Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Videos
  • Submit an article
  • More
    • About JSF
    • Editorial Board
    • Published Ahead of Print (PAP)
  • IPR Logo
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Publish
  • Advertise
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • More
    • Awards
    • Article Licensing
    • Academic Use
  • Follow IIJ on LinkedIn
  • Follow IIJ on Twitter

User menu

  • Sample our Content
  • Request a demo
  • Log in

Search

  • ADVANCED SEARCH: Discover more content by journal, author or time frame
The Journal of Structured Finance
  • IPR Logo
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Publish
  • Advertise
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • More
    • Awards
    • Article Licensing
    • Academic Use
  • Sample our Content
  • Request a demo
  • Log in
The Journal of Structured Finance

The Journal of Structured Finance

ADVANCED SEARCH: Discover more content by journal, author or time frame

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Videos
  • Submit an article
  • More
    • About JSF
    • Editorial Board
    • Published Ahead of Print (PAP)
  • Follow IIJ on LinkedIn
  • Follow IIJ on Twitter
Open Access

Editor’s Letter

Henry A. Davis
The Journal of Structured Finance Winter 2011, 16 (4) 1-2; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3905/jsf.2011.16.4.001
Henry A. Davis
Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In the wake of the financial crisis, the securitization market is rebuilding itself gradually and with a degree of uncertainty. How securitization will look in the future will be shaped significantly by the Dodd-Frank Act and the extensive follow-up and related legislation and regulations such SEC Rule 17(g) (more transparency of information), the repeal of SEC Rule 436(g) (less exemption from liability for credit rating agencies), the FDIC safe harbor rule change, and proposed amendments to SEC Reg AB, including the requirement for more “skin in the game.”How securitization is evolving in this regulation- intensive environment is the subject of our first two articles by Ann Kenyon and Shi Yuan Chen, Michael Wilberton, and Philip Schockling.

In this journal’s coverage of the causes of and the cleanup after the financial crisis, no theme has been more important than the failure of risk management disciplines. In his article, Michael Rodgers focuses on models that were based too much on statistical variances and not enough on commonsense observation and evaluation of what was going on in the real world of residential mortgage origination and securitization. Then Michael Bykhovsky comments on the equally well known phenomenon in the largest financial services firms of compensation structures that motivated people to take significant risks to boost performance in the short term with insufficient regard for longer-term consequences.

In the wake of problems caused by excessive reliance on credit ratings that didn’t sufficiently anticipate the collapse of the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market, Mahesh Kotecha, Roy Weinberger, and Sharon Ryan point to the weaknesses of the issuerpays model and suggest an alternative model that would spread the costs among both investors and issuers. Then Noemi Blumberg, Johanna Wirth, and Nikita Litsoukov discuss recent changes and the possible future direction of the law concerning the liability of credit rating agencies for their ratings. In the past, the credit rating agencies have enjoyed First Amendment rights similar to those of journalists; in the future they may face greater threat of liability.

Among the problems RMBS investors have faced over the course of the financial crisis have been ineffective treatment of distressed borrowers, poor loss mitigation strategies, and difficulty in valuing these securities, largely because of insufficient access to and ability to analyze detailed information on the underlying individual mortgages. In his article, Thomas Showalter shows how behavior-based analytic methods can support improved loss-mitigation and borrower-retention strategies, and then Ned Myers discusses the recent enhancement of databases and behavioral models to analyze the granular data underlying RMBS.

In the first of two articles on life settlements, Brian Casey and Jeffrey Lowe bring us up to date on the continuing evolution of the life settlements asset class toward legal status as “securities,” a journey that still has a way to go. Then Charles Stone and Anne Zissu help us with our analytic understanding of life settlements, explaining how the “longevity gap,” the difference between the present values of the asset (death benefits) and liability (required premium payments) components, can be used to value pools of life settlements and to quantify how those values are affected by changes in the longevity of the insured pool.

Finally, in the project finance sector, John Ryan looks at government programs to facilitate infrastructure financing over the course of the financial crisis and examines the continuing need for such programs going forward. In an analysis focused on partial sovereign guarantees, he concludes that a partial guarantee is likely to be more cost effective for the same benefit than a government subsidy in the form of a direct transfer; such cost is small relative to project cost and can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.

TOPICS: MBS and residential mortgage loans, project finance

Henry A. Davis

Editor

  • © 2011 Pageant Media Ltd

PreviousNext
Back to top

Explore our content to discover more relevant research

  • By topic
  • Across journals
  • From the experts
  • Monthly highlights
  • Special collections

In this issue

The Journal of Structured Finance: 16 (4)
The Journal of Structured Finance
Vol. 16, Issue 4
Winter 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The Journal of Structured Finance.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Editor’s Letter
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The Journal of Structured Finance
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The Journal of Structured Finance web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Editor’s Letter
The Journal of Structured Finance Jan 2011, 16 (4) 1-2; DOI: 10.3905/jsf.2011.16.4.001

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Save To My Folders
Share
Editor’s Letter
The Journal of Structured Finance Jan 2011, 16 (4) 1-2; DOI: 10.3905/jsf.2011.16.4.001
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Tweet Widget Facebook Like LinkedIn logo

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Similar Articles

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar
LONDON
One London Wall, London, EC2Y 5EA
United Kingdom
+44 207 139 1600
 
NEW YORK
41 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010
USA
+1 646 931 9045
pm-research@pageantmedia.com
 

Stay Connected

  • Follow IIJ on LinkedIn
  • Follow IIJ on Twitter

MORE FROM PMR

  • Home
  • Awards
  • Investment Guides
  • Videos
  • About PMR

INFORMATION FOR

  • Academics
  • Agents
  • Authors
  • Content Usage Terms

GET INVOLVED

  • Advertise
  • Publish
  • Article Licensing
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe Now
  • Log In
  • Update your profile
  • Give us your feedback

© 2022 Pageant Media Ltd | All Rights Reserved | ISSN: 1551-9783 | E-ISSN: 2374-1325

  • Site Map
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Cookies
  • Privacy Policy