TO BE NOTED: From Bloomberg:"Flawed Credit Ratings Reap Profits as Regulators Fail Investors By David Evans and Caroline Salas
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- Ron Grassi says he thought he had retired five years ago after a 35-year career as a trial lawyer.
Now Grassi, 68, has set up a war room in his Tahoe City, California, home to single-handedly take on Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings. He’s sued the three credit rating firms for negligence, fraud and deceit.
Grassi says the companies’ faulty debt analyses have been at the core of the global financial meltdown and the firms should be held accountable. Exhibit One is his own investment. He and his wife, Sally, held $40,000 in Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. bonds because all three credit raters gave them at least an A rating -- meaning they were a safe investment -- right until Sept. 15, the day Lehman filed for bankruptcy.
“They’re supposed to spot time bombs,” Grassi says. “The bombs exploded before the credit companies acted.”
As the U.S. and other economic powers devise ways to overhaul financial regulations, they have yet to come up with plans to address one issue at the heart of the crisis: the role of the rating firms.
That’s partly because the reach of the three big credit raters extends into virtually every corner of the financial system. Everyone from banks to the agencies that regulate them is hooked on ratings.
Debt grades are baked into hundreds of rules, laws and private contracts that affect banking, insurance, mutual funds and pension funds. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission guidelines, for example, require money market fund managers to rely on ratings in deciding what to buy with $3.9 trillion of investors’ money.
‘Stop Our Reliance’
State regulators depend on credit grades to monitor the safety of $450 billion of bonds held by U.S. insurance companies. Even the plans crafted by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to stimulate the economy count on rating firms to determine how the money will be spent.
“The key to policy going forward has to be to stop our reliance on these credit ratings,” says Frank Partnoy, a professor at the San Diego School of Law and a former derivatives trader who has written four books on modern finance, including Infectious Greed: How Deceit and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets (Times Books, 2003).
“Even though few people respect the credit raters, most continue to rely on them,” Partnoy says. “We’ve become addicted to them like a drug, and we have to figure out a way to wean regulators and investors off of them.”
AIG Downgrade
Just how critical a role ratings firms play in the health and stability of the financial system became clear in the case of American International Group Inc., the New York-based insurer that’s now a ward of the U.S. government.
On Sept. 16, one day after the three credit rating firms downgraded AIG’s double-A score by two to three grades, private contract provisions that AIG had with banks around the world based on credit rating changes forced the insurer to hand over billions of dollars of collateral to its customers. The company didn’t have the cash.
Trying to avert a global financial cataclysm, the Federal Reserve rescued AIG with an $85 billion loan -- the first of four U.S. bailouts of the insurer.
Investors, traders and regulators have been questioning whether credit rating companies serve a good purpose ever since Enron Corp. imploded in 2001. Until four days before the Houston-based energy company filed for what was then the largest-ever U.S. bankruptcy, its debt had investment-grade stamps of approval from S&P, Moody’s and Fitch.
In the run-up to the current financial crisis, credit companies evolved from evaluators of debt into consultants.
‘Abjectly Failed’
They helped banks create $3.2 trillion of subprime mortgage securities. Typically, the firms awarded triple-A ratings to 75 percent of those debt packages.
“Ratings agencies just abjectly failed in serving the interests of investors,” SEC Commissioner Kathleen Casey says.
S&P President Deven Sharma says he knows his firm is taking heat from all sides -- and he expects to turn that around.
“Our company has always operated by the principle that if you do the right thing by the customers and the market, ultimately you’ll succeed,” Sharma says.
Moody’s Chief Executive Officer Raymond McDaniel and Fitch CEO Stephen Joynt declined to comment for this story.
“We are firmly committed to meeting the highest standards of integrity in our ratings practice,” McDaniel said in an April 15 SEC hearing.
“We remain committed to the highest standards of integrity and objectivity in all aspects of our work,” Joynt told the SEC.
Ratings and Rescue
Notwithstanding the role the credit companies played in fomenting disaster, the U.S. government is relying on them to help fix the system they had a hand in breaking.
The Federal Reserve’s Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, will finance the purchase by taxpayers of as much as $1 trillion of new securities backed by consumer loans or other asset-backed debt -- on the condition they have triple-A ratings.
And the Fed has also been buying commercial paper directly from companies since October, only if the debt has at least the equivalent of an A-1 rating, the second highest for short-term credit. The three rating companies graded Lehman debt A-1 the day it filed for bankruptcy.
The Fed’s financial rescue is good for the bottom lines of the three rating firms, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says. They could enjoy as much as $400 million in fees that come from taxpayer money, he says.
S&P, Moody’s and Fitch, all based in New York, got their official blessing from the SEC in 1975, when the regulator named them Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organizations.
Conflict of Interest
Seven companies, along with the big three, now have SEC licensing. The regulator created the NRSRO designation after deciding to set capital requirements for broker-dealers. The SEC relies on ratings from the NRSROs to evaluate the bond holdings of those firms.
At the core of the rating system is an inherent conflict of interest, says Lawrence White, the Arthur E. Imperatore Professor of Economics at New York University in Manhattan. Credit raters are paid by the companies whose debt they analyze, so the ratings might reflect a bias, he says.
“So long as you are delegating these decisions to for- profit companies, inevitably there are going to be conflicts,” he says.
In a March 25 report, policy makers from the Group of 20 nations recommended that credit rating companies be supervised to provide more transparency, improve rating quality and avoid conflicts of interest. The G-20 didn’t offer specifics.
52 Percent Profit Margin
As lawmakers scratch their heads over how to come up with an alternative approach, the rating firms continue to pull in rich profits.
Moody’s, the only one of the three that stands alone as a publicly traded company, has averaged pretax profit margins of 52 percent over the past five years. It reported revenue of $1.76 billion -- earning a pretax margin of 41 percent -- even during the economic collapse in 2008.
S&P, Moody’s and Fitch control 98 percent of the market for debt ratings in the U.S., according to the SEC. The noncompetitive market leads to high fees, says SEC Commissioner Casey, 43, appointed by President George W. Bush in July 2006 to a five-year term. S&P, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos., has profit margins similar to those at Moody’s, she says.
“They’ve benefited from the monopoly status that they’ve achieved with a tremendous amount of assistance from regulators,” Casey says.
Sharma, 53, says S&P has justifiably earned its income.
‘People See Value’
“Why does anybody pay $200, or whatever, for Air Jordan shoes?” he asks, sitting in a company boardroom high over the southern tip of Manhattan. “It’s the same. People see value in that. And it all boils down to the value of what people see in it.”
Blumenthal says he sees little value in credit ratings. He says raters shouldn’t be getting money from federal financial rescue efforts.
“It rewards the very incompetence of Standard & Poors, Moody’s and Fitch that helped cause our current financial crisis,” he says. “It enables those specific credit rating agencies to profit from their own self-enriching malfeasance.”
Blumenthal has subpoenaed documents from the three companies to determine if they improperly influenced the TALF rules to snatch business from smaller rivals.
S&P and Fitch deny Blumenthal’s accusations.
‘Without Merit’
“The investigation by the Connecticut attorney general is without merit,” S&P Vice President Chris Atkins says. “The attorney general fails to recognize S&P’s strong track record rating consumer asset-backed securities, the assets that will be included in the TALF program. S&P’s fees for this work are subject to fee caps.”
Fitch Managing Director David Weinfurter says the government makes all the rules -- not the rating firms.
“Fitch Ratings views Blumenthal’s investigation into credit ratings eligibility requirements under TALF and other federal lending programs as an unfortunate development stemming from incomplete or inaccurate information,” he says.
Moody’s Senior Vice President Anthony Mirenda declined to comment.
Sharma says it’s clear that his firm’s housing market assumptions were incorrect. S&P is making its methodology clearer so investors can better decide whether they agree with the ratings, he says.
‘Talk to Us’
“The thing to do is make it transparent, ‘Here are our criteria. Here are our analytics. Here are our assumptions. Here are the stress-test scenarios. And now, if you have any questions, talk to us,’” Sharma says.
The rating companies reaped a bonanza in fees earlier this decade as they worked with financial firms to manufacture collateralized debt obligations. Those creations held a mix of questionable debt, including subprime mortgages, auto loans and junk-rated assets.
S&P, Moody’s and Fitch won as much as three times more in fees for grading structured securities than they charged for rating ordinary bonds. The CDO market started to crash in mid- 2007, as investors learned the securities were jammed with bad debt.
Financial firms around the world have reported about $1.3 trillion in writedowns and losses in the past two years.
Alex Pollock, now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, says more competition among credit raters would reduce fees.
‘An SEC-Created Cartel’
“The rating agencies are an SEC-created cartel,” he says. “Usually, issuers need at least two ratings, so they don’t even have to compete.”
Pollock was president of the Federal Home Loan Bank in Chicago from 1991 to 2004. The bank was rated triple-A by both Moody’s and S&P. He says he recalls an annual ritual as he visited with representatives of each company.
