Salisbury dentist earns highest dental honor
Salisbury dentist, Joseph M. Heher, DDS, FIDC, was inducted into the renowned International College of Dentists.
NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Fitch Ratings has upgraded the rating on one and affirmed the ratings on
seven classes of notes from two European collateralized debt obligations
(CDOs) as follows:
Taberna Europe CDO I PLC. (Taberna Europe I)
–EUR218,678,543 class A1 notes upgraded to BBsf from Bsf; Outlook
–EUR90,500,000 class A2 notes affirmed at CCsf;
–EUR50,706,156 class B notes affirmed at Csf;
–EUR32,222,480 class C notes affirmed at Csf;
–EUR35,777,774 class D notes affirmed at Csf;
–EUR26,274,443 class E notes affirmed at Csf.
Taberna Europe CDO II PLC. (Taberna Europe II)
–EUR356,506,493 class A1 notes affirmed at CCCsf;
–EUR95,000,000 class A2 notes affirmed at CCsf.
KEY RATING DRIVERS
The upgrade for class A1 notes in Taberna Europe I is due to the
deleveraging of the senior class in the capital structure as a result of
collateral redemptions, which in turn increased credit enhancement
levels, and a diminished risk of interest shortfall due to the
expiration of the deferred structuring and placement fee in May 2015.
The affirmation of the notes in Taberna Europe II is reflective of the
high risk of interest shortfall to the non-deferrable classes. In both
transactions, the credit migration of the underlying collateral
marginally improved since last review.
Paydowns in both transactions were mainly from collateral redemptions of
two assets in each portfolio. The class A1 notes received 16.9% of the
last review balance of $263 million in Taberna Europe I and 11.8% of the
$357 million balance in Taberna Europe II.
The percentages of distressed assets that are currently not paying
interest are 25% and 20%, in Taberna Europe I and Taberna Europe II,
respectively. The high percentage of non-performing assets, combined
with out-of-the money interest rate swaps, continue to contribute to the
risk of interest shortfall in both transactions.
This risk is more remote in Taberna Europe I, in which the deferred
structuring fee, which in the past comprised a substantial portion of
interest collections, expired in May 2015. However, in Taberna Europe
II, the deferred structuring fee continues to divert a large portion of
interest collections, approximately a half thereof on the most recent
The Stable Outlook on class A1 notes in Taberna Europe I reflects
Fitchs opinion that the rating is likely to remain at this level in the
near-term future. Fitch does not assign Outlooks to notes rated below
The portfolios in both transactions are comprised primarily of senior
unsecured, subordinate debt, and Trust Preferred Securities (TruPS)
issued by real estate companies, and make up 67.1% of the portfolio in
Taberna Europe I and 50.4% in Taberna Europe II. The remaining exposure
consists of securities issued by financial companies, commercial
mortgage backed securities, and commercial real estate debt.
This review was conducted under the analytical framework described in
the reports Global Rating Criteria for Structured Finance CDOs, and
Global Rating Criteria for Corporate CDOs. The transactions were
analyzed within the framework of Fitch Portfolio Credit Model (PCM), and
the PCM rating loss rates (RLR) for various rating stresses were
compared to the notes credit enhancement (CE) levels. The transactions
were not analyzed within a cash flow model framework, as the impact of
structural features and excess spread was determined to be minimal in
the context of these CDO ratings. Fitch also considered additional
qualitative factors in its analysis to conclude the rating actions for
the rated notes. While in Taberna Europe II, the class A-1 CE levels are
sufficient to cover the Bsf RLR, the notes were affirmed at CCCsf
due to the interest shortfall risk, as described above.
The non-deferrable classes in each of these two transactions could
experience interest shortfalls and be downgraded to Dsf if there are
significant new defaults or deferrals.
DUE DILIGENCE USAGE
No third party due diligence was reviewed in relation to this rating
Additional information is available at www.fitchratings.com.
Sources of Information: The sources of information used to assess these
ratings were periodic trustee reports and the public domain.
Criteria for Sovereign Risk in Developed Markets for Structured Finance
and Covered Bonds (pub. 20 Feb 2015)
Global Rating Criteria for CLOs and Corporate CDOs (pub. 30 Jul 2015)
Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria (pub. 06 Jul 2015)
Global Surveillance Criteria for Structured Finance CDOs (pub. 13 Jul
Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form
ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND
DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING
THIS LINK: HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS.
AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCYS PUBLIC WEBSITE WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM.
PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS
SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCHS CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE CODE OF CONDUCT SECTION OF
THIS SITE. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE
RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR
RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-REGISTERED ENTITY
CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH
Although it might seem like only good can come from shoppers writing glowing online reviews of your products, their kind words can end up hurting your bottom line in the long run, new research in the Journal of Retailing finds.
The study revealed that positive product reviews hurt an online businesss profit because of the high hopes they give consumers. While the positive reviews often lead to an initial purchase, more often than not it also leads to a return because the item didnt meet the customers lofty expectations.
The purchase probability increases but the high expectations due to overly positive reviews may not be met, which results in negative expectation disconfirmation and consequently increases return probability as well, the studys authors wrote.
For the study, researchers analyzed more than two years of sales data from a major European online retailer. The data included nearly 9 million page views and 631,063 purchase transactions for 2,164 different electronic and furniture products.[See Related Story: Hold Your Fire: When to Respond to Online Reviews]
The information allowed the studys authors to look specifically at the number of reviews available when shoppers made their purchases and whether they were positive or negative, as well as how many customers ended up returning items.
The researchers discovered that a lot of positive reviews did result in increased sales. However, when there werent more negative reviews to balance them out, more shoppers were disappointed in what they received. The disappointment often resulted in a return of the item, which costs retailers between $6 and $18 per return, according to the study.
The researchers said those higher return costs offset the initial gains in sales and end up lowering overall profits.
The studys authors said not being happy with the product, as opposed to something being defective with it, is the reason for most returns.
Negative post-purchase product evaluations often arise due to the customers limited ability to evaluate and test products before purchasing them, the studys authors wrote. This limited ability creates uncertainty about product performance prior to purchase, which then increases the likelihood that a product will fail to meet customers expectations. These unmet customer expectations result in dissatisfaction with the product and a higher return likelihood.
The studys authors said the research shows how critical it is for online businesses to provide information that sets the right expectations for consumers.
Given our results, it is important that the reviews reflect all buyers opinions regarding the product, the studys authors wrote.
The researchers suggest that online retailers should not only encourage shoppers to write reviews after making a purchase, but they should also emphasize to shoppers that it is important that the reviews fairly represent their opinions, even if its a negative one.
The study, To Keep or Not to Keep: Effects of Online Customer Reviews on Product Returns, is scheduled to appear in the September issue of the Journal of Retailing. It was authored by professor Tammo HA Bijmolt and doctoral candidate Alec Minnema of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and professors Sonja Gensler and Thorsten Wiesel of the University of Muuml;nster in Germany.