3 ms·
You're confusing structured finance and derivatives. While this may seem easy to do, its based on a simplistic inference of the english modifiers. The primary t
by 001sky 13y ago
You're confusing structured finance and derivatives. While this may seem easy to do, its based on a simplistic inference of the english modifiers. The primary things that got the housing crisis going were variations of debt contracts. The parties to these contracts were borrowers (ie, home owners) and Lenders (banks, etc). It takes both sides to agree on entering the underlying contracts (eg subprime loans). There is real cash between the parties and real "services" being rendered in the sense of capital allocation in the economy. A derivative, on the other hand, is a contract between to parties that <has nothing to do contractually> with the underlying assets, with respect to their initial deployment of capital. Example: a derivative on a stock, is not a contract between the stock issuing company and another thrid party; the derivative contract does not fund a business plan directly nor receive payment from the company per-se [1]. The controversy around derivatives and their regulation has <precisely> to do with this disconnect, actually.
[1] Except incidentally.
- b1daly 13y agoI appreciate the technical correction in the difference between derivatives and structured debt backed securities, I did not know of this important distinction. In any case I was responding to the contention that financial crisis of 2008 was driven by "overly enthusiastic" retail bank style lending practices. By my lay persons reasoning it seems clear that the new forms of mortgage backed securities played a significant role in perpetuating the mortgage bubble, as their complicated structures enabled,at the least, shady practices on the part of the ratings agencies, loan originators, and banks. Derivatives did have some role in the crisis, as they were at the root of the highest profile firm failure, AIG (credit default swaps).