Submitted by 2ndSifter t3_zy8y3e in wallstreetbets
0dteSPYFDs t1_j260ivp wrote
Reply to comment by robbinhood69 in Progressive: The Valuation Enigma by 2ndSifter
> A synthetic GIC includes an asset ownership component and a contractual component that is intended to be valued at book value. The associated assets backing the contract’s book value are owned and held in the name of the plan or the plan’s trustee. Such associated assets typically consist of a diversified fixed income portfolio, including but not limited to treasury, government, mortgage, and/or corporate securities of high average credit quality. To support the book value obligation, the contract-holder relies first on any associated assets and then, to the extent those assets are insufficient, the financial backing of the wrap issuer. Wrap contracts can be issued by banks, insurance companies, or other financial institutions.
Again, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about lol
Even if the combined yield in a hypothetical synthetic GIC portfolio was 0 (they weren’t) and insurers expect that portion of their investment portfolio to be lower, rates simply increase for policy holders. It’s not magic and they all abide by the same rules.
robbinhood69 t1_j261j00 wrote
why bother wrapping those instruments in a product at all when these insurers hold those instruments by themselves ?
there's no good reason to wrap the instrument and have someone else be responsible for it i mean wtf
0dteSPYFDs t1_j262kvg wrote
To ensure adherence to the plan and have a 3rd party guaranteeing the first party’s assets, or lack thereof. Again, it’s the same concepts of compliance and risk management. This is done to avoid contagions like the 2008 GFC.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments