• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Copyright © 2008 by Joshua D. Coval, Jakub Jurek, and Erik StaffordWorking papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment anddiscussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of workingpapers are available from the author.
The Economics of StructuredFinance
 Joshua D. Coval Jakub JurekErik Stafford
 Working Paper
09-060
 
 
 1
The Economics of Structured Finance
Joshua Coval, Jakub Jurek, and Erik StaffordJoshua Coval is Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, Boston,Massachusetts, and Jakub Jurek is Assistant Professor at Princeton University, Princeton, NewJersey, and Erik Stafford is Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard BusinessSchool, Boston, Massachusetts. Their e-mail addresses are < jcoval@hbs.edu>,< jjurek@princeton.edu>, and <estafford@hbs.edu>.
 
 2The essence of structured finance activities is the pooling of economic assets (e.g. loans,bonds, mortgages) and subsequent issuance of a prioritized capital structure of claims, known astranches, against these collateral pools. As a result of the prioritization scheme used instructuring claims, many of the manufactured tranches are far safer than the average asset in theunderlying pool. This ability of structured finance to repackage risks and create “safe” assetsfrom otherwise risky collateral led to a dramatic expansion in the issuance of structuredsecurities, most of which were viewed by investors to be virtually risk-free and certified as suchby the rating agencies. At the core of the recent financial market crisis has been the discoverythat these securities are actually far riskier than originally advertised.We examine how the process of securitization allowed trillions of dollars of risky assetsto be transformed into securities that were widely considered to be safe, and argue that two keyfeatures of the structured finance machinery fueled its spectacular growth. First, we show thatmost securities could only have received high credit ratings if the rating agencies wereextraordinarily confident about their ability to estimate the underlying securities’ default risks,and how likely defaults were to be correlated. Using the prototypical structured finance security– the
collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
– as an example, we illustrate that issuing a capitalstructure amplifies errors in evaluating the risk of the underlying securities. In particular, weshow how modest imprecision in the parameter estimates can lead to variation in the default risk of the structured finance securities which is sufficient, for example, to cause a security ratedAAA to default with reasonable likelihood. A second, equally neglected feature of thesecuritization process is that it substitutes risks that are largely diversifiable for risks that arehighly systematic. As a result, securities produced by structured finance activities have far lesschance of surviving a severe economic downturn than traditional corporate securities of equal
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
09 / 10 / 2010<span class="translation_missing">en_US, this_document_made_it_onto_the</span>Rising List!
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...