Assetization: the transformation of value into investable instruments

Assetization: More Than Just Ownership

Assetization represents a fundamental process in contemporary finance: the transformation of various "things", whether tangible objects, intangible rights, knowledge, etc, into formally recognized assets. At its core, an asset created through this process is something that can be definitively owned or controlled, potentially traded, and, crucially, capitalized specifically as a source of revenue. This transformation is not merely a relabeling exercise; it often involves deliberate actions, including the establishment of specific legal property rights, the application of financial valuation techniques to project future earnings, and the construction of compelling narratives around the asset's income-generating potential.  

While the concept is expansive, encompassing items from real estate to personal data, it finds a technical anchor in accounting definitions. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), for instance, defines an asset as "a resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity". However, the discourse surrounding assetization frequently emphasizes a more specific, financially oriented perspective, focusing intently on the mechanisms for generating returns for investors.  

Central to this concept is the notion of control. An asset, in the context of assetization, is typically structured as a legal object that grants its owner distinct powers, such as defining how it can be used or restricting access to it. This element of control is not incidental; it is the foundation upon which the asset's capacity to generate returns is built. It allows the owner to manage the resource in a way that maximizes its potential to produce an income stream.  

Generating revenue streams and economic rrent

The primary objective driving assetization is distinct from traditional commodity trading. Instead of focusing on profiting from a one-time sale in the market, the emphasis shifts towards securing a durable economic rent, a reliable and ongoing stream of income derived from the ownership or control of the asset over time. This involves capitalizing anticipated future revenue streams. A key mechanism here is the financial practice of discounting expected future earnings back to their present value, thereby establishing a quantifiable worth for the asset today based on its projected income.  

This focus on future income inherently facilitates rentiership, the practice of extracting financial returns through the strategic ownership or control of an asset, often achieved by limiting access. Assetization frequently involves processes of enclosure, where resources, services, or even rights are demarcated and controlled specifically to enable the collection of these rents.  

Consequently, the valuation of an assetized item differs significantly from that of a simple commodity. While a commodity's value is often realized at the point of exchange in a market, asset valuation is typically an ongoing process, embedded within social and technical frameworks. It relies heavily on forward-looking financial tools and makes explicit assumptions about future conditions, such as inflation, risk levels, and appropriate discount rates. This dynamic links assetization closely to what has been termed the 'financialization of valuation,' where financial perspectives and methodologies increasingly shape how diverse things are valued. The perceived worth of assetized products can therefore be quite sensitive to the underlying assumptions embedded within these financial models. Shifts in discount rates or growth projections, for example, can significantly alter calculated present values, introducing model risk. This is particularly relevant for novel or intangible assets where future cash flows are inherently more uncertain, creating potential for valuation discrepancies or even bubbles driven more by model parameters than by fundamental changes in the asset itself.  

Distinguishing assetization from commodification and traditional investment

It is crucial for investment professionals to distinguish assetization from related concepts like commodification and financialization. Commodification is primarily concerned with making things exchangeable in a market, with value realized through sale. While assetization often involves an initial step of marketization (making the underlying tradable ), its core logic diverges. Assetization emphasizes generating income without necessarily relying on a future sale. Assets, in this sense, are often "made to keep" precisely because of their potential to generate ongoing rent, distinguishing them from commodities produced mainly for exchange. This fundamental difference in objective, generating durable rent versus profiting from a market transaction, suggests potentially different risk profiles and investment horizons. Investments focused on assetized income streams might offer greater predictability compared to the volatility inherent in speculative commodity trading, though potentially with lower prospects for rapid capital appreciation.  

Assetization is also distinct from, though deeply related to, financialization. Financialization refers to the broader trend of finance and its logic gaining increasing dominance in the economy and society. Assetization is a more specific process: the creation of these controllable, rent-generating assets. It is often enabled by financialization, particularly through the application of sophisticated financial valuation techniques , but the two are not synonymous. An important distinction is that assetization does not inherently require the resulting asset to be traded on public financial markets, although many are.  

From an investment standpoint, assetization encourages a shift in rationale. The focus moves away from capturing short-term gains based on market price fluctuations, which is common in commodity speculation, towards evaluating the potential for long-term, sustainable returns derived from the asset's underlying revenue-generating capacity. The emphasis on control and rent extraction  highlights that the value proposition for an investor hinges critically on the structuring of the asset. The legal frameworks, technological controls (like platform architecture or digital rights management), and contractual arrangements that enable and protect the rent stream are primary sources of value and risk, demanding careful scrutiny beyond analysis of the underlying economic activity alone.  

The evolution of assetization

Roots in securitization

The modern concept of assetization finds significant historical precedent in the development of the mortgage securitization market, particularly in the United States during the 1970s. Although earlier forms of mortgage-backed financing existed, even dating back to the 19th century , the 1970s marked a pivotal shift.  

The primary driver for this innovation was a structural challenge: traditional depository institutions, which functioned primarily as portfolio lenders holding loans until maturity, were struggling to meet the enormous post-World War II demand for housing credit. This gap between capital supply and borrower demand spurred financial innovation. Government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) played a critical role in catalyzing the market. Agencies like the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae or GNMA), followed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae or FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), began purchasing mortgages from originators or guaranteeing pools of mortgages. They then issued "pass-through" securities backed by the cash flows from these mortgage pools.  

This mechanism achieved several key objectives. It provided much-needed liquidity to mortgage originators, allowing them to free up capital and issue new loans. It also created a new class of tradable, relatively standardized investment instruments backed by mortgages, attracting capital market investors who previously had limited ways to gain exposure to the housing market. This early form of securitization effectively transferred the credit risk (often with government backing) and interest rate risk associated with holding long-term mortgages away from the originators and onto the investors.  

Expansion beyond real estate

The success and techniques of mortgage securitization were quickly recognized as transferable to other types of assets with predictable cash flows. A significant milestone occurred in 1985 when securitization was first applied to a pool of non-mortgage assets: automobile loans. Auto loans proved suitable due to their shorter maturities (making cash flow timing more predictable than long-term mortgages) and extensive historical performance data, which gave investors confidence. Computer leases were also among the early non-mortgage assets to be securitized.  

