<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 20% of moral hazard</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.rivast.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.rivast.com/?p=2905</link>
	<description>A blog about rules and behaviours</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:35:38 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://blog.rivast.com/?p=2905&#038;cpage=1#comment-307</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rivast.com/?p=2905#comment-307</guid>
		<description>The repurchase part, as I understand it, of a repo is a senior obligation.  So any unsecured amount after the collateral is liquidated is a senior claim against the repurchaser.  Clearly in order to change that, and provide a minimum 20% haircut, a new legal framework for the resolution of financial institutions would be needed.  It seems that there may be the political will to do that.  In effect a bank would not go bankrupt, but rather would go through a different process, with different outcomes for creditors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The repurchase part, as I understand it, of a repo is a senior obligation.  So any unsecured amount after the collateral is liquidated is a senior claim against the repurchaser.  Clearly in order to change that, and provide a minimum 20% haircut, a new legal framework for the resolution of financial institutions would be needed.  It seems that there may be the political will to do that.  In effect a bank would not go bankrupt, but rather would go through a different process, with different outcomes for creditors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Siram3</title>
		<link>http://blog.rivast.com/?p=2905&#038;cpage=1#comment-305</link>
		<dc:creator>Siram3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:09:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rivast.com/?p=2905#comment-305</guid>
		<description>dWj made an interesting comment over @ the Across the Curve post you are linking to. Will this proposal really impact the repo market? I am no legal expert either but are repos, from a legal perspective, secured credit? From my layman&#039;s perspective I think a repo is distinctly different from a normal secured credit claim, especially in case of a bankruptcy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dWj made an interesting comment over @ the Across the Curve post you are linking to. Will this proposal really impact the repo market? I am no legal expert either but are repos, from a legal perspective, secured credit? From my layman&#8217;s perspective I think a repo is distinctly different from a normal secured credit claim, especially in case of a bankruptcy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
