A Cross-Jurisdictional Study of Securitisation: Need for a Uniform Legal Regime
Keywords:
Securitisation, financial asset, homogeneity, risk retention, cash flow, credit, re-securitisation, banks, security receipts, special purpose vehicleAbstract
Securitisation is the process of bundling financial assets and raising funds by issuing securities backed by those financial assets. The process of securitisation can be carried out by establishing the special purpose vehicle (SPV) in a jurisdiction different to the originator’s jurisdiction. This results in a situation where the process of securitisation would be regulated by more than one legal system. Hence, compliance with the provisions of both the legal regimes would be necessary. However, dual compliance is may not be feasible in several situations owing to the differences in risk retention requirements, homogeneity thresholds and even the definition of securitisation. The discrepancies in the securitisation laws across legal regimes create problems for multinational securitisations. The aim of this project to compare and contrast the EU and US legal regimes on securitisation to demonstrate the legal challenges that arise in cross-border securitisation. The first part of this paper delves into the relevant legal provisions in the European Union and it is followed by a section on US securitisation laws. The third part analyses the fundamental differences in the two legal systems and exposits the compliance challenges and practical problems arising from the same. The conclusion sums up the discussion and builds a case for harmonizing securitisation laws within the OECD framework to develop a uniform global regime.
References
1. Buzan, Waever. Macrosecuritisation and Security Constellations: Reconsidering Scale in Securitisation Theory . Review of International Studies. 2009; 35: 253–276.
2. Ian Hozmuller, The United States RBC Standards, Solvency II and the Swiss Solvency Test: A Comparative Assessment, The Geneva Papers On Risk And Insurance—Issues And Practice 56–77 (2009).
3. Michela Scatigna & Camilo E. Tovar, Securitisation in Latin America , BIS Quarterly Review (2012).
4. Hans J. Blommestein, Ahmet Keskinler & Carrick Lucas, Outlook for the Securitisation Market , 1 OECD Financial Market Trends (2011).
5. Europe’s securitisation market remains stunted, The Economist, Feb 23, 2017.
6. Understanding Securitisation , European Parliament (January 2016). Criteria for identifying simple, transparent and comparable securitisations, Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (July 2015).
7. Miguel Segoviano, Bradley Jones, Peter Lindner & Johannes Blankenheim, Securitization: The Road Ahead, IMF Staff Discussion Note (January 2015).
8. The EU risk retention rules were contained in Articles 404 –410 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 625/ 2014 (RTS). Article 51 of Regulation (EU) 231/2013, referred to as the Alternative Investment Fund Manager Regulation; and Articles 254 to 256 of Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/35, referred to as the Solvency II Regulation
9. “Institutional investors” is defined to include credit institutions, investment firms, insurers, reinsurers and alternative investment fund managers, to whom rules A Cross-Jurisdictional Study of Securitisation Lakshana R. JCMSL (2018) 1-10 © Law Journals 2018. All Rights Reserved Page 10 relating to exposures to securitisation transactions already apply, and also UCITS management companies, internally managed UCITS, institutions for occupational retirement provision and investment managers or authorised entities appointed by an institution for occupational retirement provision.
10. Joao Pinto, The Economics of Securitization: Evidence from the European Marke ts, 13 Investment Management and Financial Innovations (1st ed. 2016).
11. Report to the Commission on synthetic securitisation, European Banking Authority (2015)
12. Credit Risk Retention, SEC Rel. No. 34 – 73407, 79 Fed. Reg. 77,602 (Dec. 24, 2014).
13. Susan Wacht er, The Market Structure of Securitisation and the US Housing Bubble, 230 National Institute of Economic Review (2014).
14. Securitization in the United States: Key Legal and Regulatory Issues , International Finance Corporation (2017).
15. Joe Rennison, US regulator hits out at new securitisation requirements, Financial Times, March 2, 2016.
16. Credit Risk Retention, SEC Rel. No. 34 – 73407, 79 Fed. Reg. 77,602 (Dec. 24, 2014). Hatice Uzun & Elizabeth Webb, Securitization and risk: empirical evidence on US banks , 8 Journal Of Risk Finance (1st ed. 2016)
17. Erhan & Selal, Securitization in The United States of America And the European Union: Does It Work In Turkey? 14 Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Haziran 23–44 (2012).
18. Nandinee Kutty, The Scope for Po verty Alleviation among Elderly Home -owners in the United States through Reverse Mortgages, 35 Department of Political Analysis and Management (1998, Cornell University). Cite this Article Lakshana R. A Cross -Jurisdictional Study of Securitisation: Need for a Uniform Legal Regime. Journal of Capital Market and Securities Law. 2018; 1(1). 1-10p.
