Advertisement

Assessment of Current Regulation and Practice of RMBS Programmes

  • Pelma RajapakseEmail author
  • Shanuka Senarath
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter engages in evaluating existing regulation and industry practices of residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) in Australia. This evaluation is made in order to identify the extent to which existing regulation may hinder or promote RMBS in Australia. As part of its dialogue, the first section of the chapter engages in summarising the discussion made from Chaps.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6, and  7. The assessment of law begins by assessing the regulatory provisions pertaining to the mortgage origination process in an Australian context. This chapter evaluates regulatory provisions pertaining to the transfer of mortgagee’s rights to the special purpose vehicle (SPV), issuance of RMBS by the SPV, and finally financial and insolvency risks pertaining to RMBS securities in Australia.

Keywords

Regulation Mortgage origination Mortgagee’s rights Issuance Insolvency Disclosure Cost-benefit analysis 

Bibliography

Books and Book Chapters

  1. Clayton Utz, The Essential Guide to Financial Services Reform Act, Sydney: CCH, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Australian Finance Law, 3rd edition, Melbourne: Longman Professional, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. Park, E. J., ‘Allowing Japanese Banks to Engage in Securitization: Potential Benefits, Regulatory Obstacles, and Theories for Reform’ (1996) 17 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 723.Google Scholar
  4. Wheeler, C., ‘The Accounting Aspects of Securitisation in the United Kingdom’ in C. A. Stone, A. Zissu, and J. Lederman, (eds.), Asset Securitisation Theory and Practice in Europe, London: Euromoney Publications, 1991.Google Scholar

Journal Articles

  1. Boyd, A., ‘Securitisation Market Shrank 14% Last Year’, Australian Financial Review, 24 February 1994, 30.Google Scholar
  2. Cooter, R. D., ‘Decentralized Law for a Complex Economy: The Structural Approach to Adjudicating the New Law Merchant’, (1996) 144 (5) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Easterbrook, F. H. and Fischel, D. R., ‘Corporate Control Transactions’ (1982) 91 Yale Law Journal 698.Google Scholar
  4. Falconer, I., ‘Securitisation in the United Kingdom’ (1989) Butterworth Journal of International Banking and Finance Law 105.Google Scholar
  5. Finch, A., ‘Securitisation’ (1995) 6 (4) Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 247.Google Scholar
  6. Frankel, T., ‘The Legal Infrastructure of Markets: The Role of Contract and Property Law’ (1993) 73 Boston University Law Review 389.Google Scholar
  7. Jackson, P., ‘Bank Capital Standards: The New Basel Accord’ (2001) Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 55.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, M., ‘Australian Market Gets Bigger and Better’ (April 2000) Asiamoney 1.Google Scholar
  9. Kahan, M., ‘Securities Laws and the Social Costs of Inaccurate Stock Prices’ (1992) 41 Duke Law Journal 977.Google Scholar
  10. Mahoney, P. G., ‘Mandatory Disclosure as a Solution to the Agency Problem’ (1995) 62 The University of Chicago Law Review 1047.Google Scholar
  11. Pollsen, R., Hu, J. and Elengical, J., ‘A Record Year for Residential MBS’ (April 2002) Mortgage Banking (Washington) 36.Google Scholar
  12. Rosenberg, R. and Kravitt, J., ‘How Feasible is the Securitization of Loans to Small and Medium Sized Businesses?’ (Fall 1993) Commercial Lending Review 4.Google Scholar
  13. Salter, B., ‘Civil Liability for Errors and Omissions in Information Memoranda in Wholesale Debt Capital Markets’ (2003) 14 Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 61.Google Scholar
  14. Salter, B., ‘Privacy Legislation Update’ (1993) 4 (2) Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 113.Google Scholar
  15. Senarath, S., ‘Securitisation and the global financial crisis: can risk retention prevent another crisis?’ (2017) 18 International Journal of Business and Globalisation 153.Google Scholar

Working Papers, Magazines, Newspapers and Reports

  1. Australian Securities and Investment Commission, Licensing: Securitisation, Consultation Paper, August 2004, http://www.asic.gov.au
  2. Australian Securitisation Forum, Submission to APRA Regarding Risk Weighting of Mortgage-Backed Securities, 24 July 2002, http://www.securitisation.com.au/asf
  3. Australian Securitisation Forum, Submission to the ASIC: Licensing Relief for Securitisation Structures, 23 October 2003, http://www.securitisation.com.au/asf
  4. Australian Securitisation Forum, Submission to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority in Response to APS 120 – Fund Management and Securitisation, 14 June 2000, http://www.securitisation.com.au/asf
  5. CCH, Federal Securities Law Reports, New SEC Rulings: Structured Financing Exclusion, N.Y.: CCH, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. Gunning, G., ‘Basel II: A Capital Idea but Still Hurdles to Jump’, Standard and Poor’s Inaugural Financial Market Conference, Sydney, October 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Kitch, E. W., ‘Regulation of the Securities Market’, University of Virginia Law School, 1999, http://www.helsinki.fi/oik/tdk.html
  8. Macquarie Securitisation Ltd, The PUMA Fund P-7: Master Information Memorandum, Sydney, February 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Macquarie Securitisation Ltd, Master Information Memorandum, PUMA Sub-Fund Series 2014, Sydney, July 2014.Google Scholar
  10. Minton, B., Opler, T. and Stanton, S., Asset Securitization Among Industrial Firms, Working Paper, Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio, November 1997.Google Scholar
  11. Moody’s Investor Service, Structured Finance – Special Report (Melbourne, February 1994).Google Scholar
  12. Plater, I., ‘Accounting and Tax for Off-Balance Sheet Financing’, IIR Conference, Sydney, September 1992.Google Scholar
  13. Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S.), Proposed Rule: Asset- Backed Securities; Release No 33–849, June 2004, http://www.sec.gov
  14. Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S.), Staff Report of the Task Force on Mortgage-Backed Securities Disclosure, January 2003, http://www.sec.gov
  15. Senarath, S. ‘The Dodd-Frank Act doesn’t solve the principal-agent problem in asset securitisation’ (2017) blogs.lse.ac.uk (11 November 2018) http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/04/21/the-dodd-frank-act-doesnt-solve-the-principal-agent-problem-in-asset-securitisation/
  16. Senarath, S., Not so “Bankruptcy-Remote’: An insight into Sri Lankan Securitization Practices in a Post_GFC Context’ (Paper presented at the MAC-MME conference 2016, Prague, Czech Republic).Google Scholar
  17. Standard and Poor’s, ‘Credit Ratings on Mortgage-Backed Securities’, Structured Finance Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. Standard and Poor’s, ‘Mortgage-Backed Criteria’, Structured Finance Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Standard and Poor’s, ‘Uniform Consumer Credit Code – Implications for the Rating Process’, Structured Finance Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. Trustee Corporations Association of Australia, Submission to the Financial System Inquiry, (Wallis Committee) December 1996.Google Scholar

Web Sites

  1. BIS Home Page, http://www.bis.org
  2. APRA Home Page, http://www.apra.gov.au
  3. ASIC Home Page, http://www.asic.gov.au
  4. AASB Home Page, http://www.aasb.com.au

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.University of ColomboColomboSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations