CMO vs CDO: Similar Exterior, Distinct Inner Workings

Suzanne is a skilled content marketer, writer, and fact-checker holding a Bachelor of Science in Finance from Bridgewater State University. She specializes in crafting strategic content plans.

One of Wall Street’s groundbreaking financial innovations involved pooling loans together and then segmenting them into distinct interest-bearing securities. This foundational idea of collateralization and structured finance existed well before the rise of collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). The formal creation of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) began in the early 1970s by repackaging mortgages, with significant growth occurring during the 1980s.

MBS are secured by a collective pool of mortgages, where all principal and interest payments flow directly to investors. CMOs were developed to offer investors tailored cash flow streams beyond the simple pass-through of principal and interest. The first CMOs were issued for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) by investment banks First Boston and Salomon Brothers. They took mortgage pools, divided them into tranches with varying interest rates and maturities, and issued securities backed by those tranches, using the original mortgages as collateral.

Unlike CMOs, CDOs—which appeared later—cover a broader range of loan types beyond just mortgages. Although CMOs and CDOs share many similarities, they differ notably in their structure, the kinds of loans bundled, and the investor profiles attracted to each.

Key Insights

• A collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO) is a mortgage-backed security composed of a bundled pool of mortgages sold as an investment.
• A collateralized debt obligation (CDO) is a financial instrument backed by a diversified pool of loans and assets, also marketed as an investment.
• While CMOs and CDOs share structural similarities, CMOs typically offer cash flows derived from a specific mortgage pool, whereas CDO cash flows may stem from automobile loans, credit card debt, commercial loans, or even certain CMO tranches.
• A mortgage-backed security (MBS) resembles a bond and consists of a collection of home loans purchased from lending institutions.

Origins of CMOs: Meeting Market Needs

Collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), a subset of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), are issued by entities specializing in residential mortgages. The issuer aggregates residential mortgages and repackages them into a pooled loan collateral, which underpins the issuance of new securities. Loan payments from the mortgages are redirected to investors, distributing both interest and principal, while the issuer earns fees or spreads.

CMOs allow issuers to segment predictable income streams from mortgages into tranches, although investors still face prepayment risk—the chance that mortgages will be prepaid early, refinanced, or defaulted upon. Unlike traditional MBS, investors in CMOs can select their preferred level of reinvestment risk.

For instance, a simplified sequential payout structure might include three tranches—A, B, and C—with staggered maturities. All tranches receive interest payments, but principal repayments flow sequentially: Tranche A is retired first, followed by B, then C.

Though the terminology and acronyms can be complex, the fundamental process of collateralizing loans remains straightforward.

The CMO issuer legally owns the mortgage pool, purchasing loans from banks and mortgage companies. Traditionally, banks held mortgages until payoff or sale, but now most mortgages are sold shortly after closing to third parties who repackage them.

This transfer relieves original lenders from servicing loans and ownership. Mortgages are then classified into tranches by quality. By creating CMOs, issuers tailor specific interest and principal payment streams with diverse maturities to meet investor preferences.

For legal and tax advantages, CMOs are held within real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs), separate legal entities exempt from federal tax on collected income at the corporate level. However, income distributed to investors remains taxable.

CDOs: Versatile but Risky

Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) share many features with CMOs: pooling loans, repackaging into new securities, distributing interest and principal to investors, and segmenting into risk-graded tranches.

Classified as asset-backed securities (ABS), CDOs use underlying loans as collateral. They emerged to help lenders convert various debts into marketable investments through securitization, similar to CMOs. Like CMOs, CDOs employ special purpose entities (SPEs) to securitize, service, and connect investors with securities.

The strength of CDOs lies in their flexibility to include diverse income-generating debts such as credit card receivables, auto loans, student loans, aircraft financing, and corporate debt. Tranches range from senior to junior, with credit rating agencies assigning bond-like ratings (e.g., AAA, AA+, AA) based on risk.

Below is an example illustrating a CDO’s structure, showing assets like loans and bonds backing issued bonds. Ratings reflect the seniority and quality of underlying assets, with lower-rated bonds offering higher returns to compensate for increased risk.

Comparing CMOs and CDOs

CMOs and CDOs share many traits, as CDOs were designed based on the CMO model. CMOs can be issued by private entities or quasi-government agencies (such as Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac), whereas CDOs are exclusively private-label instruments.

Despite their similar appearances, CMOs and CDOs differ internally. CMOs provide cash flows from a defined mortgage pool, making them more transparent. In contrast, CDOs’ cash flows derive from a broader range of loans, including auto, credit card, commercial loans, and even select CMO tranches.

The 2007 real estate crash affected both markets, but CDOs were hit harder. Only a small fraction of CMOs were subprime, whereas CDOs heavily invested in subprime CMO tranches. When these risky tranches defaulted, CDO investors suffered significant losses. Enhanced regulatory oversight now aims to prevent a repeat of these failures, but investors must continue to assess risk carefully.

In 2002, CDOs represented a modest segment of the ABS market with $340 million outstanding, compared to $4.7 trillion in CMOs. The CDO market expanded rapidly post-2002 alongside ABS growth, peaking at $1.3 trillion in 2007 before collapsing to approximately $850 million by 2013.

While bundling riskier CMO tranches into CDOs appeared profitable, the actual quality was far lower than anticipated. Rating agencies and issuers faced fines and restitution for misrepresentations during the housing crisis, with many CDOs downgraded from AAA to junk status overnight.

Investors heavily exposed to risky CDOs faced substantial losses. Several issuers faced legal actions, including Goldman Sachs, which was fined in 2010 for inadequate risk disclosure. The SEC estimated investor losses exceeding $1 billion.

Although CDOs remain in the market, their reputation bears the lasting effects of past missteps.

Global investors gained valuable insights from the evolution of collateralization. This innovative approach transformed large loan pools into secured investments, freeing capital for lenders, generating jobs, increasing market liquidity, and supporting homeownership. However, the same mechanisms that fueled growth also contributed to the real estate bubble and subsequent market collapse. Collateralization revitalized finance but also underscored the importance of prudent risk management.

Discover engaging topics and analytical content in Trading Strategies as of 05-05-2020. The article titled " CMO vs CDO: Similar Exterior, Distinct Inner Workings " provides new insights and practical guidance in the Trading Strategies field. Each topic is meticulously analyzed to deliver actionable information to readers.

The topic " CMO vs CDO: Similar Exterior, Distinct Inner Workings " helps you make smarter decisions within the Trading Strategies category. All topics on our website are unique and offer valuable content for our audience.