回归证券化

Sarah L. Quinn
{"title":"回归证券化","authors":"Sarah L. Quinn","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvb938n3.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses the distributional politics of mortgage markets and securitization in the postwar era and explains their transformation in the 1960s as the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA/Fannie Mae) was “spun off” from the government and authorized to finance itself by issuing a new kind of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed security. In the second half of the decade, a series of crises marked the end of one era and the beginning of a long transition into a new one marked by scarcity, neoliberalism, and financialization. The end of postwar affluence created a distributional struggle over which social groups would pay for what, and that process played out through the highly contentious and veto-ridden world of budget politics. Housing credit was doubly implicated in these fights, first because it was hit hard and early in market corrections, and second because its credit programs could be used for off-budget accounting. For all that the new approach to securitization reflected a changing relationship between the state and the market, the modern mortgage-backed security continued to reflect the institutional logic of the credit programs: the use of state-promoted financial development and risk redistribution as an alternative to more direct forms of wealth redistribution.","PeriodicalId":208461,"journal":{"name":"American Bonds","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Return to Securitization\",\"authors\":\"Sarah L. Quinn\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctvb938n3.14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter discusses the distributional politics of mortgage markets and securitization in the postwar era and explains their transformation in the 1960s as the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA/Fannie Mae) was “spun off” from the government and authorized to finance itself by issuing a new kind of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed security. In the second half of the decade, a series of crises marked the end of one era and the beginning of a long transition into a new one marked by scarcity, neoliberalism, and financialization. The end of postwar affluence created a distributional struggle over which social groups would pay for what, and that process played out through the highly contentious and veto-ridden world of budget politics. Housing credit was doubly implicated in these fights, first because it was hit hard and early in market corrections, and second because its credit programs could be used for off-budget accounting. For all that the new approach to securitization reflected a changing relationship between the state and the market, the modern mortgage-backed security continued to reflect the institutional logic of the credit programs: the use of state-promoted financial development and risk redistribution as an alternative to more direct forms of wealth redistribution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":208461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Bonds\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Bonds\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvb938n3.14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Bonds","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvb938n3.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章讨论了战后时期抵押贷款市场和证券化的分配政治,并解释了它们在20世纪60年代的转变,当时联邦全国抵押贷款协会(FNMA/房利美)从政府“分拆”出来,并被授权通过发行一种新的政府担保的抵押贷款支持证券来为自己融资。在这十年的后半段,一系列危机标志着一个时代的结束,以及一个以稀缺、新自由主义和金融化为标志的新时代的漫长过渡的开始。战后富裕的终结引发了一场分配斗争,即社会群体该为什么买单,这一过程在预算政治的高度争议和被否决的世界中展开。住房信贷在这些斗争中受到双重牵连,首先是因为它在市场调整的早期受到了沉重打击,其次是因为它的信贷项目可以用于预算外会计。尽管证券化的新方法反映了国家与市场之间不断变化的关系,但现代抵押贷款支持证券继续反映了信贷计划的制度逻辑:利用国家推动的金融发展和风险再分配作为更直接形式的财富再分配的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Return to Securitization
This chapter discusses the distributional politics of mortgage markets and securitization in the postwar era and explains their transformation in the 1960s as the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA/Fannie Mae) was “spun off” from the government and authorized to finance itself by issuing a new kind of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed security. In the second half of the decade, a series of crises marked the end of one era and the beginning of a long transition into a new one marked by scarcity, neoliberalism, and financialization. The end of postwar affluence created a distributional struggle over which social groups would pay for what, and that process played out through the highly contentious and veto-ridden world of budget politics. Housing credit was doubly implicated in these fights, first because it was hit hard and early in market corrections, and second because its credit programs could be used for off-budget accounting. For all that the new approach to securitization reflected a changing relationship between the state and the market, the modern mortgage-backed security continued to reflect the institutional logic of the credit programs: the use of state-promoted financial development and risk redistribution as an alternative to more direct forms of wealth redistribution.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信