Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RFEngineer
It is in the best interest of the law and for society, and for localities to make is “plain and simple” to identify who actually owns the property.

If that is the case (and I might agree with you on this), then financial instruments such as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) should be absolutely prohibited by law.

Keep in mind that Federal and state laws can't even keep up with the complexity of these instruments (which is one more reason why all of these cases are now being contested in various courts). Do you realize that there are still some broad legal questions (with enormous implications) about whether these things should be subject to real estate law or to securities law?

117 posted on 06/06/2010 9:39:42 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child

“Do you realize that there are still some broad legal questions (with enormous implications) about whether these things should be subject to real estate law or to securities law?”

Oh we agree....however, there ought to be some way for a revenue stream (like a mortgage) to be securitized in an honest and financially sound manner by the owner of said revenue stream, if there is an informed and willing buyer.

We know that Wall Street couldn’t do it honestly, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. I don’t have the answer to CMO’s or CDO and if they can or should be made financially sound, honest, and legal - but the way it was done previously obviously was not sound, honest - and the legality has yet to be cleared up.


123 posted on 06/06/2010 9:45:30 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson