- 09 Jun 2014 at 5:09 PM
- 04 Jun 2014 at 11:20 AM
- 20 Dec 2013 at 4:37 PM
Unlike mortgage-backed securities, supranational political entities simply cannot have this many sub-prime components and expect to keep its triple-A rating, according to S&P’s flawless debt-rating system. Read more »
- 18 Sep 2013 at 3:16 PM
S&P Will Not Stop Giving Out Good Bond Ratings In Exchange For Cash Just Because The Government Sued It For Doing SoBy Jon Shazar
Standard & Poor’s, as you may have heard, is fighting a federal lawsuit with a potentially 10-figure pricetag that accuses it of making up whatever CDO ratings it had to in order to win business rating CDOs. Its defense against these charges are (a) no one should listen to them and (b) that no matter how shady and underhanded their practices seem, the ratings they produced were fine, even if they were totally wrong.
You may note the absence of (c) we did not make up ratings to appease the people who pay for ratings. Which may have something to do with the fact that S&P is still kinda making up ratings to appease the people who pay for them. Read more »
- 01 Aug 2013 at 11:44 AM
What does a AA credit rating mean? The intuitive answer is something like “it means that the rating agency rating the thing thinks it has a probability of default no higher than X% and no lower than Y%,” where X and Y are the boundaries of AA- and AA+ respectively, and sure, that’s about right. But there’s an important loophole there which is that each rating agency can set X and Y to be whatever they want. I can make AA a ~1% probability of default, and you can make it ~20%, and no one can tell us who’s right and who’s wrong, because it’s just some letters, y’know? There’s no a priori relationship between those letters and any particular probability of default.
That seems sort of odd, so Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act directed the SEC to look into standardizing the relationship, and the SEC looked into it, and in 2012 they came back to Congress and said no dice. Because basically everyone – ratings agencies but also issuers of and investors in bonds – preferred the current non-standardized system where ratings agencies just rate bonds however they want.1 Read more »
- 17 Jul 2013 at 5:06 PM
The judge hearing the Justice Department’s CDO-rating lawsuit against S&P refused to dismiss it yesterday, rejecting S&P’s much-mocked theory that its pre-crisis claims of independence and objectivity and, like, plausible ratings were just “puffery” that no one should have taken seriously. Here is the story, and here is his opinion, and here is a rhetorical question:1
At the hearing on this matter, Defendants repeatedly asserted that no reasonable investor would have relied on S&P’s claims of independence and objectivity. Regarding the question of materiality, S&P argued that, since the issuer banks had access to the same information and models that S&P analysts did, they could not have been fooled by faulty credit ratings. This begs the question: if no investor believed in S&P’s objectivity, and every bank had access to the same information and models as S&P, is S&P asserting that, as a matter of law, the company’s credit ratings service added absolutely zero material value as a predictor of creditworthiness?
Well so I mean do you want an answer? How much value do you think they added?
- 21 Jun 2013 at 5:01 PM
- Regulators would tell market participants not to screw up.
- Market participants would not screw up.
- Peace and harmony would reign throughout the land.
This is ideal not only because of the peace and harmony but also because it omits any work by the regulators. Why choose whether to set capital ratios based on risk-weighted or total assets when you can just tell banks not to lose any money? If they never lose money then it doesn’t matter how thinly capitalized they are.
- 28 Aug 2014 at 8:00 AM
Football is back, and 1-week fantasy juggernaut DraftKings.com is offering a guaranteed $5,000,000 in prizes.
DraftKings has a special offer for Dealbreaker readers—make a first time deposit and get free entry into a $100,000 contest.
Or if you’re a high roller, you can pay $200 to compete for $1,000,000 in prizes in the NFL Sunday Million contest.
So what is 1-week fantasy? On DraftKings, it’s simple. You draft a new team every time you want to play. Choosing from the list of available players, you pick the best possible team under DraftKings’ allotted salary cap. Payouts are instant and completely secure, and DraftKings is 100% legal.
Click on any of the links in this article to claim your free entry into the DraftKings $100,000 Week 1 contest.
- Ireland’s Economy Is Growing About Half As Fast As It Needs To June 9, 2014
- Boone Pickens Basically A Porn Star: 5th Wife September 2, 2014
- Opening Bell: 09.02.2014 September 2, 2014
- Swiss Bankers Suddenly Bashful About Listing "Sparkling Water," "Hooker For Client" On Expense Reports August 29, 2014
- Credit Suisse Investigation Into Husband/Wife Leak Raises More Questions Than It Answers September 2, 2014
- Angelo Mozilo Has No Idea Why People Still Want To Talk About Countrywide, He's Yet To Be Inducted Into The CEO Hall Of Fame September 2, 2014
- Allowance Watch '14: Citigroup September 2, 2014
- Every Second Of Jefferies CEO's Ice Bucket Challenge Is Better Than The Last August 27, 2014
- Get Ready To Hear "I'll Have My Assistant Make A Reservation At Denny's" A Lot More Often August 29, 2014
- Carl Icahn Really Knows How To Make A 2.2% Return Shine September 2, 2014
- Executive Editor
- Bess Levin
How Can We Help You?
- Send tips to:
- For tech issues email:
- For advertising or events email:
- For research or custom solutions email:
- Dealbreaker is published by Breaking Media.
For a full list of our sites, services and staff visit breakingmedia.com