Bikes must be Defined as a VEHICLE under Traffic Laws

Complete awareness concerning the use of highways, roadways and city streets will not be solved by better infrastructure but through amendments to traffic law that defines and includes bikes, e bikes, and bicycles as a VEHICLE and thus treats all users as equals under traffic laws.

The NDP and all political parties should be demanding that bikes, e bikes, bicycles be classed and defined as a VEHICLE under all laws similar to a motorcycle if they honestly want to accomplish respect for roadways, highways, city streets and country roads by all users on an equal footing.

Also, the mandatory wearing of a bike safety helmet regardless of the person age for all bike riders, e bikes, cyclists, etc. when peddling  or otherwise on public roadways, city streets, country roads and highways.    

These are the simplest most appropriate measures that are urgently required for saving lives, the abuse of traffic laws and to legally curb alcohol use by all including cyclists and bike riders.

If politicians truly and honestly desire making our cities and country more cycle friendly so that bike riding, bicycling commuters, pedestrians and motorists can safely coexist as equals on city streets, roadways and highways these amendments should be made immediately and without further delay.

Additional Info @

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1086374--cyclist-s-death-prompts-call-for-mandatory-truck-side-guards

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=44

http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html

UN Seeking to Control the Internet and Individual Content?



 
This idea, supported by France under the leadership of Sarkozy with the support of President Obama and his administration in the USA through both the G8 and the United Nations, for attempting to exert a control over the usage and management of cyberspace within the Internet was recently pointed out, believe it or not,  by the Russian President Medvedev.

During the recent G8 in Paris, and reported on by the Christian Science Monitor, France’s Sarkozy’s was claiming that now control of the internet somehow in his mind has become a “moral imperative” to control the Internet.

He was unfortunately backed by the Obama administration by its proposed law now floating around congress and which has since been amended to target “foreign infringing sites.”

Some have dubbed the US proposed law as the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act or the E-PARASITE Act, (formerly known as the PROTECT-IP Act).

“These revisions would allow the US Department of Justice to force search engines, browsers, and service providers to block and censor users' access to websites, and scrub the American Internet clean of any trace of their existence without having to deal with the annoying legal notion of fair use or any legal rights of the accused.”

Now, the United Nations, which for the most part is under the control and influence of truly non democratic nations, continues with its committee, that was started back in 2003, for setting up a global system under the direct control of the UN for the management and control of cyberspace.

The real issue relates to the extent to which private industry, civil society groups, and other nongovernmental stakeholders should continue to play significant roles in the management of the Internet.

Recent hearings at the UN had some countries, including China, favoring the limiting of the oversight role to governmental and intergovernmental bodies.

Tang Zicai, representing the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in Beijing stated:

"The governments are located in the center of this process," and "This process cannot be accomplished without the meaningful participation of the governments."

Also, the Internet Society, a nonprofit international organization focusing on Internet standards, education, and policy argued that:  

"The Internet is a network of networks working cooperatively together, designed to operate without centralized control or governance mechanisms."

However, there is growing support from developing countries within the General Assembly of the UN for increased government regulation and control of the internet as stated by Mohammed Hussain Nejad, a representative of the government of Iran:

"Developments have not been supportive of increasing the leverage of developing countries in policy issues pertaining to the Internet," and further argued "The few developed countries are either monopolizing policymaking on such issues or entering into exclusive treaties among themselves, while further marginalizing other countries, mainly developing ones."

Most realize that the United Nations General Assembly is controlled by developing countries and for the most part do not have truly democratic governments in their own countries.

As such it would be fair to say that they truly are against the democratic idea of the free flow of information to citizens.

Verveer another representative speaking at the committee stated:  

" inter governmental controls would be a way of controlling the content that passes over the Internet by requiring, by treaty if you will, other administrations to cooperate in terms of suppressing speech that they didn't like."

Special interest groups such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), supports the drafting of a "cyber peace treaty" and attempted to offer up some farfetched assurances that some non-governmental bodies would be a part of the process.

The Director of the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the University of Toronto, Ron Deibert has stated that:

"We have to be careful about what institutions take the lead. The Chinas, the Iran’s, the Saudi Arabia’s of the world want to impose a territorial vision of control over cyberspace -- and if the ITU got its wishes, that's essentially what would happen."

