Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Former Moody's Senior Vice President Accuses Rating Agency of Fraud, Corruption, and Greed
Bernie Sanders Releases CFTC Data Including Names of Oil Speculators to Ire of CFTC; Who is to Blame for Oil Speculation?
Yet Another 2.5 Hours, 2.3% Hour Rally, This Time on Silly Rumors Eurobonds Back in Play
In Praise of Timely, Blatant Incompetence

Former Moody's Senior Vice President Accuses Rating Agency of Fraud, Corruption, and Greed

Posted: 19 Aug 2011 01:59 PM PDT

In good times, no one wants to end a party and everyone is willing to turn a blind-eye to fraud, corruption, and excessive greed. Bear markets, however, expose the truth.

Massive fraud at Moody's now coming to light. Business Insider reports MOODY'S ANALYST BREAKS SILENCE: Says Ratings Agency Rotten To Core With Conflicts, Corruption, And Greed

A former senior analyst at Moody's has gone public with his story of how one of the country's most important rating agencies is corrupted to the core.

The analyst, William J. Harrington, worked for Moody's for 11 years, from 1999 until his resignation last year.

From 2006 to 2010, Harrington was a Senior Vice President in the derivative products group, which was responsible for producing many of the disastrous ratings Moody's issued during the housing bubble.

Harrington has made his story public in the form of a 78-page "comment" to the SEC's proposed rules about rating agency reform, which he submitted to the agency on August 8th. The comment is a scathing indictment of Moody's processes, conflicts of interests, and management, and it will likely make Harrington a star witness at any future litigation or hearings on this topic.

The primary conflict of interest at Moody's is well known: The company is paid by the same "issuers" (banks and companies) whose securities it is supposed to objectively rate. This conflict pervades every aspect of Moody's operations, Harrington says. It incentivizes everyone at the company, including analysts, to give Moody's clients the ratings they want, lest the clients fire Moody's and take their business to other ratings agencies.

In short, Harrington describes a culture of conflict that is so pervasive that it often renders Moody's ratings useless at best and harmful at worst.

Harrington believes the SEC's proposed rules will make the integrity of Moody's ratings worse, not better. He also believes that Moody's recent attempts to reform itself are nothing more than a pretty-looking PR campaign.

We've included highlights of Harrington's story below. Here are some key points:

Moody's ratings often do not reflect its analysts' private conclusions. Instead, rating committees privately conclude that certain securities deserve certain ratings--and then vote with management to give the securities the higher ratings that issuer clients want.
Moody's management and "compliance" officers do everything possible to make issuer clients happy--and they view analysts who do not do the same as "troublesome." Management employs a variety of tactics to transform these troublesome analysts into "pliant corporate citizens" who have Moody's best interests at heart.
Moody's product managers participate in--and vote on--ratings decisions. These product managers are the same people who are directly responsible for keeping clients happy and growing Moody's business.
At least one senior executive lied under oath at the hearings into rating agency conduct. Another executive, who Harrington says exemplified management's emphasis on giving issuers what they wanted, skipped the hearings altogether.

More Highlights

That was just a small sample of highlights. Here are 30 more highlights of Harrington's accusation against Moody's.

The Business Insider article confirms what I said earlier today about the rating agency corruption. The difference is we now have a whistle-blowing insider telling the story.

In this case, the SEC cannot sweep it under the rug as they did with fraud investigation of banks: SEC Destroys 9,000 Fraud Files Involving Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Lehman

For my take on the rating agency whores and more importantly what should be done to fix the problem, please see In Praise of Timely, Blatant Incompetence

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Bernie Sanders Releases CFTC Data Including Names of Oil Speculators to Ire of CFTC; Who is to Blame for Oil Speculation?

Posted: 19 Aug 2011 10:34 AM PDT

The CFTC and Wall Street are upset about a leak by Bernie Sanders that shows exactly who held what positions when crude futures topped $140 in 2008.

Yahoo!Finance reports U.S. oil speculative data released by Senator sparking ire. However the article does not disclose the participants.

Senator Bernie Sanders, a staunch critic of oil speculators, leaked the information to a major newspaper in a move that has unsettled both regulators and Wall Street alike.

