Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Economy

Owlet

(1,248 posts)

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

Reply to dkf (Original post)

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:08 AM

Dec 2011

"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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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