Do you want to pay for the Sub-Prime freeze?

It is my understanding that there would be no tax liability if they just let the house go into foreclosure. The bank doesn't forgive the loan, they just write it off a uncollectible.

That is why they are changing the rule-- to avoid creating a larger incentive to just mail the keys to the lender and walk away.


You seem to think that if they just default they would not get a forgiveness of debt gain... they would...

And... this 'gain' is real.. it is not fake... they only have to pay the taxes on the gain so they are ahead...

Let's give an example... they bought a house for $200,000. They owe $190,000 but the house drops all the way to $100,000. If they sold, they would have to cough up $90,000 cash to sell the house. If they had a repo and it was sold for $100,000 then they did not have to pay the $90,000 in cash so they really had a gain.. and paying the taxes at 25% or so means that they only are out about $23K. Which is better for the homeowner?
 
It is my understanding that there would be no tax liability if they just let the house go into foreclosure. The bank doesn't forgive the loan, they just write it off a uncollectible.

That is why they are changing the rule-- to avoid creating a larger incentive to just mail the keys to the lender and walk away.


The forgiven loan is considered a gain... if the loan servicing company does not issue a 1099 for it then you are off the hook... unless the IRS audits you as they don't care if you received a 1099 or not.. forgiveness of debt is considered income. No rules changes on this.. it has been this way since I did taxes back in the early '80s.

Wow... found this on my first search....
Forgiven debt could increase your tax bill
 
Maybe we should bring back debtor's prisons, or would cutting off their hands punish them to your satisfaction? :p

They've made serious financial mistakes, and have been dramatically punished for it.

The bank make a serious financial mistake in loaning money beyond the borrower's ability to repay, and beyond the value of the collatoral. Both parties came to a mutual agreement to resolve the debt.

Why exactly do you think the government should get paid for this?


I am sure Jay can speak for himself... but I did not see where he said they should go to debtor's prison...

He said if you make bad decision you should pay...

"I'm a firm believer in fiscal responsibility and sound decision-making. If you fail to exercise either, then the repercussions are your own."

Not once mentioning prison, or whipping them with a cane or a whip .... just that someone who does some things wrong financially should pay a price.. and they did..
 
Dot com investors vs Home owners

One of the things that strikes me as unfair is the difference between how investors/employee of dot com world were treated the real estate investors.

In particular plenty of new economy employees got screwed with the AMT treatment of their stock options and Congress did nothing to help them until this year, and then the benefits is very minor for those hit hardest compared to Real Esate speculators.

For those of you not familiar what happened in 2000, let me give an example.

In Jan 1998, Webmaster Wayne a couple of years out of engineering school, joins a FindIt.com, a really promising internet search engine company. In 1999 Findit goes public and the stock takes off. In Jan 2000 Wayne exercise his 10,000 incentive stock option that he got for $3/share. The stock is trading for $53. He finds that between a Fed taxes of 39% and CA state taxes of 9% that he'd owe almost $240,000 tax on his $500,000 gain. His coworker tells him that if he waits for one year he can take advantage of the long-term capital gains and cut his tax bill in almost half.
By Sept 2000 findit.com stock is down to $10 and Wayne is out of a job.
In Jan 2001 He sees articles about this AMT tax and reluctantly decides to see a CPA for his 2000 tax. He is floored when the CPA tells him he owes $130,000 in AMT taxes. I don't have $130,000, Findit is only worth $4/share can I just give it to the IRS. Nope won't work says the CPA, Waynes ask "How about declaring bankruptcy", sorry the IRS doesn't care. The CPA well the good news is you now have an AMT credit so you won't pay AMT tax in the future in about 30-40 years you'll get your $130,000 back.

He finds several people including some congressman are petition Congress and the IRS for relief. But their pleas fall on deaf ears until 2006, when Congress cut the credit recovering time from 40 years to about 10.
Now the prevailing view after the dot com bubble burst, was that A. these kids were just lucky and didn't deserve the money, and B. they took a calculated risk to hold on to there stock to get the lower LTCG rate. They lost the bet and they have to suffer the consequences.

Personally, I can see good arguments on all side why the laws should or should not be changed. What I can't see is why the Waynes in 2000 should be treated differently, than the folks who refinanced their house in 2007. In many cases these folks used the money for vacations and Lexus and now that the house is worth $100K less the loan, they walk away.

