um. Users (non institutional investors?) will download a program with the asset backed security information in a separate XML file, use that file to perform th

um. Users (non institutional investors?) will download a program with the asset backed security information in a separate XML file, use that file to perform their own analysis of the possible performance and cash flow (called the waterfall in the proposal) to make an individual determination of the actual value of an ABS pile of investments. You've got to be kidding me, right? This is how we are to increase transparency in pooled ABS investments? Forget the fact that the ACM is weighing in on the appropriateness of Python as the program's implementation language here - say there is a bug in the implementation of the program that allows you to model this waterflow cash flow. Who can I sue, if as an individual investor, I relied on this implementation (along with my subtle tweaking of simulation variables) to make an investment decision? Forgive my naivete, maybe I've made a bad assumption about what the program is supposed to actually reflect. Does it represent a firm contract or rule set about how cash flow in the ABS pool will work given certain inputs?