China condemns western credit ratings agencies

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,294
10,595
136
And China is entirely right. Who in their right minds would allow the free market to basically regulate itself. The entire economy is a fraud and farce. Until we have transparency and end these conflicts of interest, the 'AAA' ratings these agencies give out are worthless.

Any concept of a free market was slashed when we bailed out the failures in the system. They naturally clean themselves out, if allowed to happen.

Maybe we should stop breaking the piggy bank to pay for our government run economy. No more stimulus, let the mask come off the failures.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Any concept of a free market was slashed when we bailed out the failures in the system. They naturally clean themselves out, if allowed to happen.

Maybe we should stop breaking the piggy bank to pay for our government run economy. No more stimulus, let the mask come off the failures.

Please, people took their lumps and more are certainly going to occur. However, it was in nobody's best interest to effectively hit the "restart" button on the whole global economy.

I guess you enjoy facing the distinct likelihood of 40%+ unemployement. I know it's all cool and angsty to wish for suffering, but people have real lives.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
They haven't stopped rating bonds.

I spoke to ratings analysts (S&P, M, F) today about a deal. They rate dozens of deals per week in my sector.

I mean, come on now, let's not follow China's example and get all hyperbolic.


Personally, I see the issue right now as an offloading of the "prudent man" theory onto the rating agencies as the single biggest problem.

The people who bought these issues weren't idiots. They weren't poorly paid fools. They aren't somebody with a high school education or a GED. They were highly paid, highly educated, and certainly "qualified institutional buyers" of credit bonds.

I took a look at the simple math behind synthetic CDOs and laughed my ass off. I looked at subprime RMBS with 5% overcollateralization and laughed harder, especially those with liar loans.

To blame the rating agencies is to miss the single most important aspect of this credit crunch. Personal responsibility.

They did a week or two ago.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30173976&postcount=111
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30173984&postcount=112 (Article with source)

Yep. Goldman was pretty much being made a scapegoat of the financial regulations bill. When the BP disaster happened, they suddenly disappeared as the administration found a new scapegoat...BP.
I am of the opinion(similar to Buffett and Berkowitz) that those financial analysts knew exactly what they were doing.

I agree with you on the personal responsibility part.
People should be at fault for not doing their own due diligence and completely relying on ratings.

The financial regulations bill makes them personally financially responsible for ratings now. How exactly does that work? I don't know.
If they rate something AAA and it defaults, they could be held legally liable by investors.
However if they rate something as "Junk" status, and it survives and emerges much stronger than they thought, will they still be held legally liable as well? :hmm: If not, then there will be a "race to the bottom" to see who can give the lowest ratings without being held legally liable.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
They did a week or two ago.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30173976&postcount=111
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30173984&postcount=112 (Article with source)

Yep. Goldman was pretty much being made a scapegoat of the financial regulations bill. When the BP disaster happened, they suddenly disappeared as the administration found a new scapegoat...BP.
I am of the opinion(similar to Buffett and Berkowitz) that those financial analysts knew exactly what they were doing.

I agree with you on the personal responsibility part.
People should be at fault for not doing their own due diligence and completely relying on ratings.

The financial regulations bill makes them personally financially responsible for ratings now. How exactly does that work? I don't know.
If they rate something AAA and it defaults, they could be held legally liable by investors.
However if they rate something as "Junk" status, and it survives and emerges much stronger than they thought, will they still be held legally liable as well? :hmm: If not, then there will be a "race to the bottom" to see who can give the lowest ratings without being held legally liable.

Ohh, I understand the 144a market situation and the broader impact since I work in that market. However, the situation would have resolved itself pretty quickly one way or another.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
They haven't stopped rating bonds.

I spoke to ratings analysts (S&P, M, F) today about a deal. They rate dozens of deals per week in my sector.

I mean, come on now, let's not follow China's example and get all hyperbolic.


Personally, I see the issue right now as an offloading of the "prudent man" theory onto the rating agencies as the single biggest problem.

The people who bought these issues weren't idiots. They weren't poorly paid fools. They aren't somebody with a high school education or a GED. They were highly paid, highly educated, and certainly "qualified institutional buyers" of credit bonds.