The following year, 1986, saw the first major securitization of bank credit card receivables. This transaction was particularly important because it demonstrated that the model could work even for assets with higher expected default rates and administrative costs, provided the yield offered to investors was sufficiently high to compensate for the additional risk. This development allowed banks to move these receivables off their balance sheets, improving capital ratios while retaining fee income from origination and servicing. The success fueled nationwide competition among credit originators and significantly expanded the availability of credit card financing.  

Financial innovation continued to refine the structures. Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs), first issued by Fannie Mae in 1983, introduced the concept of tranching cash flows from mortgage pools. This allowed the creation of different bond classes (tranches) with varying maturities and prepayment risk profiles, appealing to a wider range of investor preferences. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 further facilitated this by creating Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs), which became the standard structure for issuing CMOs, offering simplified tax treatment and enabling the creation of tranches with different credit risk characteristics. Later innovations included Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), which pooled various types of debt, including tranches from other securitizations.  

While the US market led the way in modern securitization, similar concepts like the long-standing German Pfandbriefe (mortgage bonds) existed in Europe. Over time, securitization became a global financial technique.  

However, the rapid expansion and increasing complexity, particularly in the subprime mortgage market during the early 2000s, culminated in the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008. The crisis exposed flaws in risk assessment, underwriting standards, and the opacity of complex structured products like CDOs backed by risky mortgages. It led to a near-complete collapse of the private-label securitization market  and triggered significant regulatory reforms aimed at increasing transparency, improving underwriting, and reducing systemic risk. Post-crisis, agency-backed MBS continued to dominate the US mortgage finance landscape.  

This historical trajectory reveals a recurring dynamic: assetization, primarily through securitization in this era, tends to expand to fill perceived gaps in credit markets or to exploit opportunities for yield generation. This expansion is often fueled by financial innovation and operates within the prevailing regulatory environment, sometimes supportive, sometimes permissive. However, this growth can also lead to the accumulation of unforeseen or underestimated risks, potentially culminating in market disruptions or crises, which in turn prompt regulatory responses. This cyclical pattern suggests an inherent tension between the drive for financial innovation through assetization and the maintenance of financial stability.

Modern drivers: finance, technology, and policy

The continued evolution and broadening scope of assetization in recent decades have been propelled by a confluence of factors:

• Financial drivers: The prolonged period of low interest rates following the 2008 crisis, maintained through policies like Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) and Quantitative Easing (QE), significantly fueled the "search for yield." Investors, facing low returns on traditional safe assets like government bonds, were pushed towards alternative investments and novel asset classes, creating demand for assetized products offering potentially higher returns. Simultaneously, large pools of global savings were also seeking attractive investment opportunities. Intense competition among financial institutions and loan originators also drove the adoption of assetization techniques like securitization to maintain market share, manage balance sheets, and generate fee income.  

• Technological Drivers: Advances in information technology (IT) were crucial from the mid-1980s onwards, enabling the complex data analysis, structuring, and risk modeling required for sophisticated securitizations. More recently, the emergence of blockchain technology has become a major catalyst for new forms of assetization, primarily through tokenization. Blockchain offers new mechanisms for representing asset ownership digitally, enabling fractionalization (dividing assets into smaller units), potentially automating processes via smart contracts, and facilitating peer-to-peer trading. This technological shift is not merely an enabler but an active driver, opening up possibilities for assetizing previously illiquid or intangible items in ways not feasible before. Artificial intelligence (AI) is also anticipated to play a significant future role in valuation, risk management, and automated processes within assetization frameworks.  

• Policy & Regulation: Government actions have consistently shaped the landscape. Early government support through GSEs was fundamental to the birth of the MBS market. Periods of deregulation arguably contributed to the expansion and risk-taking leading up to the 2008 crisis , while subsequent re-regulation aimed to impose stricter controls. Today, the regulatory environment for newer forms like tokenization is still evolving globally and remains a critical factor influencing adoption. Regulatory arbitrage, where firms exploit differences in regulations across jurisdictions or activities, can also act as a driver for certain assetization strategies. The persistent influence of government policy and regulation underscores its role as both a potential catalyst and a constraint on the future development of assetization.  

Mechanisms of assetization

The transformation of underlying rights, cash flows, or items into tradable financial instruments relies on specific structuring mechanisms. These mechanisms are designed to isolate assets, allocate risks, enhance credit quality, and ultimately create products that meet the needs of different investors. Securitization provides the historical foundation, while tokenization represents a newer, technology-driven approach.

Securitization: the foundation of pooling and tranching risk

Securitization remains a cornerstone mechanism for assetization, particularly for financial assets like loans and receivables.

• Core process: The fundamental steps involve identifying and pooling a group of relatively homogeneous assets (e.g., mortgages with similar characteristics, auto loans, credit card balances). These pooled assets are then legally transferred from the originator (e.g., the bank that made the loans) to a separate, specially created legal entity, known as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) or trust. A key purpose of the SPV is often to achieve "bankruptcy remoteness," meaning that if the original lender goes bankrupt, the assets held by the SPV are protected and can continue to generate cash flows for investors. The SPV then issues debt securities (Asset-Backed Securities or ABS, or Mortgage-Backed Securities or MBS if backed by mortgages) to investors, with the principal and interest payments on these securities funded by the cash flows generated by the underlying asset pool.  

• Tranching: A defining feature of many securitizations is tranching. The securities issued by the SPV are often divided into different classes, or tranches, each with a different priority claim on the cash flows from the asset pool and, consequently, a different level of risk. This priority structure is often referred to as a "waterfall". Senior tranches sit at the top of the waterfall; they receive principal and interest payments first and are the last to absorb any losses if borrowers in the pool default. Below them are mezzanine tranches, and at the bottom are junior or subordinated tranches (sometimes called equity tranches). These junior tranches receive payments only after the more senior tranches have been paid and are the first to absorb losses. This structure allows investors to choose the level of risk they are comfortable with: senior tranches offer lower yields but higher safety, while junior tranches offer higher potential yields to compensate for their higher risk exposure.  

