82,900
edits
Risk retention rule: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
If you do your repack in non-securities format — such as a loan — then the risk retention rules don’t seem to apply. Which — if true — is nice. We think it has something to do with the definition of “[[asset-backed security]]” which must be — you know — a ''security''. A bilateral, non-negotiable loan isn’t. Now it is not beyond the great wall of credibility that [[U.S. Attorney]]s and their regulators might confect a disposition that a loan ''is'' in fact a security — many of them seem to think of a [[swap]] as a security, so why not — so be extra careful, young fool, when galloping into this terrain, sparsely-troubled with angelic footsteps as it appears to be. | If you do your repack in non-securities format — such as a loan — then the risk retention rules don’t seem to apply. Which — if true — is nice. We think it has something to do with the definition of “[[asset-backed security]]” which must be — you know — a ''security''. A bilateral, non-negotiable loan isn’t. Now it is not beyond the great wall of credibility that [[U.S. Attorney]]s and their regulators might confect a disposition that a loan ''is'' in fact a security — many of them seem to think of a [[swap]] as a security, so why not — so be extra careful, young fool, when galloping into this terrain, sparsely-troubled with angelic footsteps as it appears to be. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
[[Securitisation directive]] | |||
*[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/part-246/subpart-B Cornell legislation resource] | *[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/part-246/subpart-B Cornell legislation resource] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||