMUM MORTGAGE RATE (%) ARM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.000 - 3.499 .............. 1 $ 309,550 0.04%
4.000 - 4.499 .............. 3 587,036 0.07
4.500 - 4.999 .............. 23 7,297,664 0.85
5.000 - 5.499 .............. 75 21,544,015 2.52
5.500 - 5.999 .............. 460 132,363,092 15.50
6.000 - 6.499 .............. 447 120,187,493 14.07
6.500 - 6.999 .............. 962 256,187,071 29.99
7.000 - 7.499 .............. 446 103,384,793 12.10
7.500 - 7.999 .............. 598 128,099,177 15.00
8.000 - 8.499 .............. 211 38,643,672 4.52
8.500 - 8.999 .............. 206 31,218,783 3.65
9.000 - 9.499 .............. 68 7,882,703 0.92
9.500 - 9.999 .............. 43Page 427 of 1693 4,694,692 0.55
10.000 - 10.499 .............. 15 1,121,084 Tab 14, p. 24 of 34
0.13
Page 106 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 37
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 37/390
Jt.45-Page 37
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
10.500 - 10.999 .............. 9 492,623 0.06
11.000 - 11.499 .............. 1 44,184 0.01
11.500 - 11.999 .............. 3 116,264 0.01
12.000 - 12.499 .............. 1 31,222 0.00
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 3,572 $ 854,205,118 100.00%
===== =============== ======
INITIAL PERIODIC RATE CAPS OF THE ARM LOANS INCLUDED IN THE MORTGAGE POOL
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
INITIAL PERIODIC RATE CAP (%) ARM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.000 ........................ 48 $ 8,614,710 1.01%
1.125 ........................ 1 123,154 0.01
1.160 ........................ 2 193,117 0.02
1.497 ........................ 1 539,547 0.06
1.500 ........................ 1,958 460,745,066 53.94
1.987 ........................ 1 157,170 0.02
2.000 ........................ 96 30,919,146 3.62
2.115 ........................ 1 155,612 0.02
3.000 ........................ 1,417 336,869,701 39.44
5.000 ........................ 47 15,887,895 1.86
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 3,572 $ 854,205,118 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-31
SUBSEQUENT PERIODIC RATE CAPS OF THE ARM LOANS INCLUDED IN THE MORTGAGE POOL
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
SUBSEQUENT NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
PERIODIC RATE CAP (%) ARM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.750 ........................ 1 $ 301,880 0.04%
1.000 ........................ 3,548 850,688,122 99.59
1.500 ........................ 19 2,560,108 0.30
2.000 ........................ 4 655,007 0.08
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 3,572 $ 854,205,118 100.00%
===== =============== ======
LIFETIME RATE CAPS OF THE ARM LOANS INCLUDED IN THE MORTGAGE POOL
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
LIFETIME RATE CAP (%) Page 428 THE
ARM LOANS of 1693CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
Tab 14, p. 25 of 34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 107 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 38
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 38/390
Jt.45-Page 38
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
5.000 - 5.499 ................ 1 $ 175,359 0.02%
6.000 - 6.499 ................ 800 155,217,331 18.17
6.500 - 6.999 ................ 2,668 666,295,461 78.00
7.000 - 7.499 ................ 103 32,516,967 3.81
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 3,572 $ 854,205,118 100.00%
===== =============== ======
PREPAYMENT PENALTY MONTHS OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS AT ORIGINATION
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
PREPAYMENT PENALTY MONTHS MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
AT ORIGINATION LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 ............................ 1,448 $ 234,877,550 21.24%
6 ............................ 1 103,930 0.01
12 ........................... 206 50,504,229 4.57
24 ........................... 3,129 642,046,852 58.07
36 ........................... 1,121 177,756,920 16.08
60 ........................... 1 307,275 0.03
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-32
ORIGINATORS OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
ORIGINATORS LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WMC .......................... 4,483 $ 866,889,947 78.41%
People's Choice .............. 1,145 199,782,410 18.07
Other ........................ 278 38,924,399 3.52
----- --------------- ------
Total ................... 5,906 $ 1,105,596,756 100.00%
===== =============== ======
S-33
GROUP I MORTGAGE LOAN CHARACTERISTICS
Approximately 25.77% of the Group I Mortgage Loans are fixed-rate mortgage
loans and approximately 74.23% of the Group I Mortgage Loans are ARM Loans (the
"Group I ARM Loans"), in each case, by aggregate principal balance of the Group
I Mortgage Loans as of the Cut-off Date.
PageI429
Approximately 92.96% of the Group of 1693
Mortgage Loans are First Lien Mortgage
Loans and approximately 7.04% of the Group I Mortgage Loans are Second Tab 14, p. 26 Lien
of 34
Page 108 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 39
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 39/390
Jt.45-Page 39
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
Mortgage Loans, in each case, by aggregate principal balance of the Group I
Mortgage Loans as of the Cut-off Date.
Approximately 4.99% of the Group I Mortgage Loans are Balloon Loans and
approximately 8.42% of the Group I Mortgage Loans are Interest Only Loans, in
each case, by aggregate principal balance of the Group I Mortgage Loans as of
the Cut-off Date.
The average principal balance of the Group I Mortgage Loans at origination
was approximately $147,843. No Group I Mortgage Loan had a principal balance at
origination greater than approximately $590,750 or less than approximately
$13,200. The average principal balance of the Group I Mortgage Loans as of the
Cut-off Date was approximately $147,695. No Group I Mortgage Loan had a
principal balance as of the Cut-off Date greater than approximately $589,826 or
less than approximately $13,197.
The Group I Mortgage Loans had Mortgage Rates as of the Cut-off Date
ranging from approximately 4.925% per annum to approximately 12.990% per annum,
and the weighted average Mortgage Rate was approximately 7.277% per annum. As of
the Cut-off Date, the Group I ARM Loans had Gross Margins ranging from
approximately 1.000% per annum to approximately 8.000% per annum, Minimum
Mortgage Rates ranging from approximately 4.925% per annum to approximately
11.990% per annum and Maximum Mortgage Rates ranging from approximately 11.125%
per annum to approximately 17.990% per annum. As of the Cut-off Date, the
weighted average Gross Margin was approximately 5.966%, the weighted average
Minimum Mortgage Rate was approximately 7.012% per annum and the weighted
average Maximum Mortgage Rate was approximately 13.431% per annum. The latest
first Adjustment Date following the Cut-off Date on any Group I ARM Loan occurs
on September 1, 2009 and the weighted average next Adjustment Date for all of
the Group I ARM Loans following the Cut-off Date is October 29, 2006.
The weighted average combined loan-to-value ratio of the Group I Mortgage
Loans at origination was approximately 81.48%. At origination, no Group I
Mortgage Loan had a combined loan-to-value ratio greater than approximately
100.00% or less than approximately 17.24%.
The weighted average remaining term to stated maturity of the Group I
Mortgage Loans was approximately 347 months as of the Cut-off Date. None of the
Group I Mortgage Loans will have a first due date prior to November 1, 2003 or
after November 1, 2004, or will have a remaining term to stated maturity of less
than 168 months or greater than 360 months as of the Cut-off Date. The latest
maturity date of any Group I Mortgage Loan is October 1, 2034.
As of the Cut-off Date, the weighted average FICO Score for the Group I
Mortgage Loans that were scored is approximately 634. No Group I Mortgage Loan
which was scored had a FICO Score as of the Cut-off Date greater than 814 or
less than 500.
The Group I Mortgage Loans are expected to have the following additional
characteristics as of the Cut-off Date (the sum in any column may not equal the
total indicated due to rounding):
S-34
Page 430 of 1693
COLLATERAL TYPE OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS Tab 14, p. 27 of 34
Page 109 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 40
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 40/390
Jt.45-Page 40
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
COLLATERAL TYPE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed-15 Year ................ 93 $ 9,414,646 1.47%
Fixed-20 Year ................ 11 1,390,006 0.22
Fixed-30 Year ................ 876 121,930,643 19.09
Balloon-15/30 ................ 740 31,860,784 4.99
ARM - 6 Month ................ 8 1,494,592 0.23
ARM - 2 Year/6 Month ......... 2,139 379,790,970 59.46
ARM - 2 Year/6 Month-IO ...... 222 48,581,100 7.61
ARM - 3 Year/6 Month ......... 127 22,457,956 3.52
ARM - 5 Year/6 Month ......... 87 16,672,185 2.61
ARM - 5 Year/6 Month-IO ...... 22 5,188,812 0.81
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
LIEN PRIORITY OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
LIEN PRIORITY LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Lien ................... 3,335 $ 593,806,980 92.96%
Second Lien .................. 990 44,974,714 7.04
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
PRINCIPAL BALANCES OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS AT ORIGINATION
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AT OUTSTANDING AT
AT ORIGINATION ($) LOANS ORIGINATION ORIGINATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.01 - 50,000.00 ...... 688 $ 23,909,186 3.74%
50,000.01 - 100,000.00 ...... 955 68,245,729 10.67
100,000.01 - 150,000.00 ...... 761 95,204,957 14.89
150,000.01 - 200,000.00 ...... 658 115,220,946 18.02
200,000.01 - 250,000.00 ...... 574 129,124,110 20.19
250,000.01 - 300,000.00 ...... 412 113,412,808 17.74
300,000.01 - 350,000.00 ...... 218 69,282,874 10.84
350,000.01 - 400,000.00 ...... 24 8,992,835 1.41
400,000.01 - 450,000.00 ...... 19 8,053,400 1.26
450,000.01 - 500,000.00 ...... 11 5,220,375 0.82
500,000.01 - 550,000.00 ...... 2 1,032,000 0.16
550,000.01 - 600,000.00 ...... 3 1,722,357 0.27
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325Page 431 of 1693
$ 639,421,577 100.00%
===== ============= Tab 14, p. 28 of 34
======
Page 110 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 41
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 41/390
Jt.45-Page 41
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
S-35
PRINCIPAL BALANCES OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AS OF THE CUT-OFF DATE
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
AS OF THE CUT-OFF DATE ($) LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.01 - 50,000.00 ...... 688 $ 23,864,153 3.74%
50,000.01 - 100,000.00 ...... 957 68,384,179 10.71
100,000.01 - 150,000.00 ...... 760 95,061,510 14.88
150,000.01 - 200,000.00 ...... 659 115,357,221 18.06
200,000.01 - 250,000.00 ...... 572 128,591,123 20.13
250,000.01 - 300,000.00 ...... 412 113,309,171 17.74
300,000.01 - 350,000.00 ...... 218 69,224,744 10.84
350,000.01 - 400,000.00 ...... 25 9,383,054 1.47
400,000.01 - 450,000.00 ...... 18 7,643,290 1.20
450,000.01 - 500,000.00 ...... 11 5,213,288 0.82
500,000.01 - 550,000.00 ...... 2 1,029,309 0.16
550,000.01 - 600,000.00 ...... 3 1,720,652 0.27
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
S-36
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTIES OF THE
GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
LOCATION LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California ................... 1,603 $ 290,973,161 45.55%
Florida ...................... 369 43,748,611 6.85
Illinois ..................... 230 31,600,188 4.95
New York ..................... 128 29,183,696 4.57
Texas ........................ 243 23,062,251 3.61
Maryland ..................... 148 21,720,293 3.40
Virginia ..................... 142 19,456,244 3.05
Nevada ....................... 142 18,884,458 2.96
Arizona ...................... 125 13,839,221 2.17
New Jersey ................... 78 13,048,728 2.04
Pennsylvania ................. 91 10,457,924 1.64
Washington ................... 76 10,358,273 1.62
Massachusetts ................ 54 10,245,868 1.60
Georgia ...................... 81 9,661,760 1.51
Colorado ..................... 71Page 432 of 1693 8,761,936 1.37
Connecticut .................. 50 8,628,604 Tab 14, p. 29 of 34
1.35
Page 111 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 42
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 42/390
Jt.45-Page 42
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
Hawaii ....................... 32 7,855,791 1.23
Ohio ......................... 86 7,601,553 1.19
Michigan ..................... 74 7,122,175 1.11
Louisiana .................... 84 6,273,604 0.98
Rhode Island ................. 27 5,096,637 0.80
Tennessee .................... 38 3,972,507 0.62
North Carolina ............... 39 3,520,063 0.55
Oregon ....................... 30 3,510,282 0.55
District of Columbia ......... 18 3,169,522 0.50
Montana ...................... 24 2,985,352 0.47
Indiana ...................... 35 2,941,329 0.46
Missouri ..................... 32 2,646,008 0.41
Utah ......................... 29 2,447,804 0.38
Minnesota .................... 14 2,212,588 0.35
New Hampshire ................ 12 1,641,325 0.26
New Mexico ................... 11 1,600,866 0.25
Delaware ..................... 9 1,443,224 0.23
Oklahoma ..................... 15 1,323,790 0.21
Mississippi .................. 13 1,192,766 0.19
Idaho ........................ 17 1,187,780 0.19
Wisconsin .................... 12 1,087,738 0.17
South Carolina ............... 11 920,692 0.14
Arkansas ..................... 9 657,138 0.10
Kentucky ..................... 6 636,158 0.10
Maine ........................ 3 594,933 0.09
Kansas ....................... 5 554,373 0.09
Iowa ......................... 4 313,667 0.05
Alaska ....................... 1 224,841 0.04
Wyoming ...................... 1 214,291 0.03
West Virginia ................ 2 144,944 0.02
Nebraska ..................... 1 56,737 0.01
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
S-37
MORTGAGE RATES OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS AS OF THE CUT-OFF DATE
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
MORTGAGE RATE (%) LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.500 - 4.999 .............. 6 $ 1,437,096 0.22%
5.000 - 5.499 .............. 42 9,130,557 1.43
5.500 - 5.999 .............. 303 64,521,185 10.10
6.000 - 6.499 .............. 411 84,565,910 13.24
6.500 - 6.999 .............. 885 173,964,719 27.23
7.000 - 7.499 .............. 473 84,977,188 13.30
7.500 - 7.999 .............. 637 104,054,254 16.29
8.000 - 8.499 .............. 217 29,446,668 4.61
8.500 - 8.999 .............. 300 31,170,768 4.88
9.000 - 9.499 .............. 94Page 433 of 1693 8,810,606 1.38
9.500 - 9.999 .............. 304 17,104,722 Tab 14, p. 30 of 34
2.68
Page 112 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 43
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 43/390
Jt.45-Page 43
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
10.000 - 10.499 .............. 106 6,129,496 0.96
10.500 - 10.999 .............. 321 15,422,278 2.41
11.000 - 11.499 .............. 50 2,022,789 0.32
11.500 - 11.999 .............. 76 2,723,011 0.43
12.000 - 12.499 .............. 24 816,746 0.13
12.500 - 12.999 .............. 76 2,483,702 0.39
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
ORIGINAL TERM OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
ORIGINAL TERM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
180 months ................... 833 $ 41,275,430 6.46%
240 months ................... 11 1,390,006 0.22
360 months ................... 3,481 596,116,258 93.32
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
S-38
REMAINING TERM TO STATED MATURITY OF
THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS AS OF THE CUT-OFF DATE
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
REMAINING TERM MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
TO STATED MATURITY LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
121 - 180 months ............. 833 $ 41,275,430 6.46%
181 - 240 months ............. 11 1,390,006 0.22
301 - 360 months ............. 3,481 596,116,258 93.32
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
PROPERTY TYPES OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
PROPERTY TYPE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Family Residence ...... 3,120 $ 451,169,016 70.63%
PUD .......................... 523 71,466,064 11.19
2-4 Family ................... 282 59,463,250 9.31
Condominium .................. 400Page 434 of 1693 56,683,364 8.87
----- ------------- Tab 14, p. 31 of 34
------
Page 113 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 44
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 44/390
Jt.45-Page 44
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
ORIGINAL COMBINED LOAN-TO-VALUE RATIOS OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
ORIGINAL COMBINED MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
LOAN-TO-VALUE RATIO (%) LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than or equal to 50.00 .. 90 $ 11,215,903 1.76%
50.01 - 55.00 .............. 44 6,726,269 1.05
55.01 - 60.00 .............. 75 12,209,731 1.91
60.01 - 65.00 .............. 108 19,002,656 2.97
65.01 - 70.00 .............. 173 30,035,926 4.70
70.01 - 75.00 .............. 214 38,221,054 5.98
75.01 - 80.00 .............. 1,476 271,317,936 42.47
80.01 - 85.00 .............. 360 65,559,252 10.26
85.01 - 90.00 .............. 538 90,025,198 14.09
90.01 - 95.00 .............. 315 47,995,606 7.51
95.01 - 100.00 .............. 932 46,472,164 7.28
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
S-39
DOCUMENTATION TYPE OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
DOCUMENTATION TYPE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full/Alternative Documentation 2,526 $ 365,007,772 57.14%
Stated Income Documentation .. 1,510 228,630,447 35.79
Limited/Lite Documentation ... 289 45,143,476 7.07
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
FICO SCORE FOR THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
FICO SCORE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 - 524 .................... 88 $ 12,245,883 1.92%
525 - 549 .................... 207 31,318,734 4.90
550 - 574 .................... 325 57,052,011 8.93
575 - 599 .................... 476Page 435 of 1693 72,793,462 11.40
600 - 624 .................... 759 114,831,003 Tab 14, p. 32 of 34
17.98
Page 114 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 45
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 45/390
Jt.45-Page 45
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
625 - 649 .................... 824 115,022,234 18.01
650 - 674 .................... 652 91,112,625 14.26
675 - 699 .................... 429 61,910,096 9.69
700 - 724 .................... 238 35,114,962 5.50
725 - 749 .................... 179 25,219,708 3.95
750 - 774 .................... 102 14,798,822 2.32
775 - 799 .................... 43 6,566,108 1.03
800 - 824 .................... 3 796,047 0.12
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
LOAN PURPOSE OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
LOAN PURPOSE LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchase ..................... 2,264 $ 291,249,329 45.59%
Refinance - Cashout .......... 1,558 266,823,635 41.77
Refinance - Rate Term ........ 503 80,708,730 12.63
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
S-40
OCCUPANCY STATUS OF THE GROUP I MORTGAGE LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
MORTGAGE OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
OCCUPANCY STATUS LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary ...................... 3,936 $ 586,641,697 91.84%
Investment ................... 318 42,744,677 6.69
Second Home .................. 71 9,395,320 1.47
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 4,325 $ 638,781,694 100.00%
===== ============= ======
The occupancy status of a Mortgaged Property is as represented by the mortgagor
in its loan application.
NEXT ADJUSTMENT DATES FOR THE GROUP I ARM LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
NEXT ADJUSTMENT DATE ARM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
Page 436 of 1693
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2005 ................. 1 $ 114,203 Tab 14, p. 33 of 34
0.02%
Page 115 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 46
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 46/390
Jt.45-Page 46
7/22/2014 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
February 2005 ................ 3 564,869 0.12
March 2005 ................... 4 815,520 0.17
December 2005 ................ 1 85,051 0.02
April 2006 ................... 2 428,849 0.09
May 2006 ..................... 3 418,221 0.09
June 2006 .................... 11 1,999,532 0.42
July 2006 .................... 39 7,001,187 1.48
August 2006 .................. 423 80,753,903 17.03
September 2006 ............... 1,865 334,914,573 70.63
October 2006 ................. 17 2,770,753 0.58
May 2007 ..................... 1 187,239 0.04
June 2007 .................... 1 186,951 0.04
July 2007 .................... 4 651,196 0.14
August 2007 .................. 29 5,667,710 1.20
September 2007 ............... 92 15,764,860 3.32
July 2009 .................... 2 366,073 0.08
August 2009 .................. 21 3,782,097 0.80
September 2009 ............... 86 17,712,827 3.74
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 2,605 $ 474,185,615 100.00%
===== ============= ======
S-41
GROSS MARGINS OF THE GROUP I ARM LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
GROSS MARGIN (%) ARM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.000 - 1.499 ................ 2 $ 178,798 0.04%
3.500 - 3.999 ................ 58 11,824,303 2.49
4.000 - 4.499 ................ 2 321,164 0.07
4.500 - 4.999 ................ 133 26,506,990 5.59
5.000 - 5.499 ................ 705 123,604,314 26.07
5.500 - 5.999 ................ 433 86,780,361 18.30
6.000 - 6.499 ................ 495 93,818,733 19.79
6.500 - 6.999 ................ 371 65,733,243 13.86
7.000 - 7.499 ................ 198 34,253,890 7.22
7.500 - 7.999 ................ 135 21,355,743 4.50
8.000 - 8.499 ................ 73 9,808,075 2.07
----- ------------- ------
Total ................... 2,605 $ 474,185,615 100.00%
===== ============= ======
MAXIMUM MORTGAGE RATES OF THE GROUP I ARM LOANS
AGGREGATE % OF AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL BALANCE PRINCIPAL BALANCE
NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING AS OF OUTSTANDING AS OF
MAXIMUM MORTGAGE RATE (%) ARM LOANS THE CUT-OFF DATE THE CUT-OFF DATE
Page 437 of 1693
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.000 - 11.499 .............. 7 $ 1,555,533 Tab 14, p. 34 of 34
0.33%
Page 116 of 181 EXHIBIT 39, page 47
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt 47/390
Jt.45-Page 47
TAB 15
Page 117 of 181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 64720 / June 22, 2011
INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940
Release No. 3218 / June 22, 2011
INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940
Release No. 29704 / June 22, 2011
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT
Release No. 3296 / June 22, 2011
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-13847
C OR R E C T E D OR DE R M A K I NG F I NDI NG S
In the Matter of AND I M POSI NG R E M E DI AL SANC T I ONS
AND A C E ASE -AND-DE SI ST OR DE R
MORGAN ASSET MANAGEMENT, PUR SUANT T O SE C T I ON 15(b) OF T H E
INC.; MORGAN KEEGAN & SE C UR I T I E S E X C H A NG E AC T OF 1934,
COMPANY, INC.; SE C T I ONS 203(e), 203(f) AND 203(k) OF T H E
JAMES C. KELSOE, JR.; and I NV E ST M E NT ADV I SE R S AC T OF 1940,
JOSEPH THOMPSON WELLER, AND SE C T I ONS 9(b) AND 9(f) OF T H E
CPA, I NV E ST M E NT C OM PANY AC T OF 1940,
AND I M POSI NG SUSPE NSI ON PUR SUANT
Respondents. T O SE C T I ON 4C OF T H E SE C UR I T I E S
E X C H ANG E AC T OF 1934 A ND R UL E
102(e)(1)(iii) OF T H E C OM M I SSI ON’ S
R UL E S OF PR AC T I C E
I.
On April 7, 2010, the Commission instituted public administrative and cease-and-desist
proceedings pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), Section 21C
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Sections 9(b) and 9(f) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) against Morgan Asset
Management, Inc. (“Morgan Asset”); Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. (“Morgan Keegan”);
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 7 of 26
Page
Exhibit A 118 of 181 Tab 15, p. 1 of 11
James C. Kelsoe, Jr. (“Kelsoe”); and Joseph Thompson Weller, CPA (“Weller”); pursuant to
Section 15(b)(4) of the Exchange Act against Morgan Keegan; pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of
the Exchange Act against Morgan Asset, Kelsoe and Weller; pursuant to Sections 203(e) and
203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Morgan Asset and
Morgan Keegan; pursuant to Sections 203(f) and 203(k) of the Advisers Act against Kelsoe and
Weller; and pursuant to Section 4C of the Exchange Act and Rule 102(e)(1)(iii) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice against Weller. Respondents Morgan Asset, Morgan Keegan,
Kelsoe and Weller (collectively “Respondents”) have submitted an Offer of Settlement which the
Commission has determined to accept.
II.
Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on
behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or
denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over them and the subject
matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondents consent to the entry of this Order
Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to
Sections 4C and 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 203(e), 203(f) and 203(k)
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Sections 9(b) and 9(f) of the Investment Company
Act of 1940, and Imposing Suspension Pursuant to Section 4C of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice (“Order”), as set forth below.
III.
On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds 1 that,
A. RESPONDENTS
1. Morgan Asset, incorporated in Tennessee on April 10, 1986, has been an
investment adviser registered with the Commission at all relevant times. Morgan Asset’s principal
place of business is in Birmingham, Alabama. Morgan Asset is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MK
Holding, Inc., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regions Financial Corporation.
2. Morgan Keegan, incorporated in Tennessee on June 27, 1969, has been registered
with the Commission as a broker-dealer at all relevant times and as an investment adviser since
July 27, 1992. During the relevant time period, Morgan Keegan served as the principal
1
The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondentsಬ Offer of Settlement and
are not binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding.
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 8 of 26
Page 119 of 181 Tab 15, p. 2 of 11
C. FACTS
Overview
10. Morgan Asset, through Kelsoe, as Portfolio Manager, managed the Helios Select
Fund, Inc., the Helios High Income Fund, Inc., the Helios Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc.,
the Helios Strategic Income Fund, Inc., and the Helios Advantage Income Fund, Inc. (collectively,
the “Funds”) from at least November 2004 through July 29, 2008.
11. Respondent Morgan Keegan, a registered broker-dealer and registered investment
adviser,, was the pprincipal
p underwriter and distributor of shares of the open-ended
p Funds. Each of
the Funds’ Boards of Directors was responsiblep for pricing the Funds’ securities in accordance with
the Funds’ valuation policies
p and procedures
p ((“valuation pprocedures”). ) Although
g the Funds’
pprospectuses
p stated that Morgan
g Asset would price p the securities,, each Fund’s Board of Directors
delegated
g the pricing
p g responsibility
p y too Morgan
g Keegan. g Morgan
g Keegan g priced
p each Fund’s
securities and calculated the Fund’s daily net asset value 2 (“NAV”) through its Fund Accounting
Department
pa (“Fund
( Accounting”).
g ) Weller was an officer and treasurer of the Funds. Weller,,
g Keegan’s
Morgan g Controller,, alongg with other Morgang Keegan g ppersonnel,, staffed a “Valuation
Committee” that oversaw Fund Accounting’s processes and evaluated the prices assigned to
securities. MMorgan Keegan and Weller failed to adequately fulfill Morgan Keegan’s
responsibilities, as delegated to it by the Funds’ Boards of Directors, to price the Funds’ securities
in accordance with their valuation policies and procedures regarding valuation. For example, at
various times from Januaryy 2007 through g July
y 2007,, Fund Accounting g accepted
p unsubstantiated
“price adjustments,” submitted by Kelsoe, that inaccurately inflated the prices of certain securities,
contrary to the Funds’ valuation procedures. Fund Accounting failed to document justifications for
such pricing adjustments.
12. The Funds’ valuation policies and procedures required the comparison of fair
values to prices provided by other sources. Pursuant to that requirement, Fund Accounting
periodically obtained broker-dealer price confirmations for certain fair valued securities.
Unbeknownst to Fund Accountingg and the Funds’ independentp auditor (“Independent
( p Auditor”),
the Portfolio Manager,
g , Kelsoe,, activelyy screened and influenced a broker-dealer to change the
price confirmations that Fund Accountingg and the Independent
p Auditor obtained from the broker-
dealer. Kelsoe also failed to advise Fund Accountingg or the Funds’ Boards of Directors when he
received information indicating that the Funds’ prices for certain securities should be reduced.
2
The “net asset value” or “NAV” of an investment company is the company’s total assets
minus its total liabilities. An investment company calculates the NAV of a single share (or the
“per share NAV”) by dividing its NAV by the number of shares that are outstanding.
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 10 of 26
Page 120 of 181 Tab 15, p. 3 of 11
13. Each of the Funds held,, in varying
y g amounts,, securities backed byy subprime
p
g g , and the market for such securities deteriorated in the first half of 2007
mortgages, 2007. Morgan
g
Keegan
g utilized practices which were not reasonably y designed
g to determine that the Funds’ NAVs
were accurate. Morgan Asset, through Kelsoe, engaged in actions that forestalled declines in the
NAVs of the Funds that would have occurred as a result of the deteriorating market, absent his
intervention.
14. Many of the securities that were held by the Funds and backed by subprime
mortgages lacked readily available market quotations and, as a result, were required by the
Investment Company Act to be priced by the Funds’ Boards of Directors, using “fair value”
methods. Under Section 2(a)(41)(B) of the Investment Company Act, the Funds were required to
use market values for portfolio securities with readily available market quotations and use fair
value for all other portfolio assets, as determined in good faith by the board of directors. The fair
value of securities for which market quotations are not readily available is the price the Funds
would reasonably expect to receive on a current sale of the securities. 3
15. The Funds adopted
p valuation procedures
p for ppricing
g the Funds’ portfolio securities
and
d assigned the task of following those procedures to Morgan Keegan. The Funds’ valuation
procedures for fair-valued securities mandated that such securities should be valued in “good faith”
by the Valuation Committee, considering a series of general and specific factors including, among
others, “fundamental analytical data relating to the investment,” “an evaluation of the forces which
influence the market in which the securities are purchased or sold” and “events affecting the
security.” The procedures required the Valuation Committee to maintain a written report
“documenting the manner in which the fair value of a security was determined and the accuracy of
the valuation made based on the next reliable public price quotation for that security.” The
procedures also required that values assigned to securities be periodically validated through,
among other means, broker-dealer price confirmations. Fund Accounting also used broker-dealer
price confirmations to set current values. The procedures specified that prices obtained from a
broker-dealer could only be overridden when there was “a reasonable basis to believe that the price
provided [did] not accurately reflect the fair value of the portfolio security.” Whenever a price was
overridden, the procedures mandated the basis for overriding the price to be “documented and
provided to the Valuation Committee for its review.”
16. g with the Commission,, the Funds stated that the fair value of securities
In filings
would be determined by y Morgan
g Asset’s Valuation Committee usingg procedures
p adopted
p by y the
Funds’ board of directors. In fact,, the responsibility
p y was delegated
g to Morgan
g Keegan,g , which
primarily staffed the Valuation Committee. Morgan Keegan and the Valuation Committee did not
3
See AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide - Investment Companies (Sect. 2.35-2.39),
which incorporates Accounting Series Release No. 118 (“ASR 118”). The Commission has
provided interpretative guidance related to financial reporting in the Accounting Series Releases,
which is included in the Codification of Financial Reporting Policies. Thus, conformity with the
ASR 118 is required by Commission rules and complies with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (“GAAP”). See also Articles 1-01(a) and 6.03 of Regulation S-X.
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 11 of 26
Page 121 of 181 Tab 15, p. 4 of 11
reasonably satisfy their responsibilities underr the
the Funds’ procedures in several ways. Among other
things: (i) the Valuation Committee left pricing decisions to lower level employees in Fund
Accounting who did not have the training or qualifications to make fair value pricing
determinations; (ii) Fund Accounting personnel relied on Kelsoe’s “price adjustments” to
determine the prices assigned to portfolio assets, without obtaining a reasonable basis for or
documentation supporting the price adjustments or applying the factors set forth in the procedures;
(iii) Fund Accounting personnel gave Kelsoe discretion beyond the parameters of the valuation
procedures in validating the prices of portfolio securities by allowing him to determine which
dealer price confirmations to use and which to ignore, without obtaining documentation to support
his adjustments; and (iv) the Valuation Committee and Fund Accounting did not ensure that the
fair value prices assigned to many of the portfolio securities were periodically re-evaluated,
allowing them to be carried at stale values for months at a time.
17. Morgan
g Asset adopted p its own pprocedures to determine the actual fair value to
assign to portfolio securities and to “validate” those values “periodically.” Among other things,
those procedures provided that “[q]uarterly reports listing all securities held by the Funds that
were fair valued during the quarter under review, along with explanatory notes for the fair values
assigned
g to the securities,, shall be ppresented to the Board for its review.” Morgan Asset failed to
fully implement this provision of its pricing policy.
18. At various times between January 2007 and July 2007, Kelsoe had his assistant
send “price adjustments” to Fund Accounting. The adjustments were communications by Kelsoe
to Fund Accounting concerning the values of specific portfolio securities. In many instances, these
adjustments were arbitrary and did not reflect fair value. The price adjustments were routinely
entered upon receipt by the staff accountant into a spreadsheet used to calculate the NAVs of the
Funds.
19. Fund Accountingg did not generally
g y request, and Kelsoe did not generally supply,
supporting documentation for his price adjustments. Fund Accounting and the Funds did not
record which securities had been assigned values by Kelsoe.
20. As part of the Funds’ valuation procedures, Fund Accounting sometimes requested
third party broker-dealer price confirmations as a means to validate the values it had assigned to
the Funds’ fair valued securities. The Funds’ Independent Auditor used similar requests for third
party broker-dealer price confirmations as part of its annual year-end audits of the Funds. Fund
Accounting or the Independent Auditor would periodically send such requests to broker-dealers
asking them to provide price confirmations for various portfolio securities.
21. During the period from January through July 2007, when month-end dealer price
confirmations were received by Fund Accounting, an employee of Fund Accounting performed a
review to estimate whether they contained any securities prices that varied from current portfolio
values by more than five percent. If so, then Kelsoe determined whether the current values should
be maintained or a new value—which may or mayy not have been the pricep given
g byy the broker-
dealer—should be assigned to the security. Thus, Fund Accounting generally allowed Kelsoe to
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 12 of 26
Page 122 of 181 Tab 15, p. 5 of 11
determine whether broker-dealer price confirmations were used or ignored. In some instances,
when price
p confirmations were received that were substantiallyy lower than current pportfolio values,
Fund Accounting g personnel,
p , actingg at the direction of Kelsoe,, lowered values of bonds over a
pperiod of days,
y , in a series of pre-planned reductions to values at or closer to, but still above, the
price confirmations. As
A a result, during the interim days, Fund Accounting did not price those
bonds at their current fair value.
22. During the period from January through July 2007, Fund Accounting failed to
record which bond values were not adjusted in response to dealer price confirmations at Kelsoe’s
direction.
23. The head of Fund Accounting reported to Weller, and Weller was a member of the
Valuation Committee. He knew, or was reckless in not knowing, of the deficiencies in the
implementation of the valuation procedures set forth above, and failed to remedy them or
otherwise make sure fair-valued securities were accurately priced and the Funds’ NAVs were
accurately calculated. During the period from January through July 2007, Weller was aware that:
(i) the Valuation Committee did not adequately supervise Fund Accounting’s application of the
valuation factors; (ii) Kelsoe was supplying fair value price adjustments for specific securities to
Fund Accounting but the members of the Valuation Committee did not generally know which
securities Kelsoe supplied fair values for or what those fair values were, and did not generally
receive supporting documentation for those values; and (iii) the only other pricing test regularly
applied by the Valuation Committee was a “look back” test, which compared the sales price of
any security sold by a Fund to the valuation of that security used in the NAV calculation for the
five business days preceding the sale. The test only covered securities after they were sold; thus, at
any given time, the Valuation Committee never knew how many securities’ prices could ultimately
be validated by it. Weller nevertheless signed the Funds’ annual and semi-annual financial reports
on Forms N-CSR, filed with the Commission, including certifications pursuant to Sections 302 and
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
24. During g the pperiod from January y 2007 through g Julyy 2007,, Morgan
g Keegan,
g , actingg
g Weller and Fund Accounting,
through g, failed to employ
p y reasonable procedures
p to price
p the Funds’
pportfolio securities and,, as a result of that failure,, did not calculate current NAVs for the Funds.