• Credit Enhancement: To make the issued securities more attractive to investors and achieve desired credit ratings (especially for the senior tranches), securitizations almost always incorporate credit enhancement techniques. These are designed to provide a buffer against potential losses in the underlying asset pool.  
  • Internal credit enhancement is built into the structure itself. Common methods include subordination, where the junior tranches protect the senior tranches by absorbing initial losses ; over-collateralization, where the value of the assets placed in the SPV exceeds the value of the securities issued, creating an equity cushion ; excess spread, where the difference between the interest earned on the assets and the interest paid to investors (after expenses) is captured and can be used to cover losses ; and reserve accounts or cash collateral funds set aside to cover potential shortfalls.  
  • External credit enhancement involves support from third parties. This can take the form of guarantees from banks or insurance companies (monoline insurers specialized in this), letters of credit providing a promise to pay if needed, or other forms of third-party insurance. The creditworthiness of the external enhancer is critical in these cases.  
• Structural Variations: Securitization structures can vary depending on the underlying assets and investor needs. Early MBS often used a pass-through structure, where cash flows (less servicing fees) were passed directly from the mortgage pool to investors. Pay-through structures, like CMOs, allow the SPV more flexibility to manage and reinvest cash flows before distributing them according to the tranche waterfall, often to manage prepayment risk. Revolving structures are used for assets like credit card receivables where the underlying pool balance fluctuates; new receivables are added as old ones are paid off. Synthetic securitization represents a significant variation where the actual assets are not transferred to the SPV; instead, the credit risk associated with a reference pool of assets is transferred using credit derivatives, such as Credit Default Swaps (CDS). The SPV issues notes to investors, and the proceeds are typically invested in low-risk collateral. If defaults occur in the reference pool, the collateral is used to compensate the originator for the losses.  

Tokenization: blockchain's role in enhancing access and (potentially) liquidity

Tokenization leverages blockchain technology to create a new mechanism for assetizing both traditional and novel assets.

• Core process: Tokenization involves creating unique digital representations (tokens) of ownership rights to assets on a blockchain or distributed ledger technology (DLT) platform. These assets can range from real-world assets (RWAs) like real estate or commodities to financial instruments like bonds or fund shares, and even intangibles like intellectual property or data. The process typically includes selecting the asset, defining the characteristics of the token (e.g., fungible like currency or non-fungible like a unique piece of art), choosing an appropriate blockchain platform, legally linking the token to the underlying asset's rights, verifying the existence and value of off-chain assets (often requiring trusted data feeds called oracles ), and then issuing and distributing the tokens to investors.  

• Fractionalization: A key capability enabled by tokenization is the ability to easily divide ownership of an asset into very small fractions, represented by individual tokens. This can dramatically lower the minimum investment required to gain exposure to high-value assets like commercial real estate or private equity, potentially broadening the investor base.  

• Smart contracts: Tokenization heavily utilizes smart contracts, pieces of code stored on the blockchain that automatically execute predefined actions when certain conditions are met. These can automate various aspects of asset management and transaction lifecycle, such as enforcing compliance rules (e.g., ensuring only eligible investors can hold certain tokens, potentially using identity standards like ERC-3643 ), distributing income (like rental payments or dividends) to token holders, facilitating peer-to-peer trades, and managing voting rights or other governance functions. This automation promises increased operational efficiency and reduced reliance on traditional intermediaries.  

• Potential for liquidity: One of the most frequently cited benefits of tokenization is its potential to unlock liquidity for assets that are traditionally difficult to trade, such as private company shares, real estate, or art. The theory is that representing these assets as standardized digital tokens allows them to be traded more easily, potentially 24/7, on secondary markets, including decentralized exchanges (DEXs). However, it is crucial to recognize that the potential for liquidity does not guarantee actual liquidity. Realized liquidity depends heavily on factors like sufficient market depth (enough buyers and sellers), broad investor adoption of the technology and specific tokens, and the existence of robust and reliable secondary trading platforms. These conditions are still developing for many tokenized asset classes.  

Enabling Investment in Diverse cash flows

Beyond the core mechanisms of securitization and tokenization, specific legal and financial structures are employed to facilitate assetization:

• Trusts & SPVs: As mentioned, these legal entities are fundamental for isolating assets from the originator, a critical step in protecting investors in both traditional securitization and often in tokenization structures designed to mimic securitization benefits. The specific legal recognition and tax treatment of these entities can be complex and vary significantly across different jurisdictions, sometimes creating hurdles.  

• Investment funds: Assetization can be applied to investment funds themselves. This can involve creating specialized funds focused on particular assetized themes (like impact investing funds targeting social outcomes ) or, increasingly, using tokenization to represent shares or limited partnership interests in existing fund structures (e.g., private equity funds, real estate investment trusts, or hedge funds). The goal here is often to improve investor access (through fractionalization) and potentially create secondary market liquidity for traditionally illiquid fund investments.  

• Direct issuance/funding: Assetization techniques, particularly tokenization, can potentially disintermediate traditional funding channels. Companies or projects might bypass venture capital firms or crowdfunding platforms by directly issuing tokenized securities (representing equity or rights to future revenue) to a broader pool of investors.  

