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 »
- 20 Dec 2013 at 4:37 PM
- 02 Dec 2013 at 5:45 PM
Fact: The Big Three perhaps maybe haven’t done the best job rating bonds, sovereign or otherwise.
Fact: Powerful governmental bodies aren’t especially happy with some of those ratings, even if they were indisputably right.
- 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 »
- 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.
- 10 Jun 2013 at 4:52 PM
- 16 May 2013 at 4:35 PM
- S&P: EU Bonds Way Riskier Than 2007-Vintage Securitizations December 20, 2013
- Let’s Exchange Heated Words Over: Business School Rankings March 11, 2014
- Garment-Makers Working 24/7 To Have Point72 Fleeces Ready By April 7 March 11, 2014
- Pimco Trustee Dares To Question American Thoroughbred's Annual Compensation March 11, 2014
- Recommended Reading From Herbalife March 11, 2014
- The Bitcoin Bugle: Upstaged At SXSW (UPDATE) March 11, 2014
- Opening Bell: 03.12.14 March 12, 2014
- Stanford Graduate School of Business Goes Back In Time, Rejects Mathew Martoma March 5, 2014
- Moody’s: Terrible Corporate Governance May Be Less Terrible Than An Activist Hedge Fund March 11, 2014
- Vibrant New Wells Fargo Online Magazine Not Holding Anything Back For Future Issues March 11, 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