|CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V. filed this Form 6-K on 11/06/2017|
A restructuring of a receivable constitutes a troubled debt restructuring (“TDR”) when a lender grants a concession it would not otherwise consider to a borrower experiencing financial difficulties. As a collateral based lender, the Company typically will repossess collateral in lieu of restructuring receivables. As such, for retail receivables, concessions are typically provided based on bankruptcy court proceedings. For wholesale receivables, concessions granted may include extended contract maturities, inclusion of interest-only periods, modification of a contractual interest rate to a below market interest rate and waiving of interest and principal.
TDRs are reviewed along with other receivables as part of management’s ongoing evaluation of the adequacy of the allowance for credit losses. The allowance for credit losses attributable to TDRs is based on the most probable source of repayment, which is normally the liquidation of collateral. In determining collateral value, the Company estimates the current fair market value of the equipment collateral and considers credit enhancements such as additional collateral and third party guarantees.
As of September 30, 2017, the Company had 235 retail and finance lease contracts classified as TDRs where a court has determined the concession in NAFTA. The pre-modification value was $6 million and the post-modification value was $5 million. Additionally, the Company had 453 accounts with a balance of $30 million undergoing bankruptcy proceedings where a concession has not yet been determined. As of September 30, 2016, the Company had 245 retail and finance lease contracts classified as TDRs where a court has determined the concession in NAFTA. The pre-modification value of these contracts was $4 million and the post-modification value was $3 million. Additionally, the Company had 562 accounts with a balance of $34 million undergoing bankruptcy proceedings where a concession has not yet been determined in NAFTA. As the outcome of the bankruptcy cases is determined by a court based on available assets, subsequent re-defaults are unusual and were not material for retail and finance lease contracts that were modified in a TDR during the previous 12 months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016.
As of September 30, 2017 and 2016, the Company had approximately $12 million and $29 million, respectively, in retail and finance lease receivable contracts classified as TDRs in EMEA. The primary concessions were skipped payments and extended contract maturities and, as such, the post-modification value approximated the pre-modification value. Subsequent re-defaults were not material for retail and finance lease receivable contracts that were modified in a TDR during the previous twelve months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016.
As of September 30, 2017 and 2016, the Company had approximately $18 million and $16 million, respectively, in retail and finance lease contracts classified as TDRs in LATAM. The concessions granted on these receivables were primarily skipped payments and extended contract maturities. Subsequent re-defaults were not material for retail and finance lease receivable contracts that were modified in a TDR during the previous twelve months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016.
As of September 30, 2017 and 2016, the Company’s wholesale TDR agreements were immaterial.
Transfers of Financial Assets
The Company transfers a number of its financial receivables to securitization programs or factoring transactions.
A securitization transaction entails the sale of a portfolio of receivables to a securitization vehicle. This special purpose entity (“SPE”) finances the purchase of the receivables by issuing asset-backed securities (i.e. securities whose repayment and interest flow depend upon the cash flow generated by the portfolio). SPEs utilized in securitizations differ from other entities included in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements because the assets they hold are legally isolated. For bankruptcy analysis purposes, the Company has sold the receivables to the SPEs in a true sale and the SPEs are separate legal entities. Upon transfer of the receivables to the SPEs, the receivables and certain cash flows derived from them become restricted for use in meeting obligations to the SPEs creditors. The SPEs have ownership of cash balances that also have restrictions for the benefit of the SPEs’ investors. The Company’s interests in the SPEs’ receivables are subordinate to the interests of third party investors. None of the receivables that are directly or indirectly sold or transferred in any of these transactions are available to pay the Company’s creditors until all obligations of the SPE have been fulfilled.
These securitization trusts were determined to be VIEs and, consequently, the Company has consolidated these trusts. In its role as servicer, the Company has the power to direct the trusts’ activities. Through its retained interests, the Company has an obligation to absorb certain losses or the right to receive certain benefits that could potentially be significant to the trusts.
No recourse provisions exist that allow holders of the asset-backed securities issued by the trusts to put those securities back to the Company although the Company provides customary representations and warranties that could give rise to an obligation to repurchase from the trusts any receivables for which there is a breach of the representations and warranties. Moreover, the Company does not guarantee any securities issued by the trusts. The trusts have a limited life and generally terminate upon final distribution of amounts owed to investors or upon exercise of a cleanup-call option by the Company, in its role as servicer.