Talk:Mortgage-backed security

message: I understand this is a professional topic which would entail a lot of financial parlance. I however think the article might be a bit too complex for a layman to understand. Anyone up for it?
--Olaotan1 (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplification required

message: A quote including the duration/lifespan changes due to a +2,+1,-1,-2 percent change in interest rates would be most helpful.  Bloomberg should be able to have this for a recently or to be issued bond.
The article needs expansion on the effects of changing interest rates on the lifespan and payment speed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.48.129 (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote needed

message: I think this is the "correct" spelling. See google search mortgage+backed+security and asset+backed+security.--Jerryseinfeld 22:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice this article discusses both a "passthrough" and a "pass-through".  I suppose the former occurs more quickly than the latter.  Isn't that so?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.227.98 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Talk

message: 1) Can anyone write up on history of mortgage-backed securities and MBS market? Did they exist for as long as Fannie Mae / Freddy Mac, or were they created at some later point?
2) Market value figures from "The MBS market" section seem highly suspect to me. How can total market value of all outstanding securities be on the order of 5 years' worth of issuance of agency MBS, considering that residential U.S. mortgages are usually for 30 years? Is that because the bulk of MBS represent something other than residential mortgages (maybe commercial mortgages or HELOCs), or because agencies practice buyback of their MBS? Does 6.1 trillion refer to agency MBS or all MBS? 
3) What fraction of U.S. mortgages (residential/commercial) is covered by MBS? --Itinerant1 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 75.64.185.240, this objection is dealt with in the article. Pdbailey (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions are good and the article did not deal with them correctly. I have endeavored to change that by adding more cited statistics, but definitions will remain a problem. --Dlawbailey (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I would love to see a flow chart from origination through securitization. Can anyone help with that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.238.4 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  out of date 

message: early mortgage-backed securities (1970s-1980s) had the distinction in that some were a true sale of assets vs. others being a debt offering.
examples
sale of assets - the "pass-through" security such as GNMA pass-through certificates in which the investor owns an undivided interest in the underlying mortgage pool.
debt offering - what was called a "pay-through" bond.  The issuer (typically a thrift (S&L or savings bank) or home builder) retains ownership of the mortgage pool and merely issues a bond collateralized by that pool.  in this situation there is NO sale of assets.
both were typically issued via a single-purpose-entity structure.
it's been 20 years since i left the MBS field (1988...just as the collateralized mortgage obligation was still a very young pup) and moved to other areas.  after leaving i didn't reallly pay too careful attention to the field. --68.173.2.68 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Credit Default Swap?  CDSs get bundled into securities, get traded on the market, etc.  They also total much more than the amounts shown in this article. --208.54.94.75 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added it in. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sale of assets vs. debt offerings 

message: The section titled "Current Political Significance" added by an unregistered user is unreferenced and erroneous.  I have deleted it. Bond Head (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Political Significance?

message: Freddie Mac was created to compete with Fannie Mae. But are those the only two firms in the secondary mortgage market? Together they own about half the mortgages, and not many are retained in the initiators' portfolios. But if there are other firms doing what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do, I haven't been able to find any names. If there is someone in the know, it would be useful to name names and give estimates of the dollar value or percentage of business they enjoy.
64.61.221.109 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch were brought down by mortgage-backed securities that were made up of subprime mortgages, among other bad investments. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Duopoly? 

message: Hi, I just wanted to post notice that two of the images in the page do not comply with wikipedia's watermark no credits in the image itself policy which can be seen here. I think they should either be regenerated or the attribution in the image should be removed if the license allows this. PDBailey (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  watermarked images 

message: I'm having trouble with this list:
# Mortgage loans (mortgage notes) are purchased from banks and other lenders and assigned to a trust
# These loans are assembled into collections, or "pools"
# These trusts securitize the pool and issue mortgage-backed securities, with documentation that identifies the underlying loans
I can't figure out how to follow from the loans to the MBSs -- loans are assigned to one or more trusts, and the trusts issue MBSs and documentation -- how do the pools come into it? 
Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify (revision proposed) 

message: This is an interesting collection of comments about the subject, some or all of which could be useful material in writing an encylopedia article.  But at present it doesn't seem to be anyhing more than an unsorted collection of comments.  Until it a proper article can be written, shouldn't it be classified as a stub?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.22.154 (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: Seems like the word "mortgage" on this picture ReturnForInvestors.svg is misspelled, someone correct plz.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfRAMM (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pool of "Mortage" loans? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mortgage-backed security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419051155/http://www.sifma.org:80/uploadedFiles/Research/Statistics/SIFMA_USBondMarketOutstanding.pdf to http://www.sifma.org/uploadedFiles/Research/Statistics/SIFMA_USBondMarketOutstanding.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111125010225/http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov:80/mortgageforeclosure/MERScomplaint.pdf to http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/mortgageforeclosure/MERScomplaint.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mortgage-backed security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901222457/http://www.securitization.net/pdf/nomura_journey_060303.pdf to http://www.securitization.net/pdf/nomura_journey_060303.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I wrote the following on MrOllie's talk page following his deletion of citations to a particular academic author. Mr. Ollie did not respond on substance but rather responded with ad hominem attacks. Please discuss so that we can reach consensus.
Dear MrOllie,
You recently reverted edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis.  I believe these revisions reduced the substantive quality of the wikipedia articles and the edits should be restored.  My explanation is below.  I look forward to working with you amicably to reach consensus.  I believe that our goal should be to improve the article and cite to high quality, relevant sources whenever possible.
The edits you reverted included substantive improvements to the articles and cited an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.
According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:
″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . .  Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″
Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.  You reverted it while suggesting that it might be reference-spamming, but given the relevance of the academic article to the wikipedia article, and the high quality of the academic article--demonstrated by its placement, its citations, its readership, its awards and the institutional affiliation and status of its author--it is not a form of spam but rather a legitimate effort to improve the article.
Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research.  See Biased or Opinionated Sources  Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.
Many of the think tank reports cited in the article are written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions.  One of the few academic reports cited is years out of date, claims to provide a "comprehensive" bibliography of articles, but was published in 2012.  Much has been written in the ensuing 7 years--the article is no longer a comprehensive review, if it ever was. And indeed, the author claiming otherwise has a think-tank affiliation.
In addition, self-published material is generally considered an unreliable source, except when published by well-published academic experts.  Per Wikipedia policy, self-published material:
″are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.″"
You cited to self-published blog by a self-employed blogger / part time document reviewer which contains an off-wikipedia criticism of a scholar with whom he disagrees about the benefits of legal education. 
It may be helpful to understand the context of this post.  The blogger apparently posted this criticism as a form of revenge for having been made to appear foolish for making substantive mistakes about legal education and student loans --subjects about which the blogger purports to be an expert--even in a publication to which he has contributed. 
Citing to the post you cited violates wikipedia policies including Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and [].  Indeed, the author of the post you cited acknowledged "that this post might be construed as an “off-wiki attack” ... that Wikipedians may perceive as harmful to their community."
Edits are supposed to be evaluated on substance based on established wikipedia policies about reliable sources, not based on snap decisions based on []
I recognize that my edits only added one source and that it would be better to include multiple sources.  If you would like to add additional high quality academic sources rather than deleting the few high quality citations that are in the wikipedia article, I would encourage you to do so.  I have reviewed Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies and I am in compliance.
 
Mbs6446 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of citations to widely cited academic article by MrOllie based on Off-wiki personal attack; see wikipedia's page on reliable sources re: Mortgage Securitization