Blawgletter thought we’d never see the day. The WSJ cribbing our content? Say it ain’t so.
Yesterday, we asked: "How can the government rewrite the terms of debt securities to force the investors in those securities to accept lower interest payments from the borrowers?"
Today, the WSJ editors worry that "government is compelling investors who now own these mortgages (the banks having sold them as bundled securities) to take less money".
Yesterday, we suggested that "[p]erhaps the trust indentures (or whatever the Wall Street folks call the things) allow those who have the job of enforcing the mortgages some flexibility in how they maximize the return to investors."
Today, the editors at the Journal note that some the "Pooling and Servicing Agreements" allow flexibility to "modify loan terms if this is consistent with ‘standard industry practice.’"
Yesterday, we supposed that the absence of flexible language might give rise to "yet another species of subprime litigation — this one for breach of contract or fiduciary duty against the servicers who let borrowers get away with not paying according to the terms of their mortgages."
Today, the WSJ folks say that "[w]e trust everyone is prepared to fight that out in court, maybe for years to come, because the lawsuits are going to test that ‘standard’ practice claim."
The scarier thought isn’t that the Journalistas swiped our ideas. It’s that we seem to agree on something.