Financial e.coli

Laws, Sausages -- & Securitized Mortgages

Laws are like sausages — it is best not to see them being made.

--Otto Von Bismarck

To "laws" and "sausages," now add "securitized debt," circa 2004-2008.

It turns out that Wall Street's financial sausage factory was even more toxic and laxly run than previously thought.

The latest chapter is apparently a breakdown in the very essence of what makes a securitized mortgage, securitized: the link between the mortgage, and the property securing it.

Due to sloppy or non-existent documentation, investors in such paper may not have rights to the collateral -- millions of homes -- after all; if that's correct, "fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night," as Bette Davis might put it.

Financial e.coli Outbreak

As the daily headlines (continue to) make clear, the financial e.coli outbreak traceable to Wall Street has sickened not just the U.S. economy, but a good portion of the world economy.

If a real sausage factory caused 1/1,000 of the harm, it would be shut down, fined into oblivion, and its operators jailed.

Much the same fate would befall the government inspectors responsible for overseeing the factory; the private company that put its Good Housekeeping seal of approval on the factory's output; and any other actors associated with the shameful enterprise.

How shameful?

Imagine the uproar if a corrupt food inspector -- charged with abetting food poisoning -- defended itself by claiming that its bogus ratings were "protected free speech," as the credit ratings agencies are now risibly arguing.

Calling Upton Sinclair

So, what's happened to Wall Street and its enablers, post-crash?

And exactly what is their defense to the foregoing?

In the hope that doing so would somehow revive the economy Wall Street wrecked, the Federal Reserve and Congress have actually showered Wall Street with more money since 2008 (courtesy of quantitative easing and TARP, respectively).

Meanwhile, Wall Street has escaped responsibility of any sort by arguing -- try to keep this straight -- that: a) the financial sausages it sold were not tainted with e.coli; but b) if they were, it was because investors wanted to buy tainted sausages; and c) should have known the sausages were tainted; because d) Wall Street told them they were.

Or not (see, SEC v. Goldman Sachs).

And "a." through "d." don't really matter, anyways, because of "e.": selling tainted financial sausages . . . was all perfectly legal.

Any political commercials out there discussing this??

I didn't think so.

P.S.: What do you do with an e. coli -tainted batch of (financial) sausage? Recall it.