Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Andy Jagoe pfp
Andy Jagoe
@andyjagoe
anyone on FC experienced with structuring mortgage securities? thinking about an emerging market opportunity. there've been many failures, but a few nice successes, like Chilean mortgage bonds maybe someone from goldfinch or centrifuge has thought about this?
2 replies
0 recast
13 reactions
daniel rollingher pfp
daniel rollingher
@droll
I have experience with structuring mortgage securities under crowdfunding securities exemptions, but it’s been a little while. We also think about tokenizing mortgages @fabrica regularly
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Andy Jagoe pfp
Andy Jagoe
@andyjagoe
interesting - any thoughts on pros/cons to onchain/tokenizing vs traditional approach? if you know any good resources or examples of people doing this, would love to check them out!
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
daniel rollingher pfp
daniel rollingher
@droll
pros of onchain: structuring (of deal terms, cash flows, parties) is extremely flexible. It’s the power of customization, automated tooling, and certainty and visibility for all parties. Underrated pro: data about the project can be linked to the asset. Better access to info for the investor is a first principles pillar of any investor protection regime. You can also leverage already existing robust secondary marketplaces for transfers and lending platforms for leverage, ie an ecosystem of tools and users exist. Cons of onchain/pros of trad method: securities regulation compliance is difficult (in the US at least). Because onchain is so customizable, it’s very easy to run afoul of the bright-line rules (for ex, limited number of investors, limited secondary transactions, disclosure requirements, solicitation restrictions). Different jurisdictions may have different concerns here. Cons of trad method: information asymmetry, one size does not fit all deals, easy for investors to get burned.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction