Liabilities structure

There are two types of CDO liability structures utilized in synthetic transactions completely unfunded structures that use portfolio swaps exclusively to transfer the entire credit risk of the reference portfolio to investors and partially funded structures which transfer only the highest credit risk segment of the portfolio. 

In this section we will attempt to complement the theory and approaches discussed so far with actual transaction examples. Specifically, we will highlight Euro Zing I CDO as a further example of the flexibilities a CDO s liability structure can adopt. Equally, we will explore the use of indexation in CDO structures with the Rosetta CBO I transaction. And finally, Robeco CSO III will be examined as the first fully managed, standalone CDO backed by credit derivatives. 

Euro Zing I is a cash flow CDO that presents several features of novelty and interest. It is the first true arbitrage CDO of European asset-backed securities in that, 100% of the assets were sourced from the marketplace rather than an existing balance sheet. It is also the first CDO to use a unique, innovative dnal-currency liability structure in sterling and euro to access the sterling ABS market in a cost-efficient way as opposed to cnrrency swapping each asset individnally to a common cnrrency. 

Once the asset s future cash flows are estimated, it is necessary to model the liability structure. CDOManager allows users to model various waterfall structures to accommodate for reinvestment into new collateral, payments of interest, reserve accounts, fee accounts, etc. 

Because the SPV now owns the assets, it has an asset-and-liability profile that must be managed during the term of the CDO. The typical liability structure includes a senior tranche rated Aaa/Aa, a junior tranche rated Ba, and an unrated equity tranche. The equity tranche is the riskiest, since it is the first to absorb any losses in the underlying portfolio. For this reason, it is often referred to as t c first-loss tranche. 

The liability structure for the rail industry provides incentives for safe service. 

Nicholson, C. E., Heyes, P. F. and Wilson, C. 1993 Common Lessons to be Learned from the Investigations of Failures in a Broad Range of Industries. In Rossmanith, H. P. (ed.). Structural Eailure, Product Liability and Technical Insurance. Elsevier. 

The search for opioid analgesics which show reduced addiction liability ha.s centered largely on benzomorphan and morphinan derivatives. Some research has, however, been devoted to derivatives of the structurally simpler meperidine series. The preparation of one such compound, picenadol (59), starts with the reaction of N-methyl-4-piperidone with the lithium derivative from m-methoxybromobenzene. Dehydration of the first formed carbinol 51 gives the intermediate 52. Deprotonation by means of butyl lithium gives an anion which can be depicted in the ambident form 53. In the event, treatment of the anion with propyl bromide gives the product 54 from reaction of the benzylic anion. Treatment of that product, which now contains an eneamine function. 

Because the goal of hit triage is to identify chemical series that hold promise for further optimization, an approach to characterize the ADME properties of a series, not just individual compounds is often useful. Where possible, characterizing the structure-ADME property relationship, in much the same way that a structure-potency relationship is defined, can be valuable for assessing the probability that a given structural series can be successfully optimized. The goals of this ADME property characterization are twofold (1) to identify specific structural features that may be liabilities (benefits), and (2) to identify general structure-ADME property correlations. 

---