Despite
p these failures,, Morgan g Keegan g ppublished daily y NAVs of the Funds which it could not
know were accurate and,, as distributor of the open-end portfolios, sold and redeemed shares to
investors based on those NAVs.
25. On various dates from January y 2007 through
g July y 2007,, Morgan
g Asset,, through
g
Kelsoe, screened and influenced the price confirmations obtained from at least one broker-dealer
(“the Submitting Firm”). Among other things, the Submitting Firm was induced to provide interim
price confirmations that were lower than the values at which the Funds were valuing certain bonds,
but higher than the initial confirmations that the Submitting Firm had intended to provide. The
interim price confirmations enabled the Funds to avoid marking g down the value of securities to
reflect current fair value. Kelsoe was aware that use of the interim price
p confirmations was
inconsistent with the valuation procedures and did not reflect fair value, that the Submitting Firm
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 13 of 26
Page 123 of 181 Tab 15, p. 6 of 11
would be providing lower price confirmations in response to future pricing validation requests, and
that the Funds would be required
q to further mark down the value of the securities to reflect their
alreadyy diminished value,, but that information was not disclosed to Fund Accounting, g, the Funds’
Boards of Directors or the Independent
p Auditor. In some instances,, even after causingg the
Submittingg Firm to increase its pprice confirmations,, Kelsoe subsequently
q y provided
p price
p
adjustments
j to Fund Accountingg that were higher
g than even the Submittingg Firm’s increased price
confirmations. These adjustments were not consistent with the Funds’ procedures. In other
instances, the Submitting Firm was induced to not provide price confirmations to Fund Accounting
(or, depending on the period, to the Independent Auditor), where those price confirmations would
have been significantly lower than the Funds’ current valuations of the relevant bonds. Fund
Accounting and the Funds’ Boards were not advised that the Submitting Firm had proposed price
confirmations which were lower than the current valuations recorded by the Funds, and that the
Submitting Firm had refrained from submitting price confirmations to Fund Accounting or had
submitted price confirmations at higher prices than it had originally planned.
26. In each of the Funds’ annual and semi-annual reports filed with the Commission on
Forms N-CSR during the relevant period (including, among others, the Annual Report for the
Morgan Keegan Select Fund, Inc. for the year-ended June 30, 2007 filed with the Commission on
October 4, 2007), Kelsoe included a signed
g letter to investors reporting
p g on the Funds’ pperformance
“based on net asset value.” In fact,, the pperformance reported
p was materiallyy misstated. Untrue
statements of material fact concerningg the Funds’ performance
p were made in the Funds’ annual
and semi-annual
a semi -annual reports
p filed with the Commission on Forms N-CSR. Morgan g Asset,, through g
Kelsoe,, also provided
p a quarterly
q y valuation packet
p reflectingg inflated prices
p for certain securities to
the Funds’ Boards,, failed to disclose to the Funds’ Boards information
r indicatingg that the Funds’
NAVs were inflated and that broker-dealer pricep confirmations were beingg screened and caused to
be altered, and provided Fund Accounting with unsubstantiated price adjustments. In addition, the
prospectuses incorrectly described Morgan Asset as responsible for fair valuation of the Funds’
portfolios.
D. VIOLATIONS
27. Investment advisers owe their clients, including investment company clients, a
fiduciary duty. Transamerica Mortgage Advisers, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S.11,, 17 (1979);
( ); SEC v.
Capital
p Gains Research Bureau, Inc. 375 U.S. 180,, 195-97 (1963).
( ) Misstatements or omissions of
fact by
y an investment adviser,, such as those made to the Funds’ boards,, violate an adviser’s
fiduciary y and constitute fraud when theyy are material. Similarly,
y duty y, the failure to disclose to the
Funds’ boards that Morgan
g Asset and Morgan g Keegang were not complying
p y g with stated valuation
procedures constitutes fraud. In addition, the knowing or reckless failure to value securities, for
which market quotations are not readily available, consistent with fair value requirements
q under the
Investment Company Act and that materially affects a fund’s NAV V constitutes fraud. See, In re
Piper Capital Management, Inc., Exch. Act. Rel.48409 (August 26, 2003). Section 206(1) of the
Advisers Act makes it unlawful for an investment adviser to employ any device, scheme or artifice
to defraud any client or prospective client. Section 206(2) makes it unlawful for an investment
adviser to engage in any transaction, practice or course of business that operates as a fraud or
deceit upon any client or prospective client. As a result of the conduct described above,
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 14 of 26
Page 124 of 181 Tab 15, p. 7 of 11
Respondent
p t Morgan
g Asset willfullyy violated,, and Kelsoe willfully aided and abetted and caused
violations of, Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.
28. Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act prohibits fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative
practices or courses of business by an investment adviser. Rule 206(4)-7 requires investment
advisers to “[a]dopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent
violation” of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder by their supervised persons. An adviser’s
failure “to have adequate compliance policies and procedures in place will constitute a violation of
our rules independent of any other securities law violation.” Compliance Programs of Investment
Companies and Investment Advisers, Advisers Act Release No. 2204, 68 F.R. 74714, 74715 (Dec.
24,, 2003)) (“Compliance
( p Programs
g Release”).
) As a result of the conduct described above,,
Respondent
p Morgan
g Asset willfullyy violated,, and Respondent
p Kelsoe willfully
y aided and abetted
and caused violations of, Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder.
29. Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act prohibits untrue statements of
material fact or omissions to state facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in any registration
statement, report or other document filed pursuant to the Investment Company Act or the
keeping of which is required pursuant to Section 31(a) of the Investment Company Act. Any
person who makes a material misrepresentation concerning a Fund’s performance in the Fund’s
annual and semi-annual reports filed with the Commission, or in the records required to be
maintained by the Fund, or submits inflated prices to be included in the Fund’s NAV calculations
and the records forming the basis for the Fund’s financial statements,, violates Section 34(b).
( As
a result of the conduct described above,, Respondents
p Morgan
g Asset and Kelsoe willfully y
violated,, and Respondent
p Morgan
g Keegan g willfully aided, abetted, and caused violations of,
Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act.
30. Rule 22c-1 under the Investment Company Act prohibits the sale or redemption of
shares in a registered investment company “except at a price based on the current net asset value of
such security which is next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption or of
an order to purchase or sell such security.” For an NAV to be deemed current, Section 2(a)(41) of
the Investment Company Act and Rule 2a-4 thereunder require portfolio securities for which
market qquotations are not readily
y available to be valued at fair value. As a result of the conduct
described above,, Respondent
p Morgan
g Keegang willfully y violated,, 4 and Respondents
p Morgan
g Asset,
Kelsoe and Weller willfullyy aided and abetted and caused violations of, Rule 22c-1 promulgated
under the Investment Company Act.
31. Rule 38a-1 under the Investment Company Act requires that a registered
investment company adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
prevent violation of the federal securities laws by the fund and to provide for oversight of
compliance by the fund’s investment adviser. Failure of a fund to have adequate compliance
4
A willful violation of the securities laws means merely “‘that the person charged with the duty
knows what he is doing.’” Wonsover v. SEC, 205 F.3d 408, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting
Hughes v. SEC, 174 F.2d 969, 977 (D.C. Cir. 1949)).
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 15 of 26
Page 125 of 181 Tab 15, p. 8 of 11
policies and procedures in place and/or to implement them will constitute a violation of Rule 38a-1
independent
p of anyy other securities law violations. Compliance
p Programs
g Release. Morgan
g
Keegan
g and Morgan g Asset knowingly g y and substantially
y assisted the Funds’ failure to implement
p
fair valuation pprocedures,, which resulted in prices
p that did not reflect current NAVs. Morgang
Keegan,
g , Morgan
g Asset,, Kelsoe and Weller thereby willfully aided and abetted and caused the
Funds’ violations of Rule 38a-1.
UNDE R T A K I NG S
32. Respondent Morgan Keegan undertakes as follows:
A. Morgan Keegan shall not, for a period of three years from the date of the Order, be
involved in, or responsible for, recommending to, or determining on behalf of, a registered
investment company’s board of directors or trustees or such company’s valuation committee, the
value of any portfolio security for which market quotations are not readily available.
B. If, after three years but within six years from the date of the Order, Morgan Keegan
becomes involved in, or responsible for, determining or recommending determinations to a
registered investment company’s board of directors or trustees or valuation committee of the value
of any portfolio security for which market quotations are not readily available and which are held
by or on behalf of such registered investment company, Morgan Keegan shall promptly notify
Commission counsel identified below or his successor and within 30 days of beginning such
valuation activity, shall hire, at its expense, an Independent Consultant (“Consultant”) not
unacceptable to the Commission’s staff, to review the valuations provided by Morgan Keegan to
any registered investment company for the next two quarters following the beginning of such
valuation activity, and make an Initial Report with recommendations thereafter on Morgan
Keegan’s policies, procedures and practices with regard to such valuations. The Initial Report
shall describe the review performed and the conclusions reached, and will include any
recommendations deemed necessary to make the policies, procedures, and practices adequate and
consistent with GAAP and the Investment Company Act. Morgan Keegan shall cooperate fully
with the Consultant and shall provide the Consultant with access to its files, books, records, and
personnel as reasonably requested for the review. Morgan Keegan shall cause the review to begin
no later than 60 days after beginning such valuation activity.
C. At the end of that review, and in no event more than 200 days from after
beginning such valuation activity, to require the Consultant to submit the report and
recommendations to Morgan Keegan and to William P. Hicks of the Commission’s Atlanta
Regional Office or his successor.
D. Within 30 days of receipt of the Initial Report, Morgan Keegan shall in
writing respond to the Initial Report. In such response, Morgan Keegan shall advise the Consultant
and the Commission’s staff of the recommendations from the Initial Report that it has determined
to accept and the recommendations that it considers to be unduly burdensome. With respect to any
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 16 of 26
Page 126 of 181 Tab 15, p. 9 of 11
1. a preparer or reviewer, or a person responsible for the preparation or review,
of any public company’s financial statements that are filed with the Commission. Such an
application must satisfy the Commission that Respondent Weller’s work in his practice before the
Commission will be reviewed either by the independent audit committee of the public company for
which he works or in some other acceptable manner, as long as he practices before the
Commission in this capacity; and/or
2. an independent accountant. Such an application must satisfy the
Commission that:
(a) Respondent Weller, or the public accounting firm with which he is
associated, is registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“Board”) in
accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and such registration continues to be effective;
(b) Respondent Weller, or the registered public accounting firm with
which he is associated, has been inspected by the Board and that inspection did not identify any
criticisms of or potential defects in the Respondent’s or the firm’s quality control system that
would indicate that the Respondent will not receive appropriate supervision;
(c) Respondent Weller has resolved all disciplinary issues with the
Board, and has complied with all terms and conditions of any sanctions imposed by the Board
(other than reinstatement by the Commission); and
(d) Respondent Weller acknowledges his responsibility, as long as
Respondent appears or practices before the Commission as an independent accountant, to comply
with all requirements of the Commission and the Board, including, but not limited to, all
requirements relating to registration, inspections, concurring partner reviews and quality control
standards.
The Commission will consider an application by Respondent Weller to resume appearing
or practicing before the Commission provided that his state CPA license is current and he has
resolved all other disciplinary issues with the applicable state boards of accountancy. However, if
state licensure is dependent on reinstatement by the Commission, the Commission will consider an
application on its other merits. The Commission’s review may include consideration of, in
addition to the matters referenced above, any other matters relating to Respondent’s character,
integrity, professional conduct, or qualifications to appear or practice before the Commission.
K. Respondents
p Morgan
g Keegan g and Morgan g Asset shall jointly
j y and severallyy pay
p
disgorgement
g g of $20,500,000
, , and pprejudgment
j g interest of $4,500,000
, , to the Securities and
g Commission,, and a civil penalty
Exchange p y of $75,000,000
, , to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, within ten (10) business days of the entry of this Order.
L. Respondent Kelsoe shall pay a civil penalty of $250,000 to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, within ten (10) days of this Order.
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 24 of 26
Page 127 of 181 Tab 15, p. 10 of 11
M. Respondent Weller shall pay a civil penalty of $50,000 to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, within ten (10) days of this Order.
N. All payments pursuant to paragraphs IV. K, L and M, above, shall be made by
certified check, bank cashier's check, or United States postal money order payable to the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The payment shall be delivered or mailed to the Office of
Financial Management, Accounts Receivable, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE, Stop 6042, Washington DC 20549, and shall be accompanied by a letter identifying
Respondent as a respondent in these proceedings; setting forth the file number of these
proceedings; and specifying that payment is made pursuant to this Order, a copy of which cover
letter and money order or check shall be sent to William P. Hicks, Associate Regional
Administrator, Securities and Exchange Commission, 3475 Lenox Rd., N.E., Suite 500, Atlanta,
GA 30326-1232. If timely payment is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 31
U.S.C. § 3717 and/or SEC Rule of Practice 600.
Pursuant to Section 308(a)
( ) of the Sarbanes-Oxleyy Act of 2002,, as amended,, a Fair Fund is
created for the disgorgement,
g g , interest,, and ppenalties described in Paragraphs
g p IV. K,, L and M and
anyy funds ppaid in connection with related actions ppursuant to Paragraph
g p III. 36,, above. Regardless
g
of whether anyy such distribution is made from suchh Fair Fund,, amounts ordered to be paid p as civil
money y ppenalties pursuant
p to this Order shall be treated as penalties paid to the government for all
purposes, including all tax purposes. To T preserve the deterrent effect of the civil penalty,
Respondents agree that in any Related Investor Action, they shall not argue that they are entitled
to, nor shall they benefit by, offset or reduction of any award of compensatory damages by the
amount of any part of Respondent’s payment of a civil penalty in this action ("Penalty Offset"). If
the court in any Related Investor Action grants such a Penalty Offset, Respondents agree that any
Respondent receiving such offset shall, within 30 days after entry of a final order granting the
Penalty Offset, notify the Commission's counsel in this action and pay the amount of the Penalty
Offset to the United States Treasury or to a Fair Fund, as the Commission directs. Such a payment
shall not be deemed an additional civil penalty and shall not be deemed to change the amount of
the civil penalty imposed in this proceeding. For purposes of this paragraph, a "Related Investor
Action" means a private damages action brought against any of the Respondents by or on behalf of
one or more investors based on substantially the same facts as alleged in the Order instituted by the
Commission in this proceeding.
O. The disgorgement, interest, civil penalties, and any other funds which may be
paid to the Fair Fund through or as the result of related actions, shall be aggregated in the Fair
Fund, which shall be maintained in an interest-bearing account, and shall be distributed pursuant
to a distribution plan (the "Plan") to be administered in accordance with the Commission Rules
on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans. A Fund Administrator (the ( “Administrator”)) shall be
appointed
pp by
y the Commission. The Administrator shall identifyy the investors in the Funds who
suffered losses as a result of the violations determined herein,, evaluate investor claims and
ppropose
p and effectuate a plan
p to distribute the Fair Fund resulting g from this order. The Fair Fund
shall be used to compensate
p injured
j customers for their loss. Under no circumstances shall any
part of the Fair Fund be returned to Morgan Keegan, Morgan Asset, Kelsoe or Weller.
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 12
Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25 of 26
Page 128 of 181 Tab 15, p. 11 of 11
TAB 16
Page 129 of 181
The Alabama Securities Commission
The Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions
The Mississippi Secretary of State's Office
The South Carolina Office of the Attorney General
In the matter of )
) Joint Administrative
) Proceeding
MORGAN ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., a ) File Nos.
wholly owned subsidiary of MK HOLDING, INC., ) Alabama: SC·2010·0016
a wholly owned subsidiary of REGIONS ) Kentucky: 2010·AH-021
FINANCIAL CORPORATION; MORGAN ) Mississippi: S-08-0050
KEEGAN & COMPANY, Inc., a wholly owned ) South Carolina: 08011
subsidiary of REGIONS FINANCIAL )
CORPORATION; JAMES C. KELSOE, JR.; )
BRIAN B. SULLIVAN; GARY S. STRINGER; )
and MICHELE F. WOOD, )
)
Respondents )
JOINT NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVOKE REGISTRATION
AND
IMPOSE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
COME NOW, Joseph P. Borg, Director, Alabama Securities Commission; Charles A. Vice,
Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions; Tanya G. Webber., Assistant
Secretary of State for the Mississippi Secretary of State Securities and Charities Division; and
Tracy A. Meyers, Assistant Attorney General for the State of South Carolina (collectively the
"Agencies") and issue this Joint Notice of Intent to Revoke Registration and Impose
Administrative Penalty against Morgan Asset Management, Inc. and Morgan Keegan &
Company, Inc. for violating provisions of the Alabama Securities Act, the Kentucky Securities
Act, the Mississippi Securities Act, and the South Carolina Securities Act.
The Agencies also seek to bar the individual Respondents, James C. Kelsoe, Jr., Brian B.
Sullivan, Gary S. Stringer, and Michele F. Wood from further participation in the securities
industry for violations of the above listed State Securities Acts.
