Why (and How to) Define Securitization? A Sur-Reply to Professor Schwarcz

13 Pages Posted: 27 Feb 2013 Last revised: 13 Mar 2013

See all articles by Jonathan C. Lipson

Jonathan C. Lipson

Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law

Date Written: February 28, 2013

Abstract

This brief essay is a reply to Professor Steve Schwarcz's essay, "What is Securitization? And for What Purpose?" Professor Schwarcz's essay is a response to my article, "Re: Defining Securitization," 85 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1229 (2012).

My reply explores the strengths and weaknesses of Schwarcz's critique. Among other things, I point out that Professor Schwarcz would defer excessively to market actors to define important legal terms at the expense of clarity and uniformity. Moreover, he at times appears to contradict his own definitions of what is (and is not) a securitization.

As a leading authority on securitization (however defined), I am nevertheless grateful for Professor Schwarcz's thoughtful contribution to this discussion.

Keywords: securitization, structured finance, commercial finance, corporate finance, steven schwarcz, stipulative definitions

JEL Classification: K12, K22, K23

Suggested Citation

Lipson, Jonathan C., Why (and How to) Define Securitization? A Sur-Reply to Professor Schwarcz (February 28, 2013). 85 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1301 (2012); Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-06. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2225571

Jonathan C. Lipson (Contact Author)

Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law ( email )

1719 N. Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
80
Abstract Views
529
rank
320,442
PlumX Metrics