Talk:Securitization

message: "The deal fell through later in the month and the local government authroities plan to reissue the securities in late 2005."
:What? Isn't this "The Link REIT"?--Jerryseinfeld 17:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hong Kong

message: This article needs a *major* rewrite.  Anyone who could understand that mumbo-jumbo wouldn't look the subject up on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.113.91 (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon-y

message: This will take me about a week or two but when it is done it should answer all general questions about securitization
--DrewWiki 14:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doing a total rewrite of this page 

message: Sequential Payments/Cash Flow Waterfalls - That section needs to be moved to the page Securitzation transaction
We need to add graphs and some charts and tables and maybe a picture or two
Important, Unique, or Interesting Securitizations - This section needs to be expanded —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewwiki (talk • contribs) 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list for this article 1/25/07 

message: In the section titled "What Is Securitization" there is an accompanying diagram.  In the diagram there is an arrow in the lower left corner labeled "Sales price of securities".  Shouldn't the arrow point up? JamieNettles 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is fixed in the new, free version of the diagram - :Image:Securitization-en.PNG.--Daggerstab 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Diagram? 

message: This page does not deal at all with the massive expansion of securitization into insurance, hard assets and business areas.  The life insurance section formerly here was simply wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.26.24 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Narrow

message: Role of securitization in the current economic crisis should be described in the history section. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see more on the history and potential failures of asset securitization.  Discussion surrounding the fact that there is an "agency issue" at play and that the originators hold no risk is still seen as a long-term problem that may result in the systemic failure of the capital markets....  (yes this is a loaded statement so, something toned down but along these lines to express the deep rooted public concern over such instruments).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.95.135 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not pop some initial wording in here for discussion? Wildfowl (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I changed the definion of securitization to make it more clear. Quoting some dicstionary might be nice, but the marekt is somewhere else, then the authors of disctionaries. The wikipedia reader is surely expecting a better and more accurate definiton.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.2.68 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition - changed 

message: Feel free to incorporate this, if it would be helpful.  I think it would be, for people unfamiliar with finance, who might be searching for a basic definition.
"Securitization, in its most basic form, is a method of selling assets.  Rather than selling those assets "whole", the assets are combined into a pool, and then that pool is split into shares.  Those shares are sold to investors who share the risk and reward of the performance of those assets.  It can be viewed as being similar to a corporation selling, or "spinning off," a profitable business unit into a separate entity.  They trade their ownership of that unit, and all the profit and loss that might come in the future, for cash right now.
A very basic example would be as follows.  XYZ Bank loans 10 people $100,000 a piece, which they will use to buy homes.  XYZ has invested in the success and/or failure of those 10 home buyers- if the buyers make their payments and pay off the loans, XYZ makes a profit.  Looking at it another way, XYZ has taken the risk that some borrowers won't repay the loan.  In exchange for taking that risk, the borrowers pay XYZ interest on the money they borrow.
From the perspective of XYZ, those loans are 10 different assets.  They have value- one, if the loan fails, XYZ takes ownership of the house.  Two, if the loan succeeds, XYZ gets their money back along with the interest they charge.
XYZ can do two things with those loans.  They can hold them for 30 years and, they would hope, make a profit on their investment.  Or they could sell them to some other investor, and walk away.  In doing this, they would make less profit than if they held onto them long term, but they would benefit in that they make some profit while also getting their original investment back.  They give up some of the reward (profit) in exchange for not having the risk.
So XYZ Bank decides they'd rather have the cash now.  They could sell those 10 loans to 10 investors.  Each investor would be taking a risk in buying those loans, because if any loan defaults, that one investor loses.  Naturally, investors would not be willing to pay very much for those loans, knowing the risk involved.  XYZ wants to sell those loans for the best price they can get, so they decide to securitize those loans.  They combine the 10 loans into one entity, and then they split that one entity into 10 equal shares.  Each investor still pays the same $100,000, but instead of owning one loan, they will own 10% of all 10 loans.  If one loan fails, every investor loses 10%.
The result is that XYZ bank is able to sell their assets for more money, and investors are insulated from the volatility of directly owning mortgages."67.167.248.233 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition Suggestion 

message: Given recent events in the financial services industry, it is tempting to assign specific types of securitization to the broader definition; however, it seems more prudent to take the word literally; as in, the process of creating a security (a fungible, negotiable instrument representing financial value). The effect of securitization is greater liquidity, which tends decrease risk by permitting greater portfolio diversification. The quantity or nature of the underlying asset(s) should have no bearing on whether securitization has taken place.
Some of the confusion may lie in the fact that the parent category is structured finance. Securitization creates added liquidity for issuers through creating a standardized unit of exchange. It does not increase leverage in and of itself. On the contrary, structured finance tends to increase leverage, focusing heavily on the use of credit enhancements created for OTC transactions that meet the unique needs of the client. (PLEASE NOTE: These two articles are very misleading and should probably have a banner to that effect, I'd add them, but not sure if I have the authority to.)
In more recent decades, debt holders have also used securitization to increase the liquidity of their positions; this tends to cause confusion, but both equity and debt are acceptable underlying asset type. This abstraction, what we call structured finance, simply multiplies and frequently obscures the underlying risks; especially when insurance and guarantees are added into the mix. 
In short, structured finance adds leverage, securitization adds liquidity, and the two are not exclusive.
--JFN (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leverage vs. Liquidity 

message: I removed recent additions of links to works of Dr. Pezzuto by User:I.Pezutto because there appears to be a conflict of interest. Do those of us who do not have a COI with this content see a need for this material? Jojalozzo 05:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pezzuto referemces (COI?) 

message: From what I understand, private-label MBSs use a SPV to issue the security. But I don't think GSEs, such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae do so; I believe they just issue securities (mortgage-backed securities for Fannie Mae, participation certificates for Freddie Mac, etc.) themselves. So, while for private-label securities one can say "the SPV issues securities" or "the assignee issues securities" (referring to the assignment of the mortgage notes to the SPV), but for GSEs one can say "the GSE issues securities" but not any of the aforementioned phrases since is is neither a SPV nor were the underlying notes assigned (they are, as far as I can tell, bought outright, and assignment is not congruent with ownership). A similar problem is encountered if the one who securitizes is neither a SPV, an assignee, or a GSE.
So is there an equivalent phrase that would accurately describe all of the possible situations? And what is the subject of the phrase? Int21h (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  One who securitizes? 

message: Dr. Carbo Valverde has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Carbo Valverde has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Carbo Valverde, Santiago & Degryse, Hans & Rodriguez-Fernandez, Francisco, 2012. "Lending relationships and credit rationing: the impact of securitization," CEPR Discussion Papers 9138, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Carbo Valverde's comment on this article 

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