The common thread across these mechanisms is structuring. Both securitization and tokenization rely heavily on the careful design of legal entities, risk allocation methods, credit protection features, and technological implementation to convert underlying economic value into a form suitable for investment. This inherent complexity is a double-edged sword: it allows for customization and the creation of tailored investment products , but it also introduces potential opacity, reliance on models, and points of failure that demand sophisticated analysis and due diligence from investors. While tokenization brings the promise of enhanced efficiency and transparency through blockchain's shared ledger and the automation potential of smart contracts , it introduces its own complexities. The critical link between the on-chain digital token and the off-chain real-world asset it represents relies on robust legal frameworks and reliable data feeds (oracles). Failure in either the legal enforceability of token rights or the accuracy of off-chain data verification can sever this link, undermining the token's value and introducing risks unique to this technology. The evolution from simpler pass-through structures to complex, tranched instruments like CMOs and CDOs, and now potentially to programmable tokenized assets, indicates a persistent trend towards greater financial engineering. While offering benefits, this trajectory increases reliance on models and potentially makes underlying risks harder to discern, reinforcing the need for rigorous investor scrutiny.  

What can be assetized?

The reach of assetization extends far beyond traditional financial instruments, encompassing a diverse and growing range of tangible and intangible items. This expansion reflects a continuous search for new sources of revenue and investment opportunities.

Tangible assets: real estate, infrastructure, and physical goods

Tangible assets, with their physical presence and often established markets, formed the bedrock of early assetization efforts and remain central today.

• Real estate: This sector is arguably the most significant example. Mortgage loans were the subject of the first large-scale securitizations  and continue to be a major asset class for ABS/MBS. Tokenization is now being actively explored and implemented to enable fractional ownership of physical properties, including residential and commercial buildings, undeveloped land, and even participation in construction projects.  

• Infrastructure: Large-scale infrastructure projects, known for generating potentially stable, long-term cash flows, are increasingly being viewed through an assetization lens. Examples include Spanish railways , energy generation assets like solar panel installations on rooftops or wind farms , and potentially other public works. Tokenization is also being considered as a financing mechanism for infrastructure development.  

• Commodities & natural resources: The rights to extract or utilize natural resources can be assetized. This includes mineral deposits like ore , agricultural inputs such as specific seed varieties , crude oil reserves , precious metals like gold , and broader concepts like "natural capital" or environmental services.  

• Other tangibles: The scope extends to various other physical goods or claims on them. Loans financing automobiles are a major securitization category , as are leases for equipment like computers. High-value collectibles and luxury goods, such as fine art, vintage wines, classic cars, yachts, or rare jewelry, are targets for tokenization to allow fractional ownership and potentially increase liquidity. Assets related to transportation, like aircraft or shipping vessels, have also been securitized.  

Intangible assets: intellectual property, data, and future promises

Assetization is increasingly applied to intangible items, where value derives from rights, information, or future potential rather than physical substance.

• Intellectual property (IP): This category includes patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. Assetization can involve treating patent portfolios as assets valued based on their legal strength and potential for generating licensing fees or winning litigation. Tokenization is being explored as a way to represent ownership of IP rights or to securitize future royalty streams from creative works like music or inventions.  

• Data streams & personal data: Data is rapidly emerging as a distinct and highly valuable asset class. Assetization involves structuring data ownership or access rights to enable control and value extraction, sometimes referred to as creating "datassets". The goal is often data rentiership: generating revenue through the control and use of data. Monetization strategies are diverse, including selling aggregated or anonymized data, licensing data access, providing data-driven analytical services, or potentially creating tradable data tokens. Realizing the economic value of data is seen as a key challenge and opportunity in the digital economy, driving efforts towards data assetization.  

• Future revenues/cash flows: Assetization techniques, particularly securitization, are frequently used to bring forward the value of anticipated future income. Examples include securitizing royalties from music catalogs or film libraries , future receivables from exports, or the expected cash flows from long-term project finance agreements. This fundamentally involves capitalizing expected future earnings based on financial modeling and discounting.  

The assetization of these intangibles presents distinct challenges for investment analysis compared to tangible assets. Value often stems from less concrete factors like network effects (for data platforms), the strength of legal protections (for IP), or the accuracy of future projections, rather than physical attributes or easily observable market prices. This inherent uncertainty makes traditional valuation methods difficult to apply and requires investors to develop new analytical frameworks focusing on the specific drivers of value and risk for each intangible asset class

Emerging frontiers: from digital uniques to public services

The boundaries of assetization continue to push outwards, exploring novel digital forms and encroaching on areas previously considered outside the realm of private investment.

• Digital assets/collectibles: The rise of blockchain has enabled the creation and trading of unique digital items, primarily through Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). These can represent digital art, virtual land, collectibles, or potentially unique identifiers linked to physical assets. While distinct from the assetization of traditional RWAs, the underlying principle of creating tradable digital representations of value shares common ground. Cryptocurrencies themselves, though often lacking direct underlying assets in the same way, are also part of this digital asset landscape.  

• Public goods & services: There is a notable trend towards applying assetization principles to areas traditionally funded and managed by the public sector. This includes structuring higher education funding models that treat education provision as an asset generating returns, or financing social services through instruments like Social Impact Bonds (SIBs). In SIBs, private investors provide upfront capital for social programs (e.g., reducing prisoner recidivism or homelessness), and returns are paid by government contingent on achieving specific, measurable positive outcomes. Environmental services, like carbon credits or other mechanisms for valuing "natural capital," also represent a frontier where public concerns are being framed in asset terms.  

• Knowledge & Skills: At a more conceptual level, knowledge itself, individual skills, or even aspects of human personality are sometimes discussed as potential subjects for assetization, framed as resources capable of generating future economic benefits or revenue streams.  

This expansion into ever more diverse areas signifies a potentially profound shift in how economic value is conceptualized, created, and captured. The move to assetize public goods or social outcomes, in particular, raises important societal and ethical questions. While such approaches might unlock new sources of funding, they also introduce private profit motives into domains traditionally guided by public interest or social welfare objectives. This can create inherent tensions, potentially leading to conflicts where investor returns might be prioritized over the primary social goals, demanding careful consideration of governance structures and potential unintended consequences. Investment professionals engaging in these areas must be cognizant of these non-financial dimensions and the associated reputational considerations.  

Opportunities for the investment professional

Assetization, in its various forms, presents a range of potential opportunities for investment professionals seeking to meet client objectives. These opportunities center on accessing new investment domains, enhancing portfolio construction, and potentially benefiting from increased market efficiency.