That money is a gift and they should owe taxes on it. I as a shareholder of many banks in effect gave them the money, and I'll be deducting the loss on my taxes. They should pay income tax on their gift.
 
One of the things that strikes me as unfair is the difference between how investors/employee of dot com world were treated the real estate investors.

In particular plenty of new economy employees got screwed with the AMT treatment of their stock options and Congress did nothing to help them until this year, and then the benefits is very minor for those hit hardest compared to Real Esate speculators.

For those of you not familiar what happened in 2000, let me give an example.

In Jan 1998, Webmaster Wayne a couple of years out of engineering school, joins a FindIt.com, a really promising internet search engine company. In 1999 Findit goes public and the stock takes off. In Jan 2000 Wayne exercise his 10,000 incentive stock option that he got for $3/share. The stock is trading for $53. He finds that between a Fed taxes of 39% and CA state taxes of 9% that he'd owe almost $240,000 tax on his $500,000 gain. His coworker tells him that if he waits for one year he can take advantage of the long-term capital gains and cut his tax bill in almost half.
By Sept 2000 findit.com stock is down to $10 and Wayne is out of a job.
In Jan 2001 He sees articles about this AMT tax and reluctantly decides to see a CPA for his 2000 tax. He is floored when the CPA tells him he owes $130,000 in AMT taxes. I don't have $130,000, Findit is only worth $4/share can I just give it to the IRS. Nope won't work says the CPA, Waynes ask "How about declaring bankruptcy", sorry the IRS doesn't care. The CPA well the good news is you now have an AMT credit so you won't pay AMT tax in the future in about 30-40 years you'll get your $130,000 back.

He finds several people including some congressman are petition Congress and the IRS for relief. But their pleas fall on deaf ears until 2006, when Congress cut the credit recovering time from 40 years to about 10.
Now the prevailing view after the dot com bubble burst, was that A. these kids were just lucky and didn't deserve the money, and B. they took a calculated risk to hold on to there stock to get the lower LTCG rate. They lost the bet and they have to suffer the consequences.

Personally, I can see good arguments on all side why the laws should or should not be changed. What I can't see is why the Waynes in 2000 should be treated differently, than the folks who refinanced their house in 2007. In many cases these folks used the money for vacations and Lexus and now that the house is worth $100K less the loan, they walk away.

That money is a gift and they should owe taxes on it. I as a shareholder of many banks in effect gave them the money, and I'll be deducting the loss on my taxes. They should pay income tax on their gift.

Wow!! I did not fully realize the plight of the "Webmaster Wayne"s of the world in the dot-com crash wrt the AMT. That must have been awful. I agree - - there are some parallels with the situation now.
 
Yep, I know a bunch of people from my old company that got pretty well poled by the AMT doing exactly what Clif talked about. Exercised options in the 60's and 70's, then had the stock price drop below 12. One guy I know pretty well ended up owning a quarter million in AMT, had to sell the stock and his house to pay it, then his wife divorced him over it. Shortly thereafter he declared bankruptcy.

I havent seen him since late last year, but his life pretty much sucked and was going to continue sucking for a long time.

But there was no fallout to draw attention of the lawmakers. No empty houses sitting around, no dropping real estate values to make the voters unhappy, and most important no large financial institutions holding huge chunks of bad debt.

Plus nobody feels sorry for some cocky young white collar former stock millionaires.
 
Plus nobody feels sorry for some cocky young white collar former stock millionaires.

That's cuz, in this case, there're dumb as stumps. They allowed the tail to wag the dog by holding highly appreciated stock to try to avoid taxes. I know many were engineers and other tech types without much business sense. Still, to have a mountain of money in their hands and lose it all watching the stock tumble into the dust.........

Edited to add: To be evenhanded, I don't feel sorry for the folks who can't pay their subprime mortgages either........
 
Exercising stock options in a highly profitable company that's gone up steadily for 15 years and is considered undervalued might be perceived as smart compared to buying a house thats doubled in value over the last 2 years (for no apparent reason) using an adjustable mortgage.

Hmm?
 
Exercising stock options in a highly profitable company that's gone up steadily for 15 years and is considered undervalued might be perceived as smart compared to buying a house thats doubled in value over the last 2 years (for no apparent reason) using an adjustable mortgage.

