Mr. Edmund Honohan:

So far, we have not been affected by it. The Central Bank did refer to it in the letter just so we would be aware of the fact that there is a developing architecture related to synthetic securitisation. I have met some bankers who said they have been synthetically securitising for a long time, but that has not impacted on court proceedings. Nobody has come down and said they are the owner under synthetic securitisation. They say we do not have to worry about the ownership problem as the proof that you are entitled to the order for possession is in the register of title. The nature of the securitisation can vary quite a bit, including with the new model, which is synthetic. It is just an acceleration of the commodification of debt. The money switches hands left, right and centre. I am advised that "traditional securitisation" is the phrase used. It is recognised that Ireland is still in that old-time web, which is to say we are still on traditional securitisation. I cannot envisage that developing because I do not envisage the retail banks being enthusiastic about incurring further difficulties for themselves concerning the nuts and bolts of the mechanism.

I have another quotation from the article about the paper chase to which I referred earlier. It states:

Courts' behavior should not surprise legal realists. Courts are ruling with one eye on the economic consequences and accordingly are finding ways to preserve legal principles without triggering crises. The mortgage title issue's complex and arcane nature makes it especially easy to find ways to dispose of cases without issuing definitive rulings about which system of title-and-transfer controls, and it is easy to ignore compliance problems as isolated exceptions, rather than the rule ... One way or another, cautious courts are likely to muddle through the legacy problems of existing mortgages.

That is America.