SEC says rating agencies failed to manage conflicts of interest
Reports suggest the SEC will condemn rating agencies for cutting corners to rate profitable subprime-infested structured products
NEW YORK – Credit rating agencies rushed through ratings for in-demand complex structured products, while failing to effectively divide their analysis from the business side, according to Christopher Cox, chairman of US regulator the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Speaking in a television interview on Bloomberg Television on Monday, Cox revealed the direction of the findings from the SEC probe on rating agency conduct that will be released next week. Government investigators have spent months sifting through millions of pages of internal records and e-mails related to the ratings of subprime mortgage-related securities.
“The public will see that there have been significant problems. There have been instances in which there were people both pitching the business, debating the fees and were involved in the analytical side,” said Cox.
Cox said ratings analysts were deluged with requests that were highly profitable to the agencies and their clients, and “the volume of work taxed the staff in ways that caused them to cut corners, that caused them to deviate from their models”.
The comments follow SEC proposals last month for new rules for rating agencies, and come only days after European commissioner for the internal market Charlie McCreevy commented they would face regulation in the European Union.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Risk management
What futures and options say about the cost of war
Spot prices reveal major disruption, futures indicate this will pass, options imply ongoing instability
CME-FICC cross-netting terms fuel clashes
Hedge funds worried by CCP powers to suspend arrangement; clearing members say it’s standard practice
For collateral, can TINA become TIA?
US Treasuries’ dominance as collateral in repo and derivatives is no longer set in stone, argues economist
A Hormuz tipping point may be days away
Agent-based model suggests delays and shortages likely to accelerate after four weeks
Op risk data: HK gets tough on takeover in $200m takedown
Also: Bank staff steal state funds in India; Vanguard settles US net zero lawsuit. Data by ORX News
CRO view: Emerging risks in the age of AI
The risk agenda is shifting beyond market and credit volatility towards operational resilience, AI governance and culture
Interest rate crosswinds buffet IRRBB teams
Political intervention and rapid-fire law changes are skewering bank models for forecasting cashflows
FRTB internal models: quo vadis?
Two risk experts explore how to adjust the FRTB framework to promote internal model usage