CDOs are fairly complicated securities—and when a financial stability special purpose vehicle like the EFSF gets compared to such securities their management can get a little upset.
In his letter to the Financial Times, Klaus Regling, the chief executive of the EFSF argued why he believes EFSF bonds aren't CDOs: "The essential difference between the EFSF and a CDO is that EFSF debt has no tranche structure. There is no seniority and all investors have exactly the same rights."
Joseph Cotterill, in his coverage for the Financial Times Alphaville, argues the opposite case:
"For argument’s sake, never mind that the FT noted the EFSF is not technically a CDO in any case. (And cast aside thoughts that Regling doth protest too much, perhaps.)"
"We’re still not convinced. In fact, we think Regling is underselling the EFSF’s biggest strength — its flexibility, achieved through structured finance — by denying all CDO comparisons."
If you found the argument and counterargument confusing, you're probably not alone.
And that may be just the point.
When a special purpose vehicle, which was intended to increase the stability of sovereign debt, begins to receive criticism because of the complexity of its structure, you can be forgiven for wondering if it does more harm than good.
Questions? Comments? Email us atNetNet@cnbc.com
Follow NetNet on Twitter @ twitter.com/CNBCnetnet
Facebook us @ www.facebook.com/NetNetCNBC