Securitized Loans Seems More Prudent than Unsecuritized Loans

Securitized Loans Seems More Prudent than Unsecuritized Loans
This is from the Economist.com at http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13061713&source=features_box_main :
"The sums involved are depressingly large. In the worst case, losses on the $600 billion of securitised Alt-A debt outstanding—roughly the same as the stock of subprime securities—could reach $150 billion, reckons David Watts of CreditSights, a research firm. Analysts at Goldman Sachs put possible write-downs on the $1.3 trillion of total Alt-A debt—including both securitised and unsecuritised loans—at $600 billion, almost as much as expected subprime losses. Add in option ARMs, a particularly virulent type of adjustable-rate loan, many of which are essentially the same as Alt-A, and the potential hit climbs towards $1 trillion."
If securitized loans have a 25% ($150B/$600B) default rate and *ALL* alt-A debt has a 46% ($600B/$1300B) default rate, than this implies that securitized loans are more prudent/safer/less likely to default tha nunsecuritized loans. Moreover, the following deductions can be made:
1. Securitized loans are $600B, and unsecuritized loans are $700B, for a total of $1300B.
2. Unsecuritized loans have a 64.3% default rate. [(25%)($600B) + (x%) ($700B)]/$1300B = 46%, and solve for x. X=64.3%.
Here are my few questions:
1. Why are unsecuritized loans safer?
2. I thought that one of the big deals in this whole Financial Crisis was securitization. The media has made it look so evil and wily. Please clarify.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The keyword to the answer is "Safe". Since bankers have always lived by thier own self-dictated sceince that SAFE=SECURE.
So Bigger SAFE = MORE Secure obviously is universally true in their fantasy world. So, in the sequel you would also derive such idiocies as: If the World Trade Center being the Tallest Safe in The World, it must also necessarily be the Most Secure Safe in The World.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think this may be what you're looking for: http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/cflnovember2007_244.pdf
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
2.7182818284590... wrote:

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id 061713&sourceþatures_box_main:
Yes, that that is why the ratings agencys were stupid enough to give them AAA+ ratings.
The problem is that radically overstates their advantage over non securitized loans.

They arent. The problem is that while securitized loans are safer, it isnt feasible to decide just what the risk is with a PARTICULAR securitized loan, and with the market spooked about them, the mark to market system essentially produces a zero value for them because no one wants them. Its easier to rate an unsecuritized loan.

Nope, the problem was the AAA+ rating that they didnt come even close to warranting.

The media never does manage to get the basics right.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Securitized Loans Seems More Prudent than Unsecuritized Loans
This is from the Economist.com at http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id 061713&sourceþatures_box_main:
"The sums involved are depressingly large. In the worst case, losses on the $600 billion of securitised Alt-A debt outstanding—roughly the same as the stock of subprime securities—could reach $150 billion, reckons David Watts of CreditSights, a research firm. Analysts at Goldman Sachs put possible write-downs on the $1.3 trillion of total Alt-A debt—including both securitised and unsecuritised loans—at $600 billion, almost as much as expected subprime losses. Add in option ARMs, a particularly virulent type of adjustable-rate loan, many of which are essentially the same as Alt-A, and the potential hit climbs towards $1 trillion."
If securitized loans have a 25% ($150B/$600B) default rate and *ALL* alt-A debt has a 46% ($600B/$1300B) default rate, than this implies that securitized loans are more prudent/safer/less likely to default tha nunsecuritized loans. Moreover, the following deductions can be made:
1. Securitized loans are $600B, and unsecuritized loans are $700B, for a total of $1300B.
2. Unsecuritized loans have a 64.3% default rate. [(25%)($600B) + (x%) ($700B)]/$1300B = 46%, and solve for x. Xd.3%.
Here are my few questions:
1. Why are unsecuritized loans safer?
2. I thought that one of the big deals in this whole Financial Crisis was securitization. The media has made it look so evil and wily. Please clarify.
***********************************************8
I think you're drawing too many conclusions from the data.The figures you quoted are only guesses - from two different sources - about what "could" happen in the "worst case".And it's nothing like an exact science. Nobody really knows what's going to happen. It could just mean that the people at Goldman Sachs are being more pessimistic about the "worst case" than the other guy.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.