“They’d say, ‘Here’s what it’s going to cost,’” he says. “I’d say, ‘That’s outrageous.’ They’d repeat, ‘This is what it’s going to cost.’ Finally, I’d say, ‘OK.’ With no ratings, you can’t sell your debt.”
Congress has held hearings on credit raters routinely this decade, first in 2002 after Enron and then again each year through 2008. In 2006, Congress passed the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act, which gave the SEC limited authority to regulate raters’ business practices.
The SEC adopted rules under the law in December 2008 banning rating firms from grading debt structures they designed themselves. The law forbids the SEC from ordering the firms to change their analytical methods.
Role of Congress
Only Congress has the power to overhaul the rating system. So far, nobody has introduced legislation that would do that. In a hearing on April 15, the SEC heard suggestions for legislation on credit raters. Some of the loudest proponents for change are in state government and on Wall Street. But no one’s agreed on how to do it.
“We should replace ratings agencies,” says Peter Fisher, managing director and co-head of fixed income at New York-based BlackRock Inc., the largest publicly traded U.S. asset management company.
‘Flash Forward’
“Our credit rating system is anachronistic,” he says. “Eighty years ago, equities were thought to be complicated and bonds were thought to be simple, so it appeared to make sense to have a few rating agencies set up to tell us all what bonds to buy. But flash forward to the slicing and dicing of credit today, and it’s really a pretty wacky concept.”
To create competition, the U.S. should license individuals, not companies, as credit rating professionals, Fisher says. They should be more like equity analysts and would be primarily paid by institutional investors, Fisher says. Neither equity analysts nor those who work at rating companies currently need to be licensed.
Such a system wouldn’t be fair, says Daniel Fuss, vice chairman of Boston-based Loomis Sayles & Co., which manages $106 billion. An investor-pay ratings model may give the biggest money managers a huge advantage over smaller firms and individuals because they can afford to pay for the analyses, he says.
“What about individuals?” he asks.
Eric Dinallo, New York’s top insurance regulator, proposes a government takeover of the rating business.
“There’s nothing wrong with saying Moody’s or someone is going to just become a government agency,” he says. “We’ve hung the entire global economy on ratings.”
‘Like Consumer Reports’
Insurance companies are among the world’s largest bond investors. Dinallo suggests that insurers could fund a credit rating collective run by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a group of state regulators.
“It would be like the Consumer Reports of credit ratings,” Dinallo says, referring to the not-for-profit magazine that provides unbiased reviews of consumer products.
Turning over the credit ratings to a consortium headed by state governments could lead to lower quality because there would be even less competition, Fuss says.
“I would be strongly opposed to the government taking over the function of credit ratings,” he says. “I just don’t think it would work at all. The business creativity, the drive, would go straight out of it.”
At the April 15 SEC hearing, Joseph Grundfest, a professor at Stanford Law School in Stanford, California, suggested a variation of Dinallo’s idea. He said the SEC could authorize a new kind of rating company, owned and run by the largest debt investors.
‘Greater Discipline’
All bond issuers that pay for a traditional rating would also have to buy a credit analysis from one of these firms.
SEC Commissioner Casey has another solution. She wants to remove rating requirements from federal guidelines. She also faults investors for shirking their responsibility to do independent research, rather than simply looking to the grades produced by credit raters.
“I’d like to promote greater competition in the market and greater discipline,” she says. “Eliminating the references to ratings will play a huge role in removing the undue reliance that we’ve seen.”
Sharma, who became president of S&P in August 2007, agrees with Casey that ratings are too enmeshed in SEC rules. He wants the SEC to either get rid of references to rating companies in regulations or add other benchmarks such as current market prices, volatility and liquidity.
“Just don’t leave us the way it is today,” Sharma says. “There’s too much risk of being overused and inappropriately used.”
‘Hurt Now’
Sharma says that even with widespread regulatory reliance on ratings, his firm will lose business if investors say it doesn’t produce accurate ones.
“Our reputation is hurt now,” he says. “Let’s say it continues to be hurt; it never comes back. Three other competitors come back who do much-better-quality work. Investors will finally say, ‘I don’t want S&P ratings.’”
S&P will prove to the public that it can help companies and bondholders by updating and clarifying its rating methodology, Sharma says. The company will also add commentary on the liquidity and volatility of securities.
S&P’s New Steps
S&P has incorporated so-called credit stability into its ratings to address the risk that ratings will fall several levels under stress conditions, which is what happened to CDO grades. The company has also created an ombudsman office in an effort to resolve potential conflicts of interest.
