The FDIC’s only safe harbour is from itself: Joseph Mason column

joseph-mason-gray

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 copy this content. Please contact [email protected] to find out more.

To continue reading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here: