[Vision2020] Thieves Helping Thieves

[Art Deco]

 [image: DealBook - A Financial News Service of The New York
Times]<http://dealbook.nytimes.com/>
  July 31, 2013, 8:58 pm Banks Find S.&P. More Favorable in Bond
Ratings By NATHANIEL
POPPER <http://dealbook.nytimes.com/author/nathaniel-popper/>

The Wall Street ratings game is back.

Five years after inflated credit ratings helped touch off the financial
crisis, the nation’s largest ratings agency, Standard &
Poor’s<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/standard_and_poors/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
is winning business again by offering more favorable ratings.

S.& P. has been giving higher grades than its big rivals to certain
mortgage-backed securities just as Wall Street is eagerly trying to revive
the market for these investments, according to an analysis conducted for
The New York Times by Commercial Mortgage Alert, which collects data on the
industry. S.& P.’s chase for business is notable because it is fighting a
government lawsuit accusing it of similar action before the financial
crisis.

As the company battles those accusations, industry participants say it has
once again been moving to capture business by offering Wall Street
underwriters higher ratings than other agencies will offer. And it has
apparently worked. Banks have shown a new willingness to hire S.& P. to
rate their bonds, tripling its market share in the first half of 2013. Its
biggest rivals have been much less likely to give higher ratings.

“The general consensus was that these changes have let them get their
market share back,” said Darrell Wheeler, a bond analyst at Amherst
Securities.

Standard & Poor’s said the “methodology used and the conclusions drawn by
The New York Times are flawed,” though it declined to elaborate on what
those flaws were.

In its response to the government lawsuit, the company said that its
ratings had always been “uninfluenced by conflicts of interest.”

But David Jacob, who ran the S.& P. division that rated mortgage-backed
bonds until 2011, said that in his time at the company, after the financial
crisis, he saw employees adjusting criteria in response to business
pressure.

“It’s silly to say that the market share doesn’t matter,” said Mr. Jacob,
who is now retired. “This is not God’s holy work. It’s a business.”

Along with its chief rivals — Moody’s Investors
Service<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/moodys_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org>and
Fitch<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/fitch_ratings_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org>—
S.& P. was criticized for offering top-flight ratings to subprime
mortgage securities, which made those bonds appear more attractive to
investors before the crisis. The agencies had an incentive to offer higher
ratings because banks choose which ratings agency grades each bond. The
flaws in the system became apparent when many bonds with the highest
ratings ended up plunging in value, inflicting enormous damage on the
economy.

The government, though, chose in February to file suit against only S.& P.,
accusing it of relaxing its rating methodology before the crisis to win
business.

The methodology and motivation of the ratings agencies are important
because they play such a vital role in the financial system. Many investors
are allowed to buy only bonds that have been rated AAA by S.& P. or one its
two largest competitors,
Moody’s<http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=MCO&inline=nyt-org>and
Fitch. Banks often adjust the riskiness of their investment products
to
satisfy the agencies.

But the agencies have long been accused of tailoring their ratings to the
banks to win more business. Before the crisis, the biggest problems
involved ratings of bonds tied to subprime residential mortgages. More
recent concerns have come about since S.& P. made an apparently benign
change last September to the criteria it uses to rate bonds backed by
commercial real estate mortgages, which is now the hottest portion of the
mortgage bond market.

The company said at the time that the change was not designed to win more
business. Before the change, though, S.& P. was lagging, in part because of
tougher standards it put in place immediately after the crisis.

Since the change, the company has been much more likely than its big rivals
to offer higher ratings on the commercial real estate bonds, according to
the analysis for The Times. On half of the deals that it rated since last
September, S.& P. has given at least a portion of the deal a higher rating
than the other agencies rating the same deals. Before the change in
standards, it rarely offered higher ratings.

Some investors buying the bonds worry that the willingness of some agencies
to give better ratings is encouraging banks to issue lower-quality bonds.

“When one agency loosens up on something, it forces others to as well,”
said Edward Shugrue, the chief executive of the bond investing firm Talmage.

Immediately after the crisis, the agencies themselves moved to tighten
their standards. S.& P. offered top positions to Mr. Jacob and his partner,
Mark Adelson, from the consulting firm Adelson & Jacob, both of whom had
called for more scrutiny of bonds.

The two quickly pushed inside the company for tougher standards for the
bonds that were at the root of the financial crisis. This alienated many
banks, and the agency was rarely chosen to rate the mortgage-backed bonds.
The company rated only 22 percent of the bonds issued in 2011, down from 80
percent in 2006.

Inside the company, Mr. Jacob said, “People weren’t happy with losing
market share.”

A spokesman for the company said it rejected Mr. Jacob’s assertions and
noted that he did not raise his concerns when he was at the company.

S.& P. ran into particular trouble in August 2011 after it backed out of
rating a bond being issued by Goldman
Sachs<http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=GS&inline=nyt-org>and
Citigroup<http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=C&inline=nyt-org>because
of internal disagreements about how to rate the bonds. It was in
the months after that episode, when no banks would hire S.& P., that the
company pushed out many of the employees who had been instituting tougher
standards, including Mr. Jacob and Mr. Adelson.

At the same time, the company began working on new criteria for rating
bonds tied to commercial real estate.

When S.& P. released the new standards in September 2012 it was not
immediately clear if they would result in higher ratings. The document
describing the changes left many of the specifics vague.

But the company quickly managed to win the job of rating a number of
smaller bonds. And in each of the first five deals where it was chosen,
Standard & Poor’s offered higher grades than its competitors to at least a
portion of the multilayered deals, according to the data from Commercial
Mortgage Alert. The pattern has not slowed down more recently. On each of
the five most recent deals that Standard & Poor’s rated, it gave better
ratings than the other agencies.

The company’s numbers stand in particular contrast to Moody’s, which has
not given the highest ratings to any deal it rated over the last two years.
Fitch, the third big ratings agency, gave higher ratings on only 8 percent
of the bonds it rated over the last year.

S.& P.’s willingness to give higher ratings makes it look more like the
three smaller ratings agencies that work on bonds tied to commercial real
estate: Kroll, DBRS and
Morningstar<http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=MORN&inline=nyt-org>.
They were all more likely to give higher ratings than Fitch and Moody’s.
Even among those three, though, only Morningstar was more likely to give
higher ratings than S.& P., according to the Commercial Mortgage Alert
data. Morningstar gave higher ratings than competitors on 52 percent of the
deals it graded.

Joseph Petro, an executive with Morningstar’s ratings business, said that
it won fewer overall contracts than other agencies because it applied
tougher standards in the preliminary phases of the process, which are not
publicly visible.

Several bond investors said that ratings mattered less than they did in the
past because the financial crisis taught them to do their own analysis
before putting their money down. That is particularly true for bonds backed
by commercial mortgages, which are popular with more sophisticated
investors.

But Mr. Shugrue said that the little things being allowed could turn into
steps toward much bigger problems.

“You can see that we are slipping our way back to 2007,” he said.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130801/c04cc292/attachment-0001.html>