Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Knowledge Articles
The Financial Crisis Guide
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jen E C" data-source="post: 29291" data-attributes="member: 485"><p>I have been reading through the guide (outstandingly written!!) and had a question I am hoping someone could clarify for me. </p><p></p><p>The article points out that banks were sitting pretty happy having repackaged and sold off the mortgages as securities, distancing themselves from the risk. Any money paid by the borrowers went to the investors who purchased them as bonds in the secondary market. </p><p></p><p>However, later on the article states that when borrowers began to default, 'banks were getting no income from their loan'. This seems contradicting to the above as they weren't receiving any of the income anyway?</p><p></p><p>I'd appreciate any help identifying what I have misunderstood somewhere along the way, thanks!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jen E C, post: 29291, member: 485"] I have been reading through the guide (outstandingly written!!) and had a question I am hoping someone could clarify for me. The article points out that banks were sitting pretty happy having repackaged and sold off the mortgages as securities, distancing themselves from the risk. Any money paid by the borrowers went to the investors who purchased them as bonds in the secondary market. However, later on the article states that when borrowers began to default, 'banks were getting no income from their loan'. This seems contradicting to the above as they weren't receiving any of the income anyway? I'd appreciate any help identifying what I have misunderstood somewhere along the way, thanks! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Knowledge Articles
The Financial Crisis Guide
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…