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 17 Tab 16, p. 1 of 4
Page 130 of 181
Cause no. 09-14448 Exhibit A
Page 88 of 1793
In support thereof the Agencies respectfully submit as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
I. Each of the Agencies is authorized to administer its Securities Act. Further, each
Agency is authorized to participate in and prosecute violations of their Acts
jointly with other state securities regulators.
2. Alabama is specifically authorized to administer the Alabama Securities Act
pursuant to Code of Alabama 1975, § 8-6-50.
3. Kentucky is specifically authorized to administer the Kentucky Securities Act
pursuant to KRS § 292.500(1).
4. Mississippi is specifically authorized to administer the Mississippi Securities Act
pursuant to the Mississippi Securities Act § 75-71-107.
5. The Attorney General of South Carolina is specifically authorized to administer
the South Carolina Uniform Securities Act of 2005 (the uSC Act") pursuant to
S.C. Code Ann. § 35-1-601(a).
6. Venue is appropriate in any state represented by the participating Agencies.
Further, Regions Financial Corporation (URFC") is headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama. All Respondents are wholly owned subsidiaries of RFC
or subsidiaries of other companies which are wholly owned by RFC.
7. All Agency Plaintiffs are authorized and empowered on behalf of their respective
states and the citizens of their states to regulate the offer and sale of securities in
or from their states, including the registration of broker-dealers and their agents
and investment advisers and their representatives.
II. INTRODUCTION
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 17 Tab 16, p. 2 of 4
Page 131 of 181
Cause no. 09-14448
Page 89 of 1793
27. James C. Kelsoe, Jr. ("Kelsoe") (CRD No. 2166416) was Senior Portfolio
Manager of the Funds and was responsible for selecting and purchasing the
holdings for the Funds. Kelsoe was an employee of MAM.
28. Brian B. Sullivan ("Sullivan") (CRD No. 2741207) was President and Chief
Investment Officer of MAM. Sullivan was responsible for the overall
management of MAM including oversight of the Funds.
29. Gary S. Stringer ("Stringer") (CRD No. 2917717) was Director of Investments
for WMS. Stringer was responsible for overseeing the due diligence performed
on products included on MKC's "Select List." The Select List was a list of
products, including mutual funds, separate account managers, and alternative
investments, which MKC represented as having passed due diligence screening
and appropriate for use in client portfolios. The Select List was available to MKC
FAs and was found to have been used by MKC FAs when making investment
recommendations to their clients. In addition, WMS, under the direction of
Stringer, created and maintained mutual fund allocation portfolios to be used in
the discretionary and non-discretionary platforms used by the FAs.
30. Michele F. Wood ("Wood") (CRD No. 4534832) served as Chief Compliance
Officer of the Funds, Chief Compliance Officer of MAM, and Senior Attorney
and First Vice President of MKC.
V. INVESTIGATION
31. Between March 31, 2007 and March 31, 2008, the Funds lost appro x imately
Two Billion Dollars ($2,000,000,000.00). Fund losses are calculated from the
Annual and Semi-Annual Shareholder Reports (Forms N-CSR and N-CSRS filed
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 17 Tab 16, p. 3 of 4
Page 132 of 181
Cause no. 09-14448
Page 96 of 1793
with the SEC) and are summarized and attached as Exhibit 9. Based on
complaints regarding the losses. thirteen (13) state securities regulators formed a
task force to investigate the ' management, sales practices, and
supervisory/compliance procedures related to the Funds.
32. The task force coordinated and conducted investigations into Respondents'
management, marketing, sales, and supervision of the Funds. The state regulators
conducted nine (9) on-site branch exams in seven (7) states, interviewed
approximately eighty (80) present and former sales representatives, managers, and
officers, interviewed customers, and reviewed thousands of e-mail
communications, reports, and other records provided by Respondents:
VI. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. MORGAN ASSET MANAGEMENT
33. MAM, the investment adviser, is a wholly owned subsidiary of MK Holding, Inc.,
which, in tum, is a wholly owned subsidiary of RFC, which is headquartered in
Alabama.
34. Prior to the 2001 acquisition of MKC by RFC, MAM was a wholly owned
subsidiary of MKC, the broker-dealer. Subsequent to the acquisition, MAM
became a wholly owned subsidiary of MK Holding, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of RFC.
35. Pursuant to investment adviser agreements between MAM and Morgan Keegan
Select Fund, Inc., MAM was responsible for the overall investment management
of the open-end Funds. Pursuant to similar investment adviser agreements with
each of the closed-end funds, MAM was also responsible for the overall
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 17 Tab 16, p. 4 of 4
Page 133 of 181
Cause no. 09-14448
Page 97 of 1793
TAB 17
Page 134 of 181
MBS LISTED AS ABS - 2005 ANNUAL REPORT FOR RSF
N ame Listed in Annual Report Description Cost
Aames Mortgage Trust 2001-3B, 7.13% 11/25/31 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,229,177.00
Ace Securities 2004-HE1 B, 4.60% 2/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $7,590,644.00
Ace Securities 2004-HE2 B1, 5.311% 10/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,761,803.00
Ace Securities 2004-HS1 M6, 4.59% 2/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,446,598.00
Ace Securities 2004-OPI B, 4.60% 4/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $8,915,409.00
Ace Securities 2004-RM1 B2, 1.436% 7/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $3,329,187.00
Ace Securities 2004-RM1 B3, 1.436% 7/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,545,452.00
ACE Securities Corp. 2004-HE4 M11, 5.694% 12/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,603,838.00
ACE Securities Corp. 2004-HE4 M11, 8.318% 12/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,603,838.00
Amresco Residential Securities 1999-1 B, 5.09% 11/25/29 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,950,824.00
BankAmerica Manufactured Housing 1997-1 B1, Zero Coupon Bond 6/10/21 (d) Manufactured Housing Loans $632,746.00
Bombardier Capital Mortgage 1999-B M1, 8.12% 12/51/29 Manufactured Housing Loans $564,981.00
Conseco Finance 2000-5 M2, 9.03% 2/1/32 Manufactured Housing Loans $555,181.00
Conseco Finance 2001-1 M1, 7.75% 6/15/27 Manufactured Housing Loans $720,482.00
Crest 2000-1A D, 10.00% 8/31/36 Collateralized Mortage Obligation $1,400,295.00
CS First Boston 1998-C2 H, 6.75% 11/11/30 (a) (Commercial Loan) Commercial Loans $4,075,779.00
CS First Boston Mortgage 1995-WF1 G, 8.488% 12/21/27 (Commercial Loan) Commercial Loans $1,763,536.00
Delta Funding Home Equity 2000-4B, 7.15% 2/15/31 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $463,339.00
Enterprise Mortgage 1998-1 A2, 6.38% 1/15/25 (a) (commercial loan) Commercial Loans $2,462,297.00
Enterprise Mortgage 1998-1 A3, 6.63% 1/15/25 (a) (commercial Loan) Commercial Loans $6,952,973.00
Enterprise Mortgage 1999-1 A2, 6.90% 10/15/25 (a) (commercial loan) Commercial Loans $3,075,793.00
Enterprise Mortgage 2000-1 A1, 7.575% 1/15/27 (a) (commercial loan) Commercial Loans $11,912,253.00
Enterprise Mortgage 2000-1 A2, 7.505% 1/15/27 (a) (Commercial Loan) Commercial Loans $9,904,055.00
Equifirst Mortgage 2004-2 B1, 4.74% 7/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,724,383.00
Equifirst Mortgage 2004-2 B2, 4.74% 7/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,163,288.00
Equifirst Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 B3, 6.08% 4/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $827,626.00
First Franklin Mortgage 2004-FF2 N3, 8.835% 4/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,700,000.00
First Franklin Mortgage 2004-FF5 B, 4.47% 8/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,212,318.00
First Franklin Mortgage 2004-FFH2 B2, 4.25% 6/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,429,741.00
First Franklin Mortgage 2004-FFH3 B1, 5.10% 10/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,073,450.00
GMAC Commercial Mortgage 1997-C2 F, 6.75% 4/15/29 Commercial Loans $2,775,676.00
GMAC Commercial Mortgage 1998-C1 F, 7.096% 5/15/30 Commercial Loans $2,949,149.00
GMAC Commercial Mortgage 2000-C1 H, 7.00% 3/15/33 (a) Commercial Loans $2,700,483.00
Tab 17, p. 1 of 5
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 23
Page 135 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 1 of 5
MBS LISTED AS ABS - 2005 ANNUAL REPORT FOR RSF
Green Tree Financial 1996-4 M1, 7.75% 6/15/27 Manufactured Housing Loans $2,897,139.00
Green Tree Financial 1996-5 B1, 8.10 % 7/15/27 Manufactured Housing Loans $355,708.00
Green Tree Financial 1996-9 M1, 7.63% 1/15/28 Manufactured Housing Loans $4,403,379.00
Green Tree Financial 1997-8 M1, 7.02% 10/15/27 Manufactured Housing Loans $5,389,409.00
Green Tree Financial 1999-4 M1, 7.60% 5/1/31 Manufactured Housing Loans $1,927,632.00
Green Tree Financial 1999-5 M1, 8.05% 3/1/30 Manufactured Housing Loans $5,137,388.00
Greenpoint Manufactured Housing 1999-5 M2, 9.23% 12/15/29 Manufactured Housing Loans $10,590,407.00
Greenpoint Manufactured Housing 2000-1 M2, 8.780% 3/20/30 Manufactured Housing Loans $838,157.00
Greenpoint Manufactured Housing 2000-3 IM1, 9.01% 6/20/31 Manufactured Housing Loans $4,682,138.00
GS Mortgage 1998-C1 H, 6.00% 10/18/30 (a) Commercial Loans $2,892,654.00
Long Beach Mortgage 2001-4 M3, 4.683% 3/25/32 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,178,233.00
Long Beach Mortgage 2004-2 B, 5.50% 6/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,416,943.00
Long Beach Mortgage 2004-4 M10, 4.615% 10/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $4,607,452.00
Madison Avenue Manufactured Housing 2002-A B2, 4.34% 3/25/32 Manufactured Housing Loans $3,785,222.00
Merit Securities 12-1 1M2, 7.35% 7/28/33 Manufactiured Housing Loans $4,040,926.00
Merit Securities 13 M2, 7.88% 12/28/33 Manufactured Housing Loans $3,184,837.00
Meritage Mortgage 2004-2 B2, 4.829% 1/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,569,483.00
Merril Lynch Mortgage 2005-SL1 B5, 6.27% 1/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,784,852.00
Merrill Lynch Mortgage 1998-C1 F, 6.25% 11/15/26 Commercial Loans $1,779,887.00
MM Community Funding II, 3.50% 12/15/31 (a) Certificate Backed Obligations $938,903.00
MM Community Funding IX, 10.00% 5/1/33(a) Certificate Backed Obligations $1,941,063.00
NovaStar Home Equity 2004-3 B4, 5.238% 12/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,562,857.00
Oakwood Mortgage 2002-A M1, 7.76% 3/15/32 Manufactured Housing Loans $511,694.00
Oakwood Mortgage 2002-B M1, 7.62% 6/15/32 Manufactured Housing Loans $3,751,543.00
Option One Mortgage 2004-2 M7, 4.65% 5/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan-to Value $8,910,197.00
Preferred Term Securities IV, 6.98% 6/24/34 (a) Certificate Backed Obligations $2,029,762.00
Preferred Term Securities XV, 9/26/34 (a) (f) Certificate Backed Obligations $1,000,000.00
Preferred Term Securities XVI, 3/23/35 (a) (f) Certificate Backed Obligations $4,000,000.00
Sail Net 2004-5A B, 6.75% 6/27/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,383,703.00
Salomon Brothers Mortgage 2000-C2 J, 6.308% 7/18/33 Commercial Loans $1,715,984.00
Terwin Mortgage 2004-16SL B3, 6.34% 10/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,505,447.00
UCFC Manufactured Housing Contract 1997-2 B1, Zero Coupon Bond 2/15/18 Manufactured Housing Loans $844,012.00
US Capital Funding II, 6.90% 8/1/34 Certificate Backed Obligations $1,000,000.00
US Capital Funding III, 14.00% 12/1/35 Certificate Backed Obligations $1,000,000.00
Tab 17, p. 2 of 5
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 23
Page 136 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 2 of 5
MBS LISTED AS ABS - 2005 ANNUAL REPORT FOR RSF
First Franklin 2004-FF5 M9, 4.47% 8/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,446,713.00
Terwin Mortgage Trust 2005-3SL B6, 11.500% 3/25/35 interest-only strips Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $4,028,611.00
Meritage Mortgage 2004-2 B1, 4.829% 1/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,428,120.00
Tab 17, p. 3 of 5
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 23
Page 137 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 3 of 5
MBS LISTED AS ABS -2005 ANNUAL REPORT FOR RMA
N ame Listed in Annual Report Description Cost
ACE Securities 2004-HE3 B, 5.549% 11/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $7,535,031.00
ACE Securities 2004-HE4 B, 5.694% 12/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,426,391.00
ACE Securities Corp. 2004-HE3 M11, 5.46% 11/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $6,240,150.00
ACE Securities Corp. 2005-HE2 B1, 6.06% 4/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $3,709,858.00
Bombardier Capital 2000-A A2, 7.575% 6/15/30 Manufactured Housing Loans $11,548,921.00
Equifirst Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-3 B1, 5.708% 12/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,651,725.00
Equifirst Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-3 B2, 5.708% 12/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $5,502,491.00
Equifirst Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 B4, 6.08% 4/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $827,626.00
First Franklin 2004-FF11 B1, 5.431% 1/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $5,500,496.00
First Franklin 2004-FF11 B2, 5.431% 1/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $5,302,262.00
Green Tree Finacial 1998-8 M1, 6.98% 9/1/30 Manufactured Housing Loans $5,946,692.00
Green Tree Financial 1996-7 B1, 7.70% 10/15/27 Manufactured Housing Loans $963,156.00
Green Tree Financial 1998-3 M1, 6.86% 3/1/30 Manufactured Housing Loans $7,464,186.00
GSAMP Trust 2004-AR1 B5, 5.000% 6/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,552,348.00
Lease Investment Flight Trust 1 A1, 2.49% 7/15/31 Commercial Loans $10,356,145.00
Long Beach Mortgage 2001-1 M2, 2.91% 4/21/31 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $8,132,764.00
Merrill Lynch 2004-WMC1 B4, 5.181% 10/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $7,928,270.00
Oakwood Mortgage 2001-C A4, 7.405% 12/15/30 Manufactured Housing Loans $2,965,719.00
Preferred Term Securities XVII, 6/23/35 (a) € Certificate Backed Obligations $3,000,000.00
Terwin Mortgage Trust 2005-3SL B6, 5.50% 3/25/35 interest- Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $3,021,458.00
only strips
Long Beach Mortgage 2001-4 M3, 4.683% 3/25/32 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $3,658,258.00
Enterprise Mortgage 2000-1 A2, 7.505% 1/15/27 (a) Commercial Loans $18,630,691.00
Equifirst Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 B3, 6.08% 4/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $827,626.00
Equifirst Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 B4, 6.08% 4/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,453,041.00
Green Tree Financial 1996-9 M1, 7.63% 1/15/28 Manufactured Housing Loans $4,045,739.00
Green Tree Financial 1999-4 M1, 7.60% 5/1/31 Manufactured Housing Loans $1,462,777.00
GS Mortgage 1998-C1 H, 6.00% 10/15/30 (a) (Commercial Loan) Commercial Loans $4,821,091.00
Merrill Lynch 2005-SL1 B5, 6.27% 1/25/35 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $1,784,853.00
US Capital Funding III, 14.00% 12/1/35 (a) Certificate Backed Obligations $2,000,000.00
Tab 17, p. 4 of 5
1 Pltf. Trial Exhibit 23
Page 138 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 4 of 5
MBS LISTED AS ABS -2005 ANNUAL REPORT FOR RMA
ACE Securities Corp. 2004-HE4 M11, 5.694% 12/25/34 Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,405,756.00
First Franklin 2004-FF5, 8.594% 8/25/34 (a) Home Equity Loans Non-High Loan to Value $2,000,000.00
Terwin Mortgage Trust 2005-3SL B6, 5.50% 3/25/35 interest- Home Equity Loan Non-High Loan to Value $7,553,646.00
only strips
Tab 17, p. 5 of 5
2 Pltf. Trial Exhibit 23
Page 139 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 5 of 5
TAB 18
Page 140 of 181
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
101st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Purdue Avenue Investors LP, Mary Ann Howard, and Dana Howard, as
Trustee of the Molly A. Howard Trust,
v.
Morgan Keegan & CO. Inc., Morgan Asset Management,
Inc., James C. Kelsoe, Jr. and Thomas Orr.
Expert Report of
Craig J. McCann, Ph.D., CFA
July 15, 2014
I. Qualifications and Remuneration
A. Qualifications
1. I am the President of Securities Litigation and Consulting Group,
Inc. (“SLCG”). Prior to founding SLCG, I was a Director at LECG, a business
unit of Navigant Consulting, Inc. Prior to joining LECG, I was Managing
Director, Securities Litigation at KPMG LLP for two years.
2. I was a senior financial economist in the Office of Economic
Analysis at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from 1992 to
1993 and from 1994 to 1995. While at the Commission, I worked on several
securities fraud investigations including allegations of material omissions and
misrepresentations. These projects included analysis of materiality, causation,
illegal profits, losses avoided and monetary penalties.
3. I earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California,
at Los Angeles. My dissertation examined the incidence of golden parachutes
and their effect on stock prices using an event study. Financial economists use
event studies to determine whether information released was material and was
Tab 18, p. 1 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 141 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 1 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
previously non-public. I hold the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA)
designation. Four years of practical investment management experience and
the successful completion of a series of three day-long exams are required to
receive the CFA designation.