Stay informed as the United Nations along with the US, France and other countries will continue the attempts at controlling the Internet directly or through the UN's World Conference on International Telecommunications, scheduled for 2012 in Malaysia.

Sources:
Public documents from Christian Science monitor, numerous web sites and United Nations, thanks to all.

 

Why has Bilingualism, Biculturalism and Multiculturalisms Not Been Voted On or Approved by Canadians, but Enforced by Political Parties and Unelected Bureaucrats?

I am seeking input and assistance with an article on the above topic and how it has been manipulated and used by political parties for vote getting mainly in the province of Quebec.

Please send your comments, experiences, ideas and suggestions etc to me at clarketoronto@gmail.com ASAP.

THANKS for your anticipated assistance with this matter and which one trusts is a concern to all Canadians regardless of language.   

Warmest regards,

Peter Clarke

Pedal Protest Groups Always Push Cycling Freedom While Ignoring Highway Traffic Act

If we are honestly and truly interested in the safety and health policy issues for bike riders and the peddling commercial activities along city streets, then hopefully a majority of law-abiding and safety-conscious citizens would agree with me, that if we are to continue with the idea of biking activities on city streets, we must greatly improve the safety of cycling by the mandatory wearing of a bike helmet at all times.

To date, it is fair to say that the most successful and important steps used and effective in traffic safety are based on restrictions to the freedom of car driving through regulations and enforcement such as speeding, highway speed limits, traffic restrictions within the city core, signalized crossings, penalties for DUI and rightfully so, intersection camera stop enforcements and the obligatory use of seat belts for car drivers but NOT as yet for bike riders and or bike couriers daily cycling on city streets!

As far too often we witness bike riders illegally evoking the rights of pedestrians by dangerously peddling on city sidewalks and then darting across or through intersections and skirting red lights and stop signs because of cyclist’s complete disregard for the rules of the road.

Unfortunately, it appears that they are of the opinion that the rules and regulations under the Highway Traffic Act do not apply to them and when accidents do happen it is automatically the fault of drivers, pedestrians or others because as peddlers and not polluters they miraculously believe that they are above the laws of society.

And because, unfortunately to date, the policies adopted by city politicians and traffic services for improving the safety of cycling has been preceded and driven the policy and argument by the special interest groups of cyclist activists solely for their unlicensed freedom of cycling and not safety.

So what is the answer to curb such abuse of our traffic laws by cyclists and bike riders who continually ignore the laws when occupying city streets and sidewalks and at the same time make our city more cycle-friendly?

There are hundreds of thousands of Torontonians, made up of cyclists and car drivers who want bicycling commuters, pedestrians and motorists to safely coexist on Toronto streets.

The primary goal and answer, by our City Council and Transit Services Committee, to promote acceptable and friendly city street bike use must NOT be one of simply adding bike lanes throughout city streets in a political attempt to appease special interest protest groups of either car drivers or cyclists.

Might I foolishly suggest and recommend to all councillors and career politicians that now is the time to make your intentions clear by introducing and passing a city bike license, registration and insurance requirement program which includes the mandatory wearing of a bike helmet when cycling or riding city streets before it is too late and there is another fatal accident or head injuries to citizens or tourists of our bike-friendly Toronto.

Warmest regards,

Peter Clarke

Update

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1078938--cyclist-struck-by-garbage-truck?bn=1

The Question’s Remain, Libya’s Civil War was for Who?

The question remains, Libya’s civil war, not a revolution from the very beginning, was for whom and for what purposes? 

What is for Sharia law or the reintroduction of a monarchy that NATO interfered and supported one side in Libya’s civil war?

Was the creation of the unelected Libya’s National Transition Council a trade off for Libyan oil for Italy, France, the EU and other countries?

The facts of history past, lest we forget, should always be compared to events of the present.

For me, it seems that the history of installing or appointing selected individuals to represent the interests of others in the name of the Libyan people just keeps on repeating itself.

Let’s remember that back in 1951 the USA and Britain, in Benghazi, installed the exiled Libyan monarchy of Idris. The appointment of this monarchy as then stated, was of course, to represent the Libyan people.

However, more importantly, at the same time this monarchy installed by western powers would be the overseers in the Kingdom of Libya and North Africa to protect the economic and military interests of these western governments.

