Core Viewpoint - The articles analyze that the securitization of non-performing loans (NPLs) has a significant negative impact on bank profits and does not effectively reduce the NPL balance of banks [2][19]. Group 1: Characteristics of NPL Securitization - The first characteristic is that banks remain responsible for the collection of cash flows from the securitized NPLs after securitization [2][8]. - The second characteristic is that securitized products require stable cash flows, but NPL asset packages exhibit a "front-heavy" cash flow pattern, meaning that initial cash flows are high while later cash flows diminish [10][14]. Group 2: Impact on Bank Profits - After securitization, the cash flows from the underlying assets are still collected by the bank, meaning that the bank only retains a portion of the cash flows, leading to no profit increase from securitization [7][19]. - The consumption of provisions further exacerbates bank losses, as securitization locks in provisions that could have been recovered through cash collections [8][9]. Group 3: Cash Flow Characteristics - NPLs with stable cash flows are considered high-quality assets, but when compared to the total principal, the cash flows are insufficient [11]. - The cash flow pattern of NPLs leads to a situation where banks do not effectively receive upfront cash from securitization, as a significant portion of cash flows occurs before the issuance date [13][14]. Group 4: Reasons for Securitization - Despite the drawbacks, banks continue to pursue securitization due to the influence of intermediaries who benefit from the process, similar to how a barber would encourage haircuts for income [19][20]. - The internal structure of banks, including departmental segmentation and a lack of thorough cost-benefit analysis, contributes to the continued use of securitization for NPLs [20].