Totally agree. But what I said was those dumb as a stump folks who exercised and held the stock waiting for the long term cap gains tax instead of selling immediately (or just doing a sell to cover transaction up front) are hard to feel sympathetic for! There they are with a truck full of money, but to avoid short term cap gains tax rates, they put it all at risk and just watch it plummet down and down and down and down ....... What were they thinking?

Exercising wasn't dumb. Exercising and holding the stock was dumb.
 
Totally agree. But what I said was those dumb as a stump folks who exercised and held the stock waiting for the long term cap gains tax instead of selling immediately (or just doing a sell to cover transaction up front) are hard to feel sympathetic for! There they are with a truck full of money, but to avoid short term cap gains tax rates, they put it all at risk and just watch it plummet down and down and down and down ....... What were they thinking?

Exercising wasn't dumb. Exercising and holding the stock was dumb.

Yes in hindsight you are right. However, in the example I gave the stock would have to drop from 53 to 40 to come out financially ahead. More to the point in the late 90s plenty of people were completely ignorant of AMT.
Much like most of the world was completely ignorant of CDO, SIV etc a year ago. After all "AMT was only something rich people had to pay".
Sophisticated strategies like using collar or buying long-term puts aren't something you learn in computer science classes. Even at my and CFB's Megacorp, when you exercised stock options nobody tells you that you almost certainly owe AMT taxes. At a small start up I doubt anybody other than the CFO knew.

In contrast, even the most financial naive person taking a mortgage has to sign a statement in BIG BOLD LETTERS saying everything on my application is true under penalty of perjury, and imagine there is also a highlighted section which says something like "I understand the interest rate on this loan and my payments will increase in the future"

Finally, I'll relate the case of my friends company where he was the VP of Engineering. As is typical with IPO, officers of company are prohibited from selling stock (or derivatives) for a period of 6 months to a year after the IPO. He got hosed by AMT and there was almost nothing he could do.
 
I find no fault with what you're saying. I'm just not sympathetic with the folks involved. They exercised stock and knew they'd owe tax on the difference between the strike price and the price on the day of exercise. Apparently these were ISO shares (you guys haven't actually said) and the exercisers opted to hold shares, which had recently had a huge run up, for one year to benefit from LTCG rates.......... The shares tumbled.....And there ya go......Trouble in River City..... :p

It's just my conservatism. I always exercised to cover (even ISO shares), had taxes withheld at the time of exercise and smiled with my smaller, but greatly appreciated, extra compensation.

My outlook is just a personal thing since I've usually had bad luck when I let taxes influence investment decisions, especially timing. My weakness usually isn't holding stock too long to get LTCG rates, but rather waiting to exercise to put the proceeds into the next tax year and having the stock fall by then. Sad.... sad...... sad...... :'(
 
I'm unsympathetic to anyone who entered into a financial arrangement and had it go south because they screwed up by not asking enough questions and not taking the time to understand the risks.

I was an idiot for seven years for exercising and selling every year and paying the big tax bills. I think I paid for one of the planes that Rewahoo used to fly around. But then I became a genius in one short year...
 
Yes these were ISO, although before I and CFB left Intel and most large Silicon Valley companies had switched to now qualified options.

I find no fault with what you're saying. I'm just not sympathetic with the folks involved. They exercised stock and knew they'd owe tax on the difference between the strike price and the price on the day of exercise.

In my case, I had never heard of AMT before a friend mentioned in about 1996. I found to my shock that not only did I owe AMT for 1996 but also for 1995. Now by the time 2000, rolls around I knew what I was doing, and I got bit moderately badly. In my case no sympathy is needed. However, realistically YouBet, CFB , me and most of the forum member are lot more sophisticated about financial matters than even bright engineers.
A large proportion of the people exercising ISO in that no clue they owed taxes (ISO were always touted as being as being a tax friendly option) if they didn't sell the stock, since nobody told you about the tax consquences.

I don't disagree with you just because Wayne or Mr Subprime was ignorant/stupid/ of the consquence obligates taxpayers to bail him out. In fact, not bailing the folks who got hosed with AMT sets a pretty good precedent for not do so for the home owners.

But as CFB says empty homes and dropping real estate values is big voter issue, bankrupt dot.com folks isn't
 
I had the same sympathy for the dot.com AMT people as I do for the short sale folks. I didn't think that they should have a giant tax liability for what became a non-existent gain.

They paid the price for their foolishness by losing all of the gain in the stock. The government doesn't need to pile on by creating a massive tax bill for them that they now have no ability to pay.

It's like setting up the income tax so that even if you lose your job, you still owe taxes on what you would have earned.

As a side note, the AMT gets my vote for the stupidest tax ever conceived in this country. It doesn't suprise me that many people didn't understand the risk they were taking with their options. I like to think I'm pretty savy, and I don't really understand the AMT. I breath a sigh of relief every time Turbo Tax says that the AMT doesn't get me :rolleyes:


Yes these were ISO, although before I and CFB left Intel and most large Silicon Valley companies had switched to now qualified options.



In my case, I had never heard of AMT before a friend mentioned in about 1996. I found to my shock that not only did I owe AMT for 1996 but also for 1995. Now by the time 2000, rolls around I knew what I was doing, and I got bit moderately badly. In my case no sympathy is needed. However, realistically YouBet, CFB , me and most of the forum member are lot more sophisticated about financial matters than even bright engineers.
A large proportion of the people exercising ISO in that no clue they owed taxes (ISO were always touted as being as being a tax friendly option) if they didn't sell the stock, since nobody told you about the tax consquences.

I don't disagree with you just because Wayne or Mr Subprime was ignorant/stupid/ of the consquence obligates taxpayers to bail him out. In fact, not bailing the folks who got hosed with AMT sets a pretty good precedent for not do so for the home owners.

But as CFB says empty homes and dropping real estate values is big voter issue, bankrupt dot.com folks isn't
 
Some might say that politicians are self-aggrandizing toadys just seeking to play off the tenor of popular prejudice to maintain their own power.
shocked.gif


Not me, of course.
angel.gif
 
It doesn't suprise me that many people didn't understand the risk they were taking with their options.

The risk was not the AMT, it was the possibility of the shares decreasing in value. If the shares had held steady or increased in value, the dotcom folks would have been richly rewarded for delaying selling the shares through lower taxes. But, the shares fell. A risk they completely understood and accepted.

I share your distain for the AMT. But, in the cases we're discussing, the risk was created by people's greed to lower their tax burden by holding the shares for one year to take advantage of the ISO provision of their options.

But please be clear, while I'm not sympathetic towards those exercising options who got greedy and accepted risk hoping to harvest greater rewards, I'm also not sympathetic towards the head-up-their-butt folks who are in trouble due to assuming ARM loans. ;)
 
I am sure Jay can speak for himself... but I did not see where he said they should go to debtor's prison...

He said if you make bad decision you should pay...

"I'm a firm believer in fiscal responsibility and sound decision-making. If you fail to exercise either, then the repercussions are your own."

Not once mentioning prison, or whipping them with a cane or a whip .... just that someone who does some things wrong financially should pay a price.. and they did..


I can, but many thanks for the support. Part of the issue is that some folks see that people who have lost their homes due to poor financial decisions have suffered enough. Although I sympathize with anyone who has lost the roof over their head (especially where children are involved), no one seems to have focused on the fact that the mortgage holder (lender) is still out the money that was borrowed. Many of us want to consider such lenders to be nameless, faceless, greedy corporations, but where do you think such corporations get their money to make loans?

Ultimately from you and me. :rant:

We will end up paying for the folly of people who shouldn't have bought homes in the first place, took out home equity loans to pay for depreciating assets such as cars, vacations, big screen TVs, etc..., or financed the purchase of supposedly profitable businesses. A home is not a piggy bank. If you treat it like one, you run the risk of being in the precarious position that so many defaulting homeowners find themselves today.
 
But the lender also needs to take responsibility for the loans they make. Part of being a lender is exercising good judgement about loans they write. Every lender gets offered bad loans-- it is part of their business to make sure that they are prudent with the money they lend out.

You seem to have more sympathy for the lenders than I think is warrented. If they're so dumb that they are going to lend money to people with no ability to pay it back, and to lend more to them than their house is worth, they deserve to go out of business.

Certainly borrowers that committed fraud to get their loans should be punished, but for the most part, these people were bad risks from the start, and now some of those people are going to default. When you lend money to people on the edge of financial ruin, you can't start crying when some of them fail to pay you back.