I took a look at the simple math behind synthetic CDOs and laughed my ass off. I looked at subprime RMBS with 5% overcollateralization and laughed harder, especially those with liar loans.

To blame the rating agencies is to miss the single most important aspect of this credit crunch. Personal responsibility.

I'll admit that I am not as in-the-know as you on this, as I have seen some of your posts, so I will assume you are better informed. There's been a lot of talk about it though on Bloomberg, MarketWatch, WSJ, etc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704723604575379650414337676.html

That basically says what I was saying... they are (or were) refusing to let other use their ratings, so bond offerings were halted for at least a while.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I'll admit that I am not as in-the-know as you on this, as I have seen some of your posts, so I will assume you are better informed. There's been a lot of talk about it though on Bloomberg, MarketWatch, WSJ, etc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704723604575379650414337676.html

That basically says what I was saying... they are (or were) refusing to let other use their ratings, so bond offerings were halted for at least a while.

The markets always have, and always will, find ways around or ways to petition the politicians for certain issues.

The work didn't really "stop" as much as everybody kind of slowed up a bit to take it in and then give people some pause.

At the end of the day people should have been making their own investment decisions. The rating is merely a guide based upon statistical analysis of "what if" scenarios.

I've seen the best, and worst, of those scenarios.


Take, for example, timeshare bonds. Of the major issuers, there wasn't a penny of principal loss, not even close. Credit cards? Not a penny. I'd consider credit cards to be some of the best protected out there. Auto loans? Few, if any, losses.

Fleet leasing, none.
major auto leasing, none.
rental cars, none.
major equipment leasing, pretty much none (more fraud than anything)

Heck, there's tens of billions in trade receivable securitizations out there that didn't burp.


People sit here bitching about housing while they miss the fact that there's trillions of securitizations out there that perform just fine. Some pop, but not many, almost all commensurate with the rating.

The fact that correlation among subordinate tranches, stuck into AAA CDOs was effectively 1, was a huge fuckup. However, to condemn the whole market is laughable.

What's even more laughable is that most BBB bonds didn't even lose principal.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,294
10,595
136
Please, people took their lumps and more are certainly going to occur. However, it was in nobody's best interest to effectively hit the "restart" button on the whole global economy.

I guess you enjoy facing the distinct likelihood of 40%+ unemployement. I know it's all cool and angsty to wish for suffering, but people have real lives.

You do not fix a house of cards by building a bigger house of cards.

The entire economy is a fraud and farce.
The OP is right about that. Yet you keep singing that tune, as that fraud and farce is the only thing you've got.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
They haven't stopped rating bonds.

I spoke to ratings analysts (S&P, M, F) today about a deal. They rate dozens of deals per week in my sector.

I mean, come on now, let's not follow China's example and get all hyperbolic.


Personally, I see the issue right now as an offloading of the "prudent man" theory onto the rating agencies as the single biggest problem.

The people who bought these issues weren't idiots. They weren't poorly paid fools. They aren't somebody with a high school education or a GED. They were highly paid, highly educated, and certainly "qualified institutional buyers" of credit bonds.

I took a look at the simple math behind synthetic CDOs and laughed my ass off. I looked at subprime RMBS with 5% overcollateralization and laughed harder, especially those with liar loans.

To blame the rating agencies is to miss the single most important aspect of this credit crunch. Personal responsibility.

While I agree with the gist of your post, if you laughed your ass off, exactly how do you suppose they got rated so highly by people who are supposed to be much better at "rating" them than you?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
You do not fix a house of cards by building a bigger house of cards.

The OP is right about that. Yet you keep singing that tune, as that fraud and farce is the only thing you've got.

No, but you don't cure a heroine addiction by cold turkey either.

Let me guess, when your car breaks down because it has a hole a coolant tube and can be fixed with a simple and cheap tube, relative to the car value, you simply light the car one fire, walk away, and go buy a new one right?


Please, OP is a joke that doesn't even begin to comprehend the economy.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
While I agree with the gist of your post, if you laughed your ass off, exactly how do you suppose they got rated so highly by people who are supposed to be much better at "rating" them than you?

How did people on 30K salaries think they could get rich quick? How did people who thought that housing would never go down invest billions of dollars? How did people think that tech stocks that lose money and will never be profitable were worth billions? How did people think that railroads that went nowhere would make a great investment? How did people think that tulip bulbs should be worth more than houses?

Humans are fallible.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
So if everybody's supposed to make their own independent analyses, LK, what's the point of ratings agencies in the first place?

And if you, as a dispassionate observer, could see problems with some of the offerings, why couldn't the ratings agencies?

I already know the answer. Because if one agency wouldn't rate the offering to the client's satisfaction, the client will take the next to the agency's competitor. If you won't play ball, the other guy probably will. Wash, rinse and repeat over a period of years until all the players know what's expected of them, and that's not honesty.

What you're offering is that if you get burgled because the watchdog didn't bark, well, don't blame the dog because you should have slept with one eye open...

Yeh, sure, humans are fallible, and part and parcel of that is that they're exploitable, too... Things like this don't just "happen"- this whole real estate bond boom/bust cycle is just the insider penny stock hustle writ large, very large indeed- it's the greatest looting spree in the history of finance, and we both know it.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Just a reminder that LK is hooked into the current system and has an incentive for the system to continue along as it's always has.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/10/18/77244/how-moodys-sold-its-ratings-and.html

WASHINGTON -- As the housing market collapsed in late 2007, Moody's Investors Service, whose investment ratings were widely trusted, responded by purging analysts and executives who warned of trouble and promoting those who helped Wall Street plunge the country into its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

A McClatchy investigation has found that Moody's punished executives who questioned why the company was risking its reputation by putting its profits ahead of providing trustworthy ratings for investment offerings.

...


Instead, Moody's promoted executives who headed its "structured finance" division, which assisted Wall Street in packaging loans into securities for sale to investors. It also stacked its compliance department with the people who awarded the highest ratings to pools of mortgages that soon were downgraded to junk. Such products have another name now: "toxic assets."

...

"The story at Moody's doesn't start in 2007; it starts in 2000," said Mark Froeba, a Harvard-educated lawyer and senior vice president who joined Moody's structured finance group in 1997.

"This was a systematic and aggressive strategy to replace a culture that was very conservative, an accuracy-and-quality oriented (culture), a getting-the-rating-right kind of culture, with a culture that was supposed to be 'business-friendly,' but was consistently less likely to assign a rating that was tougher than our competitors," Froeba said.

After Froeba and others raised concerns that the methodology Moody's was using to rate investment offerings allowed the firm's profit interests to trump honest ratings, he and nine other outspoken critics in his group were "downsized" in December 2007.

...

One Moody's executive who soared through the ranks during the boom years was Brian Clarkson, the guru of structured finance. He was promoted to company president just as the bottom fell out of the housing market.

Several former Moody's executives said he made subordinates fear they'd be fired if they didn't issue ratings that matched competitors' and helped preserve Moody's market share.

Froeba said his Moody's team manager would tell his team that he, the manager, would be fired if Moody's lost a single deal. "If your manager is saying that at meetings, what is he trying to tell you?" Froeba asked.

In the 1990s, Sylvain Raynes helped pioneer the rating of so-called exotic assets. He worked for Clarkson.

"In my days, I was pressured to do nothing, to not do my job," said Raynes, who left Moody's in 1997. "I saw in two instances -- two deals and a rental car deal -- manipulation of the rating process to the detriment of investors."

...

One of the new top executives was Michael Kanef, who was experienced in assembling pools of residential mortgage-backed securities, but not in compliance, the division that was supposed to protect investors.

"What signal does it send when you put someone who ran the group that assigned some of the worst ratings in Moody's history in charge of preventing it from happening again," Froeba said of Kanef. Clarkson and Kanef, who remains at Moody's, were named in a class-action lawsuit alleging that Moody's misled investors about its independence from companies that paid it for ratings.

Kanef went after Scott McCleskey, the vice president of compliance at Moody's from the spring of 2006 until September 2008, and the man that Moody's said was the one to see for all compliance matters.




Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/10/18/77244/how-moodys-sold-its-ratings-and.html#ixzz0urHO0Mhh

"Humans are fallible", but not in the way you're thinking, LK.

Interesting how someone so integral in all of this mess, Michael Kanef, is still at his job at moody's.