4. I have taught graduate investment management at Georgetown
University and at the University of Maryland, College Park. These courses
include extensive discussions of securities valuation, portfolio construction
and performance monitoring. I have held Series 7 and Series 63 National
Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) registrations.
5. My consulting work over the nineteen years since I left the SEC
has primarily involved the analysis of investments, including the valuation of
securities. I have spoken at length at continuing legal education programs put
on by Bar Associations around the country and by the North American
Securities Administrators Association, the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, and the Texas Securities Commission. I have been
hired as a consultant and expert witness in investigations by many state and
federal agencies including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
the Department of Justice.
6. My research has been published in peer-reviewed journals such
as the Journal of Alternative Investments, Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance, Journal of Asset Management, Journal of Business Valuation and
Economic Loss Analysis, Journal of Derivatives, Journal of Derivatives &
Hedge Funds, Journal of Financial Transformation, Harvard Business
Review, Journal of Index Investing, Journal of Investing, Journal of Legal
Economics, Journal of Retirement and Journal of Risk.
Page 2 of 24 Tab 18, p. 2 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 142 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 2 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
7. My resume, which includes a list of all publications authored by
me within the last 10 years and the cases in which I have testified as an expert
at trial or by deposition within the last four years, is attached as Exhibit 1.
B. Remuneration
8. SLCG is being compensated for its time and expenses. My
hourly rate is $475. Other SLCG personnel working on this matter have billing
rates of $100 to $475 per hour.
II. Materials Relied Upon
9. I have relied on the following materials:
a. Plaintiffs’ Original Petition;
b. Defendant Morgan Asset Management, Inc.’s First Amended
Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition;
c. Defendant Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc.’s First Amended
Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition;
d. Defendant James C. Kelsoe, Jr.’s Special Appearance and
Objection to Personal Jurisdiction;
e. Public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
including Prospectuses, Annual Reports, Semi-annual Reports
and Quarterly Reports for the RMK Advantage Income Fund,
RMK High Income Fund and RMK Strategic Income Fund;
f. Prospectuses for securities held by the RMK Advantage Income
Fund, RMK High Income Fund and RMK Strategic Income
Fund;
g. Deposition transcripts with exhibits;
h. Other documents produced in discovery;
i. Bloomberg and publicly available sources as cited below; and
j. Materials identified in footnotes herein.
10. Discovery in this action and my work on this matter are ongoing
and therefore I reserve the right to present rebuttal and supplemental
testimony and/or amend or supplement my report based on issues raised by
Page 3 of 24 Tab 18, p. 3 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 143 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 3 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
Defendants or other experts or any other information made available through
discovery or otherwise.
III. Assignment
11. I have been asked by Counsel for the Plaintiffs to review the
Plaintiffs’ investments in the RMK Advantage Income Fund, RMK High
Income Fund and RMK Strategic Income Fund (“the RMK Funds”). I have
been asked to identify any material misrepresentations or omissions in the
RMK Funds’ SEC filings and to calculate damages suffered by the Plaintiffs
as a result of those misrepresentations.
IV. Summary of Findings
12. Based on my review of the documents, I have determined the
following to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. The RMK Funds’
Prospectuses, Annual Reports, Semi-annual Reports and Quarterly Reports
contained many, repeated misrepresentations. Those included:
• After defining what was meant by “mortgage-backed securities” and
“asset-backed securities” in the Prospectus for each Fund, the
Defendants report many mortgage-backed securities as asset-backed
securities in the Funds’ SEC filings. The Funds’ direct and indirect
exposure to commercial and residential mortgages was thus not limited
to amounts listed in the Funds’ SEC filings.
• The Funds claimed to be diversified across debt sectors. In fact, the
Funds were overwhelmingly exposed to commercial and residential
mortgages. The Fund’s undisclosed concentration in mortgage-backed
securities grew over time and ultimately caused the losses suffered by
the Plaintiffs.
• The Defendants attributed the stability of the Funds’ net asset values
relative to the Lehman Brothers Ba Index to diversification across debt
sectors when the Defendants, in fact, knew the Funds’ relatively stable
net asset values were due to the Defendants’ undisclosed practice of not
updating the market values of many of the Funds’ portfolio holdings on
a daily basis.
Page 4 of 24 Tab 18, p. 4 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 144 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 4 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
• In Annual and Semi-annual Reports filed with the SEC, the Defendants,
without qualification or equivocation, told investors that daily net asset
values reported were based on daily closing market prices. This
assertion, coupled with other language in the Annual and Semi-annual
Reports and in the Prospectuses falsely implied that the Funds were
holding securities for which daily closing prices were available and that
“fair valuing” was done properly.
• Despite the Funds’ minimal holdings of corporate bonds and
overwhelming exposure to residential and commercial mortgages, the
Defendants repeatedly compared the Funds’ returns to the Lehman
Brothers Ba Index, an index containing only corporate bonds.
• The Plaintiffs suffered out of pocket losses of $1,435,352, capital losses
of $2,253,039 and market adjusted losses of $1,851,506 as a result of
the Defendants’ misrepresentations. See Exhibit 2.
V. The Defendants Understated the Funds’ Holdings of Mortgage-
Backed Securities
13. The Funds’ Prospectuses define two of the debt sectors the Funds
will diversify across: “mortgage-backed securities” and “asset-backed
securities”. The Prospectus language cited below makes clear the distinction
is whether the underlying collateral is mortgages or something else. The funds
then have separate mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities
sections of portfolio holdings with a lot of the asset-backed securities holdings
actually backed by mortgages.
14. The following paragraphs from the 2004 Advantage Income
Fund Prospectus at p. 14 state the fund will be diversified across types of debt
and separately identifies asset-backed securities and mortgage-backed
securities.1
1
For brevity, here and throughout I will refer to language in the section of the 2005 Annual Report dealing
with the RMK Advantage Income Fund. Similar language, evidencing the same misrepresentations
identified herein, can be found in the Prospectuses and Annual and Semi-Annual Reports for the RMK
High Income Fund and for the RMK Strategic Income Fund.
Page 5 of 24 Tab 18, p. 5 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 145 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 5 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
In managing the Fund's portfolio, the Adviser will
employ an active management approach that will
emphasize the flexibility to allocate assets across a
wide range of asset classes and thereby provide the
advantages of a widely diversified high income
portfolio. The Adviser's fixed-income research team
will search a broad array of asset categories and
sectors to identify the most attractive relative value
prospects. In addition to the traditional below
investment grade corporate market, the Adviser will
strategically utilize asset-backed securities,
mortgage-backed securities and other structured
finance vehicles as well as convertible securities,
preferred stock and other equity securities. The
Adviser believes that the opportunity to acquire a
diverse set of assets will contribute to higher total
returns and a more stable net asset value for the Fund
than would result from investing in a single sector of
the debt market such as below investment grade
corporate bonds. The Adviser will sell securities that
it believes no longer offer potentially better yield
or total return than other available securities.
(Emphasis added)
15. Two pages later in the 2004 Prospectus, these two debt market
segments are described as:
MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES. Mortgage-backed securities
represent direct or indirect participations in, or are
secured by and payable from, mortgage loans secured by
real property and include single- and multi-class
pass-through securities and collateralized mortgage
obligations. U.S. government mortgage-backed
securities include mortgage-backed securities issued
or guaranteed as to the payment of principal and
interest (but not as to market value) by Ginnie Mae
(also known as the Government National Mortgage
Association), Fannie Mae (also known as the Federal
National Mortgage Association), Freddie Mac (also
known as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)
or other government-sponsored enterprises. Other
mortgage-backed securities are issued by private
issuers. Private issuers are generally originators of
and investors in mortgage loans, including savings
associations, mortgage bankers, commercial banks,
investment bankers and special purpose entities.
Payments of principal and interest (but not the market
Page 6 of 24 Tab 18, p. 6 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 146 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 6 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
value) of such private mortgage-backed securities may
be supported by pools of mortgage loans or other
mortgage-backed securities that are guaranteed,
directly or indirectly, by the U.S. government or one
of its agencies or instrumentalities, or they may be
issued without any government guarantee of the
underlying mortgage assets but with some form of non-
government credit enhancement. Non-governmental
mortgage-backed securities may offer higher yields
than those issued by government entities, but may also
be subject to greater price changes than governmental
issues.
Some mortgage-backed securities, such as
collateralized mortgage obligations, make payments of
both principal and interest at a variety of intervals;
others make semiannual interest payments at a
predetermined rate and repay principal at maturity
(like a typical bond). Stripped mortgage-backed
securities are created when the interest and principal
components of a mortgage-backed security are separated
and sold as individual securities. In the case of a
stripped mortgage-backed security, the holder of the
principal- only, or "PO," security receives the
principal payments made by the underlying mortgage,
while the holder of the interest-only, or "IO,"
security receives interest payments from the same
underlying mortgage.
Mortgage-backed securities are based on different
types of mortgages including those on commercial real
estate or residential properties. These securities
often have stated maturities of up to thirty years
when they are issued, depending upon the length of the
mortgages underlying the securities. In practice,
however, unscheduled or early payments of principal
and interest on the underlying mortgages may make the
securities' effective maturity shorter than this, and
the prevailing interest rates may be higher or lower
than the current yield of the Fund's portfolio at the
time the Fund receives the payments for reinvestment.
ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES. Asset-backed securities
represent direct or indirect participations in, or are
secured by and payable from, pools of assets such as,
among other things, motor vehicle installment sales
contracts, installment loan contracts, leases of
various types of real and personal property, and
receivables from revolving credit (credit card)
Page 7 of 24 Tab 18, p. 7 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 147 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 7 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
agreements or a combination of the foregoing. These
assets are securitized through the use of trusts and
special purpose corporations. Credit enhancements,
such as various forms of cash collateral accounts or
letters of credit, may support payments of principal
and interest on asset-backed securities. Although
these securities may be supported by letters of credit
or other credit enhancements, payment of interest and
principal ultimately depends upon individuals paying
the underlying loans or accounts, which payment may be
affected adversely by general downturns in the
economy. Asset-backed securities are subject to the
same risk of prepayment described below with respect
to mortgage-backed securities. The risk that recovery
on repossessed collateral might be unavailable or
inadequate to support payments, however, is greater
for asset-backed securities than for mortgage-backed
securities. (emphasis added)
16. The Prospectus for each Fund thus defined “mortgage-backed
securities” as securities backed by mortgages - whether on commercial or
residential properties, whether issued by quasi-governmental agencies or
private issuers, whether structured or pass through – and “asset-backed
securities” as securities backed by other types of collateral. This distinction is
important since real-estate values are a distinct risk - and a risk that dominated
the Funds.
17. The Defendants thereafter significantly under-report the amount
of mortgage-backed securities in every SEC filing. For example on page 4 of
the Funds’ March 31, 2005 Annual Report the Defendants provide this
distribution for the Advantage Income Fund. See Figure 1.
Page 8 of 24 Tab 18, p. 8 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 148 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 8 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
Figure 1: Advantage Income Fund 2005 Annual Report Excerpt
18. Given the Prospectuses’ definition of mortgage-backed
securities and asset backed securities, the table above makes it appear that
only 1.8% of the Advantage Income Fund portfolio consisted of mortgage-
backed securities as of March 31, 2005. Later in the Annual Report, the
Harborview Mortgage 2004-8 Class X, interest only strip is the only security
listed under “Mortgage-backed Securities”. In fact, the amount of securities
backed by mortgages in the portfolio was much, much higher than the 1.8%
the Funds reported.
19. The 16.9% identified as “Home Equity Loans” must be added to
the 1.8% identified as “Mortgage-Backed Securities”. The securities the
Defendants identify as “Home Equity Loans” are not backed by traditional
home equity loans. Instead, they are backed by first lien loans to subprime
borrowers. For example, Ace Securities 2004-HE3 M11 and Ace Securities
2004-HE4 M11 – both listed as investment grade asset-backed securities in
the 2005 Annual Report – are the bottom offered tranches in deals backed by
first lien loans to subprime borrowers.2 Also, some or all of the 7.2% identified
2
The Prospectus for Ace Securities 2004-HE3 can be found here
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005014/c34179_424b5.txt
And the Prospectus for Ace Securities 2004-HE4 can be found here
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063292/000093041304005571/c34511_424b5.txt.
Page 9 of 24 Tab 18, p. 9 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 149 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 9 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
as “Manufactured Housing Loans” should be added to the “Mortgage-Backed
Securities” allocation. For example, Green Tree Financial 1996-9 M1 is
backed by mortgages on manufactured housing and residential real estate.3
20. Given the Prospectuses definition of mortgage-backed securities,
25.9% should have been listed as mortgage-backed securities, far exceeding
the 2005 Annual Report’s 1.8% claimed allocation. However, even this 25.9%
though would understate the exposure to mortgage-backed securities in the
Advantage Income Fund. Other portfolio holdings in addition to those
identified as “Home Equity Loans” and “Manufactured Housing Loans” are
mortgage-backed securities as defined in the Funds’ Prospectuses.
21. For example, on page 8 of the 2005 Annual Report, there is a
section in the Advantage Income Fund holdings table that starts “Asset-
Backed Securities – Non-Investment Grades – 55.2% of Net Assets”. Within
that section is “Commercial Loans” and listed therein is GS Mortgage 1998
C-1 H. See Figure 2.
3
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890175/0000950131-96-005294.txt
Page 10 of 24 Tab 18, p. 10 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 150 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 10 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
Figure 2: Advantage Income Fund 2005 Annual Report Excerpt
22. The GS Mortgage 1998 C-1 H is clearly a security backed by
mortgages not a security backed by commercial loans.4 The Defendants also
list the Merrill Lynch 204(sic)-WMC3 B45 mortgage-backed security in the
“Asset-Backed Security – Commercial Loan” category. This mortgage-
backed security is incorrectly listed in the holdings table as an “Asset-Backed
Security – Commercial Loan” and as a “Commercial Loan” in the summary
asset allocation table. This misclassification understated the concentration in
mortgage-backed securities and made the portfolio seem more diversified than
it actually was.
4
The Prospectus for GS Mortgage 1998 C-1 H is available at
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1004158/0000950136-98-02349.txt.
5
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/809940/000095012304006256/y97242e424b5.txt.
Page 11 of 24 Tab 18, p. 11 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 151 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 11 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
23. This misrepresentation is important because the funds were
much more concentrated in housing and housing finance risk than the
Prospectuses and other SEC filings disclosed. The Defendants told investors
what “mortgage-backed securities” meant in the Funds’ Prospectuses.
Therefore, regardless of how some other firm or an issuer, classified these
assets, they should not have been classified by the Funds as asset backed
securities which the Fund defined to be backed by non-mortgage collateral
“such as, among other things, motor vehicle installment sales contracts,
installment loan contracts, leases of various types of real and personal
property, and receivables from revolving credit (credit card) agreements or a
combination of the foregoing.”
VI. The Prospectuses, Annual Reports and Semi-Annual Reports
Misrepresented the Liquidity of the Funds’ Holdings
24. The Prospectuses state that the Funds will value the portfolios’
holdings at market prices and where closing market prices are not available
the Funds will value the holdings at fair value in good faith. At the bottom of
the NAV table which ends on page 7 of the 2005 Annual Report there is this
note:
(1) Net asset value is calculated after the close of
the exchanges each day by taking the closing market
value of all securities owned plus all other assets
such as cash, subtracting all liabilities, then
dividing the result (total net assets) by the total
number of shares outstanding. The market price is the
last reported price at which a security was sold on an
exchange.
25. This note in the 2005 Annual Report is untrue since most of the
Funds’ securities did not have a market price. The NAVs reported in the table
on page 5 of the 2005 Annual Report were largely determined at the
Defendants’ discretion.
Page 12 of 24 Tab 18, p. 12 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 152 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 12 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
26. Sixty pages later in the notes to the financial statements there is
a Note 2 which reads.
NOTE 2: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The following is a summary of significant accounting
policies consistently followed by the Funds in the
preparation of their financial statements. These
policies are in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.
INVESTMENT VALUATIONS--Investments in securities that
trade on national securities exchanges are stated at
the last reported sales price on the day of valuation.
Securities traded in the over-the-counter market and
listed securities for which no sale was reported on
that date are stated at the last quoted bid price. The
Funds normally obtain market values for their
securities from an independent pricing service or from
the use of an internal matrix system that derives
value based on comparable securities. Debt securities
with remaining maturities of 60 days or less are
valued at amortized cost, or original cost plus
accrued interest, both of which approximate market.
When a Fund believes that a market quote does not
reflect a security's true value, the Fund may
substitute for the market value a fair value estimate
made according to methods approved by the Board of
Directors. The values assigned to fair value
investments are based on available information and do
not necessarily represent amounts that might
ultimately be realized, since such amounts depend on
future developments inherent in long-term investments.
Further, because of the inherent uncertainty of
valuation, such estimated values may differ
significantly from the values that would have been
used had a ready market for the investments existed,
and the differences could be material.
27. Based on the note to the NAV table on page 7 and Note 2 to the
financial statements at the end of the 2005 Annual Report investors are led to
believe that NAVs reported at least to March 31, 2005 were based on actual
market prices. In fact, there were no “closing market values” for most of the
holdings and the Funds placed the same value on many of the securities it held
Page 13 of 24 Tab 18, p. 13 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 153 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 13 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
every day for months at a time because there were not readily available
transaction prices or quotes.