Then 18 years later in 1969, Libya with the lowest standards of living in the world, thanks to that installed monarchy for the benefit of the Libyan people by western powers, was itself overthrown in a bloodless revolution led by a Libyan Muammar al Gaddafi.

After this bloodless 1969 internal military coup in Libya led by Gaddafi, the western oil companies shortly thereafter were nationalized by the Libyan regime.

As a result, one of the first military and economic causalities in Libya was the dismantling of the American Wheelus airbase in the kingdom of Libya along with the evacuation of all British and American forces stationed in that previous kingdom.

Libya’s was a civil war and not at all like the mob uprising in Egypt which was supported and urged on by international union organizations, various foreign and domestic rights groups, Muslim special interest groups including the original Jihad from inside and outside of Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, the free Palestine movement from the west bank and Gaza to mention but a few.

We must remember that in 2011, Libya was exporting 80% of its Oil to Italy (32%), Germany (14%), France (10%), USA (5%) and China (10%) and is Africa’s largest exporter of oil with approximately 1.7 million tons a day.

Considering the history, and under the camouflage of civil war, it seems it was now payback time for the Gaddafi regime and Libya by western powers using NATO early in 2011 thanks to the commencement of a civil war which could be externally managed under the further guise of a revolution.

On March 11, 2011, France was the first to recognize the rebel council in Benghazi fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya’s civil war.

Therefore, is France one of the puppet masters of the NTC?

Just prior to this in February 27, 2011, and once again in Benghazi, the NTC was formed around the axis of two men, Mahmoud Jibril and Abdel Jalil’s, modern day equivalents to Marcus Julius Brutus.

Thus, the NTC was and remains a group of self appointed individuals acting as a government, propped up by western powers, without having been legally or officially established by the Libyan people.

In reality then the NTC serves as a function for western powers and the people of Libya without having been legally established officially by a majority of the Libyan people but rather installed by western powers using the military might of NATO, 70% controlled by the USA, for the protection of what and for whose purpose?

As previously pointed out, on March 11, 2011 with the internal civil war of Libya still raging on Libya announced it had suspended diplomatic relations with France after French President Nicolas Sarkozy recognized the rebel council in Benghazi fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power?

One of the self appointed opposition envoy’s Ali al-Issawi, meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, proudly announced that "France has recognized the national transition council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people."?

This same NTC member endorsed by France further stated that "On the basis of this recognition, we are going to open a diplomatic mission, that is our own embassy in Paris, and an ambassador from France will be sent to Benghazi," a key city held by revolutionaries, he added.

France was the first to recognize the rebel council in Benghazi fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya’s civil war. The question then persists, is France one of the puppet masters of the NTC and or the mastermind in getting NATO’s involvement?

The Gaddafi regime upon hearing this news, while the civil war was getting under way, stated that "A country like France cannot be stupid enough to recognize such people who only represent themselves," the official said.

Further a foreign ministry official within the then legal Gaddafi government stated that they would "consider severing ties with France after information about the dangerous intervention in Libyan affairs," as quoted previously by Jana in March 2011.

"Today the decision has been taken to suspend diplomatic relations with France," Libya's Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim said. "It's clear the French government is concentrating on dividing Libya."

President Barack Obama stated on March 11 that the US and its allies are slowly 'tightening the noose' on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and that a no-fly zone remains an option to put pressure on him.

The White House called the council "legitimate and credible", but stopped short of granting full diplomatic recognition to the opposition.

"During the meeting, Mr. Donilon stated that the United States views the NTC, as a legitimate and credible interlocutor of the Libyan people," the White House said in a statement, released after the meeting.

Let us all keep in mind that it was only on February 27, 2011 and in Benghazi, that this entity under the name of the NTC was formed around the axis of two men, Mahmoud Jibril  and Abdel Jalil’s, modern day equivalents to Marcus Julius Brutus?     

In May 14, 2011, it was only France, Italy and Qatar who had officially recognized the NTC as Libya’s legitimate unelected government and at the same time was also taking part with NATO with air strikes on strategic Libyan government sites as an effort to protect the civilian population and oust the Libyan leader Muammar Al Gaddafi?

Today the world wakes up the knowledge that the NTC is the axis of and based on a Muslim modern day equivalent to Marcus Julius Brutus.

Their leaders and a majority of the NTC members as we all now know describe themselves as secular people and this greatly concerns me and hopefully raises further red flags to the entire civilized world or what is left of it?

