Refine
Document Type
- Report (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- securitisation (3) (remove)
Institute
Asset securitisation as a risk management and funding tool : what does it hold in store for SMES?
(2005)
The following chapter critically surveys the attendant benefits and drawbacks of asset securitisation on both financial institutions and firms. It also elicits salient lessons to be learned about the securitisation of SME-related obligations from a cursory review of SME securitisation in Germany as a foray of asset securitisation in a bank-centred financial system paired with a strong presence of SMEs in industrial production. JEL Classification: D81, G15, M20
As a sign of ambivalence in the regulatory definition of capital adequacy for credit risk and the quest for more efficient refinancing sources collateral loan obligations (CLOs) have become a prominent securitisation mechanism. This paper presents a loss-based asset pricing model for the valuation of constituent tranches within a CLO-style security design. The model specifically examines how tranche subordination translates securitised credit risk into investment risk of issued tranches as beneficial interests on a designated loan pool typically underlying a CLO transaction. We obtain a tranchespecific term structure from an intensity-based simulation of defaults under both robust statistical analysis and extreme value theory (EVT). Loss sharing between issuers and investors according to a simplified subordination mechanism allows issuers to decompose securitised credit risk exposures into a collection of default sensitive debt securities with divergent risk profiles and expected investor returns. Our estimation results suggest a dichotomous effect of loss cascading, with the default term structure of the most junior tranche of CLO transactions (“first loss position”) being distinctly different from that of the remaining, more senior “investor tranches”. The first loss position carries large expected loss (with high investor return) and low leverage, whereas all other tranches mainly suffer from loss volatility (unexpected loss). These findings might explain why issuers retain the most junior tranche as credit enhancement to attenuate asymmetric information between issuers and investors. At the same time, the issuer discretion in the configuration of loss subordination within particular security design might give rise to implicit investment risk in senior tranches in the event of systemic shocks. JEL Classifications: C15, C22, D82, F34, G13, G18, G20
Initiated by the seminal work of Diamond/Dybvig (1983) and Diamond (1984), advances in the theory of financial intermediation have sharpened our understanding of the theoretical foundations of banks as special financial institutions. What makes them "unique" is the combination of accepting deposits and issuing loans. However, in recent years the notion of "disintermediation" has gained tremendous popularity, especially among American observers. These observers argue that deregulation, globalisation and advances in information technology have been eroding the role of banks as intermediaries and thus their alleged uniqueness. It is even assumed that ever more efficiently organised capital markets and specialised financial institutions that take advantage of these markets, such as mutual funds or finance companies, will lead to the demise of banks. Using a novel measurement concept based on intermediation and securitisation ratios, the present article provides evidence which shows that banking disintermediation is indeed a reality for the US financial system. This seems to indicate that American banks are not all that "unique"; they can be replaced to a considerable extent. Moreover, many observers seem to believe that what has happened in the US reflects a universal trend. However, empirical results reported in this paper indicate that such a trend has not manifested itself in other financial systems, and in particular, not in Germany or Japan. Evidence on the enormous structural differences between financial systems and the lack of unequivocal signs of convergence render any inferences from the American experience to other financial systems very problematic.