Album

Bad mortgages, bad ratings agencies, and definitely bad issuers.

Thanks for rephrasing. The thing is with regulation when there’s a caveat/condition it’s forbidden not just a correctness check. I think the underlying sentiment is correct, a blanket ban on something is surely easier to enforce than a nuanced approach.

But that’s my whole point since the first post. A blanket ban on securitization just locks away the whole tool when really we should just work to implement effective regulation.

The real problem is that law and subsequent regulation lags behind innovation. Like AI or crypto would be an example. So back in 2008 there was a lot of lag on securitization as an innovation. Subsequent to the crisis, in 2025 market reg is well established on securitization products and derivatives.

It’s not semantics when what you’re saying doesn’t make sense and is contradictory to reality.

Actually, I am not sure what issue you’re even raising because of how poorly you communicated.

I thought about not responding at all, tbh, but then thought that it’s clear you think there is a some sort of material difference between regulation and law.

Checking if the illegal thing has been done is often easier than checking if the regulated thing has been done correctly,

pointedly incorrect. and thats my point that checking the illegal thing is the same thing as checking the regulated thing. but you assert there is some difference.

Financial regulations are written in law, and thus illegal to violate.

No that’s a bad analogy because no one is arguing the water should be taken away because of a misguided understanding that it’s inherently dangerous.

The actual analogy is “People have died in water, so no one should swim anymore”

But that’s obviously absurd. You hire life guards, teach people to swim, get a life vest, life savers, etc

It’s the opposite. Regulation assumes business will do anything they think they can get away with if it will make a buck. A lack of regulation assumes companies won’t do those things.

People think “regulators” allowed this to happen, but actually as “regulators” are agencies established by the government that act upon law. At the time of the 2008 financial crash there were limited or few laws (i.e. regulations) on derivatives. It’s law makers that refused to act.

It seems people are largely unaware of the myriad of regulatory changes that came after 2008 and bernie that applied to derivatives and customer/investor protection in general.

The same set of factors that created 2008 is no longer applicable as the environment has changed. There will surely be new regulatory weaknesses that need to be addressed

Didn’t read like that to me initially but if that’s what you meant by it then my bad.

Makes more sense to control the factors that play into the investment risk through regulation instead of shutting down a useful tool for investors.

Or you can just say edgy bullshit.

Securitization is a tool and only part of why the markets collapsed. The reduction of the problem to securitization fails to recognize the bad loans and ineffective ratings given to collateralized securities, and the hidden tranches not disclosed to investors.

If your mortgage/loan market isn’t fraudulent then you don’t have underlying assets with impossibly high risk. If the ratings agencies properly rate securities then investors know what the risk is. And if the government regulates the issuance of these securities through prospectuses (which they do now) then investors will know what’s in them.

So it’s fucked up.

Ok and? It’s clear you don’t even know what your own point is. That’s why you get down voted.

That bothers me almost as much as the lack of respect for human life.

Sounds like work for your therapist.

Personally, I’m not sure what the point of this statement is. It’s not about whether or not it’s right or wrong. Let’s just for the sake of argument, assume that it’s objectively correct. So what? How is saying this, or identifying generically that some people inevitably have their priorities mixed up, a meaningful contribution to the topic?

At best it comes across as cynical. And then you’re thinking “it’s not cynical if it’s true”… But we’re all thinking that it’s cynical because it lacks pointed meaning.

It’s like a teenager got on the Internet, read something, missed the point entirely and instead says “but what about this indirect incorrectness thing that is otherwise unrelated” for no reason other than to be edgy or sound smart.