GLOBAL SUB-PRIME CRISIS

BANKILEAKS

Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook
 

facebook3           facebook2 

BFCSA
MORTGAGE
DISTRESS SOS

What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.

Visitors

Articles View Hits
658035

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Lee Doyle

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

S & P: Ratings agencies in a 'golden straitjacket' & 'magic of the market'

Posted by on in Consumers Fight Back
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2188
  • 4 Comments
  • Print

"Such was the belief in the 'magic of the market' that the rating agencies, in carrying out this key role, were largely self-regulated. The assumption was that the need to maintain their reputation would provide powerful self-discipline."

The GFC revealed..the rating agencies had become alchemists, turning dross into gold by --endorsing shonky financial products for a fat fee paid by the financial institutions which produced these products. Self-discipline proved illusory.

Yet despite the huge losses made on certified-safe financial instruments which turned out to be very dicey, the rating agencies seemed to be Teflon-coated,..under the confident assumption that in the US they are protected by the constitutional right to free speech: their ratings are just an opinion and therefore not subject to complaint.They not only avoided any penalties for their profit-driven mis-ratings, but they also dodged fundamental reform. As well, they had the usual fine-print disclaimers

REGULATORY DISCLOSURES: --Recent "Amendments" to Disclaimer attempting to limit future liability [Example: Moody's as of 29.10.2012 03:54]

Moody's reviews Australian RMBS issued by Trilogy 2008-1LD for downgrade

Any publication into Australia of this document is by MOODY'S affiliate, Moody's Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657, which holds Australian Financial Services License no. 336969. This document is intended to be provided only to "wholesale clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY'S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a "wholesale client" and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to "retail clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001.

Ratings agencies in a golden straitjacket

Stephen Grenville

 

Published 1:28 PM, 14 Nov 2012

Stephen Grenville

 

[Published 14 Nov 2012]

--Australia rarely gets an opportunity to have any substantial role in the development of what Tom Friedman called the 'golden straitjacket': the rules and understandings that govern and support international economic integration. But a recent Australian court judgement may provide a modest contribution to shifting the rules in the right direction.

The story begins three decades ago, with the deregulation of financial markets. Simple bank intermediation was augmented by rapid expansion of capital markets where complex 'structured' financial products were created and traded. The complexity of these products required expert analysis to guide investors. Credit rating agencies provided this. They also acted as gatekeepers: credit rating agencies' ratings were the basis of defining 'safe' funds and even formed the basis of the Basel Rules on risk which guided bank regulators around the world.

Such was the belief in the 'magic of the market' that the rating agencies, in carrying out this key role, were largely self-regulated. The assumption was that the need to maintain their reputation would provide powerful self-discipline.

The 2008 financial crisis revealed a different reality. The rating agencies had become alchemists, turning dross into gold by endorsing shonky financial products for a fat fee paid by the financial institutions which produced these products. Self-discipline proved illusory.

Yet despite the huge losses made on certified-safe financial instruments which turned out to be very dicey, the rating agencies seemed to be Teflon-coated. They not only avoided any penalties for their profit-driven mis-ratings, but they also dodged fundamental reform.

While various investors have sought redress in the courts, the rating agencies operate under the confident assumption that in the US they are protected by the constitutional right to free speech: their ratings are just an opinion and therefore not subject to complaint. As well, they had the usual fine-print disclaimers.

Now, suddenly, the ground has shifted.

The Standard and Poor's rating of ABN-Amro CPDOs (constant proportion debt obligations) was found by the Australian Federal Court to have deceived and misled investors and that a 'reasonably competent' agency would not have given these instruments a AAA rating. The judgment sets out in 1,500 pagers of amazing detail just how S&P went about its business.

These CPDOs were a derivative product based on corporate debt packaged up by ABN-Amro, then sold to various local councils through an intermediary. Within two years of purchase, the 12 local councils involved in this case had lost 90 per cent of their $17 million investment. Local councils are, properly and obviously, conservative investors. They are often unsophisticated in financial matters, relying heavily on advisers to protect the savings of their rate-payers' funds. Thus the AAA rating given by S&P was very important in their investment decisions.

Even with this clear-cut example of the failure of the ratings system, this case will not, in itself, solve the problem. Even if the judgment stands (S&P is appealing), court cases are not enough. Ratings agencies don't have large enough balance sheets to take full responsibility for the losses resulting from their negligence. If this decision stands, it will serve to make the ratings agencies more careful for a while. But memories fade, and their role in the financial sector needs to be redefined.

In tailoring the golden straitjacket, the warp of private-sector remedies such as this one has to be held together by the weft of official regulation, however hard this is to put in place in the international context beyond the jurisdiction of any single sovereign. In the face of financial sector lobbying, this official rule-making has been largely ineffectual so far.

Perhaps the Australian judgment will strengthen the arm of the international regulators to take tougher action. They could, for example, require separate agencies to assess government debt, on the one hand, and private companies on the other. Then, at least, it would be blindingly obvious that a AAA rating given to a company that paid for it was not the same as a AAA rating given to a country.

It's not that the rating agencies have done a stellar job in ranking countries: they are always looking in the rear-view mirror, are slow to downgrade failing governments andupgrade better performers only belatedly. Though in comparison with their efforts with the CPDOs, these seem to be honest mistakes.

Originally published by The Lowy Institute publication The Interpreter. Reproduced with permission

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:

Comments

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Wednesday, 14 November 2012

    Great finds, Andy.
    There have been many in the Australian financial industries that seemed Teflon coated. Here's hoping some of them get snagged as well.
    IMF Australia (litigation funding people) have done the world a real service. May that trend continue.
    Why would anyone trust a ratings agency in order to make a decision? Too much room for error and subjective or self-interested corruption.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Wednesday, 14 November 2012

    AOFM : "Complicit in Defrauding Australians of their cherished "HOME"

    AOFM, time they checked their "Ratings" system : "Complicit in Defrauding Australians of their cherished "HOME"

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Thursday, 15 November 2012

    Never trust a Moodys rating service - ever!!

    These pillocks missed the mark big time on Bankwest. How much were they being paid to look the other way? And by whom?

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Thursday, 15 November 2012

    There are other "expert services" that I have my doubts about.
    They trot out statistics and most people don't know how to look behind the numbers and ask about the research methodology and raw data filtration and adjustments.
    Also the motivation of the "expert" and where their hidden agendas and possibly conflict of interest lies.
    Even personal opinion and bias can skew the use of statistics as people unconsciously filter out what they don't believe or don't want to see, in the search for what they're looking for.
    That said, I'm biased in my suspicions about some of the "experts"! :)

    Westpac's Bill Evans has a lot of followers. People can make their own minds up about this:


    Consumer confidence jumps

    The Westpac Melbourne Institute Index of Consumer Sentiment increased by 5.2% in November from 99.2 in October to 104.3 in November, finally finding some traction it seems, ironically on the back of the RBA not cutting. Bill Evans description below.
    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/11/consumer-confidence-jumps/

    or these thought provoking articles, also from Macrobusiness:

    QLD home transfers & mortgages blast off
    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/11/qld-home-transfers-mortgages-blast-off/

    Inflation and unemployment expectations fall
    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/11/inflation-and-unemployment-expectations-fall/

    RP Data November housing market update
    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/11/rp-data-november-housing-market-update/

    S&P: Australia is Spain in waiting
    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/11/sp-australia-is-spain-in-waiting/

    (aha....S&P were ticked off with what IMF Australia did to their cred...)

    :D

Leave your comment

Guest Saturday, 14 December 2019