On Aug 8, 2011, at 9:21 PM, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > Not a detailed analysis, but a viewpoint nonetheless. Thoughts?
Much of the analysis has been superficial. The S&P had their hands tied on the matter. Until the early parts of 2010, the anointed government credit rating companies were not accountable for the accuracy of their ratings as a matter of law. (See Rule 436(g).) Many infamous shenanigans ensued. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act circa July 2010, passed by the Democrat majority, eliminated their immunity from liability for the accuracy of their ratings. In fairness to the Democrats, there is evidence that they had no idea this repeal of immunity was in their multi-thousand page bill. Apparently someone snuck it in. The official credit rating agencies, such as S&P, suffer legal exposure if they make a bad faith rating. Because there is now a Republican dominated house, there is more difficulty getting that immunity reinstated despite furious lobbying by some financial firms (there is a bill in the House led by a Republican -- irony -- right now). But until that time, and despite some shielding action by the SEC, they are fearful of their exposure to liability for producing ratings that can be construed as bullshit. Reasonable, considering the debacle of 2008. If you want to look at it as a strategy game, someone snuck in legislation that effectively forced the ratings agencies to be honest in 2010. That caught up with politicians for which such things would be inconvenient in 2011. They could reinstate the immunity now but the political optics are poor. Who wants to be the guy that lets the rating agencies lie with impunity (apparently a couple Republicans). And that is a partial story of how the current state of things came to pass. Cheers! Andrew