Even their CEO didn't get ousted and he's been well connected at the top for a long time:

Mr. McDaniel has held a variety of positions since joining the firm in 1987. He was named President of Moody's Investors Service in November 2001. He was promoted to Executive Vice President of the corporation and was elected to its board of directors in April 2003. Mr. McDaniel was appointed Chief Operating Officer of Moody's Corporation in January 2004, and was named President of the corporation in October 2004. He assumed responsibility as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in April 2005.

So much for 'taking their lumps', huh?


http://ir.moodys.com/management.cfm

It's all a bunch of crony capitalist bullshit.
 
Last edited:

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Also, LOL:

To promote competition, in the 1970s ratings agencies were allowed to switch from having investors pay for ratings to having the issuers of debt pay for them. That led the ratings agencies to compete for business by currying favor with investment banks that would pay handsomely for the ratings they wanted.

Wall Street paid as much as $1 million for some ratings, and ratings agency profits soared. This new revenue stream swamped earnings from ordinary ratings.

"In 2001, Moody's had revenues of $800.7 million; in 2005, they were up to $1.73 billion; and in 2006, $2.037 billion. The exploding profits were fees from packaging . . . and for granting the top-class AAA ratings, which were supposed to mean they were as safe as U.S. government securities," said Lawrence McDonald in his recent book, "A Colossal Failure of Common Sense."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/10/18/77244/how-moodys-sold-its-ratings-and.html#ixzz0urMSqCwC
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
How did people on 30K salaries think they could get rich quick? How did people who thought that housing would never go down invest billions of dollars? How did people think that tech stocks that lose money and will never be profitable were worth billions? How did people think that railroads that went nowhere would make a great investment? How did people think that tulip bulbs should be worth more than houses?

Humans are fallible.

I am not letting you off the hook that easily.

Humans may be fallible but math isn't. You said yourself that you looked at the securities, ran the numbers and it was so bad that not only did you not think they were a good investment you literally "laughed your ass off". We aren't talking about a few oopsies were someone forgot to carry the 1, we are talking about trillions of dollars of securities that anyone with a basic understanding of math could and should have immiediately laughed at (much like you did).

So I will ask again, how do you suppose all those experts who by your own words are extremely good at rating investments couldn't do the basic arithmetic that even I can do on a bunch of investments that were "worth" (or at least sold for at the time) more than the GDP of the United States?

Furthermore, if you also agree that anyone who did their due diligence, much like you did, should reasonably be able to figure out they are shit wouldn't that make the people selling them (reasonably they should be at least as good as you, correct?) as "great investments" negligent at best and more likely fraudulent? Or is it perhaps more likely that they knew it was just a big ass fraudulent game of hot potato in which they figured they were smart enough to not be the ones finally holding the potato (credit where credit is due, they pulled it off for the most part).

Lastly, could you please elaborate on exactly who took their lumps and exactly how bad those lumps were?
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
S&P, Fitch, and Moody's accounts for something like 95% of credit ratings business in the states, yet there are smaller ratings agencies. The big 3 have made plenty of mistakes in the past (Enron was given an 'investment grade' rating days before their collapse) and their conflict of interest is well know, yet, none of the smaller ratings agencies can take market share away from them. This has nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with direct conflicts of interests and the fact that the barriers to becoming successful are all due to reputation (which amazingly never seems to get tarnished every time they screw up). Ratings agencies are paid by the corporations they rate and not by the shareholders, THAT is the problem.
You don't think that regulations that mandate bonds be rated subsidize the ratings industry? In an industry with such high barriers to entry, forced consumption of a product has a way of making quality... secondary.

If ratings were not mandatory, rating agencies would have to prove their value not only to the bond issuers, but to the purchasers as well. Under the current regime, conflicts of interest are a natural occurrence because the ratings agencies only have to worry about the issuers. The purchasers are hapless dupes in the charade.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Please, people took their lumps and more are certainly going to occur. However, it was in nobody's best interest to effectively hit the "restart" button on the whole global economy.

I guess you enjoy facing the distinct likelihood of 40%+ unemployement. I know it's all cool and angsty to wish for suffering, but people have real lives.

It's always in the best interest to hit restart because then you can start over. Fuck bailing out multi-billion dollar businesses who ran themselves in to the ground. Let them die and let everything around it fall. The only way you're going to learn not to put your hand in the fire is if you get burnt.