"To the extent that true sale and off-balance sheet treatment really are important factors for

re-starting a vibrant securitization market - and I suspect they are - an on-balance sheet result

caused by a mandatory "skin-in-the-game" requirement would certainly be perverse. That is, a

requirement intended to improve the securitization market by improving the quality and

trustworthiness of underwriting could significantly curtail the number of securitizations that are

actually done. And that, of course, could materially reduce the amount of credit available for

housing or any of the other sectors that have traditionally benefited from securitization. "