Broadening the investment horizon: aaccessing new asset classes

Perhaps the most significant opportunity offered by assetization, particularly through mechanisms like tokenization and fractionalization, is the potential to "democratize" access to asset classes previously the exclusive domain of large institutions or ultra-high-net-worth individuals. By dividing high-value assets (e.g., commercial real estate, private equity fund stakes, infrastructure projects, fine art) into smaller, tradable units (tokens or securities), assetization lowers the barriers to entry, allowing a wider spectrum of investors to participate.  

This opens up new frontiers for investment portfolios, providing exposure to potentially novel return streams derived from assets that were previously off-limits or difficult to access directly. Examples include revenue from data monetization, royalties from intellectual property, cash flows from specialized infrastructure, or participation in unique digital assets.  

Furthermore, assetization techniques can sometimes allow investors to bypass traditional intermediaries or gatekeepers that control access to certain markets, such as venture capital or project finance, potentially offering more direct investment routes. This expansion of the investable universe is particularly relevant in environments where traditional asset classes may offer lower expected returns.  

Portfolio construction: diversification and novel return streams

The ability to access these new and alternative asset classes holds significant implications for portfolio construction. A key motivation for investors exploring assetized products is the potential for diversification. Many alternative assets targeted by assetization (e.g., private markets, real estate, infrastructure) historically exhibit low correlation with traditional public equities and bonds. Incorporating such assets can potentially reduce overall portfolio volatility and enhance risk-adjusted returns, especially during periods of market stress.  

Assetization mechanisms also allow for tailored risk exposure. The tranching inherent in securitization enables investors to select securities (senior, mezzanine, junior) that align precisely with their risk tolerance and yield requirements. Tokenization, with its potential for programmability and composability (combining different tokens/assets), may offer even greater possibilities for creating customized investment portfolios and strategies in the future.  

Moreover, many assetized products are structured around the concept of generating regular income streams derived from the underlying asset's rent or revenue potential. For income-focused investors, these products can offer attractive and potentially stable cash flows.  

Liquidity and efficiency gains: potential vs. reality

A major selling point for assetization, especially in its tokenized form, is the promise of enhanced liquidity for traditionally illiquid assets. By converting assets like private equity stakes or real estate holdings into standardized, tradable digital tokens, the aim is to create active secondary markets where investors can buy and sell their holdings more easily and potentially on a 24/7 basis. Similarly, securitization originally aimed to create liquid markets for assets like mortgages.  

Alongside liquidity, operational efficiency is another frequently cited benefit, primarily associated with tokenization leveraging blockchain and smart contracts. Potential gains include faster (potentially instantaneous or "atomic") settlement of trades, reduced need for intermediaries leading to lower transaction costs, and increased transparency through immutable blockchain records. Securitization also offered efficiency benefits, particularly for originators managing their balance sheets.  

However, investment professionals must approach these promised benefits with caution. The enhanced liquidity often associated with tokenization remains largely theoretical for many asset classes. Actual liquidity is contingent on the development of deep, active secondary markets with sufficient buyers and sellers, robust trading infrastructure, and widespread investor adoption, conditions that are not yet met for many tokenized assets. There is a risk that liquidity in these nascent markets could be thin or disappear entirely during periods of market stress, potentially trapping investors. Therefore, assuming liquidity benefits exist without critically assessing the specific market conditions for a given tokenized asset would be imprudent.  

Similarly, while operational efficiencies like cost savings are a key driver for institutions adopting tokenization, the direct benefit to end investors may initially be more focused on faster settlement times and potentially improved transparency. Significant reductions in fees might take time to materialize, given the substantial investments required by financial institutions to build and implement the necessary technological infrastructure. Furthermore, potential efficiency gains could be offset by new operational complexities associated with managing digital assets, such as wallet security and smart contract risks.  

Risks and considerations

While assetization opens doors to new opportunities, it simultaneously introduces a complex web of risks and challenges that investment professionals must carefully evaluate. These risks span valuation, market dynamics, operations, counterparty exposure, and the evolving regulatory and ethical landscape. A thorough understanding of these potential pitfalls is essential for responsible engagement with assetized products.

Valuation challenges and market dynamics

Establishing the fair value of assetized products can be particularly challenging, especially for those backed by novel or intangible assets.

• Valuation difficulty: Unlike traditional securities with established markets and valuation methodologies, assessing the worth of assets like tokenized intellectual property, data streams, or unique digital collectibles is inherently complex and subjective. Valuation often relies heavily on forecasts of future income streams or potential future utility, which are intrinsically uncertain and based on assumptions that may prove inaccurate. The lack of standardized metrics and historical performance data for many newly assetized items further complicates reliable valuation.  

• Transparency issues: Although tokenization often aims to enhance transparency through blockchain's public ledger , complexities can persist. The link between on-chain tokens and off-chain assets or rights may not always be clear or legally robust. In traditional securitization, investors have historically faced challenges due to a lack of transparency regarding the specific assets within the underlying pool, making true risk assessment difficult. Similar opacity risks can exist in poorly structured assetized products, regardless of the mechanism used.  

• Market volatility & bubbles: The novelty and sometimes speculative nature of newly created asset classes can make them susceptible to significant price volatility and potential asset bubbles, as witnessed in markets for certain cryptocurrencies and NFTs. Furthermore, the introduction of fractional ownership and potentially easier trading through tokenization could increase volatility in markets for previously illiquid and stable assets (like real estate or private equity) if it attracts a larger base of retail investors who may be more prone to panic selling during market downturns.  

Liquidity, operational, and counterparty risks

Beyond valuation, investors face significant risks related to market functioning, operational processes, and the reliability of involved parties.

• Liquidity risk: This is the risk of being unable to sell an asset quickly without accepting a substantial price discount. While assetization often promises improved liquidity, the reality can differ. Secondary markets for many assetized products, especially newer tokenized assets, may be thin, illiquid, or non-existent. Liquidity can evaporate quickly during periods of market stress, leaving investors unable to exit positions. In traditional securitizations, early repayment (prepayment) of underlying loans can also disrupt expected cash flows and negatively impact investor returns.  

