Securitization and Volatility

  • T. V. S. Ramamohan Rao


The originator passing on the risks (or sharing risks) in financial transactions is the general end result of asset-based securitization. It can be shown that volatility (measured as the variance in the recovery of receivables) increases in at least four contexts. (a) The originator does not share the risk and consequently expands into high-risk activities to increase his business. This depends on the efficiency of the special purpose vehicle (SPV) in collecting receivables and how consideration is defined at the time of securitization. However, there will be limits on volatility beyond which the originator does not gain. (b) The size of any one securitized pool may be small compared to the total business of the SPV. Portfolio choice based on the risk-adjusted rate of return becomes important in such a context. In an expanding market, the originator and/or the SPV may find the risk-adjusted rate of return on securitization even higher with increasingly risky transactions. He will then expand into activities that increase the volatility of transactions. (c) The investor, who buys the pass-through certificates issued by the SPV, may find securitized transactions more attractive relative to conventional financial instruments either due to lower transaction costs, shorter time horizon over which they are recovered, or higher risk-adjusted rate of return. Even this has the effect of increasing the volatility of financial transactions. (d) The parties tend to utilize credit rating agencies to indicate the risks involved and reduce their adverse impact. However, their commercial interests may result in ratings that augment and spread risks instead of containing them within desirable limits.


Nash Equilibrium Credit Rating Risky Asset Financial Instrument Financial Transaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adelson M (2007) The role of credit rating agencies in the structured finance market. Available at
  2. Caprio G, Domirguc-Knut A, Kane EJ (2008) The 2007 meltdown in structured securitization. World Bank Res Obs 25:125–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Filson D, Morales R (2005) Equity links and information acquisition in biotechnology alliances. J Econ Behav Organ 59:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hull J, Predescu M, White A (2004) The relationship between credit default swap spreads, bond yields and credit rating announcements. J Bank Financ 28:2789–2811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Institute of International Finance (2008) Final report of the IIF Committee on best practices: principles of conduct and best practice recommendations. Available at IIF_Final_report_of_the_Committee_on_Market_Best_Practices[1].pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. Rao TVSR (2011) Securitization, ratings and regulatory policy. Int J Trade Glob Market 4:133–151Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. V. S. Ramamohan Rao
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology KanpurKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations