So I take it as a no? They were obviously grossly mispriced by the quants, why did these idiots hold on to them if they weren't? I do understand the idea of wanting big bonuses, but that doesn't explain the lack of oversight.But back to my point, was the correlation between defaults in the same CDO underestimated? Causing both a mispricing and a undervalue of risk?
Last edited by GeneralDude
on September 15th, 2008, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.