Jerome Fons, who worked at Moody’s for 17 years and was managing director for credit policy until August 2007, says investors don’t have to wait for a change in the rating system. They can learn more about the value of debt by tracking the prices of credit-default swaps, he says.
The swaps, which are derivatives, are an unregulated type of insurance in which one side bets that a company will default and the other side, or counterparty, gambles that the firm won’t fail. The higher the price of that protection, the greater the perceived risk of default.
‘More Accurate’
“We know the spreads are more accurate than ratings,” says Fons, now principal of Fons Risk Solutions, a credit risk consulting firm in New York. Moody’s sells a service called Moody’s Implied Ratings, which is based on prices of credit swaps, debt and stock.
In July 2007, credit-default-swap traders started pricing Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman as if they were Ba1 rated, the highest junk level. They pegged Merrill Lynch & Co. as a Ba1 credit three months later, according to the Moody’s model.
Each of those investment banks was stamped at investment grade by the top three credit raters within weeks of when the banks either failed or were rescued in 2008.
Lynn Tilton, who manages $6 billion as CEO of private equity firm Patriarch Partners in New York, says she woke up one morning in August 2007 convinced the banking system would collapse and started buying gold coins.
“I predicted the banks would be insolvent,” Tilton says. “My biggest issue was credit-default swaps. When the size of that market started to dwarf gross domestic product by six or seven times, then my understanding of what defaults would be in a down market became clear: There’s no escaping.”
‘Collective Wisdom’
Investors like Tilton watched as the financial firms tumbled while credit raters held on to investment-grade marks.
“If the ratings mandate weren’t there, we wouldn’t care because the credit-default-swap markets can tell us basically what we want to know about default probabilities,” NYU’s White says. “I’m a market-oriented guy, so I’m more inclined to be relying on the collective wisdom of the market participants.”
While credit-default-swap traders lack inside information that companies give to credit raters, swap traders move faster because they’re reacting to market changes every day.
San Diego School of Law’s Partnoy, who’s written law review articles about credit rating firms for more than a decade and has been a paid consultant to plaintiffs suing rating companies, says raters hold back from downgrading because they know the consequences can be dire.
In September, Moody’s and S&P downgraded AIG to A2 and A-, the sixth- and seventh-highest investment-grade ratings. The downgrades triggered CDS payouts and led to the U.S. lending AIG $85 billion. The government has since more than doubled AIG’s rescue funds.
‘Basically Trapped’
“When you get into a situation like we’re in right now with AIG, the rating agencies are basically trapped into maintaining high ratings because they know if they downgrade, they don’t only have this regulatory effect but they have all these effects,” Partnoy says.
“It’s all this stuff that basically turns the rating downgrade into a bullet fired at the heart of a bunch of institutions,” he says.
Sharma says S&P has never delayed a ratings change because of potential downgrade results. He says his firm tells clients not to use ratings as triggers in private contracts.
“We take action based on what we feel is right,” Sharma says.
While swap prices may be better than bond ratings at predicting a disaster, swaps can also cause a disaster.
AIG, one of the world’s biggest sellers of CDS protection, nearly collapsed -- taking the global financial system with it -- when it didn’t have enough cash to honor its swaps contracts. Loomis’s Fuss says relying on swap prices is a bad idea.
‘Not Always Right’
“The market is not always right,” he says. “An unregulated market isn’t always a fair appraisal of value.”
Moody’s was the first credit rating firm in the U.S. It started grading railroad bonds in 1909. Standard Statistics, a precursor of S&P, began rating securities seven years later.
After the 1929 stock market crash, the government decided it wasn’t able to determine the quality of the assets held by banks on its own, Partnoy says. In 1931, the U.S. Treasury started using bond ratings to analyze banks’ holdings.
James O’Connor, then comptroller of the currency, issued a regulation in 1936 restricting banks to buying only securities that were deemed high quality by at least two credit raters.
“One of the major responses was to try to find a way -- just as we are now with the stress tests and the examination of the banks -- to figure out how to get the bad assets off the banks’ books,” Partnoy says.
Since then, regulators have increasingly leaned on ratings to police debt investing. In 1991, the SEC ruled that money market mutual fund managers must put 95 percent of their investments into highly rated commercial paper.
Avoiding Liability
Like auditors, lawyers and investment bankers, rating firms serve as gatekeepers to the financial markets. They provide assurances to bond investors. Unlike the others, ratings companies have generally avoided liability for errors.