History and the facts are that this so-called “secularism” has been responsible for and accomplished more evil in the 20^th century as evidenced by the underlying secular regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao than religion itself.

Perhaps it is time that every member state within the UN along with the self appointed NTC members, NATO and all western powers who directly got involved in the civil war within the sovereign state of Libya should be held liable and accountable.

Such accountability to be conducted by a free and truly independent international criminal and civil court of law  proceedings for any and all atrocities, killings, tortures, bombings and collateral damages as a result of these bodies and governments direct interference and involvement from having taken one side of the Libyans people in its sovereign state of civil war.

Might is never right and does not represent freedom, liberty or democracy when formed by a de facto entity like the National Transition Council for the Libyan people or by a foreign government’s inference with another sovereign state?  

Update……..

$$ Dollars $$ spent by western powers interfering with Libya’s civil war through NATO.

United State $1,100 billion USD, Canada $50 million USD, United Kingdom $1,500 Billion, USD France $450 million USD Sweden $50 million USD?

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Article 1CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter

shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in

matters which are essentially within the domestic

jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Membersto submit such matters to settlement under

the present Charter; but this principle shall not

prejudice the application of enforcement measures

under Chapter VII.

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cun/cun.html

Who are the Puppet Masters Now in Control of Libya"s Resources?

Who installed these individuals as the interim puppet National Transitional Council and leader Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, for the Libyan people?

Who is his and their puppet master?

What does France, Italy, Germany, England and the USA hope to achieve by replacing the former regime of Libya with this neoliberal totalitarian oriented administration that has ties to the previous Libyan Idris monarchy, which itself was overthrown by a bloodless revolution?

Facts are that Libya exports 80% of its Oil and is North Africa’s largest exporter of oil of approximately 1.7 million tons a day to Italy (32%), Germany (14%), France (10%), USA (5%) and China (10%).

Before Gaddafi was overthrown through regime change orchestrated by western governments he had been preparing to launch a gold dinar for oil trade with all of Africa’s 200 million people and other interested countries. At the time then French President Nickola Sarkozi called this, “a threat for financial security of mankind”, most likely because much of France’s wealth more than any other colonial-imperialist power comes from exploiting Africa.

These rebels, revolutionaries, the puppet National Transitional Council (NTC) leader and interim government prime minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, must all be held accountable for implementing their NATO backed regime  of condoning lawlessness mob rule of embracing the barbaric killing of the nation’s leader similar to the regime it now replaces and without any form of legal proceeding or trial or proof of guilt.  

They all have blood on their hands which was not the case of the 1969 overthrow of the then pro western Idris monarchy which at the time officially had the world’s lowest standards of living, which is not the case in 2011.

Now a Revolution with the blood of atrocities on its very own hands similar to those stated but remain unproven in an international court of law legal proceeding, they accused the regime that they replaced.

Gaddafi the dictator coward was on the run from justice and so he would not have to answer for such accusations by his accusers in by a democratic judicial international legal proceeding.

In the end his was caught, bloodied, wounded and arrested by Muslim rebel extremists revolutionaries, under the direction and control of the puppet interim NTC,  who summarily executed this sovereign leader by murdering him without any due process of law.

Thanks to internationally western governments who continue to overlook and condon such criminal, barbaric, lawless mob rule, Libyans with such outside internationally assistance have now ushered in the Muslim style continuation of a French revolution and an agenda for Libya of subjugating the Libyan people to barbarism and not democracy or freedom in the years ahead.

Update Oct. 24/11

LIBYA: NOW UNDER SHARIA ISLAMIC LAW

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gaddafi-sharia-islamic-law/2011/10/23/id/415429?s=al&promo_code=D502-1

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/24/sharia-law-declaration-raises-fears-among-women-in-new-libya/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/ 

Understanding the Complexity and Fraud in Modern Financial Systems

Politicians, voters, and the public often lack knowledge about complex business practices and fraudulent investments like Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and mortgage-backed securities. This ignorance persists without public education.

Taxpayer dollars are misused in a political game of picking corporate winners and losers, leading to risky financial behaviours like collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps. These won't be fully exposed until voters understand their implications.

Mortgage-backed securities are questionable assets created through bureaucratic oversight and political interference, benefiting financial institutions, lawyers, and politicians. The principle of "buyer beware" has eroded as asset values are influenced more by political clout than market forces, contributing to financial crises and government bailouts.

Housing policies from the early 1990s aimed to expand homeownership, even for those financially unfit, resulting in the creation of GSE Debt Securities. Politicians campaigned on homeownership for all, mirrored in Canada by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), which lacks transparency about its mortgage portfolio's stability.

Global economics now overshadow political ideologies and laws. Those who understand these complexities control politics and power, as seen in mergers and financial bailouts.

A once-niche stock trade known as dispersion has become a major Wall Street strategy. Dispersion involves profiting from volatility differences between an index like the S&P 500 and its individual stocks. Its popularity has grown post-pandemic due to rising interest rates. However, its success might be its downfall as increasing participation reduces profitability.

Dispersion trading is seen as cheaper portfolio insurance, benefiting from individual stock volatility while keeping the index steady. Despite its complexity, it remains attractive but challenging due to rising entry costs.

To prevent future crises, the public must educate themselves about these financial practices and demand transparency and accountability from institutions and policymakers.

The fraudulent scams investments like GSE or mortgage-backed securities and others shall not come to an end until we the public educate ourselves.

The transparent insanity and outright gambling with our taxpayer dollars, in a political roulette-like game attempt to pick corporate winners and losers within the free market system of capitalism, by unelected bureaucrats and politicians alike, by using tax dollars in Ponzi schemes for global bubble economics shall not fully be exposed until voters realize what are the implications of collateralized debt obligations, securitization and credit defaults swaps etc. 

For example, a mortgage-backed security is a questionable asset-backed security supposedly secured by a collection of other questionable assets. And are the results of bureaucratic oversight and dizzy left-wing meddling in nutty radical politics which in my opinion allowed a legal confidence game to enrich opportunistic financial institutions, lawyers, and politicians alike.

These mortgages first must originate, of course, from a regulated financial institution and they then must be grouped into ratings as established by credit rating agencies, that are accredited of course, who then charge a fee to these same financial institutions for giving a worthy rating, so the investments were then in the position to be legally sold to suckers born daily.

Whatever became of the buyer beware clause in the free market system?

Because these bundled or grouped assets were not at all determined by the free marketplace. They were however first procured by unelected bureaucrats and politicians.

The values and price of these assets of course were decided by the amount of political influence of special interest groups, be they corporations, unions, or investment banks, and not by what investors were willing to pay. 

This was a large part of the downfall of the US and the world economy which resulted in the bail-out process by governments who supposedly regulated all these organizations in the first place.

However, another catch and the problem were that from the early 1990’s a political government policy was politically pushed through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Because elected politicians were being pushed by special interest groups within their constituencies and political parties to support socialized housing policies based on low mortgage rates.

Thus, the unelected bureaucrats at HUD desperately needed a way to expand homeownership, for citizens especially the Constituents of elected politicians, and even to such citizens who were not in the financial position to carry the cost of such ownership in the first place and which can be referred to as political expediency for votes.

To achieve these political vote-getting schemes, unelected bureaucrats were pressured by politicians and special interest groups to disregard lending and accounting principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market of financial institutions.

So bureaucrats came up with a political plan to provide funding to specific types of citizens having poor credit or insufficient income groups who of course would not qualify for conventional mortgage loans.

The U.S. Congress of course approved this idea of a marketable bond for financial institutions called Government Sponsored Enterprises or GSE Debt Securities.

You see as a government-sponsored entity these GSEs were able to attract lenders that offer lower rates because of the implied government guarantee rather than a real guarantee.

As such lenders were willing to lower the finance charges and interest rates to these risky and poor credit citizens, but investors are also able to yield higher returns as a result of this implied guarantee.

Now the politicians could campaign on their political social ideology that every American has the right to own a house even though they could not afford one in the first place.

A political policy similar in a way to that of CMHC, our Canadian Crown Corporation and largest mortgage insurer, is used by our politicians, as the driving force in the housing market throughout Canada with political policies that have inflated our own housing economic bubble.

To my knowledge as of this date Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not been transparent to either the government or taxpayers about the stability of its portfolio and just what percent of its portfolio represents a risk because of low or poor credit and arrears in payments?

Some have suggested it could be as high as 65% or as low as 45% but our government, like Fanny and Freddie in the U.S., and until it was too late, our government as yet has not forced CHMC to come clean and reveal this information to Canadians, even though thanks our government taxpayers are on the hook for any and all defaults in the mortgage portfolios held by CMHC and guaranteed by Canadians. 

It is my personal and strong belief that now and in the immediate future global politics and policies are no longer about political ideologies or a country’s constitution and laws but rather about the complexity of global economics based on complex laws and complex business financial practices.

Therefore, those individuals, corporations, special interest groups and unions that currently have or with the willpower to recognize, understand and master these complexities shall be the ones who ultimately control and direct politics and the power that goes with it as we have already witnessed with mergers, the non-bankruptcies of GM, Chrysler, bank bailouts and TARP to mention only a few.

Please watch this interview @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9639507.stm

 

Update Oct.24/11

The top 20 of the 147 super-connected companies.

1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & amp; Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC (holding company for Wal-Mart heirs)
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/

Source Forbes

Public Info to Get you started………..

Interest Rate Swap

What Does Interest Rate Swap Mean?
An agreement between two parties (known as counterparties) where one stream of future interest payments is exchanged for another based on a specified principal amount. Interest rate swaps often exchange a fixed payment for a floating payment that is linked to an interest rate (most often the LIBOR). A company will typically use interest rate swaps to limit or manage exposure to fluctuations in interest rates, or to obtain a marginally lower interest rate than it would have been able to get without the swap.

Investopedia explains Interest Rate Swap
Interest rate swaps are simply the exchange of one set of cash flows (based on interest rate specifications) for another. Because they trade OTC, they are really just contracts set up between two or more parties and thus can be customized in any number of ways.

Generally speaking, swaps are sought by firms that desire a type of interest rate structure that another firm can provide less expensively. For example, let's say Cory's Tequila Company (CTC) is seeking to loan funds at a fixed interest rate, but Tom's Sports Inc. (TSI) has access to marginally cheaper fixed-rate funds. Tom's Sports can issue debt to investors at its low fixed rate and then trade the fixed-rate cash flow obligations to CTC for floating-rate obligations issued by TSI. Even though TSI may have a higher floating rate than CTC, by swapping the interest structures they are best able to obtain, their combined costs are decreased - a benefit that can be shared by both parties.

Introduction to Securitization

by: Jason Kravitt, Mayer, Brown & Platt, 1998

"When you measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind . . . ." William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, Popular Lectures and Addresses (1891--1894).

(i) The Nature of Securitization

Most attempts to define securitization make the same mistake; they focus on the process of securitization instead of on the substance, or meaning, of securitization. Hence, the most common definition of securitization is that it consists of the pooling of assets and the issuance of securities to finance the carrying of the pooled assets. Yet, surely, this reveals no more about securitization than seeing one's image reflected in a mirror reveals about one's inner character. In Lord Kelvin's terms, it is knowledge of "a meager and unsatisfactory kind."

Collateralized Debt Obligation - CDO

What Does Collateralized Debt Obligation - CDO Mean?
An investment-grade security backed by a pool of bonds, loans and other assets. CDOs do not specialize in one type of debt but are often non-mortgage loans or bonds.  

Investopedia explains Collateralized Debt Obligation - CDO
Similar in structure to a collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO) or collateralized bond obligation (CBO), CDOs are unique in that they represent different types of debt and credit risk. In the case of CDOs, these different types of debt are often referred to as 'tranches' or 'slices'. Each slice has a different maturity and risk associated with it. The higher the risk, the more the CDO pays

Definition: CDO's, or Collateralized Debt Obligations, are sophisticated financial tools that repackage individual loans into a product that can be sold on the secondary market. These packages consist of auto loans, credit card debt, or corporate debt. They are called collateralized because they have some type of collateral behind them.

Credit Default Swap (CDS)

What Does Credit Default Swap (CDS) Mean?
A swap is designed to transfer the credit exposure of fixed-income products between parties.

Investopedia explains Credit Default Swap (CDS)
The buyer of a credit swap receives credit protection, whereas the seller of the swap guarantees the creditworthiness of the product. By doing this, the risk of default is transferred from the holder of the fixed-income security to the seller of the swap.

For example, the buyer of a credit swap will be entitled to the par value of the bond by the seller of the swap, should the bond default in its coupon payments.