New Amendment Targets Rating Agencies

Senators Al Franken (D-MN), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) have proposed an amendment to dismantle the “issuer pays” model that rating agencies currently use. The amendment would establish a Credit Rating Agency Board that would arbitrarily choose which rating agency would rate an issuer’s debt.

Taking aim at what they call a “permanent conflict of interest,” proponents of the amendment argue that this would make it more impartial as well as open up competition to smaller firms. The bipartisan proposal has received widespread support, including the endorsement of the Consumers Union consumer advocate group.

The rating agencies have unanimously come out against the amendment. “We believe the benefits of the issuer-paid model, combined with appropriate regulation, can far outweigh any potential conflicts of interest,” said Standard & Poor’s spokesman Ed Sweeney.

This is a bad idea (how come every problem can be solved with more government?). The only guys in America who didn’t know or understand this conflict existed were Franken, Schumer, Wicker, and Nelson. The new Board name should be aligned with the usefulness of the idea: Credit Rating Agency Panel.

France Blames Ratings Agencies for Aggravating Greek Credit Woes

Rating agencies have successively downgraded the sovereign debt of Portugal, Greece and Spain and this has, in part, led to a sharp devaluing of the euro. The European Union has protested that the lower ratings assigned to Greece, in particular, ignore the fundamental indicators of the Greek economy as well as the aid plan created by the euro zone and the International Monetary Fund.

When speaking on French radio Europe 1, French Economy Minister Christine Lagrade said that France will reinforce control over the rating agencies. “I think certain rules should be fixed … because we don’t degrade a country under the conditions that its rating has been degraded, that’s to precipitate purchases of sales 15 minutes before the close of trading, deplorable for the solidity of the market,” she explained.

In an interview with Le Monde, she also said that the downgrade 15 minutes before markets closed was “crime inducing” because it created a panic among those holding Greek bonds who thoughtlessly offloaded the investments before markets closed, driving values down even further.

Previous European Commissioner for Internal Market Regulation Michel Barnier expressed the opinion that rating agencies should be “disciplined and responsible in their evaluation process.” Mr. Barnier, also of France, had also mentioned that the European Union was considering creating Europe’s own rating agency to balance the valuation opinions of the American agencies.

Vive la France! This is like blaming the thermometer for the heat.

Buffet Defends Rating Agencies

Speaking at Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s annual meeting, Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett defended the company’s maintenance of its stake in Moody’s Corporation.

Mr. Buffett said rating agencies “made the same mistake” that everyone else did in overvaluing the health of the housing market. However, he countered, Moody’s — as well as McGraw-Hill, Standard & Poor’s and Fimalac SA’s Fitch Ratings — possess strong pricing power and require little in capital needs.

“There is obviously a backlash against rating agencies,” he said. “If they are not forced to change the whole structure around them … in some dramatic way, [they are still] a pretty darn good business.”

Mr. Buffett also pointed out that Berkshire has “never paid any attention” to credit ratings for bonds. “We don’t think we should farm out — outsource — investment judgment,” he said.

Rating Agencies Point Out Catch-22

The investigations on Capitol Hill have turned to how the rating agencies publicly shared the computer models they used to devise ratings. Ostensibly, the practice ensures that banks and other issuing bonds aren’t surprised by a weak rating that can adversely affect their ability to sell. What the Senate Panel took issue with is how it opened the door for bankers to work backwards: tinkering with complex mortgage deals until the model delivered the desired rating.

David Weinfurter, a spokesman for Fitch Inc., defended his company by saying it had made its models public in response to demand for increased transparency. He also pointed out that a committee, not the models, ultimately assigned ratings.

“There’s a bit of a Catch-22 here, to be fair to the ratings agencies,” said Dan Rosen, a member of Fitch’s academic advisory board and the chief of R2 Financial Technologies in Toronto. “They have to explain how they do things, but that sometimes allowed people to game it.”

The Effects of Reform

So, after protecting ratings as a First Amendment opinion, Congress changed the 2300-page regulatory reform bill and exposed the raters to legal liability if the ratings don’t reflect an ultimate change in the price of the bonds, or a default (crank up the class action lawsuit machine…).

What does this mean? Can a bond holder sue an NRSRO if the market value of a bond declines after a downgrade?

It means that this chills the value of a rating, if it exposes the rater to monetary liability. It seems there is a loophole, however.

