Display:
The secondary lender can charge less than 8%, becuase its cost of capital is much less than that of an investor (1/12th under Basel 1 rules - the Cooke ratio, and possibly less under the new Basel 2 rules).

So with a 1.5% interest rate, it can still get an 18% return on capital invested. Also, as a lender, you get first dips at being reimbursed so, as long as you don't lend the whole amount, you let the initial investor take the first hit (the whole thing about CDOs was to create more tranches between the traditional "debt" and "equity" tranches, to fine tune risk taking even better - exactly as ChrisCook suggests should be done).

But my point above is that the 5-10% default rate appears optimstic (see separate answer on that)
While the amount of capital at risk has not changed (ie the amount that can potentially be lost), the overall amount of money at risk (in a more diluted way, sure) has gone up.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 03:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
exactly as ChrisCook suggests should be done

Bit confused here, Jerome, what do you think I'm saying should be done?

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:55:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
various mechanisms that move away from debt and equity and allow for tailor-made repayment flows and/or profit sharing. PIK (payment in kind), perpetual notes, profit sharing arrangements - it was all in those structures.

Which brings me back to my point that the sharing arrangements are not the problem whrn the risk analysis is not done - and backed by credible players (ie banks and bankers doing their job).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 08:02:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree totally with you as to the reason for the state we are in: ie investment bankers simply not doing their job.

That's not the issue: the issue is what is the optimal way out?

Debt got us into this position, so how can more debt get us out? ie it cannot be a debt-based solution.

So "Equity" (with no capital repayment) it must be.

Corporations and trusts are both sub-optimal in their complexity and allocation of risk and reward between stakeholders.

Applying Occam's Razor, the simplest form is the best, and there is no simpler mechanism than simply dividing property revenues into proportional shares or "nth's" using "open" corporate forms.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 09:15:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Debt got us into this position, so how can more debt get us out? ie it cannot be a debt-based solution.

So "Equity" (with no capital repayment) it must be.

Any debt not repaid needs to be covered by capital from someone (including that of the lending bank, if necessary, if repayment never happens)


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 09:20:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series