CMBS Deal Tracking with Guaranteed Delivery

CMBS deals are complicated. A single transaction might involve:

• Monthly servicer reports with collateral performance
• Quarterly trustee statements with waterfall distributions
• SEC filings (10-D, 8-K, ABS-EE) with material events
• Rating agency surveillance reports
• Special servicer commentary on distressed loans

Tracking this across a portfolio of deals—often 50, 100, or more—is operationally demanding. Most teams rely on a combination of alerts, spreadsheets, and analyst review.

This works until it doesn't. The failure modes are predictable: missed reports, stale data, inconsistent interpretation, no audit trail.

The Current State of CMBS Monitoring

Most investment teams monitor CMBS using some combination of:

Terminal services: Bloomberg, Intex, Trepp provide deal data and analytics. Useful for exploration, but data provenance is opaque.

EDGAR alerts: SEC filing notifications for registered deals. Tells you something was filed, not what changed.

Servicer portals: Direct access to servicer data, often with login credentials and manual downloads.

Spreadsheet tracking: Analyst-maintained models that aggregate data from multiple sources.

Periodic review: Weekly or monthly meetings where analysts present deal updates.

This approach has fundamental limitations:

Data Arrives at Different Times

Servicer reports hit on different schedules (business day +15, +30, varies by deal). Trustee statements follow a different cadence. SEC filings arrive unpredictably. Coordinating across sources requires constant attention.

Quality Varies by Source

Servicer data formats differ by servicer. Field names aren't standardized. Calculation methodologies vary. What "DSCR" means for Deal A may differ from Deal B.

No Single Source of Truth

Is the spreadsheet current? Did the last analyst update get saved? Which version is the team looking at? These questions consume time.

Audit Trail Is Manual

When a decision is questioned—"Why did we reduce exposure to this deal in October?"—reconstructing the data context requires archaeological work.

What Outcome-Based Monitoring Looks Like

An outcome is a named, guaranteed deliverable with evidence attached. For CMBS monitoring, outcomes might include:

Collateral Performance Summary

• Delivered: Monthly, 3 business days after servicer report
• Contents: DSCR, occupancy, delinquency, watchlist count—aggregated across collateral
• Evidence: Source report accession, methodology, prior period comparison

Waterfall Distribution Update

• Delivered: Quarterly, 5 business days after trustee statement
• Contents: Principal and interest by tranche, coverage tests, triggers
• Evidence: Source statement, calculation methodology, full waterfall model

Material Event Alert

• Delivered: Within 4 hours of SEC filing
• Contents: Event classification, affected tranches, summary
• Evidence: Filing accession, parsed content, classification logic

Portfolio State Summary

• Delivered: Weekly, Monday 08:00
• Contents: All deals, current state, changes from prior week
• Evidence: Source documents for each data point

The difference from traditional monitoring: each delivery is a complete artifact, not just a notification.

Guaranteed Delivery

"Guaranteed" means explicit SLAs:

• Latency: "Delivered within 3 business days of source availability"
• Completeness: "All fields populated or explicitly marked unavailable with reason"
• Freshness: "Data as-of date is within 24 hours of source publication"

When SLAs are missed, you know immediately. No silent failures, no stale data masquerading as current.

This is the difference between "we monitor deals" and "we guarantee you'll know the state of every deal, every week, with evidence."

Evidence for Every Data Point

Each outcome includes an Evidence Pack:

Deal: BANK 2021-BNK35 As-of: 2026-01-15 Delivery: 2026-01-18T08:00:00Z

Collateral Summary:

• DSCR: 1.42x (prior: 1.38x, Δ +2.9%)
• Occupancy: 94.2% (prior: 93.8%, Δ +0.4pp)
• Delinquency: 1.8% (prior: 2.1%, Δ -0.3pp)

Sources:

• Servicer Report 2026-01, received 2026-01-15
• Accession: 0001234567-26-000089
• Methodology: CMD+RVL Collateral v3.2

Prior Comparison:

• Prior state from delivery 2025-12-18
• Changes flagged automatically per threshold rules

Every number traces to a source. Every change is explicit. Every delivery is archived.

Practical Implementation

How does this work in practice?

1. Define Portfolio

Specify the deals you're tracking. CUSIPs, deal names, or criteria-based ("all CMBS deals with original balance >$500M issued since 2020").

2. Configure Outcomes

Choose what you need:

• Collateral summaries (monthly)
• Distribution reports (quarterly)
• Material events (real-time)
• Custom metrics (as needed)

3. Set Delivery Channels

Where should outcomes arrive?

• Webhook to internal systems
• Email to designated recipients
• API pull on demand
• Scheduled file drops

4. Receive and Act

Outcomes arrive with evidence. Your team acts on current, verified data. When questioned later, the Evidence Pack is ready.

Comparison: Before and After

Before (alert-based monitoring):

Monday morning:

• 47 emails from EDGAR alerts over the weekend
• Analyst opens each, determines relevance
• Material items added to tracking spreadsheet
• Two filings missed because subject line wasn't clear
• Spreadsheet version conflict—analyst A and B both made changes

Three months later:

• Audit question: "What was the state of Deal X in October?"
• Analyst searches emails, finds filing alerts
• Opens filings, reconstructs data manually
• Uncertainty about whether this was the data used for the October decision

After (outcome-based monitoring):

Monday morning:

• Portfolio State Summary arrives at 08:00
• All deals, current state, changes flagged
• Click-through to Evidence Pack for any deal
• 15 minutes to review vs. 2 hours of email archaeology

Three months later:

• Audit question: "What was the state of Deal X in October?"
• Open October delivery archive
• Evidence Pack shows exact state, sources, methodology
• 5 minutes to answer definitively

When Outcome-Based Monitoring Makes Sense

Not every portfolio needs this level of rigor. Outcome-based monitoring is most valuable when:

Portfolio scale: Tracking 20+ deals manually is error-prone. At 50+ deals, it's unsustainable.

Audit requirements: If you'll need to defend decisions to regulators or LPs, evidence is essential.

Systematic process: If decisions follow rules (thresholds, triggers, escalations), outcomes can operationalize them.

Team coordination: If multiple people need consistent views, a single source of truth prevents conflicts.

Time sensitivity: If acting quickly on material changes matters, guaranteed delivery SLAs ensure you're not waiting on manual review.

The Economics

Traditional monitoring costs are often hidden:

• Analyst time spent on data gathering (vs. analysis)
• Errors from stale or inconsistent data
• Audit preparation time
• Risk from missed material events

Outcome-based monitoring makes costs explicit: you pay for deliverables, not access. The ROI calculation compares:

Cost of outcomes vs. Analyst time saved + Error reduction + Audit efficiency + Risk mitigation

For most institutional portfolios, the math favors outcomes.

Conclusion

CMBS deal tracking is operationally complex. The traditional approach—alerts, spreadsheets, periodic review—works for small portfolios with limited audit requirements.

At scale, with audit sensitivity, outcome-based monitoring offers a different model: guaranteed delivery, evidence attached, no manual aggregation.

The question isn't "Are we monitoring deals?" It's "Can we prove we knew what we knew when we knew it?"

---

CMD+RVL's CMBS CUSIP Ownership State Monitor and Regulatory State Transition Monitor provide outcome-grade tracking for structured finance portfolios. View available Outcomes →