I can, but many thanks for the support. Part of the issue is that some folks see that people who have lost their homes due to poor financial decisions have suffered enough. Although I sympathize with anyone who has lost the roof over their head (especially where children are involved), no one seems to have focused on the fact that the mortgage holder (lender) is still out the money that was borrowed. Many of us want to consider such lenders to be nameless, faceless, greedy corporations, but where do you think such corporations get their money to make loans?

Ultimately from you and me. :rant:

We will end up paying for the folly of people who shouldn't have bought homes in the first place, took out home equity loans to pay for depreciating assets such as cars, vacations, big screen TVs, etc..., or financed the purchase of supposedly profitable businesses. A home is not a piggy bank. If you treat it like one, you run the risk of being in the precarious position that so many defaulting homeowners find themselves today.
 
But the lender also needs to take responsibility for the loans they make.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say Hamlet.......

Are you saying that borrowers should be let off the hook gently (no collection agencies, no selling the BMW they purchased with the HELOC money, etc.) and that lenders should eat the losses without trying to collect?
 
The lender should certainly try to collect. But a fairly large percentage of these loans are going to be uncollectable. If a person with no savings owes $300k on a $250k house, and they lose their job, the bank is going to lose money, no matter how hard they try to collect. This is where the phrase "can't get blood from a stone" came from.

A smart bank realizes that they have made a mistake, and accepts a short sale and the moderate loss it intails. A dumb bank insists on full payment, and discovers in January that the borrower has left town and left them an empty house with frozen pipes and a flooded basement.

Part of being a smart bank is not making loans that put you in this position. If you make your borrowers put 20% down, its pretty rare to lose money on a home loan. That is why they've made people do that for decades.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say Hamlet.......

Are you saying that borrowers should be let off the hook gently (no collection agencies, no selling the BMW they purchased with the HELOC money, etc.) and that lenders should eat the losses without trying to collect?
 
In many cases the bank's only participation was to originate the loan which was quickly sold off, chopped into pieces called tranches(pardon my French) by Wall Street and ultimately bought by "patsies" such as pension funds.

No one really knows who owns a specific loan in some cases.

There is little doubt who will ultimately be the loser and pay the price though.
tongue.gif
 
I don't always agree with George Will, but I guess it's true about becoming more conservative with age and with increased netw orth. In any case, I did agree with his column on the subprime mess and its victims.

He noted that:
Paulson has been criticized for saying that some subprime borrowers "will become renters again." But some borrowers put no money down on their houses, or took mortgages with negligible "teaser" rates, or mortgages requiring them at first to pay only interest, not principal. Such borrowers are effectively renters.

The president says: "The homeowners deserve our help." But why "deserve"? The principles of "compassionate conservatism" are opaque, but they might involve liberalism's premise that Americans are so easily victimized they must be regarded as wards of government.
Perhaps Washington's intervention in the subprime problem reveals the tiny tip of an enormous new entitlement: People who voluntarily run a risk, betting that they will escape unscathed, are entitled to government-organized amelioration when they lose their bets. The costs of this entitlement will include new ambiguities in the concepts of contracts and private property.
 
In many cases the bank's only participation was to originate the loan which was quickly sold off, chopped into pieces called tranches(pardon my French) by Wall Street and ultimately bought by "patsies" such as pension funds.

No one really knows who owns a specific loan in some cases.

There is little doubt who will ultimately be the loser and pay the price though.
tongue.gif

Actually they know exactly who owns it... it is the trust.... but since you are right in that it is cut up to a lot of different people, it is hard for the trustee to change the rules... because if you do then someone gets more and someone else gets less of the money that comes in....

If you own the IO, then you HOPE that the loan continues forever and you make out great... but if you have the PO, then you might want to have the house foreclosed and then sold off to get as much as you can... because if you let the person pay 'only' interest... then you get nothing and the PV is horrible....

That is one of the big problems with a fix... it does not hit all the 'owners' the same.... and why is the banks getting hit hard? Because they owned the 'residual'... that is the money that would have been left over if everything went perfect and all loans got paid off at the original terms... these are the most volatile tranches... so they can go to zero from a big number quickly...
 
It was learned today in an article in the Wall Street Journal, that Ameriquest Mortgage, one of the nation's largest subprime lenders made over $20 million in political donations and played a key roll in rolling back legislation in Georgia and New Jersey that would have protected consumers during the housing boom. Countrywide, Wells Fargo and Citigroup and the American Mortgage Bankers Association also contributed heavily to lobbying and legislative efforts to defeat or amend laws that would have protected home owners and buyers. Countrywide Financial made gifts to campaigns of over $2 million and spent $6.7 million on lobbying efforts in Washington. President Bush received more than $200,000 for his 2004 reelection campaign. Political organizations that represented the president received $5 million from Ronald Arnall (and his wife, Dawn), the founder of Ameriquest. In 2006, Mr. Arnall was appointed by President Bush as Ambassador of the Netherlands and his wife became chairman of ACC Capital, the parent company of Ameriquest. California governor's, Arnold Schwarzennegger's reelection campaign received $1.4 million and stacks of tickets to a Rolling Stones Concert.

Wright Andrews, a Washington lobbyist and his wife, Lisa were responsible for much of the industry's lobbying and received payments of over $4 million from 2002 to 2006. Mr. Andrews ran 3 different subprime trade groups which included The National Home Equity Mortgage Association, The Coalition for Fair and Affordable Lending and The Responsible Mortgage Lending Coalition. The Coalition for Fair and Affordable Lending spent $6.3 million before it went out of business this year. The other two trade groups are now out of business as well.

Ameriquest was founded in 1979 as Long Beach Savings & Loan by Mr. Arnall. He shed all of the operation in this S&L, with the exception of the retail-mortgage department which became he named Ameriquest. During the refinancing boom of the 90's, the company refinanced many homes at more than their appraised value, at relatively high interest rates.

In 2006, ACC Capital paid $325 million in a settlement with regulators for charging excessively high mortgage rates and for failure to fully disclose loan risks. Some of the state's attorney generals who signed the settlement received received campaign donations from the ACC. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff received $1,000 and Rolling Stones tickets.
State legislators in Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and California also received Rolling Stones tickets.

At the heart of the legislation in both Georgia an New Jersey was a clause that required that a lender prove that the refinancing of a home owned for less than 5 years have a "tangible net benefit" for the borrower. Later (on separate occasions), Standard & Poor Corp. decided they would not assign credit ratings to mortgage securities containing subprime loans coming from these two states. Without these ratings from S&P, mortgage securities cannot be sold. Additionally, federal banking regulators banned states from applying consumer-protection to federally chartered banks and thrifts so that they would not have an advantage over state-chartered ones. In the meantime, because of pressure from subprime lobbyists, both of the state's laws that protected consumers were changed, making it legal to continue offering subprime loans. In the aftermath of these changes, thousands of New Jersey homeowners took out these high risk subprime loans and many are now in foreclosure.

After the victories for subprime lenders in Georgia and New Jersey, state legislators in Texas considered enacting laws to regulate home appraisers, because of, "overly generous valuations" that were causing serious problems with home loans in that state. In 2006, ACC Capital (Ameriquest's parent company) gave $350,000 to Texas politicians and $100,000 to Governor Rick Perry to successfully defeat any possible new laws to curtail unethical appraisal practices.

It seems ironic that both President Bush and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are now befriending troubled subprime borrowers who face the threat of losing their homes. Pressure on lenders to renegotiate the terms of once sacred written contracts with "teaser freezers" is only a misguided and untimely attempt to shift the blame from their own lack of judgement and ineptitude.

Lender Lobbying Blitz Abetted Mortgage Mess - WSJ.com
 
Actually they know exactly who owns it... it is the trust.... but since you are right in that it is cut up to a lot of different people, it is hard for the trustee to change the rules... because if you do then someone gets more and someone else gets less of the money that comes in....

If you own the IO, then you HOPE that the loan continues forever and you make out great... but if you have the PO, then you might want to have the house foreclosed and then sold off to get as much as you can... because if you let the person pay 'only' interest... then you get nothing and the PV is horrible....

That is one of the big problems with a fix... it does not hit all the 'owners' the same.... and why is the banks getting hit hard? Because they owned the 'residual'... that is the money that would have been left over if everything went perfect and all loans got paid off at the original terms... these are the most volatile tranches... so they can go to zero from a big number quickly...

If anyone is interested in delving further into this phenomenon, here is a place to start.

http://www.securitization.net/publications/pdfs/StoneZissu_Cpt3.pdf

Also good bedtime reading for those of you with kids. You might want to print out this link and use it for a bedtime story
 
Back
Top Bottom