• Operational complexity & risk: The processes involved in structuring, issuing, and managing assetized products are inherently complex. Tokenization introduces a new layer of operational risks tied specifically to the underlying technology. These include vulnerabilities in the blockchain platform itself, potential bugs or exploits in the smart contracts governing the tokens, risks associated with managing digital wallets and private keys (loss or theft), and broader cybersecurity threats like hacking. Furthermore, the lack of interoperability between different blockchain platforms can lead to fragmented markets and operational hurdles when trying to move assets across different systems.  

• Counterparty risk: Investors are exposed to the risk that various parties involved in the assetization chain may fail to perform their duties. In securitization, this includes the originator (misrepresenting asset quality), the servicer (failing to collect payments), the SPV trustee (failing to act in investors' interest), or external credit enhancers (defaulting on guarantees). In tokenization, critical counterparties include the platform provider, the entity verifying off-chain assets (oracle reliability), digital asset custodians, and potentially the developers of the smart contracts. The failure of any key party can jeopardize the investment.  

• Credit risk: Underlying all asset-backed instruments is the fundamental credit risk of the original borrowers or obligors whose payments ultimately fund the investors. While structuring techniques like tranching and credit enhancement aim to mitigate and allocate this risk, it can never be entirely eliminated. Poor underwriting standards by the originator, or unexpected economic downturns, can lead to higher-than-expected defaults in the underlying pool, potentially causing losses even for holders of more senior tranches if enhancements are insufficient.  

The multifaceted nature of these risks, spanning financial, operational, technological, and counterparty dimensions, necessitates a holistic approach to due diligence. Investment analysis must extend beyond evaluating the credit quality of the underlying assets to encompass the robustness of the structure, the reliability of the technology (if applicable), the credibility of the involved parties, and the specific market dynamics of the assetized product.

Regulatory, legal, and ethical hurdles

The environment surrounding assetization is further complicated by evolving rules, legal uncertainties, and significant ethical questions.

• Regulatory uncertainty: This is arguably the most significant hurdle, particularly for innovative areas like tokenization. Globally, regulatory frameworks are often unclear, inconsistent, or lagging behind technological developments. Key areas of ambiguity include how different types of tokens should be classified (e.g., as securities, commodities, or something else), what specific compliance obligations apply (e.g., Know Your Customer [KYC], Anti-Money Laundering [AML]), how investor protection rules should be adapted, and how cross-border transactions should be treated. This lack of clarity creates risks for issuers and investors and hinders broader adoption.  

• Legal risks: Several legal uncertainties persist. In some jurisdictions, the precise legal status and bankruptcy remoteness of SPVs used in securitization or tokenization might not be definitively established at the highest legal levels. The legal enforceability of smart contracts, especially across borders, is still being tested. Critically for tokenization, ensuring that ownership of a digital token translates into clear, legally recognized, and enforceable rights to the underlying real-world asset is essential but can be complex to structure and may face challenges. Ambiguities can lead to costly legal disputes.  

• Ethical considerations: The expansion of assetization into new domains raises significant ethical concerns. Transforming public goods (like education), social outcomes (via SIBs), or sensitive personal data into financial assets primarily designed to generate investor returns creates potential conflicts with public interest or individual rights. There are risks of exploitation, increased social inequality, or decisions being made based on profit maximization rather than societal benefit. The collection and monetization of personal data raise major privacy concerns and risks of misuse. In the context of sustainable finance, the risk of "greenwashing" (misrepresenting investments as environmentally beneficial) is a concern for securitized products as well.  

There exists a fundamental tension between the rapid pace of financial innovation driving assetization, particularly in areas like tokenization, and the slower pace of regulatory development and establishment of robust security protocols. Pushing technological boundaries without clear rules of the road, adequate investor protections, or secure infrastructure could expose investors to significant losses, facilitate fraud, or even contribute to systemic instability, echoing the lessons learned from previous financial crises driven by poorly understood innovations. Investment professionals must therefore prroceed with heightened awareness of regulatory developments, legal precedents, and the potential ethical dimensions of their investment choices.  

Macro implications: assetization's footprint on markets and the economy

The proliferation of assetization carries significant implications that extend beyond individual investments, influencing capital allocation patterns, overall market functioning, and potentially systemic financial stability.

Impact on capital allocation and market functioning

Assetization can reshape how capital flows through the economy and how markets operate, presenting both potential efficiencies and distortions.

• Efficiency potential: In theory, assetization can enhance the efficiency of capital allocation. By transforming illiquid loans or receivables into tradable securities, it connects originators seeking funding with a diverse pool of capital market investors seeking specific risk and return profiles. This can potentially lower the cost of capital for originators (like banks or corporations), increase the overall availability of credit for borrowers (consumers and businesses), and allow capital to flow more readily to where it is demanded. The process can also "revitalize" assets that might otherwise sit idly on balance sheets, putting them to more productive use.  

• Market development: Assetization contributes to the development and deepening of financial markets including money markets, credit markets, and bond markets by creating new types of tradable instruments. It can introduce liquidity into previously illiquid market segments, facilitating price discovery and providing investors with a broader range of investment choices. Newer forms like tokenization aim to further integrate markets and enhance operational efficiency through shared ledger technology and automation.  

• Potential distortions: Despite the potential benefits, assetization can also introduce distortions. Some analyses suggest that certain types of securitization, particularly those focused on household debt (like mortgages or consumer loans), may disproportionately fuel consumption rather than productive investment, potentially leading to negative long-term impacts on economic activity. Furthermore, the very structure of assetization, especially when originators can transfer risk entirely off their balance sheets, can create perverse incentives. This "originate-to-distribute" model can weaken the incentive for lenders to maintain rigorous underwriting standards or monitor borrowers effectively, as the consequences of default are borne by distant investors. This was a significant factor contributing to the decline in loan quality leading up to the 2008 crisis. Additionally, the core logic of assetization, focused on securing durable economic rents through control, might encourage a shift in capital allocation towards activities that prioritize rent extraction (e.g., controlling essential platforms, enforcing IP monopolies) over potentially more dynamic but riskier forms of productive investment or innovation. This potential shift towards a more "rentier" form of capitalism could have profound long-term consequences for economic structure, dynamism, and inequality.  