28. This valuation was inconsistent with the Prospectuses and while
it may have not caused the NAV to be systematically too high or too low on
any given day it did cause the funds’ NAVs to be smoothed. In fact, for large
swaths of the portfolios, the Defendants just left the price unchanged for
months at a time. This all resulted in the Funds appearing more stable and
their holdings more liquid to investors than the reality of the underlying
investments, misrepresenting the true risks of the Funds.
VII. The Defendants Use of Stale Prices Was Inconsistent With
Prospectus Disclosures
29. The Prospectuses acknowledge that the market price of illiquid
securities is more volatile than of liquid securities. At page 20:
ILLIQUID AND RESTRICTED SECURITIES. Illiquid
investments are investments that cannot be sold or
disposed of in the ordinary course of business at
approximately the prices at which they are valued.
Investments currently considered by the Adviser to be
illiquid include repurchase agreements not entitling
the holder to repayment of principal and payment of
interest within seven days, non-government stripped
fixed-rate mortgage-backed securities, and over-the-
counter options. In the absence of readily available
market quotations a committee appointed by the Fund's
Board will price illiquid investments at a fair value
as determined in good faith. Valuing illiquid
securities typically requires greater judgment than
valuing securities for which there is an active
trading market. The market price of illiquid
securities generally is more volatile than that of
more liquid securities, which may adversely affect the
price that the Fund pays for or recovers upon the sale
of illiquid securities.
Investment of the Fund's assets in illiquid securities
may restrict the Fund's ability to take advantage of
market opportunities. The risks associated with
Page 14 of 24 Tab 18, p. 14 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 154 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 14 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
illiquid securities may be particularly acute in
situations in which the Fund's operations require cash
and could result in the Fund borrowing to meet its
short-term needs or incurring losses on the sale of
illiquid securities.
30. At page 36:
NET ASSET VALUE
The Fund calculates net asset value for its common
shares every day the NYSE is open when regular trading
closes (normally 4:00 p.m. Eastern time).
For purposes of determining the net asset value of a
common share, the value of the securities held by the
Fund plus any cash or other assets (including interest
accrued but not yet received) minus all liabilities
(including accrued expenses and indebtedness) is
divided by the total number of common shares
outstanding at such time. Expenses, including the fees
payable to the Adviser, are accrued daily.
The Fund generally will value its portfolio securities
using closing market prices or readily available
market quotations. The Fund may use a pricing service
or a pricing matrix to value some of its assets.
Securities for which the primary market is on an
exchange (domestic or foreign) will be valued at the
last sale price on such exchange on the day of
valuation or, if there was no sale on such day, at the
last quoted bid price.
Securities traded primarily in the Nasdaq Stock Market
are normally valued by the Fund at the Nasdaq Official
Closing Price ("NOCP") provided by Nasdaq each
business day. The NOCP is the most recently reported
price as of 4:00:02 p.m. Eastern Time, unless that
price is outside the range of the "inside" bid and
asked price(i.e., the bid and asked prices that
dealers quote to each other when trading for their own
accounts); in that case, Nasdaq will adjust the price
to equal the inside bid or asked price, whichever is
closer. Because of delays in reporting trades, the
NOCP may not be based on the price of the last trade
to occur before the market closes. Securities that are
traded in the over-the-counter market will be valued
at the last quoted bid price. Debt securities with
remaining maturities of 60 days or less will be valued
Page 15 of 24 Tab 18, p. 15 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 155 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 15 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
at amortized cost or original cost plus accrued
interest, both of which approximate market value.
Foreign securities are translated from the local
currency into U.S. dollars using current exchange
rates. Foreign securities markets may be open on days
when the U.S. markets are closed. For this reason, the
value of any foreign securities owned by the Fund
could change on a day a stockholder cannot buy or sell
shares of the Fund. When closing market prices or
market quotations are not available or are considered
by the Adviser to be unreliable, the Fund may use a
security's fair value. Fair value is the valuation of
a security determined on the basis of factors other
than market value in accordance with procedures
approved by the Fund's Board. The use of fair value
pricing by the Fund may cause the net asset value of
its shares to differ from the net asset value that
would be calculated using closing market prices.
31. The Funds, in fact, placed the same price on many (most) of the
securities it held every day for months at a time because there were not readily
available transaction prices or quotes. This valuation was inconsistent with
the Prospectus and while it may have not caused the NAV to be systematically
too high or too low on any given day it did cause the funds’ NAVs to be
smoothed.
VIII. The Defendants Use of Stale Prices Misled Third-Party Vendors of
Fund Rankings
32. The Funds provided return information to Morningstar, Lipper
and others for purposes of being ranked, rated or compared. The Funds also
compared their returns to other funds or to indexes in their filings and
marketing materials. Having said the Funds would provide data to
Morningstar and others and advertise the rankings thus generated, it was false
and misleading to not also tell investors the Funds were going to smooth the
NAVs to get higher rankings or “Star” ratings. There is nothing in the
prospectus disclosure that warns investors that the Funds would leave
Page 16 of 24 Tab 18, p. 16 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 156 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 16 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
unchanged for a year or longer the values the Funds placed on much of their
holdings, thus making the low volatility of their NAV completely artificial
and the accolades they received from services like Morningstar unearned.
33. Also, the Funds said they would compare their returns to indexes
and that this information should be considered in light of similarities to the
index and current market conditions. They then repeatedly compared their
returns in the Annual and Semi-annual Reports to the Lehman Ba index which
contains none of the securities which dominate the Funds’ returns.
34. At page 53 of the first Statement of Additional Information
attached to the prospectus for the Advantage Income Fund:
PERFORMANCE-RELATED, COMPARATIVE AND OTHER INFORMATION
The Fund may quote certain performance-related
information and may compare certain aspects of its
portfolio and structure to other similar funds as
categorized by Lipper, Inc., Morningstar Inc. or other
independent services.
Comparison of the Fund to an alternative investment
should be made with consideration of differences in
features and expected performance. The Fund may obtain
and report data from sources or reporting services,
such as Bloomberg Financial and Lipper, Inc. that the
Fund believes to be generally accurate.
From time to time, the Fund and/or the Adviser may
report to Stockholders or to the public in
advertisements concerning the Adviser's performance as
an adviser to Regions Morgan Keegan mutual funds and
other clients, or concerning the comparative
performance or standing of the Adviser in relation to
other investment advisers. Comparative information may
be compiled or provided by independent ratings
services or by news organizations. Advertisements may
refer to opinions or rankings of the Adviser's overall
investment management performance or the Fund's
performance contained in third-party reports or
publications. Performance information for the Fund or
for other Regions Morgan Keegan funds or accounts
managed by the Adviser may also be compared to various
unmanaged indices or to other benchmarks, some of
Page 17 of 24 Tab 18, p. 17 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 157 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 17 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
which may not be available for direct investment. Any
performance information, whether related to the Fund
or the Adviser, should be considered in light of the
Fund's investment objectives and policies, the
characteristics and quality of the Fund, and the
market conditions during the time period indicated,
and it should not be considered to be representative
of what may be achieved in the future. The Adviser may
provide its opinion with respect to general economic
conditions including such matters as trends in default
rates or economic cycles.
The Fund's advertising materials may reference the
history of the Adviser and its affiliates or
information concerning key investment and managerial
personnel including the portfolio manager. These
materials may make reference to certain other open-end
investment companies managed by the Adviser.
35. The first paragraph of the management discussion on page 3 in
the 2005 Annual Report reads:
RMK Advantage Income Fund, Inc.
Portfolio Commentary
March 31, 2005
MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE
RMK Advantage Income Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") began
trading on November 8, 2004 under the ticker symbol
RMA after an initial public offering at $15 per share.
The Fund had a total return of 7.30% for the period
ended March 31, 2005, based on market price and
reinvested dividends. The Fund had a total return of
3.53% for the period ended March 31, 2005, based on
net asset value and reinvested dividends. From
November 8, 2004 until March 31, 2005, the LEHMAN
BROTHERS BA U.S. HIGH YIELD INDEX had a total return
of -0.56%. The Fund's strong performance was primarily
attributable to the Fund's relative yield advantage as
evidenced by the monthly dividend distributions and
the relative net asset value stability produced by the
Fund's allocation in a wide variety of asset types.
(Emphasis added)
Page 18 of 24 Tab 18, p. 18 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 158 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 18 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
36. The Funds misled investors by comparing the funds returns to
the Lehman Ba Index which contains no mortgage backed securities – only
corporate bonds. The Funds also falsely state that their relative NAV stability
was due to their diversification when in fact the NAV stability was due to not
marking to market their portfolios daily.
IX. Comparisons to the Lehman Ba Index Misrepresented the RMK
Funds’ Risk
37. The Funds’ Annual and Semi-annual Reports repeatedly
compared their returns to the Lehman Brothers’ Ba High Yield index despite
that index containing no mortgage backed securities, no asset backed
securities and no structured finance.
38. As the Securities and Exchange Commission found in In Re
Piper Jaffray, it is false and misleading to claim diversification benefits when
the particular structure of the securities purchased by the fund aggravates the
underlying risks so dramatically that the particular sub-segment of the fixed
income asset class invested in and which generated the unlevered risk is not
material.
39. In the Piper Capital Management (PCM) case, the SEC
Administrative Law Judge found:
Further, the report states that PJIGX "is invested in more than 200
different securities which offset one another and help the fund to perform
well in a variety of economic scenarios" …, again implying diversification
in the familiar sense. Further undermining PCM's reliance on technical
accuracy is the fact that Bruntjen's unorthodox strategy of purchasing a
variety of CMO derivative securities at a discount and actively managing
the cash flows as they accreted to par … mystified even peer fund
managers.
Page 19 of 24 Tab 18, p. 19 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 159 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 19 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
… Finally, it was affirmatively misleading to characterize Bruntjen's cash
flow management "diversification" and Fund leverage as risk/volatility
hedges. …
40. PCM did not challenge the ALJ’s conclusion on the materially
misleading nature of PCM’s diversification claims for PJIGX and so the
Commission accepted the ALJ’s findings on this point. The Defendants’
repeated claims that the Funds were diversified rise and fall on the same failed
hyper-technical defenses PCM advanced before the SEC. As with PJIGX,
these Funds placed highly leveraged bets on credit risk – interest rate risk in
the case of PJIGX - and were not “diversified” in the sense that the
Prospectuses of these Funds represented.
41. In addition to the common structural features in most of the
securities in the Funds, the assets ultimately underlying most of these Fund’s
holdings were housing and housing finance related. The Defendants did not
analyze the portfolio holding sufficiently well prior to 2007 to justify the
claimed diversification. After investors like the Plaintiffs lost billions of
dollars in the RMK funds in 2007, the Defendants attempted to determine the
nature of the underlying assets and found that the fund was more than 57%
housing and housing finance.
42. In the case identified above, the SEC found that PCM’s
comparison of one of PJIGX’s returns to an index that contained none of the
asset type that dominated its holdings was materially false and misleading.
43. Piper Jaffray marketed PJIGX in the early 1990s to investors who
wanted to invest in short and intermediate term fixed-income securities issued
by the U.S. government and government agencies. Many of the securities
PJIGX held were Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs) including
Page 20 of 24 Tab 18, p. 20 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 160 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 20 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
inverse floaters. These securities were especially poorly described by the risk
characteristics Piper Jaffray reported to investors.
44. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Piper Capital
Management’s choice of benchmark was material to investors and was
misleading because it didn’t contain the same type of securities as the mutual
fund held and because the comparison implied a lower interest rate risk than
the portfolio actually had.
“Similar reasoning would apply to PCM's use of the Merrill Lynch 3-5
Year Treasury Bond Index as a benchmark for Fund performance. PJIGX
annual/Semi-annual Reports to shareholders systematically compared
Fund performance to that index. … PJIGX marketing materials and sales
presentations made similar comparisons. … I find and conclude that
expressly comparing Fund performance to the Merrill Lynch 3-5 Year
Treasury Bond Index establishes a substantial likelihood that reasonable
investors would consider the comparisons important in making PJIGX
investment decisions and would view the comparisons as significantly
altering the total mix of available information. It follows that
PPJIGX/Merrill Lynch 3-5 Year Treasury Bond Index comparisons were
material to investors.
The record casts doubt on PCM's claim that the Merrill Lynch 3-5 Year
Treasury Bond Index was an appropriate risk/performance benchmark for
PJIGX. The Fund's distinguishing feature was an extremely high
proportion of CMO derivative securities. … The Merrill Lynch 3-5 Year
Treasury Bond Index contained no CMOs/CMO derivative securities
whatsoever. … Moreover, the record indicates that PJIGX exhibited
multiples of the interest rate sensitivity exhibited by the Merrill Lynch 3-5
Year Treasury Bond Index. …” 6
45. The Securities and Exchange Commission affirmed the ALJ’s
findings in a strongly worded Opinion that included the following.
PCM further misled investors by comparing the Fund's performance to the
Merrill Lynch three- to five-year Treasury Bond Index. The Merrill Lynch
three- to five-year Treasury Bond Index, unlike the Fund, did not include
CMOs. Thus, the Fund's increasing proportion of CMOs exposed it to
6
In the Matter of Piper Capital Management, Inc., et al. Initial Decision Release No. 175 File
No. 3-9657 November 30, 2000 available at
www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id175hpy.htm#P218_14823
Page 21 of 24 Tab 18, p. 21 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 161 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 21 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
interest-rate sensitivity not exhibited by the Merrill Lynch three- to five-
year Treasury Bond Index. 7
46. Similarly in this case, more than 50% of the Funds’ portfolio
holdings were mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities and other
structured finance and virtually all of these securities were at or near the
bottom of the various investments’ capital structure. The Lehman Ba index
contained only corporate bonds. The current Defendants’ comparison of the
Funds to the Lehman Ba index in Annual Reports is identically analogous in
all material respects to PCM’s comparison of PJIGX’s returns to the Merrill
Lynch 3-5 Year Treasury Bond Index which the SEC found was materially
false and misleading.
X. The Defendants Misrepresented the Volatility of the Funds
47. In the Annual Reports, the Defendants compared the Fund’s net
asset volatility to the Lehman Brothers Ba Index. This comparison was
grossly false and misleading because the Defendants did not mark–to-market
much of the Funds’ portfolio holdings. By using stale and unchanging values
for the fund’s holdings, the Defendants understated changes from day to day
in the Funds’ net asset values. The Defendants then calculated volatilities
based on the artificially smoothed net asset values, thereby significantly
understating the fund’s volatility.
48. The Defendants were smoothing fluctuations in the market
values of the securities held in the Funds by not marking–to-market a large
portion of its portfolio on a daily basis. A mutual fund’s Net Asset Value is
simply the sum of the value of the fund’s portfolio holdings divided by the
number of fund units. By keeping constant the value placed each day on a
7
In the Matter of Piper Capital Management, Inc., et al., Securities Act of 1933 Release No.
8276, August 26, 2003 available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/33-8276.htm.
Page 22 of 24 Tab 18, p. 22 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 162 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 22 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
number of the fund’s holdings, the Defendants smoothed daily changes in the
NAV which in turn misrepresented the volatility of the Funds.
XI. Damages
49. Between January 2005 and February 2010, the Plaintiffs invested
$2,534,777 in the Funds and received $281,630 in sales proceeds from the
sale of shares purchased after January 1, 2005. The Fund shares still held by
the Plaintiffs on February 28, 2010 were worth $108. The Plaintiffs thus
suffered capital losses of $2,253,039.
50. The Plaintiffs received dividends distributions from the Fund
shares purchased after January 1, 2005 of $762,847 and capital gains
distributions of $54,840 and thus suffered net out-of-pocket losses of
$1,435,352.
51. If the identical cash investments and withdrawals had been made
in a true high yield bond fund instead of the Funds, the Plaintiffs would have
had a gain of $416,154 up through February 28, 2010 and so its losses adjusted
for high yield bond market conditions are $1,851,506.
XII. Comments
52. The misrepresentations and omissions listed above are
illustrative, not exhaustive. The Funds’ Prospectuses repeatedly misclassified
and failed to disclose the magnitude of the Funds’ investments in mortgage-
backed securities and in asset-backed securities and the attendant risks. It is
my understanding that discovery is still ongoing. My understanding of the
facts in this case is based upon a preliminary assessment of the documents
available to date. I am continuing to review these documents. To the extent
that the facts of the case (after further review of the documents or further fact
discovery) differ from my current understanding, my findings may change.
Page 23 of 24 Tab 18, p. 23 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 163 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 23 of 97
Expert Report of Craig J. McCann, PhD, CFA
CF A
Page 24 of24 Tab 18, p. 24 of 24
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25
Page 164 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 24 of 97
TAB 19
Page 165 of 181
Craig McCann, Ph.D., CFA
Principal
CRAIGMCCANN@SLCG.COM
703-246-9381
Key Qualifications
Dr. McCann is Principal, Securities Litigation and Consulting
Group, Inc. He is experienced in securities class action litigation,
financial analysis, investment management and valuation. Dr. McCann
has taught graduate investment management at Georgetown
University and at the University of Maryland, College Park. He held a
Series 7 and a Series 63 NASD. Dr. McCann is a Chartered Financial
Analyst.
Dr. McCann received a B.A. and an M.A. in Economics from the University of Western
Ontario and a Doctorate degree in Economics from the University of California, at Los Angeles.
Dr. McCann’s fields of graduate study were industrial organization, mathematical economics and
information and uncertainty. His dissertation examined the incidence of golden parachutes and their
effect on stock prices. After receiving his doctorate degree, Dr. McCann taught economics at the
University of South Carolina.
