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
Everything is connected: Santander’s US CRO shuns siloed thinking
Rise of AI intensifies links between fraud, cyber, third-party and other operational risk categories
Second line seeks to stamp its authority on AI risk
Risk Benchmarking study finds fragmented accountability for AI risk among banks, and most are short of controls to contain it
How vol eruption blew up Goldman’s rates book
Dealers were short payer skew from corporate and hedge fund flows. Then came the Iran war.
Op risk data: HSBC hit with $400m external fraud loss
Also: China’s unlicensed trading clampdown; SocGen’s insurance mis-selling woes. Data by ORX News
Clearers face heavy lift on CME-FICC cross-margin service
Dual registration and regulation plus uncertainty over close-outs all weigh on client offering
Appetite breaches climb for top op risks
Risk Benchmarking: Low tolerance and heightened threat environment combine to test banks’ limits for cyber, resilience, third-party risk
How gatecrashers could spoil the tokenisation party
Blockchain can curb settlement risks, but that could come at the expense of new third-party risks
Op Risk Benchmarking: Banks seek a home for AI risk
Risk.net’s 2026 study sees record participation and collective unease, as banks race to incorporate AI into op risk frameworks