5 ms·
"If they were indeed obfuscating purpusefully, then there is a fraud case in here." Unfortunately, not quite. Our laws regarding these things are very primiti
by ewjordan 18y ago
"If they were indeed obfuscating purpusefully, then there is a fraud case in here."
Unfortunately, not quite. Our laws regarding these things are very primitive, which often means that you can be in perfect legal compliance, yet still commit some very severe fraud against the people you're making offerings to.
I find it rather unlikely that our regulatory system will ever catch up with the state of the art in finance. There's too much money to be made in the short term by shoveling risk off into the cracks and pretending on paper that it doesn't exist, and it's too easy to do.
- eru 18y agoHow about regulation that requires revealing everything, but that does not require any minimum standards?
- dmv 18y agoOne of the flaws of these articles is that they are vastly simplifying the instruments built. From reading, you might think that you understand how to build a CMO or CDO, or to analyze one. I don't, and you don't. I am not actually sure that, after the author of this article's software went into place anyone could. The government has had months to examine the private books of some of our more nationalized-like asset managers, and is still throwing darts. Regulation that requires revealing everything, but does not require minimum standards, is like being able to bypass QA and security reviews by providing access to the source code... to multi-million line programs. Yes, eventually you can work it all out, but not in time to be helpful.