In a June 16 e-mail reviewed by Reuters, a senior policy adviser to Sanders discusses how his office received private data with the names and positions of traders and forwarded it exclusively to a Wall Street Journal reporter.

The e-mail, which also attaches two files with the data, was sent to Public Citizen's Tyson Slocum asking him to review it and speak with the newspaper about his observations.

The leaked information has sparked concern at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is legally prohibited from releasing confidential information that identifies trader positions and identities.

The leak also raises broader questions as U.S. regulators gear up to collect massive new amounts of private data from market players on everything from swaps and hedge funds to blueprints for how large financial firms can be liquidated. The breach of data could make Wall Street less reluctant to hand over sensitive information if they fear it is not appropriately safeguarded.

"This type of incident will have a chilling effect on derivatives trading in the U.S. because market participants will be reluctant to take the risk that their positions will be exposed to the public-and their competitors," John Damgard, president of the Futures Industry Association, said in a statement sent to Reuters.

People familiar with the matter say the data later obtained by Sanders was first formally requested by the U.S. House Energy Committee. From there it somehow migrated over to the U.S. Senate.

From Bernie Sanders' Website

August 19th, 2011

Inquiring minds may be interested in what Bernie Sanders' Website has to say about the matter.

Rampant Oil Speculation Data revealing rampant oil speculation in 2008, supplied by Sen. Sanders' office, emerges as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) comes under mounting pressure to complete new rules that would set much tougher limits on speculative trading in energy and metals markets, Reuters and The Calgary Herald reports. Sanders said he felt the data needed to be publicly aired.

"The CFTC has kept this information hidden from the American public for nearly three years," Sanders said. "This is an outrage. The American people have a right to know exactly who caused gas prices to skyrocket in 2008 and who is causing them to spike today."

Oil Speculator Scapegoats

Many debate whether speculators can influence the price of oil. I think they can. However, blame should not go to oil speculators, but rather to the Fed for injecting massive amounts of liquidity seeking a home.

The Fed wants to support housing prices and foster jobs creation. However, the Fed can only supply liquidity, it cannot dictate where it goes or if it goes anywhere at all.

Another piece of the blame goes to public unions and their ludicrous pension plan assumptions.

Most public pension plans need 8.5% annualized returns and they are not going to get it from US treasuries or US equities. This encourages the funds speculate in commodities, accumulating a rising number of oil futures over time.

Looking back to the Greenspan era, one can blame the Fed for the holding interest rates too low, too long. On a continual basis, one can blame both Congress and the Fed for actively debasing the US dollar, thereby fueling the desire of market participants to hold hard assets.

In this sense, increased speculation is not a cause of rising oil prices but rather a symptom of other fundamental problems.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Yet Another 2.5 Hours, 2.3% Hour Rally, This Time on Silly Rumors Eurobonds Back in Play

Posted: 19 Aug 2011 09:10 AM PDT

If someone woke up at 10:00 AM Central and looked at a stock market quotes, they would have seen the stock markets essentially flat. Once again appearances would be deceiving.

US Futures and Select Equities Approximately 10:15 Central

click on chart for sharper image

At roughly 10:00 Central things were essentially flat. Yet the ride in the S&P 500 futures shows a 26 point move from bottom to top (from 1117.50 to 1153.25)

S&P 500 Futures

click on chart for sharper image

Notes:
The purple circle is roughly 10:00 AM.
The first green bar in the second frame is today's open.

For such action to occur occasionally is perfectly normal. That such action is now typical is not. There are massive distortions in the markets where every tiny piece of news, some of it complete nonsense, sends shares in whatever direction.

European Stocks Reverse 3.6% Decline

Volatility is the norm globally. Bloomberg reports European Stocks Resume Earlier Decline; Stoxx 600 Retreats for Second Day

The Stoxx Europe 600 Index lost 0.1 percent to 226.42 at 3:30 p.m. in London, paring an earlier drop of 3.6 percent. The gauge has tumbled 22 percent from this year's peak in February amid concern that Europe will fail to contain its sovereign-debt crisis and that the economic recovery in the U.S. will falter.

The Stoxx 600 pared an earlier loss as the European Commission said it may present draft legislation on joint bond sales by euro-area nations when completing a report on the feasibility of common debt sales, putting pressure on Germany to drop its opposition.