Prior to founding Securities Litigation and Consulting Group, Dr. McCann was Director at
LECG and Managing Director, Securities Litigation at KPMG. Dr. McCann was a senior financial
economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission. There he focused on investment
management issues and contributed financial analysis to numerous investigations involving alleged
insider trading, securities fraud, personal trading abuses and broker-dealer misconduct.
Dr. McCann was a Senior Consultant at a consulting firm where he managed projects
involving alleged securities fraud, insider trading, and market manipulation. These projects included
analysis of materiality, causation, damages and class certification. In addition, he has consulted on
transfer pricing, breach of contract, labor and antitrust cases as well as on various regulatory matters.
Dr. McCann has published in the Journal of Alternative Investments, Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance, Journal of Asset Management, Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, Journal of
Derivatives, Journal of Derivatives & Hedge Funds, Journal of Financial Transformation, Harvard Business
Review, Journal of Index Investing, Journal of Investing, Journal of Legal Economics, Journal of Retirement and the
Journal of Risk. He has testified in state and federal court, in NASD, NYSE, JAMS and AAA
arbitration proceedings and before the United States Senate and has been quoted in the New York
Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Bond Buyer, American Banker, Money
Magazine, Kiplinger Retirement Report and Crain’s Investment News.
Tab 19, p. 1 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 166 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
Professional Experience
SECURITIES LITIGATION AND CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
2000 - Principal
Provides expert consulting and testifying in securities class actions, investment management,
labor and valuation disputes.
Navigant Consulting, Inc. / LECG
1999-2000 Director
Provided expert consulting and testifying in complex litigation.
KPMG llp
1997-1999 Managing Director, Securities Litigation
Directed projects in complex litigation.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK
1995-1998 Adjunct Professor of Finance
Taught graduate investment management.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
1996 Adjunct Professor of Finance
Taught graduate investment management.
NATIONAL ECONOMIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
1995-1997 Senior Consultant
Directed projects in the economics of complex securities litigation.
VIRGINIA TECH
1995-1997 Adjunct Professor of Economics
Taught graduate managerial economics.
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
1994-1995 Professional Fellow and Acting Associate Chief Economist for Policy
Reviewed Commission initiatives and coordinated research in support of Chief Economist.
Conducted research into portfolio performance, personal trading and quantitative risk measures.
Provided financial analysis in support of enforcement.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CORPORATION
1993-1994 Senior Economist
Directed projects involving analysis of vertical and horizontal practices, mergers, and general
business damages.
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
1992-1993 Academic Fellow
Conducted research into the valuation and expensing of employee stock options, reviewed policy
proposals and supported enforcement actions.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
1987-1992 Assistant Professor
Taught economics, antitrust and public policy towards business at undergraduate, masters, MBA and
doctorate levels.
Tab 19, p. 2 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 167 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
Education
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
1989 Ph.D., Economics
1986 M.A., Economics
UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO
1983 M.A., Economics
1982 B.A., Economics
Chartered Financial Analyst
Series 7 NASD Registration (1997-1999)
Series 63 NASD Registration (1997-1999)
Professional Activities
American Economic Association
American Finance Association
Chartered Financial Analyst Institute
Washington Society of Investment Analysts
Testimony, Depositions, Reports and Affidavits
Federal Court
Patsy Chambers, et al v North American Company for Life, United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa Central Division, No. 4:11-CV-00579-JAJ-CFB
Expert Report, March 17, 2014.
Vida F. Negrete, et al v. Allianz Life Insurance Company, United States District Court, Central District of
California, Case No: CV 05-6838
Declaration, November 1, 2013.
Deposition, May 1, 2012.
Expert Report, March 9, 2012.
Declaration, September 15, 2011.
Deposition, May 27, 2011.
Supplemental Declaration, March 31, 2011
Deposition, October 29, 2008.
Declaration, July 25, 2008.
Second Supplemental Declaration, September 18, 2006.
Supplemental Declaration, July 16, 2006.
Declaration, May 26, 2006.
The Municipal Corporation of Bremanger, et al v Citigroup, Inc.et al. United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, Civil Action, Civil Action No. 09-CV-7058.
Declaration, July 13, 2012.
Deposition, April 18, 2012.
Rebuttal Expert Report, March 28, 2012.
Expert Report, February 29, 2012.
Tab 19, p. 3 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 168 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
Bank of America, N.A. v JB Hanna et al. United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas,
Civil Action, Civil Action No. 10-5220
Deposition, April 16, 2012.
Expert Report, March 19, 2012.
In re: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) Securities Litigation, United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, Civil Action 09-MD-2072 (MGC)
Hearing Testimony, October November December 2011.
Rebuttal Expert Report, September 14, 2011.
Deposition, August 2, 2011.
Expert Report, June 30, 2011.
Susan Antilla v. L. J. Altfest & Co., Inc.,, United States District Court, District of Connecticut, No. 3:09-
CV-2128-VLB.
Deposition, December 20, 2011
Expert Report, August 12, 2011.
In re : International Management Associates, LLC, United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division, Case No. 06-62966.
Declaration, December 16, 2011.
Expert Report, July 7, 2011.
Thomas Todd Martin, III et al v Wachovia Bank, NA et al, United States District Court, Northern District of
Alabama, Case No.: CV-09-902464
Expert Report, June 17, 2011.
Corporate America Credit Union v Joseph Herbst, et al , United States District Court, Northern District of
Alabama, Case No.: CV-09-J-2126-S
Rebuttal Expert Report, May 23, 2011.
Sierra-Sonora Enterprises, Inc. et al v Domino’s Pizza, LLC et al, United States District Court, District of
Arizona, NO. 2:10-cv-00105-JAT
Expert Report, August 24, 2010.
Houston Police Officer’s Pension System v. State Street Bank and Trust Company and State Street Global Advisors, Inc.
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, No. 08-05442-RJH
Declaration, July 1, 2010.
Deposition, May 10, 2010.
Rebuttal Expert Report, March 19, 2010
Expert Report, January 15, 2010.
Akanthos Capital Management, LLC, et al. v CompuCredit Holdings Corporation, United States District Court,
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, No. 1:10-CV-844-TCB
Declaration, May 7, 2010.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kederio Ainsworth et al, United States District Court, central District of
California, Eastern Division, Civil Action No. EDCV08-1350 VAP(OPx)
Deposition, February 2, 2010.
Supplemental Expert Report, January 5, 2010
Expert Report, December 11, 2009.
Florence Smith v National Western Life Insurance Company United States District Court, Middle District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Action no. 08-2119
Expert Report, January 4, 2010.
Tab 19, p. 4 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 169 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
City of Cedar Rapids and Cedar Rapids/Linn county Solid Waste Agency v. Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC.
United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division, No. ___
Rebuttal Expert Report, December 2, 2009.
Expert Report, September 3, 2009.
Daniel G. Schmidt, III v Wachovia Bank, N.A. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, No. 08-05442-RJH
Deposition, February 25, 2010.
Expert Report, October 30, 2009.
In Re Midland National Insurance Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litigation, United States District Court, Central
District of California, No. MDL No. 07-1825 CAS (MANx).
Deposition, September 12, 2009.
Supplemental Declaration, June 19, 2009.
Deposition, January 8, 2008.
Declaration, October 31, 2007.
Deposition, July 27, 2007.
Declaration, July 16, 2007.
Declaration, July 2, 2007.
Declaration, June 29, 2007.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Biovail Corporation et al, United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, Civil Action No. 08 CIV 02979 (LAK)
Expert Report, July 2, 2009.
CountryMark Cooperative, LLP, v Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., United States District Court, Southern
District of Indiana, Case No: 1:08-cv-00118-RLY-JMS
Expert Report, April 6, 2009
Amy J. Straily et al v UBS Financial services, Inc., United States District Court, District of Colorado, Case
No: 07-cv-00884-REB-KMT
Deposition, February 22, 2009.
Supplemental Expert Report, January 16, 2009
Expert Report, January 16, 2009
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Competitive Technologies, et al, United States District Court, District of
Connecticut, Civil Action No. 304-CV-1331 JCH.
Trial Testimony, October 7, 2008.
Trial Testimony, November 15, 2007.
Deposition, February 22, 2006.
Expert Report, January 30, 2006.
In Re American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation, United States District Court, Central District of
California, No. MDL No. CV-05-6735-CAS (MANx).
Deposition, July 24, 2008.
Declaration, April 21, 2008.
In re Alstom SA Securities Litigation, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case
No: 03-CV-6595 (VM).
Affidavit, January 4, 2008.
Vida F. Negrete, et al v. Fidelity and Guaranty Life Insurance Company, United States District Court, Central
District of California, Case No: CV 05-6837.
Declaration, January 22, 2008.
Declaration, December 26, 2007.
Tab 19, p. 5 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 170 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
Deposition, August 28, 2007.
Declaration, July 23, 2007.
Youxin (Kevin) Ma et al v Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Irene S. Ng, United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, Case No. 06 CV 15497.
Expert Report, December 24, 2007.
Dale Sakai v Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Company, United States District Court, Northern District of
California, Case No: CV 06-2581.
Deposition, December 10, 2007.
Expert Report, October 26, 2007.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Louis E. Rivelli, et al, United States District Court, District of
Colorado, Civ. 05-CV-1039 RPM-MJW
Deposition, March 3, 2008.
Expert Report, October 8, 2007.
Kevin Lamkin, et al v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Civil
Action No. H-02-0851
Deposition, February 28, 2007.
Expert Report, June 1, 2006.
Carmen Migliaccio, et al. v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, United States District Court, Central
District of California, Case No: CV 05-6838.
Deposition, February 13, 2007.
Declaration, December 28, 2006.
Gary Yokoyama, et al. v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, United States District Court, District of
Hawaii, Case No. 05-00303 MS KSC.
Deposition, November 20, 2006.
Declaration, November 10, 2006.
Declaration, May 4, 2006.
Samuel Cooper, et al v. Pacific Life Insurance Company et al, United States District Court, Southern
District of Georgia, Case No. CV 203-131
Deposition, September 12, 2006.
Expert Report, July 5, 2006.
United States of America v. Jamie Olis, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
Criminal Number H-03-217.
Expert Report, December 23, 2005.
David Henderlight and Christine Henderlight v AmSouth Bank, United States District Court, Eastern
District of Tennessee, Knoxville Division Civil Action No: 3:02-CV-169.
Deposition Testimony, July 7, 2005.
Expert Report, January 18, 2005.
United States of America v. Bernard J. Ebbers United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, Docket S4 02 Cr. 1144 (BSJ).
Expert Report June 8, 2005.
In Re: Kaiser Group International, Inc. et al., United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware, Case Nos. 00-2263 to 00-2301 (MFW).
Declaration, May 29, 2005.
Tab 19, p. 6 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 171 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
United States of America v. Shawn P. McGhee United States District Court, District of Eastern
Virginia, Docket 04-495.
Expert Report March 4, 2005.
Walnut Capital Partners et al. v Key Bank / McDonald Investments, Inc., United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 03-CV-0284.
Affidavit, February 14, 2005.
Deposition Testimony, September 8, 2004.
Supplemental Expert Report July 2, 2004
Expert Report June 1, 2004
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Gane et al United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida Miami Division, Civil Action No:03-61553.
Trial Testimony, December 10, 2004.
Deposition Testimony August 2, 2004.
Expert Report July 20, 2004.
Simon Falic et al v Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of
Florida, West Palm Beach Division Civil Action No. 03-80377.
Expert Report, October 19, 2004.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David W. Butler United States District Court, Western District
of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 00-1827.
Trial Testimony September 21, 2004.
Expert Report January 9, 2003.
Deposition Testimony, October 26, 2001.
Expert Report October 15, 2001.
United States of America v. Franklin C. Brown United States District Court, Middle District of
Pennsylvania CR-02-146-02.
Trial Testimony, August 6, 2004.
Expert Report July 19, 2004.
United States of America v. Jeffry R. Anderson United States District Court, District of Eastern
Virginia, Docket 1:03-CR-444.
Expert Report January 2, 2004.
United States of America v. Scott H. Miller United States District Court, District of Eastern Virginia,
Docket No. 03-443-A.
Expert Report December 3, 2003.
In re: World Access, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of
Georgia Atlanta Division, 1:99-CV-0043-ODE.
Rebuttal Expert Report August 8, 2003.
Expert Report June 27, 2003.
In re: Pediatric Services of America, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court, Northern
District of Georgia Atlanta Division.
Expert Report November 19, 2001.
Affidavit, October 13, 2000.
United States of America v. Paul F. Polishan United States District Court, Middle District of
Pennsylvania No.3: CR-96-274.
Trial Testimony November 15, 2001.
Expert Report November 5, 2001.
Tab 19, p. 7 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 172 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
Kantishna Mining Company, Inc. et al v. Gail Norton et al United States District Court, District of
Alaska F98-007 CV.
Declaration, June 1, 2001.
Expert Report and Declaration, April 17, 2001.
H. James Griggs et al v. Pace American Group, Inc., Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P., et al United States
District Court, District of Arizona.
Trial Testimony, March 13, 2001.
Deposition Testimony, December 4, 2000.
Expert Report, November 14, 2000.
David Lesser, et al v Quadramed Corporation United States District Court, District of Eastern Virginia
No: 00 Civ. 606-A.
Expert Report, September 8, 2000.
John Tenaglia and The Tenaglia Family Partnership v. A.F. Best Securities et al, United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida.
Expert Report, March 31, 2000.
UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. MP3.com, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, No:00 Civ. 0472.
Expert Report, August 8, 1999.
Jonathan Bekhor et al v. Josephthal Holdings et al, United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, No: 96 Civ. 4156.
Deposition Testimony, September 30, 1999.
Expert Report, August 20, 1999.
John Shane and Beth Goodman v. Tokai Bank, United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, No:96 Civ. 5187.
Trial Testimony, October 23, 24 1997.
Deposition Testimony, October 19, 1997.
Expert Report, October 18, 1997.
State Court
Francis P. Maybank v BB&T Corporation, et al, State of South Carolina, County of Greenville,
Court of Common Pleas, C.A. No. 2011-CP-23-8578.
Deposition, February 7, 2014
Robert L. McDonald v Camarind, Mogey & Fife et al, In The Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Case No. CD-11-016862.
Expert Report, July 11, 2013.
Commonwealth v. Brett B. Weinstein, Esquire, et al. No. 239 M.D. 2006, Commonwealth v. Estate
Planning Advisors Corp, et al. No. 740 M.D. 2004, and Commonwealth v. Brett B. Weinstein,
Esquire, et al. No. 576 M.D. 2001, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Expert Report, April 8, 2013.
Firefighters Retirement System v Regions Bank et al, State of Louisiana, Nineteenth Judicial District
Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Docket No. 56874, Division 25.
Expert Report, November 1, 2012.
Expert Report, July 20, 2012.
Tab 19, p. 8 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 173 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
C. Randall Lewis, Receiver v. Steve Taylor, District Court, Denver County, Co., Case No.
2011CV2071.
Affidavit, November 1, 2012.
Expert Report, October 8, 2012.
In Re International Textile Group, Inc. Merger Litigation, State of South Carolina, County of
Greenville, Court of Common Pleas, C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346.
Deposition, October 24, 2012.
Supplemental Expert Report, October 19, 2012
Supplemental Expert Report, July 27, 2012.
Deposition Testimony, December 8, 2011.
Expert Report, July 20, 2011.
Deposition Testimony, May 13 and May 14, 2011
Expert Report, April 1, 2011.
Lennar Corporation et al v Briarwood Capital, LLC et al Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County,
CACE 08-55741 CA 40
Deposition Testimony, September 18, 2012.
Expert Report, August 16, 2012
Susan W. Gore v Robert Gore et al Chancery Court, Delaware, C.A. No. 4237-VCN
Rebuttal Expert Report, September 7, 2012.
Expert Report, June 27, 2012.
Woodbridge Holdings, LLC v Prescott Group Aggressive Small Cap Master Fund et al, Circuit Court,
Broward County, CACE 09-64811.
Trial Testimony, May 31, 2012.
Rebuttal Report, May 23, 2011.
Deposition Testimony, May 4, 2012.
Rebuttal Report, April 24, 2011.
Expert Report, April 2, 2011.
Pursuit Partners, LLC and Pursuit Management, LLC v. UBS AG Securities LLC et al, Superior
Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford No. X05-CV-08-4013452-S
Deposition Testimony, June 7, 2011.
Expert Report, May 5, 2011.
Petition of Bank One Trust Company, N.A. For Instruction and Construction of Trust, District Court,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, Case No. PT-2006-013
Trial Testimony, April 19 and May 19, 2011.
Supplemental Expert Report, November 16, 2009.
Deposition Testimony, December 15, 2008.
Expert Report, June 13, 2008.
BB&T Asset Management, Inc., et al v Frederick V. Martin, Virginia Circuit Court for the City of
Norfolk Case No. CL07006153-00
Expert Report, August 15, 2008.
Ross Gampel et al v Northern Trust Bank of Florida, Circuit Court, Broward County, CACE 05-
18352 CA 31,
Deposition Testimony, April 17, 2008.
Tab 19, p. 9 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 174 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
Cynthia Weiss v Robert Sturman, et al In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
August Term, 2006 NO. 3332
Expert Report January 23, 2008.
Salix Affiliates et al v Lattimore, Black, Morgan & Cain, P.C., Chancery Court, Tennessee Case No.
06-1500-IV
Deposition Testimony, December 5, 2007.
Expert Report, September 21, 2007.
Tafazzoli Family Limited, et al v. TradeStation Group, Inc. et al Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County,
CACE 03-19815 CA 40.
Deposition Testimony, September 18, 2007.
