The vast majority of subprime loans were financed by investors through placing the loans into securities that were sold onto the market. Most of the securities derived from these subprime mortgages were deemed to be AAA rated by the rating agencies. The subprime mortgage securities differed in an important way from those based on prime conforming mortgages. For prime conforming mortgage-backed securities, the degree of credit protection for the AAA investors is fixed in advance. In contrast, for subprime mortgage-backed securities, the degree of credit protection for AAA investors started out “thin” and built up over the initial couple of years so long as mortgages did not default early in their life. 9 At the peak of the housing boom, not only was leverage high for the individual subprime borrower, but leverage was high for the investors in lower rated subprime mortgage securities. 10 This dynamic buildup of credit protection worked well so long as house prices kept increasing, but proved to be disastrous for investors in AAA subprime securities when house prices began to decline. The AAA rated subprime securities were then used as collateral against repurchase agreements. Given how safe the assets were thought to be, very small haircuts were required for these loans. In addition, the composition of repo loan terms shifted toward  8  Andrew Haughwout, Richard Peach and Joseph Tracy. 2008. “Juvenile Delinquent Mortgages: Bad Credit or Bad Economy?” Journal of Urban Economics 64 (September): 246–257. 9  Gary Gorton. “The Panic of 2007”.
A payments strategy for the 21st century  Remarks made by Andrew Hauser, Executive Director, Banking, Payments and Financial Resilience  Payment Strategy Forum “Launch of the Final Strategy”, London 29 November 2016  1  All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/default.aspx  Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today at the launch of the PSF’s Payments Strategy st  for the 21 century. I want to start by emphasising that this is not the Bank of England’s strategy – or the UK authorities’ as a whole. And that in fact is its great merit: because it has been drawn up by a genuine partnership of those who actually provide and use retail payments services, with the interests of those users uppermost in their minds. But that doesn’t mean the Bank has been ‘hands off’, or lukewarm over the direction of travel. Quite the reverse. We have a deep interest in, and responsibility for, maintaining the stability of sterling payments. First, through our statutory responsibility for the supervision of the major payments schemes. Second, by ensuring that all material payments either settle in, or are backed by, central bank money – the safest form of settlement asset. And, third, through our role as member of some schemes as a bank in our own right. It is sometimes said that a focus on stability impedes innovation. But there is no reason why that has to be true.