Someone is going to write a feasibility study and that caused a reversal?

I do not know what if anything caused today's glorious reversal, but if it is a "feasibility study" then prepare for more down because such a study is meaningless as long as Germany and France will not go along.

Heck, the nature of the proposal is such that all Eurozone members would have to approve it so even Finland could reject it.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

In Praise of Timely, Blatant Incompetence

Posted: 19 Aug 2011 02:10 AM PDT

Tonight I am going to do something different, openly praise blatant incompetence. I will list my reasons later but first let me sing the praises of sheer incompetence at Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P (the big 3 rating agencies).

Downgrade of U.S. Debt Long Overdue

Many are in shock that the S&P downgraded debt of the US from AAA. Not me. It was long overdue.

However, the S&P proved it was incompetent in the way it made the downgrade. Pray tell how can a rating agency make a $2 trillion error? The answer is obvious: sheer incompetence.

The irony is Moody's and Fitch proved they are incompetent by not downgrading U.S. debt.

If you need a myriad of reasons, I highly recommend Issues and Solutions for Restoring Credibility to the Credit Rating Agencies and Rehabilitating the Alternative Banking System by Janet M. Tavakoli, President, Tavakoli Structured Finance, Inc.

Also note that Egan-Jones downgraded US debt on July 18 from AAA to AA+ and nobody batted an eye.

"We are taking a negative action not based on the delay in raising the debt ceiling but rather our concern about the high level of debt to GDP in excess of 100% compared to Canada's 35%."

NRSRO Certification

The SEC certifies Egan-Jones as one of 10 NRSROs "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations".

The "Big 3" NRSROs are Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P.

Most have never heard of Egan-Jones or any rating agencies but the big 3, and that explains why nobody howled when Egan-Jones did its downgrade, yet everyone howled like rabid wolves over the S&P's action.

The wolves demanded action and action they got.

S&P Under Justice Department Investigation

The Associated Press reports Justice Department investigating Standard and Poor's mortgage securities ratings .

The Justice Department is investigating whether the Standard & Poor's credit ratings agency improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

S&P Investigated for Insider Trading

The Wall Street Journal reports SEC Asking About Insider Trading at S&P

The post-downgrade backlash against S&P seems to be gathering strength.

The FT is reporting, citing anonymous sources, that the SEC is investigating whether there was any insider trading done by employees of Standard & Poor's ahead of their downgrade of the US a week ago.

Dow Jones Newswires writes:

"The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has asked Standard & Poor's to disclose who within its ranks knew of the recent decision to downgrade U.S. debt before it was announced, the Financial Times newspaper reported Thursday on its website, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter."

Remember, rumors of a post-bell downgrade were rampant on Wall Street very early on Friday, rumors that turned out to be true. It sure sounded like a leak, though the leak could have come from either S&P or Treasury. It seemed inevitable there would be an investigation, though it could be hard to find anything.

MarketWatch points out that, according to the 2006 Credit Rating Agency Reform Act, S&P could have its license revoked if it leaked word of the downgrade.

Nearly universal sentiment was that treasury yields would rise on a downgrade. I said "no effect". Yields plunged in spite of the downgrade, so clearly the decision had no effect.

Rumors float all the time. The S&P gave a date as to when they would announce. They even hinted at a downgrade in my opinion. So, how tough is it for someone to start a rumor that had a 50% chance of being correct?

Excuse me for asking, but as long as prostitutes are under investigation, what about an investigation of the other two whores, Moody's and Fitch, or better yet all of them for reasons far more serious than unfounded witch-hunts, like outright fraud.

AAA Rated CDOs, CDOs-Squared, and Other Garbage

By now nearly everyone realizes Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P were grossly incompetent and fueled the mortgage crisis by rating pure garbage mortgages in numerous forms as AAA.

But was it gross incompetence or purposeful fraud by the big 3 to see who could collect the most "paying johns", damn the consequences?

Regardless, why is only the S&P under investigation?

The answer is the big three whores are supposed to do what the government says they are supposed to do, and the S&P didn't. So the S&P is under investigation. And that serves as a warning to Moody's and Fitch.