Glenn Wall, et al v. James F. Bottoms, et al State Court of Fulton County, Georgia, Case No.
06VS091950F.
Deposition Testimony, June 19, 2007.
Andrew A. Allen Family Limited Partnership v. TradeStation et al Circuit Court, Broward County,
CACE 03-014229.
Trial Testimony, May 4, 2007.
Deposition Testimony, February 20, 2007.
Remmora Investments v Robert Orr, Circuit Court of Fairfax County, VA No. 187948
Trial Testimony, November 20, 2006.
Deposition Testimony, October 9, 2006.
Gerardo Martin Demerutis Chaul, et al, v. Mohammed Abu-Ghazaleh, et al Circuit Court, Miami-Dade
County, CACE 02-31670 CA 32.
Trial Testimony, November 6, 2006.
Deposition Testimony, October 11, 2005.
Expert Report July 15, 2005.
Calomiris v Calomiris, District of Columbia Superior Court, Civil Action No. XX-XXXXXXX
Deposition Testimony, October 11, 2006.
Jack Holtsberg and Elaine M. Holtsberg v. Citigroup et al Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, CACE 50
2004CA000837
Affidavit, August 28, 2006.
Majestic Enterprises v. Northern Trust Bank of Florida Circuit Court, Broward County, CACE 03-
19243.
Deposition Testimony, July 26, 2006.
San Carlos Apache Tribe Government Employee’s 401(K) v. A. Thomas Ullmann et al, Superior Court of
Arizona, Case No. CV2005-005942.
Supplemental Expert Report, July 24, 2006.
Expert Report, June 30, 2006.
Patrick T. Noonan and Nancy J. Noonan v. Hackett Investment Advisors, Inc. et al, Superior Court of
Arizona, No. CV2005-010186.
Deposition Testimony, June 21, 2006.
Stephen F. Johnston et al v Baran Group et al, Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia,
Case No. 2004CV89313.
Deposition Testimony, June 28, 2006.
Expert Report June 9, 2006.
Tab 19, p. 10 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 175 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
Carol Pomerantz et al v. Northern Trust Bank of Florida, et al Circuit Court, Broward County, CACE
02-015246-08,
Deposition Testimony, October 5 and October 12, 2005.
Carney Family Irrevocable Trust of 1999 v State Street Global Advisors, et al Superior Court of
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, CIV. 03-2716 BLS 2
Deposition Testimony, June 21, 2005.
Trust Estate of Emanuel Rosenfeld, Settlor In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Orphans’ Court Division, O.C. NO. 1664 IV OF 2002
Trial Testimony, May 3, 2005.
Expert Report April 8, 2005.
Evi U. Chamness et al v. Northern Trust Bank of Florida, et al Circuit Court, Broward County, CACE
03-001939-12,
Deposition Testimony, February 17 and February 18, 2005.
Affidavit, November 19, 2004.
Ponswamy Rajalingham et al v Urecoats International, Inc. et al, Circuit Court, Broward County, CACE
02-009324,
Deposition Testimony, March 1, 2004.
William J. Kerley v. McCullough, Sherrill LLP, et al State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia,
Civil Action No. 02VS028870E,
Affidavit, March 12, 2004.
Deposition Testimony, September 11, 2003.
Plantation Sales, Inc. dba Plantation Nissan/Volvo v Northern Trust Bank of Florida, Circuit Court,
Broward County, CACE 02-006761 (05),
Deposition Testimony, February 19, 2004.
Century Business Services v Victor C. Moore, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Case No.
469291,
Trial Testimony, February 9, 2004.
Deposition Testimony, January 19, 2004.
Michael B. Holt, as Trustee of the Mark E. Munro Charitable Remainder Unitrust, v. Merrill Lynch Trust
Co., et al Superior Court of New Jersey, Docket # ESX-L-6713-02
Deposition Testimony, January 15, 2004.
Expert Report, September 8, 2003.
Jack E. Forbes v. A.G. Edwards, et al Circuit Court of Monongalia County, State of West Virginia,
Civil Action No. 01-C-325
Trial Testimony, December 11, 2003.
Deposition Testimony, September 30, 2003.
In re: Thompsons vs. Glenmede Trust Company, Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania February Term 2002, 004428
Expert Report, August 25, 2003.
In re: Moutsatsos vs. Glenmede Trust Company, Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania May Term 2001, 003659
Expert Report, July 7, 2003.
Nancy J. Needham et al v. Advanced Communications et al Circuit Court of Florida, Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit, Case No.: 00-0067-CA-HDH
Affidavit, May 15, 2003.
Tab 19, p. 11 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 176 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
JDN Realty et al v. McCullough, Sherrill LLP, et al Superior Court of the State of Georgia, Civil
Action No. 01-CV-39193,
Deposition Testimony, April 8, 2003.
Dezendorf v Riggs Bank, District of Columbia Superior Court, Civil Action No. 00502-01
Deposition Testimony, April 24, 2002.
Ratcliff Family Charitable Remainder Trust et al v. Appletree Capital Management et al Circuit Court of
Collier County, Florida Case No.: 00-0067-CA-HDH
Affidavit, August 22, 2001.
Mahvash Sabet v. Olde Discount Corporation et al, Superior Court of Arizona
Affidavit, July 31, 2001.
Trial Testimony, April 24 and April 25, 2001.
Deposition Testimony, January 22 and January 23, 2001.
Supplemental Expert Report, October 11, 2000.
Expert Report, August 31, 2000.
Affidavit, February 17, 2000.
Pierce v van Beuren, Circuit Court of Rappahannock County, VA
Trial Testimony, January 24, 2001.
Jason A. Forge et al v. National Semiconductor Corp. et al, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara CV 770082
Deposition Testimony, May 18, 2000.
International
In the Matter of Jowdat Waheed and Bruce Walter, before the Ontario Securities Commission
Expert Report, December 24, 2012.
In the Matter of Biovail Corporation et al, before the Ontario Securities Commission
Trial Testimony, April 9, 2009.
Expert Report, February 27, 2009.
AAA and JAMS Arbitrations
Randal Golden v Genspring, AAA Arbitration
Expert Report, November 1, 2013.
Richard Golden v Genspring, AAA Arbitration
Trial Testimony, June 6, 2012.
Rebuttal Expert Report, May 21, 2012.
Expert Report, April 6, 2012.
St. Anthony Foundation vs. SCM Advisors, LLC AAA Arbitration
Trial Testimony, March 8, 2011.
Stephen Tigerman v Heller Capital Resources, Inc. et al JAMS Arbitration
Trial Testimony, February 9, 2011.
Deposition, January 6, 2011.
Peter Fusco v Fisher Investments, Inc. AAA Arbitration,
Trial Testimony, September 16, 2010.
Elliott C. Levinthal al v. First Republic Securities Company LLC et al AAA Arbitration
Trial Testimony, April 7, 2010.
Tab 19, p. 12 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 177 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
Matthew Schoenberg et al v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al AAA Arbitration
Trial Testimony, January 11, 2010.
Deposition, January 5, 2010.
Expert Report, December 11, 2009.
Robert Tandler et al v. First Republic Securities Company LLC et al AAA Arbitration
Trial Testimony, August 25, 2009.
CRG Partners, Inc. et al v Genesis Technology Group, AAA Arbitration
Trial Testimony, December 4 and December 23, 2008.
Deposition Testimony, November 26, 2008 and December 19, 2008.
Supplemental Expert Report, December 18, 2008.
Expert Report, November 24, 2008.
Anthony Ostlund & Baer, P.A. et al v Vigilant Investors L.P. et al. AAA Arbitration
Trial Testimony, October 30, 2008.
Dominion Terminal Associates v. CSX Transportation, Inc., AAA Arbitration
Deposition Testimony, June 23, 2006.
Expert Report, May 17, 2006.
Declaration, February 9, 2006.
Bradley Markham and John Truchanowicz v Black Box Inc., AAA Arbitration
Trial Testimony, June 4, 2002.
Expert Report, May 22, 2002.
Douglas Millar et al v Merrill Lynch, et al JAMS Arbitration.
Trial Testimony, May 9, 2002
Supplemental Expert Report, April 10, 2002.
Expert Report, March 23, 2002.
Raymond H. Stanton II and Raymond H. Stanton III v. Cendant Corporation, AAA Arbitration,
Trial Testimony, October 16 and 18, 2000.
Expert Report, February 9, 2000.
NASD, NYSE and FINRA Arbitrations
Dr. McCann has testified before more than 250 NASD, NYSE, and FINRA arbitrations.
Miscellaneous Testimony
In the Matter of Focus Capital and Nicolas Rowe. Respondent. State of New Hampshire, Secretary of
State, Bureau of Securities Regulation
Expert Report, December 7, 2012.
In the Matter of: UBS Financial Services, Inc. Respondent. State of New Hampshire, Secretary of
State, Bureau of Securities Regulation
Expert Report, February 17, 2011.
South Beach Securities Inc. before the National Securities Clearing Corporation,
Hearing Testimony February 9, 2000.
Expert Report January 31, 2000.
Report on The Adequacy of the SIPC Fund to the Board of Directors of Securities Investor
Protection Corporation, April 22, 1998.
Tab 19, p. 13 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 178 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
Before the Subcommittee on Securities of the Senate Banking Housing and Urban Affairs
Committee, “How (and Why) Companies Should Value Their Employee Stock Options” Senate
Hearings No. 103-359, October 21, 1993.
Publications and Working Papers (available at www.slcg.com)
“A Primer on Non-Traded REITs and Other Alternative Real Estate Investments” with Tim Husson
and Carmen Taveras, forthcoming Alternative Investment Analyst Review, 2014.
“Dual Directional Structured Products” with Geng Deng, Tim Dulaney and Tim Husson, 2014.
forthcoming Journal of Derivatives and Hedge Funds.
“Efficient Valuation of Equity-Indexed Annuities Under Levy Processes Using Fourier-Cosine Series”
with Geng Deng, Tim Dulaney and Mike Yan, 2014, submitted.
“Structured Certificates of Deposit: Introduction and Valuation”, with Geng Deng, Tim Dulaney and
Tim Husson, 2013, forthcoming Financial Services Review.
“Ex-post Structured Product Returns: Index Methodology and Analysis” with Geng Deng, Tim
Dulaney, Tim Husson and Mike Yan, 2014, forthcoming Journal of Index Investing.
“Valuation of Structured Products” with Geng Deng and Tim Husson, 2014, Journal of Alternative
Investments Spring 2014, Vol. 16, No. 4: pp. 71–87
"Modeling a Risk-Based Criterion for a Portfolio with Options” with Geng Deng and Tim Dulaney,
2014, forthcoming Journal of Risk.
“Valuation of Reverse Convertibles in the Variance Gamma Economy” with Geng Deng and Tim
Dulaney, 2014, forthcoming Journal of Derivatives and Hedge Funds.
“Structured Product Based Variable Annuities” with Geng Deng, Tim Dulaney and Tim Husson, 2014,
forthcoming Journal of Retirement.
“Crooked Volatility Smiles: Evidence from Leveraged and Inverse ETF Options” with Geng Deng, Tim
Dulaney and Mike Yan, 2014, forthcoming Journal of Derivatives and Hedge Funds.
“Private Placement Real Estate Valuation” with Timothy Husson, Edward O’Neil and Carmen Taveras,
2014, forthcoming Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis.
“Robust Portfolio Optimization with Value-at-Risk Adjusted Sharpe Ratios,” 2013 with Geng Deng,
Tim Dulaney and Olivia Wang forthcoming Journal of Asset Management.
“The Fall of Willow” with Geng Deng, 2014.
“Using EMMA to Assess Municipal Bond Markups” with Geng Deng, 2013.
“Municipal Bond Markups” with Geng Deng, 2013, submitted.
“Optimizing Portfolio Liquidation Under Risk-Based Margin Requirements” with Geng Deng and Tim
Dulaney, Journal of Finance and Investment Analysis, vol. 2, no. 1, 2013, 121-153.
“The Priority Senior Secured Income Fund,” with Tim Dulaney and Tim Husson, 2013.
“Large Sample Valuations of Tenancies-in-Common” with Timothy Husson, Edward O’Neil and
Carmen Taveras, 2013.
“What is a TIC Worth?” with Tim Husson and Carmen Taveras, 2013.
“The Rise and Fall of Apple-linked Structured Products” with Geng Deng, Tim Dulaney and Mike Yan,
2013.
Tab 19, p. 14 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 179 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
“Are VIX Futures ETPs Effective Hedges?” with Geng Deng and Olivia Wang, 2012, Journal of Index
Investing, 3(3):35-48, Winter 2012.
“The Properties of Short Term Investing in Leveraged ETFs” with Geng Deng, Journal of Financial
Transformation.
“Leveraged Municipal Bond Arbitrage: What Went Wrong?” with Geng Deng, 2012, Journal of Alternative
Investments, Spring 2012, Vol. 14, No. 4: pp. 69–78.
“Isolating the Effect of Day-Count Conventions on the Market Value of Interest Rate Swaps” with
Geng Deng, Tim Dulaney and Tim Husson, 2012.
“CLOs, Warehousing, and Banc of America’s Undisclosed Losses” with Tim Husson and Olivia Wang,
2012.
“Using Monte-Carlo Simulation Techniques to Value Partial Interests in Trusts and Assess the Prudent
Investor Standard” with Geng Deng and Tim Husson, 2012.
“Rethinking the Comparable Companies Valuation Method” with Paul Godek, Dan Simundza and
Carmen Taveras, 2011.
“The Anatomy of Principal Protected Absolute Return Barrier Notes” with Geng Deng, Ilan Guedj and
Joshua Mallett, 2011, Journal of Derivatives, Winter 2011, Vol. 19, No. 2: pp. 61-70.
“Modeling Autocallable Structured Products” with Geng Deng and Joshua Mallett, 2011, Journal of
Derivatives & Hedge Funds 17, 326–340.
“What Does a Mutual Fund’s Term Tell Investors?” with Geng Deng and Edward O’Neal, Journal of
Investing Summer 2011 vol. 20.
“The VXX ETN and Volatility Exposure” with Tim Husson, 2011.
“Futures-Based Commodities ETFs” with Ilan Guedj and Guohua Li, Journal of Index Investing, Summer
2011 vol. 2, no. 1.
“What Does a Mutual Fund’s Average Credit Quality Tell Investors?” with Geng Deng and Edward
O’Neal, Journal of Investing Winter 2010 vol. 19, no. 4.
“Leveraged ETFs, Holding Periods and Investment Shortfalls” with Ilan Guedj and Guohua Li, 2010,
Journal of Index Investing Winter 2010 vol. 1, no. 3.
“Charles Schwab YieldPlus” with Geng Deng, and Edward O’Neal, 2010.
“What TiVo and JP Morgan teach us about Reverse Convertibles”, with Geng Deng, Edward O’Neal,
and Guohua Li, 2010.
“The Risks of Preferred Stock Portfolios,” with Guohua Li and Edward O’Neal, 2010.
“Auction Rate Securities” with Edward O’Neal, 2010.
“Structured Products in the Aftermath of Lehman Brothers” with Geng Deng and Guohua Li, 2009.
“Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund” with Geng Deng and Joshua Mallett, 2009.
“Regions Morgan Keegan and the Abuse of Structured Finance”, 2009.
“An Economic Analysis of Equity-Indexed Annuities”, 2008.
“A CMO Primer: The Law of Conservation of Structured Securities Risk”, 2007.
“Are Structured Products Suitable for Retail Investors?” with Dengpan Luo, 2006.
“An Overview of Equity-Indexed Annuities” with Dengpan Luo, 2006.
Tab 19, p. 15 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 180 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97
“Annuities” with Kaye A. Thomas, 2005.
“Optimal Exercise of Employee Stock Options and Securities Arbitrations” with Kaye A. Thomas, 2005.
“Concentrated Investments, Uncompensated Risk and Hedging Strategies” with Dengpan Luo, , 2004.
“The Use of Leveraged Investments to Diversify a Concentrated Position” with Dengpan Luo, Securities
Arbitration 2004 Handbook PLI.
“Detecting Personal Trading Abuses”, 2003.
“Churning Revisited: Trading Costs and Control” with Dengpan Luo, Securities Arbitration 2003 Handbook
PLI.
“The Suitability of Exercise and Hold,” with Dengpan Luo, Securities Arbitration 2002 Handbook, PLI.
“Spreads, Markups, Sales Credits and Trading Costs,” with Richard Himelrick, Esq.
“The Prudent Investor Rule, Uniform Prudent Investor Act and Financial Theory,” 2000.
“Economic Analysis in Broker Customer Disputes Involving Allegations of Churning,” Journal of Legal
Economics 9:1 Spring/Summer 1999.
“A Comment on Accelerated Trading Models Used in Securities Class Action Lawsuits,” with David
Hsu, Journal of Legal Economics 8:3 Winter 1998-1999.
“How (and Why) Companies Should Value Their Employee Stock Options,” Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance Summer 1994, Volume 7 number 2, page 91.
“Perspectives: Taking Account of Stock Options,” Harvard Business Review January-February 1994,
Volume 72 number 1, page 27.
“Golden Parachutes: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
UCLA, 1989.
Presentations at Conferences and Colloquia
Dr. McCann has been invited to speak on prudent investment management practices, financial
analysis in securities arbitrations, securities class action lawsuits and antitrust litigation on more
than 50 continuing legal education panels around the country.
May 14, 2014
Tab 19, p. 16 of 16
Pltf. Trial Exhibit 25A
Page 181 of 181 Cause No. 09-14448
Page 25-40 of 97