If the rating was not part of the submitted OS or documents submitted to the SEC, the rating would be legally exempted, since it was not officially part of the submitted deal documents.

This is a stupid, populist nod to the worst of Congressional impulses. AT BEST, it will raise the cost of credit, and make it less available. AT WORST, it will put lawyers in charge of credit allocation.

What’s next, broker/ dealer stock buy and sell ratings? Will realtors be subject to legal liability if a house depreciates after you buy it? Will Las Vegas odds makers be subject to legal action if the odds are wrong and you don’t win?

The only good news is municipal bonds would be exempt because they do not have to register with the SEC. 

Bond Sale? Don’t Quote Us, Request Credit Firms – WSJ.com, July 21, 2010

Angelides Backs Senate Ratings Clearing House

Phil Angelides, chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, said that he supports a provision included in a Senate-approved bank reform bill that creates a government clearinghouse for structured-finance products that need to be rated.

An investment bank that needed a rating for a structured mortgage product, for example, would submit a request for a rating agency to the credit board.  The board would then assign which rating agency would do the work.

The idea has been controversial. The goal is to break up the cycle of credit rating agencies providing inflated ratings to get repeat business. Opponents object to the intrusion of government and its bureaucracy into the ratings process and claiming that the process would still not necessarily lead to more accurate ratings.

A government ratings assignment board would slow down credit formation and make it more expensive. All market participants know that issuers “shopped” ratings. This is only news to D.C. The government ratings assignments will only slow down the process, for the worse.

EU Revises Rules on Rating Agencies

The European Commission has suggested a list of revisions to EU rules on credit rating agencies that would increase transparency and centralize European supervision. Should the proposals be enacted, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) would take over the supervision of rating agencies in Europe from national authorities. The ESMA is a new entity whose legislation is still being negotiated by member states and the European Parliament.

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has stated that a European credit rating agency is another possibility. “We are looking at the idea,” he said. “Is it normal to have only three relevant actors on such a sensitive issue where there is a great possibility of conflict of interest? Is it normal that all of them come from the same country?”

Any proposals along these lines are not expected before September.

Bad idea. Leave credit evaluation to the market participants. Eliminate NRSRO designations. Ban governmental endorsements of rating agencies. Delete the use and reference to ratings.

Senate Subcommittee focuses on Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s

The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has uncovered Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s employee emails that call into question the legitimacy of their AAA ratings that were given to hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of subprime mortgage-backed securities that have now been downgraded to junk status.

Paul Krugman, writing in The New York Times, believes that those emails reveal a deeply corrupt system.

In one email, a Standard & Poor’s employee explains that they needed to “discuss adjusting criteria” used to evaluate housing-backed securities “because of the ongoing threat of losing deals.”  Another regrets needing “to massage the sub-prime and alt-A numbers to preserve market share.”

The emails leave little doubt that the inherent conflict of interest in the rating agencies’ business model impacted risk assessments. Consequently, the financial system unknowingly took on more risk than it could responsibly handle.

No legislation is currently being considered to regulate this activity.

Former Employees Speak Out Against Rating Agencies

Former executives at Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s criticized the firms at a hearing before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. They testified that the companies allowed a competitive culture and conflicts of interest to compromise their ratings of complex securities.

“It was an unspoken understanding that loss of market share would cause a manager to lose his or her job,” said Eric Kolchinsky, a former managing director at Moody’s. He said that he was suspended after warning in September 2007 that a batch of securities “being hyper-aggressively pushed by the bankers” had been assigned an inflated rating.

Several current managing directors also testified, including Kathleen A. Corbet, who was president of Standard & Poor’s from 2004 to 2007; and Raymond W. McDaniel Jr., the chairman and chief executive of Moody’s.

No New Business Model for Credit Rating Agencies

While both the House financial reform bill approved in December and the current Senate bill call for tighter regulation of credit rating agencies, critics are upset that neither improves on the “issuer pays” business model.

Because most of the agencies’ revenue comes from issuers of bonds and other debt that the agencies evaluate and rate, critics say this is an unacceptable conflict of interest — that ratings could too easily be tainted by business needs.

Congressional aides defended the bill, saying that the business model could not be changed without destroying the industry. The Senate bill is now on its way to the floor for debate and a final vote.

Let’s let the ratings agencies alone. You can’t legislate morality or virtue in a free market. If nobody trusts the NRSROs, the companies will cease to exist. Let’s let the market participants decide the usefulness of ratings, not Congressmen.

Next Page »