Consider for a moment this quote from Eastman Kodak:
"Any speculation, however informed, suggesting that Kodak is less than financially sound, is irresponsible...."
What's the message here? That responsible speculators (whatever that means) are universally bulls? That the mere hint of bearishness is some sort of un-patriotic essence of evil?
Kodak was responding, of course, to their recent inclusion on Moody's "Bottom Rung" list. The Wall Street Journal explains, along with a quick definition of "default," just in case you needed a reminder:
The Moody's Corp. unit rates debt of 2,073 companies, sizing up each one's ability to pay what it owes. The Bottom Rung, which Moody's will update monthly, represents roughly the riskiest 15% of all companies it tracks.Moody's estimates about 45% of Bottom Rung companies will default on debt in the next year. Combined, these companies have more than $260 billion in bond and bank debt. A default ranges from filing for bankruptcy to a distressed debt-exchange to missing a debt payment.
This is, of course, an attempt to dispel the appearance of what, in recently popular terminology, has come to be known as "agency capture." The slavish reluctance of the ratings agency to offend the firms it rates. Insofar as transparency is universally the enemy of miasma driven rallies, we are interested to see how far any ratings agency gets with a re-branded "credit dead pool" before ratings inflation takes hold again.
There is little public relations up-side in predicting failure right now. (See e.g., John Paulson). Like the business of intelligence, which gets little credit for successes and all the blame for failures, ratings agencies both have a (mostly deserved) badly tarnished reputation and a similar Catch-22 dynamic. What failing firm will not blame the ratings agency (which may well have been spot on in predicting default) for causing an inevitable crash? Who could prove otherwise after the fact?
If nothing else, Kodak has the pulse of the nation at the moment. Even the Journal falls for the trap:
"Yet Moody's is pushing into a gray zone, singling out some firms that say they're in decent fiscal health."
As opposed to firms insisting they aren't in decent fiscal health? What does that list look like?
Calling a company the walking dead is intensely unpopular right now and the bright-red, freshly burned "Speculator" brand on the forehead is the scarlet letter of the day. Moody's, indeed any ratings agency, might be between a rock and a hard place here.
Moody's Aims to Be Ahead on Defaults [The Wall Street Journal]






Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 12:23PM
Polaroid was going to by Kodak and call it "Polak" but some finance people became offended. Seriously.
Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 12:39PM
As soon as film comes back...they are gonna kill it
Posted by Anal_yst , Mar 10, 2009 12:39PM
They put themselves between a rock and a hard place, and its the nature of the business they're in. Firms they rate will always complain about the "feedback loop" and catch-22 you've pointed out, with ratings/ratings actions, but it comes with the territory. You want to sell debt you "need" to have it rated, yadda yadda
Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 12:40PM
Tell me again why the ratings agencies have any relevance considering their complicity?
A main stream blogger has decided to discuss quants on his blog:
"Wall St.: Blinded By Science?"
"Were some Quants less than candid about the limitations of what they were producing, or were they clear but either manipulated by, or sucked into a realm that deals with profit, not scientific truth? Depends on who you ask."
http://www.riehlworldview.com/
Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 12:43PM
where are people going to buy camera film from? this is ridiculous...people will always take pictures. think of the children, where will all the memories go? this is just racist if you ask me!
Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 12:49PM
What happened to William Richards and who is this new David Lat guy on the masthead?
Posted by Anal_yst , Mar 10, 2009 12:51PM
@4
"...A main stream blogger has decided to discuss quants on his blog"
stopped reading right there
Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 12:51PM
@6- wtf are you talking about? richards is still listed, and did opening bell this morning.
Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 12:57PM
@7 - Not on my computer he's not. He did the opening but not on the masthead. It's David Lat.
Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 1:05PM
@6, @7, I think David Lat runs their sister blog "Above the Law" and is now involved here. Mr. Richards appears on the masthead from what I can see.
Posted by american bandersnatch , Mar 10, 2009 1:22PM
"Irresponsible" - As Inigo said "I do not think that word means what you think it means"
Posted by american bandersnatch , Mar 10, 2009 1:52PM
@6 - @10 - Please stop these pathetic attempts to drive traffic to your site. My eight year old daughter and five year old som come up with more subtle schemes.
Posted by american bandersnatch , Mar 10, 2009 1:56PM
@Anal_yst - sorry, didn't mean to include you in the range of comments.
Posted by Anal_yst , Mar 10, 2009 2:55PM
@ AB
No probs mang. I find it entertaining how those who find it necessary to link/comment spam seldom anticipate the ire they're bringing upon themselves here. Oh well...
Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 7:47PM
Moody's et al. should write its reports on soft double ply paper..........dual use - better value for the money.
Long live mark to market!
Posted by guest , Mar 10, 2009 8:28PM
I could tell that this was by EP by the sheer boringness of the article.
Posted by Equity Private , Mar 10, 2009 8:35PM
Lot of work, considering you could have just looked at the byline.