En Ruta Hacia El Desarrollo: The Emerging Secondary Mortgage Market in Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Securitization' of financial assets has spread throughout the world, from established economies to developing ones. In Latin America, securitization became the new financial instrument and financing alternative during the 1990s. Assets that have been securitized in the region include oil, future flow receivables, electronic remittances, credit card merchant vouchers, and medical equipment leases.2 During the past few years the region has become increasingly focused on developing a market for residential mortgage-backed securitiess (RMBS) due to a number of demographic and economic factors. Latin America, however, has been noticeably absent in one of the most successful segments of the IMAGE FORMULA13 international securitization market-the securitization of commercial mortgages. The issuance of commercial mortgage backed-securities (CMBS) has exploded in the last ten years. Globally, analysts predict that CMBS issuance will rise twenty percent to approximately $72 billion in 2001 compared to 2000's $60 billion. The U.S. component is expected to grow to $52 billion from $48 billion in 2000. Canada, Europe, and Asia are anticipated to issue as much as $20 billion, up from 2000's $12 billion. These 2001 projections indicate that international deals will account for almost thirty percent of the global CMBS market.4 The focus of this Article will be an analysis of the legislative reforms that impact key legal issues associated with the securitization of mortgages and the emerging secondary mortgage market in Latin America. The goal is to review the changing legal landscape to assess whether these countries are primed to move from the securitization of residential mortgages to the securitization of commercial mortgages. Two key factors must be in place to make this transition. First, laws governing issues such as the transfer of assets and the perfection of rights to those assets must be enacted. Second, investors must have confidence that the laws will function as enacted. Laws regulating issues such as foreclosure, the ability to transfer or assign rights in mortgages, and the creation of special purpose vehicles (SPVs) will be scrutinized.5 In Latin American jurisdictions, where securitization is still a relatively new process, the courts have not tested many of the existing and newly enacted laws. Both legal foundation and interpretation, therefore, play a significant role in assessing the growth of the CMBS market. First, this Article will explore the reasons for Latin America's recent emphasis on developing an RMBS market, including the historical constrictions on the capital markets and the expansion of the investor base in the region. Second, this Article will provide a general overview of the securitization process and the legal considerations within this process. Third, the article will review the legislative reforms that have changed entity structure and foreclosure laws. The analysis focuses on Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, IMAGE FORMULA15 as these are the markets that present the greatest potential for a substantial volume of mortgage securitizations.6 The Article then examines the impact and future consequences of these legal changes on the mortgage capital markets in the region. The last section of the Article assesses the viability of a CMBS market in Latin America. I. THE HOUSING MARKET IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE PUSH TOWARDS AN RMBS MARKET Latin American countries are currently focused on developing an RMBS market. The driving force behind this emphasis on securitization is the severe housing shortage in the region.7 A. Constrictions on Capital Markets Housing finance traditionally has been unavailable throughout Latin America because of the region's historic experience with inflation, social instability, and currency weakness; these causes IMAGE FORMULA19 have a negative impact on interest rates. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".