The European Securitization Market: Effects of an Uneven Regulatory Playing Field

IF 2 Q1 LAW Journal of Financial Regulation Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1093/jfr/fjae002
Thomas Papadogiannis Varouchakis
{"title":"The European Securitization Market: Effects of an Uneven Regulatory Playing Field","authors":"Thomas Papadogiannis Varouchakis","doi":"10.1093/jfr/fjae002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article critically assesses the European securitization industry’s claim of the existence of an uneven regulatory playing field for securitization structures vis-à-vis financial instruments deemed ‘neighbouring’ to securitization by the industry, like whole loan pools, corporate bonds, and covered bonds. According to market participants, the adverse regulatory treatment of securitization is negatively affecting the European securitization market, by pushing issuers and investors towards other financial instruments that are treated preferentially. Ultimately, this prevents the securitization market from escaping the subdued state in which it has been ever since the global financial crisis. To address this problem, market participants are advocating a fundamental recalibration of the existing regulatory framework. By examining the regulatory framework that applies to securitization structures, against the backdrop of regulation for whole loan pools, corporate bonds, and covered bonds, this article confirms that securitization structures are indeed treated adversely, as claimed by the industry. Nevertheless, a valid comparison can only be drawn between ‘true sale’ residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) structures and mortgage covered bonds, given the structural-economic similarities between the two financial instruments. In that regard, the adverse regulatory treatment of RMBS is found to be negatively impacting the European securitization market, by fuelling a ‘crowding out’ of RMBS by covered bonds.","PeriodicalId":42830,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjae002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article critically assesses the European securitization industry’s claim of the existence of an uneven regulatory playing field for securitization structures vis-à-vis financial instruments deemed ‘neighbouring’ to securitization by the industry, like whole loan pools, corporate bonds, and covered bonds. According to market participants, the adverse regulatory treatment of securitization is negatively affecting the European securitization market, by pushing issuers and investors towards other financial instruments that are treated preferentially. Ultimately, this prevents the securitization market from escaping the subdued state in which it has been ever since the global financial crisis. To address this problem, market participants are advocating a fundamental recalibration of the existing regulatory framework. By examining the regulatory framework that applies to securitization structures, against the backdrop of regulation for whole loan pools, corporate bonds, and covered bonds, this article confirms that securitization structures are indeed treated adversely, as claimed by the industry. Nevertheless, a valid comparison can only be drawn between ‘true sale’ residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) structures and mortgage covered bonds, given the structural-economic similarities between the two financial instruments. In that regard, the adverse regulatory treatment of RMBS is found to be negatively impacting the European securitization market, by fuelling a ‘crowding out’ of RMBS by covered bonds.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲证券化市场:不均衡监管环境的影响
本文批判性地评估了欧洲证券化行业的主张,即证券化结构与该行业认为与证券化 "相邻 "的金融工具(如整体贷款池、公司债券和担保债券)相比,存在不公平的监管竞争环境。据市场参与者称,对证券化的不利监管待遇正在对欧洲证券化市场产生负面影响,将发行人和投资者推向受到优待的其他金融工具。最终,这使得证券化市场无法摆脱自全球金融危机以来的低迷状态。为了解决这个问题,市场参与者主张从根本上重新调整现有的监管框架。本文以整个贷款池、公司债券和担保债券的监管为背景,研究了适用于证券化结构的监管框架,证实了证券化结构确实如业界所称受到了不利待遇。然而,鉴于 "真实销售 "住宅抵押贷款支持证券(RMBS)结构和抵押担保债券这两种金融工具在结构上和经济上的相似性,我们只能对这两种金融工具进行有效的比较。在这方面,对住宅抵押贷款支持证券的不利监管待遇对欧洲证券化市场产生了负面影响,助长了担保债券对住宅抵押贷款支持证券的 "排挤"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Generative Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Security in Central Banking Enhancing Repo Market Transparency: The EU Securities Financing Transactions Regulation Correction to: Could it Happen in the EU? An Analysis of Loss Distributionbetween Shareholders and AT1 Bondholders under EU Law Ten Years of the Single Supervisory Mechanism: Looking into the Past, Navigating into the Future “Tis new to thee’: response to Gruenewald, Knijp, Schoenmaker, and van Tilburg
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1