The American Securitisation Forum has written to the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to voice its concern that proposed legislative changes will bring securitisation in the US to an end. "Ultimately, if the aggregate burden for US insured depository institutions is too great, it could prevent them from reengaging in the securitisation market and force them to rely on deposits or other sources of funding… Furthermore, these events would likely prolong the unavailability of credit for consumers and small business," wrote the ASF. The ASF notes that securitisation has provided over 25 per cent of US consumer credit. Furthermore, small business, which employs approximately 50 per cent of the nation's workforce, depends on securitisation as a source of finance. The US securitisation market froze over with the onset of the GFC and has remained very weak ever since. Allowing for differences in scale, the US market has not recovered to the same extent as the Australian market and it now seems that accounting changes that have already come into force and further proposed regulatory changes are going to snuff out any nascent recovery.  The problems started with changes to the accounting rules under US GAAP last June. The changes, which come into effect this financial year, will require many Special Purpose Entities (used in securitisation) to be consolidated on to the asset originator's balance sheet, thereby negating an effective sale of the assets. To overcome this and allow investors to continue to have direct access to the securitised assets, the FDIC has proposed changes to its own rules regarding securitisation. However, the ASF is concerned that the FDIC's proposed requirements, which link the determination of legal isolation of assets to preconditions addressing capital structure, disclosure, documentation, origination and compensation, will mean that very few securitisations will satisfy the FDIC's own requirements. The FDIC has provided an alternative, which would allow investors to claim the securitised assets as secured creditors (in need) but this would be time-consuming and no doubt expensive. In addition, the ASF wants to see reform undertaken with interagency consultation. The FDIC's requirement for a five per cent retention of the credit risk of the transferred assets (to encourage improved origination practices) will conflict with new capital adequacy rules that will require insured depository institutions to hold more capital against such assets because too much risk has been retained.The imposition of increased regulatory burden and conflicting regulation will destroy the economics of securitisation, at least for regulated institutions. This may leave the market to unregulated originators of securitised assets - an unintended outcome.There are no immediate parallels with the Australian market, but the US experience highlights the difficulties that can arise from the existence of multiple regulators and the implementation of regulation in haste. Moreover, what happens in the US will ultimately have ramifications for securitisers and investors globally.