Credit Default Swaps coupled with asset-backed financial products were heavily traded in the years preceding the Global Financial Crisis. Intended for sophisticated investors, Credit Default Swaps prima facie are in the nature of insurance contracts, although they operate outside the scope of the regulation governing insurance. This paper adopts a lexonomic approach to take an initiative to develop a regulatory framework for Credit Default Swaps in order to prevent a similar crisis. Inter alia, one solution is to regulate Credit Default Swaps together with insurable interest and an "excess" in order to minimize moral hazard. The objective behind the excess is to discourage negligent lending.

Prima facie securitization played a prominent role in the recent global financial crisis. Moral hazard associated with securitization is the key element behind the failure of securitization. Risk retention is the U.S legislator's response to address the moral hazard issue associated with the originate-to-distribute model. This paper adopts a lexieconomic framework to analyse the risk retention provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and proves that said provisions are not capable of eliminating moral hazard associated with securitization. This paper argues that in order to ensure proper screening of the borrower, the cost for the lender for not engaging in proper screening and monitoring should be higher than the benefits she gains by not screening. Inter alia this paper further argues that the inclusion of non-recourse mortgages would make securitization schemes susceptible to changes in home prices.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract