Anzeige
Erschienen in:
2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel
7. Reforming the Global Securitization Market
verfasst von : Bonnie G. Buchanan
Erschienen in: Securitization and the Global Economy
Verlag: Palgrave Macmillan US
Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden. powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden. powered by
Abstract
A rising trend in lawsuits filed against lenders, originators, and home builders erupted as the US housing market started to decline during late 2006 and into 2007. There were a number of other surprising responses to the US mortgage crisis, including the suggestion that local governments use “eminent domain”. Eminent domain usually applies to the government seizure of real property (not loans), such as homes for an urban renewal project or highway construction project. In this case, eminent domain was intended to take underwater, but performing mortgages, in the private label securitization market. The seizure of troubled mortgages would enable the homeowners’ debt to be written down. San Bernardino County in California was one of the first and more visible cases during the crisis where eminent domain was proposed. Numerous criticisms by Wall Street groups and the mortgage industry argued that such a plan would spark lawsuits, higher interest rates, and a tightened market for borrowers.1 The measure was eventually voted down in 2013.