-
I think you nicely answered your own question! One would imagine that capital regulations would provide a convenient expert view of the (in my view artificial) distinction. To cut and shut distressed debt into shiny products is surely the différance where this all falls apart.
hurricane_run-
One would imagine that capital regulations would provide a convenient expert view of the (in my view artificial) distinction.
It's not really what they do. NAIC will give you a capital charge for almost any asset if you want to put in in your insurance company. The question is then what do you define as an "asset". Even a super-leveraged rag-bag of interests in PE funds is an asset in my book.
I don't think distressed debt is relevant per se, although I suppose you could say that a fraction of the underlying issuers would be expected to become distressed through the cycle.
-
Reads like AIG all over again.
NickCJ
marcomarcos
In what way? The article is about putting leverage on investments / repackaging them to sidestep insurance capital regulations. I don't think it really touches the prior discussion.