Why were 'US private label structured products" (read 'mortgage-backed securities") ever considered (Reply #4)

In the discussion thread: The decline of “safe” assets [View all]

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:08 AM

Owlet (1,248 posts)

4. Why were 'US private label structured products" (read 'mortgage-backed securities") ever considered

"safe" assets? It really makes one wonder if the monkeys running the world's financial institutions really know what they're doing. Of course, MFGlobal's solution to the scarcity of collateral that Draghi is talking about in the FT article was to simply claim its customers 'safe' assets as its own, and use them as collateral in its own borrowing.

All of this is not going to end well.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

11 replies	Author	Time	Post
The decline of “safe” assets [View all]	dkf	Dec 2011	OP
That is startling.	Ruby the Liberal	Dec 2011	#1
Nominated for chart of the year.	westerebus	Dec 2011	#2
Could you please post the URL for the chart?	eridani	Dec 2011	#3
Here:	dixiegrrrrl	Dec 2011	#5
Great contribution the "savings" issue of earlier.	dixiegrrrrl	Dec 2011	#6
No such thing as "image inf0" in IE 8	eridani	Dec 2011	#8
Ohhhhhh...yes, I am using FireFox.	dixiegrrrrl	Dec 2011	#9
In IE	AnnaLee	Dec 2011	#10
Why were 'US private label structured products" (read 'mortgage-backed securities") ever considered	Owlet	Dec 2011	#4
I think they were considered "safe" because the Big Three ratings companies	Art_from_Ark	Dec 2011	#7
As I understand it, the first MBS products were actually safe...	phantom power	Dec 2011	#11

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.