Virtually all players in the CRE industry, securities and banking sectors agree that we need the CMBS market to return to functionality as soon as possible (even the politicians want this).

The CMBS market cannot recover its value to the world until the uncertainties that now exist are cleared up, and litigation between the parties is the most certain way to achieve this. Factors that are pushing for a litigation between Special Servicers and CMBS bond holders of different seniority (tranches) include steadily increasing mortgage loan delinquencies that show no sign of lessening, the huge dollar volume of CMBS loans ($770 billion) , PSA agreements that put Special Servicers in an untenable position with respect to conflicts of interest that they are supposed to ignore (read as in "law suit"), B piece owners who are also Special Servicers who have an obligation to THEIR investors and will be inclined to argue that obligation as superior to that owed other more senior bond holders, Senior bondholders who believe that their position is being injured by delays in foreclosure and sale that may benefit the Special Servicer and/or B bond holders and the always murky question of what liability the Special Servicer may have to mezzanine lenders who argue that the actions of the Special Servicer that benefit the Special Servicer are damaging to the mezzanine lender.

The sooner these issues are cleaned up, the sooner we can see the revival of the CMBS market and the CRE market that relys on it for liquidity, now more than ever.

Outrageous Bonus, Unfair Compensation

Change is definitely in order when it comes to the design of C suite compensation packages. However, rigorous thinking and careful writing is required lest we make this issue as silly as the administration has succeeded in making it sound. The investment of education and time, combination of special talents and dedication that it takes to join the C suite (or in fact get anywhere near it), merit high compensation. So greed may or may not play a factor in a particular case, but in general, the executives that manage and run the major for-profit business organizations, have risen to the top by merit, and thus merit considerable "reward". However, it is reasonable to say that the most senior managers should be held to the same measure as their reports: performance. So, while it may be really upsetting to see this one or that group making enormous amounts of money, it is not necessarily true that it is wrong or unfair. In any case, the root of this problem lies in the reward for short term performance that is integrated into the institutional money managers' compensation/career progress. Having said all of this, the use of taxpayers' funds/National debt to enable financial institutions to reap outsize rewards is not acceptable, and so the lightning that these firms have drawn for large payouts from huge performance, is well deserved. But, let's agree that it is our public servants who made this possible, so we the people should direct our anger and disgust at them.