Financial stability: new opportunities, new vulnerabilities

While offering tools for risk management, assetization also introduces new channels through which financial instability can arise and propagate.

• Risk diversification: A primary rationale for assetization is risk diversification. By pooling assets and selling claims to a wide range of investors, the risk associated with any single underlying loan or borrower is theoretically dispersed across the financial system, making individual institutions less vulnerable.  

• Systemic risk creation: However, historical experience, particularly the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, demonstrates that assetization, especially when involving complex structures, opacity, and leverage, can paradoxically concentrate and amplify systemic risk. New vulnerabilities can emerge through several channels:  
  • Interconnectedness: Assetization links previously disparate parts of the financial system. Banks, investors, insurers, and other entities become interconnected through holdings of related asset-backed securities or derivatives, creating pathways for shocks to spread rapidly.  
  • Leverage: Asset-backed structures can themselves involve leverage, or they can facilitate increased leverage elsewhere in the system by making credit more readily available.  
  • Opacity and complexity: The intricate structures of some securitizations (like CDOs squared) can make it extremely difficult for investors, and even regulators, to fully understand the underlying risks and exposures, leading to mispricing and unexpected losses during downturns.  
  • Liquidity and maturity mismatches: Assetization can involve transforming long-term, illiquid assets into shorter-term, supposedly liquid securities. This creates potential funding risks if market liquidity dries up unexpectedly.  
  • Operational fragilities: The complex processes and multiple parties involved create potential points of failure.  
• Procyclicality: Assetization can interact with regulations and market sentiment in ways that amplify economic cycles. For instance, risk-sensitive capital regulations might force institutions to sell asset-backed securities during market downturns to maintain capital ratios, further depressing prices and exacerbating the crisis (a procyclical effect). The expansion of credit facilitated by assetization during boom times can also contribute to the inflation of asset bubbles.  

• Tokenization risks: While proponents suggest tokenization might enhance transparency, it introduces new technological vulnerabilities (smart contract flaws, cyber risks) and could potentially amplify shocks if it leads to greater interconnectedness or enables faster, automated trading without adequate risk buffers or circuit breakers. The potential for rapid withdrawals from tokenized platforms ("digital runs") is also a concern.  

• Current assessment: International bodies like the Financial Stability Board (FSB) currently assess that tokenization, due to its relatively small scale, does not yet pose a material risk to global financial stability. However, they acknowledge that risks could grow significantly if the market expands rapidly without commensurate improvements in transparency, regulation, and operational resilience. Related areas like the rapidly growing private credit market, which often utilizes assetization principles, are large enough that vulnerabilities there could become macro-critical and amplify negative economic shocks.  

Ultimately, assetization presents a complex trade-off for the macroeconomy. It offers potential pathways to greater market efficiency, liquidity, and credit availability. Yet, it simultaneously creates new avenues for risk transmission, can incentivize detrimental behavior like lax underwriting, and increases complexity, making effective regulatory oversight more challenging. The net impact on economic activity and financial stability appears highly dependent on the specific types of assets being assetized, the robustness of the structures employed, and the vigilance of regulatory supervision. The increasing complexity and opacity associated with newer techniques pose a particular challenge, potentially widening the information gap between market participants and regulators and hindering the timely identification and mitigation of emerging systemic risks.  

What's next for assetization?

Assetization is poised for significant evolution, driven primarily by rapid technological advancements, shifting investor demands, and the ongoing response of regulatory bodies. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for investment professionals seeking to anticipate future market structures and opportunities.

Technological acceleration: the influence of blockchain and AI

Technology, particularly blockchain and artificial intelligence, is expected to be the dominant force shaping the next phase of assetization.

• Blockchain/Tokenization dominance: There is a strong consensus among market observers and participants that tokenization, built on blockchain/DLT infrastructure, represents the next major evolutionary step. Its potential to represent virtually any asset digitally, enable fractional ownership, automate processes via smart contracts, and facilitate peer-to-peer trading promises to expand the scope of assetization dramatically. Projections anticipate the market for tokenized assets (excluding cryptocurrencies) reaching trillions of dollars by 2030, with significant activity expected in areas like investment funds, bonds, loans, and alternative assets.  

• AI integration: Artificial intelligence is increasingly seen as a complementary technology that will amplify the impact of tokenization. AI algorithms can be applied to analyze vast datasets for more accurate asset valuation (especially for complex or novel assets), perform sophisticated risk assessments, optimize investment portfolios containing tokenized assets, and potentially automate trading strategies based on real-time data and predefined rules. The synergy arises from AI providing the analytical power and decision-making capability, while blockchain provides the programmable, secure, and transparent infrastructure for executing those decisions and managing the resulting assets. This convergence could lead to highly automated, data-driven financial operations and investment management. However, this integration also introduces new complexities and potential systemic risks related to algorithmic bias, model opacity, and the potential for rapid, AI-driven market movements that could be difficult to predict or control.  

• New platforms & ecosystems: Realizing the full potential of tokenization will require the development of robust supporting infrastructure. This includes user-friendly digital platforms for issuance and management, efficient and liquid secondary markets (potentially decentralized exchanges), secure custody solutions for digital assets, reliable oracle services for linking on-chain and off-chain data, and crucially, standards ensuring interoperability between different blockchain networks to avoid fragmented liquidity.  

Evolving investor appetite and regulatory scrutiny

Alongside technology, investor preferences and the regulatory response will critically shape the future path of assetization.

