By Young Mo Lee
Why Does Securitization Reappear in Every Credit Crisis?
Securitization is often remembered as a culprit of the 2008 financial crisis. Mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, and repo markets became associated with excess risk taking and subsequent systemic failure. But this familiar story raises a deeper question:
If securitization is inherently destabilizing, why does it repeatedly emerge during moments of credit crisis? Moreover, why does it so often rely on state backing?
Looking beyond the 2008 crisis, history suggests that securitization is not merely a late-20th-century innovation. Instead, it has repeatedly appeared as a response to liquidity breakdowns. From 18th-century Prussia to 1930s America and modern repo markets, securitization has functioned as a mechanism to restore credit when private lending falters. Each time, however, its stability has depended on legal and political design.
Prussia, 1763: When Credit Markets Broke Down
One of the earliest institutional examples of securitization emerged in 18th-century Prussia. After the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), agricultural estates were heavily indebted, so farms had been neglected, trade disrupted, and landowners required long-term credit at affordable rates (Wandschneider, 2012, p. 5). Mortgage rates increased very sharply, in some cases reaching ~10 percent, and foreclosures increased as well (Wandschneider, 2012, pp. 5–6).
This was not simply a shortage of capital, but rather a breakdown in trust. According to Kirsten Wandschneider, the rural mortgage market developed features of what economists would describe as adverse selection: when lenders cannot reliably evaluate borrower quality, they respond by raising rates or even exiting the market (Wandschneider, 2012, pp. 10–11). Under this market condition, credit supply dries up because the associated risks can no longer be fairly priced. The result is a self-reinforcing contraction of the credit market rather than a simple and/or temporary misalignment between supply and demand.
In response, King Frederick II authorized the creation of cooperative mortgage associations known as Landschaften in 1770 (Wandschneider, 2012, p. 3). These institutions issued standardized, land-backed bonds, Pfandbriefe, jointly guaranteed by all member estates (Wandschneider, 2012, p. 13).
The economic logic was clear:
1) Risk pooling: all estates within a region were collectively and jointly liable.
2) Standardization: uniform bonds replaced individualized loan contracts, reducing transaction costs (Wandschneider, 2012, pp. 8–9).
3) Liquidity creation: bonds circulated and traded on secondary markets, including the Berlin Bourse (Wandschneider, 2012, pp. 8–9).
A contemporary Prussian writer and social commentator, Johann Friedrich Zöllner, described the effect of these bonds in 1793:
“In effect, it was as if 14 million Taler in cash had entered the province… these Pfandbriefe could be used for all payments with the same security and even greater convenience as coin.” (Zöllner, 1793, quoted in Wandschneider, 2012, p. 18).
Although far smaller and simpler than modern mortgage-backed securities, Pfandbriefe performed the same core economic function: transforming illiquid land claims into highly liquid, tradable financial assets.
This innovation was not purely private. Originated securities were embedded within a state-authorized system of joint liability (Wandschneider, 2012, p. 15). In this case, the state did not merely regulate the market, but rather, it constructed it.
A Political Bargain Behind Financial Innovation
The Landschaften were also political institutions. They helped stabilize the Junker landed aristocracy, a class central to Prussian governance (Wandschneider, 2012, p. 4). By reducing the risk of widespread foreclosure, the system preserved agricultural production and property of wealthy landowners.
The financial innovation thus reflected political priorities. Risk was redistributed collectively, but the institutional design protected a strategically important social group. Securitization did not simply solve an economic problem, it rather resolved a political one.
This combination between financial innovation and political necessity appears again in later developments.
The United States, 1934: Federalizing Mortgage Risk
During the Great Depression, widespread mortgage defaults severely disrupted the American mortgage market. Short-term, non-amortizing mortgages left borrowers vulnerable, and banks faced large credit losses.
The National Housing Act of 1934 created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to provide mortgage insurance and standardize long-term lending (National Housing Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1246). The Act aimed “to provide a system of mutual mortgage insurance” (National Housing Act of 1934, §2).
As Kenneth Snowden described, federal intervention transformed U.S. mortgage markets by encouraging long-term amortization, lowering interest rates, and integrating local lending into broader capital markets (Snowden, 1987, pp. 2–3). The mortgage market became more predictable and widely accessible.
The mechanism resembled the Landschaften system: restructure and pool risk in order to restore credit flows.
However, the political bargain differed this time. Instead of protecting aristocratic estates, the FHA supported various stakeholders: homeowners, lenders, and the construction sector. The state shifted mortgage risk onto the sovereign balance sheet, effectively socializing potential losses to stabilize the housing market.
This time again, securitization mechanisms emerged not as purely private innovation, but as state-supported responses to market failure.
Modern Securitized Banking: Liquidity Risk and Transformation
Late-20th-century securitization extended this innovation further. Banks increasingly packaged and sold their loans rather than holding them to maturity.
Gary Gorton and Andrew Metrick use the term “securitized banking” to describe a model in which banks originate loans with the intention of selling them and rely heavily on repurchase agreements (repo) rather than deposits for financing (Gorton & Metrick, 2012, p. 425). In repo markets, high-quality securities are used as short-term collateral, allowing financial institutions to borrow against relatively safe assets (Gorton & Metrick, 2012, pp. 426–427). In this way, long-term mortgages could be transformed into tradable securities that supported short-term funding.
This structure enabled liquidity transformation on an unprecedented scale. However, the same mechanism also introduces liquidity risk. When doubts emerged about mortgage-backed collateral during the 2008 crisis, repo haircuts rose very sharply, triggering what Gorton and Metrick describe as a “run on repo” (Gorton & Metrick, 2012, p. 428).
The fragility did not stem from securitization alone. It also reflected institutional design, particularly “weakened underwriting incentives and the fragmentation of responsibility” once originators no longer retained associated risk (Gorton & Metrick, 2012, pp. 430–431).
As before, structure mattered.
The Legal Foundations of Securitization
Why does securitization depend so heavily on institutional design?
Katharina Pistor argues that financial markets are “legally constructed” (Pistor, 2013, p. 315). Assets derive value not merely from underlying cash flows, but from enforceable rights embedded in law, such as priority rules, bankruptcy protections, collateral claims, etc.
Modern repo markets, for example, benefit from bankruptcy “safe harbor” provisions that allow immediate collateral seizure (Gorton & Metrick, 2012, pp. 432–433). Without such legal frameworks, securitized finance would function very differently.
The 18th-century Pfandbrief required royal authorization.
The FHA required Congressional legislation.
Modern version of securitization relies on related bankruptcy and securities law.
Securitization is never just a private-market phenomenon. It also depends on legal frameworks that only the state can provide. In Pistor’s terms, the “coding” of assets through property law, bankruptcy priority, and enforceability determines whether a financial claim will be treated as credible and safe (Pistor, 2013, pp. 316–317). What appears to be market liquidity is therefore inseparable from public authority.
The real issue is not whether the state intervenes. It always does. The question is how that intervention is structured, and whose balance sheets ultimately absorb the risk when liquidity breaks down.
Conclusion: A Recurring Response to Credit Crisis
Across centuries, securitization has appeared during credit breakdowns as a tool to pool risk, standardize contracts, and expand liquidity.
In 1770 Prussia, it addressed adverse selection in rural mortgage markets and stabilized elite landownership.
In 1934 America, it revived housing finance by socializing mortgage risk.
In the late 20th century, it expanded global liquidity until institutional design failed to align incentives.
History suggests that securitization is neither a natural market evolution nor a regulatory accident. It has been a politically constructed response to liquidity crises and its stability depends on how consciously that framework is designed.
References
Gorton, Gary, and Andrew Metrick. “Securitized Banking and the Run on Repo.” Journal of Financial Economics 104, no. 3 (2012): 425–451.
National Housing Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1246.
Pistor, Katharina. “A Legal Theory of Finance.” Journal of Comparative Economics 41, no. 2 (2013): 315–330.
Snowden, Kenneth. “Mortgage Rates and American Capital Market Development.” Journal of Economic History. 47, no. 3 (1987): 671–689.
Wandschneider, Kirsten. “Lending to Lemons: Landschafts-Credit in 18th Century Prussia.” 2012.
Zöllner, Johann Friedrich. Briefe über Schlesien. Berlin, 1793.
A Global History of Banking 
Leave a comment