Lodging Real Estate Finance: Securitization

Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities (CMBSs) introduced to the U.S. lodging industry in the early 1990’s were a panacea during a period of severe shortage of debt capital. These instruments changed commercial real estate capital markets by providing flexibility and liquidity to an otherwise illiquid investment As a relatively new form of financing to the lodging industry, the mechanics of securitization, the types of CMBS investments, and their structure are not well understood. The article illustrates the process of securitization and its importance as a significant source of debt financing to the lodging industry

Securitization of Lodging Real Estate Finance

In the early 1990s, the U.S. lodging industry witnessed a severe shortage of debt capital as traditional lenders exited the market. During this period hotel lending was revolutionized by the emergence of real estate debt securities. The author discusses key factors which have affected the growth and development of commercial mortgage backed securities and their changing role as a significant source of debt capital to the lodging industry.

History and evolutionary trajectory of the Iranian nuclear program

What actors and processes at what levels of analysis and through what mechanisms have pushed Iran's nuclear program (INP) towards being designated as a proliferation threat (securitization)? What actors and processes at what levels of analysis and through what mechanisms have pushed Iran's nuclear program away from being designated as an existential threat (de-securitization)? What has been the overall balance of power and interaction dynamics of these opposing forces over the last half-century and what is their most likely future trajectory? ^ Iran's nuclear story can be told as the unfolding of constant interaction between state and non-state forces of "nuclear securitization" and "nuclear de-securitization." Tracking the crisscrossing interaction between these different securitizing and de-securitizing actors in a historical context constitutes the central task of this project. ^ A careful tracing of "security events" on different analytical levels reveals the broad contours of the evolutionary trajectory of INP and its possible future path(s). Out of this theoretically conscious historical narrative, one can make informed observations about the overall thrust of INP along the securitization - de-securitization continuum. ^ The main contributions of this work are three fold: First, it brings a fresh theoretical perspective on Iran's proliferation behavior by utilizing the "securitization" theory tracing the initial indications of the threat designation of INP all the way back to the mid 1970s. Second, it gives a solid and thematically grounded historical texture to INP by providing an intimate engagement with the persons, processes, and events of Tehran's nuclear pursuit over half a century. Third, it demonstrates how INP has interacted with and even at times transformed the NPT as the keystone of the non-proliferation regime, and how it has affected and injected urgency to the international discourse on nuclear proliferation specifically in the Middle East.^

Different Wars Require Different Strategies: Separating the “War on Drugs” from the “War on Drug [Traffickers]”

Using the securitization framework to highlight the arguments that facilitated the “War on Drugs”, this paper highlights a separate war against drug traffickers. Facilitated by ideology through the rhetoric promoted by the “War on Drugs,” the fear of communist expansion and democratic contraction, the “War on Drug Traffickers” was implemented, requiring its own strategy separate from the “War on Drugs.” This is an important distinction because the play on words changes the perception of the issue from one of drug addiction to one of weak institutions and insurgent/terrorist threat to those institutions. Furthermore, one cannot propose strategy to win, lose, or retreat in a war that one has been unable to identify properly. And while the all-encompassing “War on Drugs” has motivated tremendous discourse on its failure and possible solutions to remedy its failure, the generalizations made as a result of the inability to distinguish between the policies behind drug addiction and the militarized policies behind drug trafficking have discounted the effect of violence perpetrated by the state, the rationale for the state perpetrating that violence, and the dependence that the state has on foreign actors to perpetrate such violence. This makes it impossible to not only propose effective strategy but also to persuade states that participate in the “War on Drug Traffickers” to adopt the proposed strategy.