• Investor demand: There appears to be growing interest from various investor segments, including large institutions, pension funds, insurers, high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs), and potentially even retail investors, in gaining exposure to alternative asset classes and novel investment products facilitated by assetization. Key drivers include the persistent search for higher yields in a low-rate environment, the desire for portfolio diversification beyond traditional stocks and bonds, and the appeal of easier access (lower minimums, potentially higher liquidity) to previously exclusive markets like private equity and real estate. Younger generations (Millennials, Gen Z) reportedly show particular interest in alternatives to traditional investments.  

• Regulatory outlook: Regulation remains a pivotal factor, acting as both a potential enabler and a significant bottleneck. While uncertainty persists in many areas, regulatory bodies globally (including the FSB, BIS, IOSCO, and national regulators) are actively working towards developing clearer frameworks for digital assets and tokenization. Key regulatory priorities include ensuring financial stability, protecting investors, preventing illicit activities (AML/CFT), clarifying legal status and ownership rights, and promoting operational resilience. Achieving greater consistency and potential mutual recognition of regulations across jurisdictions will be crucial for tokenization to realize its potential for seamless global markets. The future pace of adoption hinges significantly on the emergence of predictable and supportive (while still prudent) regulatory environments.  

• Industry adoption: Major financial institutions are no longer just observing; many are actively investing in building capabilities, running pilot projects, and participating in industry consortia focused on tokenization. Partnerships between established financial players and specialized fintech innovators are becoming increasingly common and are seen as essential for bridging the gap between traditional finance and the new technological possibilities. However, widespread adoption is likely to be gradual ("eating the elephant one bite at a time" ), contingent on demonstrating clear return on investment (ROI), successfully navigating regulatory hurdles, overcoming technological challenges like interoperability, and building trust among market participants. While tokenization aims to democratize access , the initial adoption wave appears driven largely by institutional players seeking operational efficiencies and access to new revenue streams or asset classes.  

Strategic considerations for investment professionals

• Continuous learning: Staying abreast of rapid developments in blockchain technology, AI applications in finance, new asset types being tokenized, evolving structuring techniques, emerging risks.
• Enhanced due diligence: Evaluating assetized investments demands a more rigorous and multi-faceted due diligence process. Beyond assessing the underlying asset's fundamentals, scrutiny must extend to the robustness and legal enforceability of the assetization structure (whether securitization or tokenization), the reliability and security of the technology platform and smart contracts involved, the credibility and track record of the issuer and other key counterparties (custodians, oracles), and a realistic assessment of actual market liquidity and valuation challenges. Traditional analytical tools may prove insufficient for novel asset types or complex structures.  

• Opportunity identification: The key is to identify credible opportunities where the potential benefits, such as access to diversifying assets, enhanced yield potential, or genuine liquidity improvements, demonstrably outweigh the inherent risks and complexities. This involves identifying reputable players, well-designed structures, and assets with sound underlying economics.
• Portfolio integration: Careful consideration must be given to how these new asset types fit within established portfolio construction frameworks and risk management protocols. Understanding their correlation with existing assets, their true liquidity characteristics under different market conditions, and their potential impact on overall portfolio risk is essential.
• Ethical and reputational awareness: Professionals must remain mindful of the broader societal implications, particularly when considering investments linked to the assetization of public services, personal data, or other sensitive areas. Assessing potential ethical conflicts and reputational risks should be part of the investment process.

The future of assetization appears dynamic, driven by powerful technological forces and evolving market needs. While the potential for transforming financial markets is significant, the path forward will likely be shaped by the interplay between innovation, investor adoption, and regulatory oversight.

Conclusion: assetization

Assetization represents a significant and evolving force, fundamentally altering how value is defined, packaged, and traded. At its heart, it is the process of converting rights to, or ownership of, a diverse array of items, from traditional loans and real estate to intangibles like intellectual property and data streams, into financial instruments designed primarily to generate durable revenue streams or economic rents for their holders. This focus on generating income through control, rather than solely profiting from market exchange, distinguishes assetization from simple commodification and carries profound implications for investment strategy, risk assessment, and market structure.  

Historically rooted in the securitization of mortgages and other loans , assetization has expanded dramatically, fueled by financial innovation, the persistent search for yield, and, more recently, transformative technologies like blockchain and artificial intelligence. Mechanisms like securitization (with its pooling, tranching, and credit enhancement techniques ) and tokenization (offering fractionalization, automation via smart contracts, and potential for enhanced liquidity ) provide the toolkit for creating these new investable assets.  

For investment professionals, assetization presents compelling opportunities. It unlocks access to previously unavailable or illiquid alternative asset classes, offering potential for portfolio diversification and novel return streams in an environment where traditional yields may be compressed. The potential for increased operational efficiency and market liquidity, particularly through tokenization, is also a significant draw.  

However, these opportunities are accompanied by substantial risks and complexities. Valuation of novel and intangible assets remains challenging. Promised liquidity enhancements may not materialize in practice, especially in nascent markets or during periods of stress. Operational risks associated with complex structures and new technologies (blockchain security, smart contract reliability, oracle integrity) are significant. Furthermore, the regulatory landscape is fragmented and evolving, creating uncertainty, while the expansion of assetization into areas like public services and personal data raises important ethical considerations.  

On a macro level, assetization holds the potential to improve capital allocation and market efficiency but also carries the risk of creating perverse incentives, fostering rent-seeking behavior over productive investment, and introducing new sources of systemic risk through complexity and interconnectedness. The lessons of the 2008 financial crisis serve as a stark reminder of the potential downsides when innovation outpaces understanding and oversight.  

Looking ahead, the trajectory of assetization appears inextricably linked to the maturation of blockchain technology, the integration of AI, and the development of clear, globally coordinated regulatory frameworks. While significant growth is projected, particularly in tokenized assets , the pace and ultimate scale will depend on successfully overcoming the inherent technological, market, and regulatory challenges.  

Understanding the nuances of how value is being transformed into investable assets will be essential for constructing resilient portfolios and advising clients in the years to come.

‍