Why (and How to) Define Securitization? A Sur-Reply to Professor Schwarcz
AuthorLipson, Jonathan C.
Permanent link to this recordhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/6790
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractIn his brief essay, What Is Securitization? And for What Purpose? (“Purpose”), Professor Steven Schwarcz does me a great honor in responding to my article, Re: Defining Securitization (“Re: Defining”), where I ask what, exactly, does the term “securitization” mean? As serious observers of, and participants in, securitization know, Professor Schwarcz is one of the leading authorities on the subject. His works–for both professional and academic audiences–are must-reads. Thus, if, as I say in Re: Defining, my goal was to be not the last word on this question but the first, the fact that he has written such a thoughtful response tells me I have succeeded. Nevertheless, several of his criticisms warrant scrutiny. Unaddressed, they may leave readers misunderstanding the purpose of the definitional exercise I undertake in Re: Defining. Thus, I offer this brief “sur-reply” to Professor Schwarcz, which has four primary parts.
CitationJonathan C. Lipson, Why (and How to) Define Securitization? A Sur-Reply to Professor Schwarcz, 85 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1301 (2012).
Available at: https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/2012/07/09/why-and-how-to-define-securitization-a-sur-reply-to-professor-schwarcz-article-by-jonathan-c-lipson/