Explanation of Whores

I have used the term "whores" twice now so it needs an explanation. What I mean is the big 3 rating agencies arguably sold themselves to the highest bidder, essentially granting an AAA rating to damn near anything for a fee.

The Rating Agency Model, as it now exists, pays raters on the basis of how much volume they do, not on how well they rate anything. If you are willing to rate pure garbage as AAA no matter what it is really worth, you get a lot more "action" and make a lot more money.

And action the "big 3" got. And everyone, turned a blind eye to the process, because no one likes to end a party, especially a party that whores are throwing with Greenspan and Bernanke cheerleading like a pair of pom-pom girls at the big game.

The SEC Caused this Mess

There is just one more detail I need to point out before we get to the proper solution. That detail pertains to the question "Who Caused this Mess?"

I have talked about this on numerous occasions actually, but perhaps now is the time someone will listen.

Flashback September 28, 2007: Time To Break Up The Credit Rating Cartel

The rating agencies were originally research firms. They were paid by those looking to buy bonds or make loans to a company. If a rating company did poorly it lost business. If it did poorly too often it went out of business.

Low and behold the SEC came along in 1975 and ruined a perfectly viable business construct by mandating that debt be rated by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO).

Establishment of the NRSRO did three things (all bad):

It made it extremely difficult to become "nationally recognized" as a rating agency when all debt had to be rated by someone who was already nationally recognized.
In effect it created a nice monopoly for those in the designated group.
It turned upside down the model of who had to pay. Previously debt buyers would go to the ratings companies to know what they were buying. The new model was issuers of debt had to pay to get it rated or they couldn't sell it. Of course this led to shopping around to see who would give the debt the highest rating.

Spotlight on Prostitutes

There is nothing new here. I have been talking about this for years.

But finally rating agencies are in the spotlight of Congress, of foreign governments, of investors, and of pension fund managers stupid enough to buy AAA rated garbage stamped by paid prostitutes.

Solutions

Some of the proposed solutions to this mess are horrific. There is a massive 400 page bill in Congress to address the problem.

Tavakoli's report, cited above, is 50 pages long. I agree with most of her analysis. I cannot endorse the ending paragraph.

The solution is to raise one or more rating agencies up to standard to merit the NRSRO label. Meanwhile, rating agencies can continue to issue ratings but must commit to coming up to standard. Those that cannot should have the privilege of issuing ratings completely revoked. The second part of the solution is to develop global third party benchmarks and global third party rating scales and make accurate ratings the only measurement of success.

No, that is NOT the Solution

The government does not have and never has had a need to have a NRSRO label. Moreover, there is no need to require all debt be rated. Indeed, the act of mandating that all debt be rated by designated rating agencies is what led to the escalating problem of everything being rated AAA in the first place.

Finally, it is complete silliness to suggest some committee can determine who merits NRSRO and to wait until rating agencies come up to standard.

THE Solution

End immediately the NRSRO label. Neither the government nor the SEC has any business handing a monopoly business to anyone.
End immediately the requirement that all debt be rated. The market will sort this out in a flash.

By immediately I mean 6 months, 8 months or whatever time is appropriate for debt-buyers to decide who they want to use as opposed to some committee deciding who should be approved.

People buying debt will have to do homework, but that is far better than trusting an AAA rating placed on garbage by prostitutes paid to place a label.

Over time, Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P will do a better job, or they will cease to exist. Simply put, those who rate debt accurately will flourish, those who don't will go out of business.

What's wrong with that?

So Why Do I Praise Blatant Incompetence?

I praise blatant, timely incompetence because it takes massive force (in this case universally recognized blatant incompetence at precisely the right time), before there is any chance of getting change.

There is a small window of opportunity here.

The time to take advantage is now. Instead of silly Congressional investigations of the S&P in regards to the timing of their announcement, Congress simply needs to write a bill eliminating the NRSRO label and the requirement that debt be rated. Yes, it's as simple as that.

S&P, I salute your gross incompetence. Your timing was perfect. Whether anything sensible happens remains to be seen, but at least there is a small chance for reasonable voices to be heard.

Contact Congress

Please send your congressional representatives an email or fax and tell them to scrap the NRSRO "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations" rating entirely, ending the monopoly of Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Home Refinance Calculator

Friday, August 19, 2011

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

No comments:

Post a Comment