Grassi, the retired California lawyer, wants to change that. He filed his lawsuit against the rating companies on Jan. 26 in state superior court in Placer County.
The white-haired lawyer discusses his case seated at a tiny wooden desk in his small guest bedroom, with files spread over both levels of a bunk bed. Grassi says in his complaint that the raters were negligent for failing to downgrade Lehman Brothers debt as the bank’s finances were deteriorating.
The day Lehman filed for bankruptcy, S&P rated the investment bank’s debt as A, which according to S&P’s definition means a “strong” capacity to meet financial commitments. Moody’s rated Lehman A2 that day, which Moody’s defines as a “low credit risk.” Fitch gave Lehman a grade of A+, which it describes as “high credit quality.”
‘Without Merit’
“We’d like to have a jury hear this,” Grassi says. “This wouldn’t be six economists, just six normal people. That would scare the rating agencies to death.”
The rating companies haven’t yet filed responses. They’ve asked the federal court in Sacramento to take jurisdiction from the state court.
S&P and Fitch say they dispute Grassi’s allegations. “We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to defend against it vigorously,” S&P’s Atkins says.
Fitch’s Weinfurter says, “The lawsuit is fully without merit and we will vigorously defend it.”
Mirenda at Moody’s declined to comment.
S&P included a standard disclaimer with Lehman’s ratings: “Any user of the information contained herein should not rely on any credit rating or other opinion contained herein in making any investment decision.”
‘On Your Own’
Grassi isn’t deterred.
“They’re saying we know you’re going to rely on us and if you get screwed, you’re on your own because our lawyers have told us to put this paragraph in here,” he says.
The companies have defended their ratings from lawsuits, arguing that they were just opinions, protected by the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
McGraw-Hill used the First Amendment defense in 1996 after its subsidiary S&P was sued for professional negligence by Orange County, California. S&P had given the county an AA- rating before the county filed for the largest-ever municipal bankruptcy.
Orange County alleged in its lawsuit that S&P had failed to warn the government that its treasurer, Robert Citron, had made risky investments with county cash.
Not Liable
The U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California, ruled that the county would have needed to prove the rating company’s “knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth” to win damages.
The court found that the credit rater couldn’t be held liable for mere negligence, agreeing with S&P that it was shielded by the First Amendment.
Sharma says rating companies shouldn’t be responsible when investors misuse ratings.
“Hold us accountable for what you can,” he says. He compares the rating companies to carmakers. “Look, if you drove the car wrong, the manufacturer can’t be held negligent. But if you designed the car wrong, then of course the manufacturer should be held negligent.”
The bigger issue is whether the credit rating system should be changed or even abolished. From California to New York to Washington, investors and regulators are saying it doesn’t work. No one has been able to fix it.
‘Like a Cancer’
The federal government created the rating cartel, and the U.S. is as dependent on it as everyone else. So far, the legislative branch hasn’t cleaned up the ratings mess.
“This problem really is like a cancer that has spread throughout the entire investment system,” Partnoy says. “You’ve got a body filled with little tumors, and you’ve got to go through and find them and cut them out.”
As the U.S. has spent, lent or pledged about $12.8 trillion in efforts to revive the slumping economy, and as President Barack Obama and Congress have worked overtime to find a way out of the deepest recession in 70 years, no one has taken steps that would substantially fix a broken ratings system.
If the government doesn’t head in that direction, all of its efforts at financial reform may be put in jeopardy by the one piece of this puzzle that nobody has yet figured out how to solve.
To contact the reporters on this story: David Evans in Los Angeles at davidevans@bloomberg.net Caroline Salas in New York at csalas1@bloomberg.net."
Posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009 at 11:09 am
In my opinion, we've been living in the third way for a while. Since it has basically suited us, and will take severe economic and social disruptions to change, probably not for the better, I suggest we keep it.
I seem to agree with the ethics argument in the following sense: I feel that Fraud, Negligence, Fiduciary Mismanagement, and Collusion were rampant. We need a serious investigation and prosecution where crimes are discovered, and civil suits need to be pursued as well. Some of the advice, while not criminal, was not up to code, so to speak.
I feel that this goes back to the S & L Crisis. I felt that many investors got away with fraud, etc., in that crisis. One of the excuses for not prosecuting people was that sheer stupidity often looks like fraud. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.
In any case, I don't get the feeling that many people agree with me, so I expect another one of these pushing the legal envelope catastrophes in the near future.
On the other hand, who can argue with better ethical behavior? Maybe people who argue that it's not economically efficient in distributing funds to them.