The FDIC’s only safe harbour is from itself: Joseph Mason column
While the securitisation world remains aflutter with concerns over the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp’s safe harbour rules, judicial review continues to chip away at the idea.
The original FDIC safe harbour statement was necessitated by the regulator’s treatment of securitisations in the NextBank and First Consumers National Bank failures.
In the autumn of 2001, regulators forced NextBank to reclassify losses previously booked as “fraud losses” as “credit losses”, making its securitisation deals
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact [email protected] or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact [email protected] to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact [email protected] to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email [email protected]
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email [email protected]
More on Securitisation
7 days in 60 seconds
Bank capital, margining and the return of FX
The week on Risk.net, December 12–18
Receive this by email