So far, however, there has been nothing but lame excuses. In truth it is silly to ask them how they could give such risky investment instruments their highest ratings, because in truth there are no good answers. They should not have done so.
It reminds me of a comedy skit Bill Cosby did years ago when he wondered out loud why we ask our kids certain questions like, "why did you hit your brother with that baseball bat?" and then quizzed, "Is there an answer that would make you happy? Is there something the child could say that would satisfy you?" Of course not, and the same is true now with the ratings companies.I have already done my rant about this topic in Subprime = Triple-A ratings? or 'How to Lie with Statistics', but there is always more.
Two things that must be called into question. First, if United States treasuries are rated AAA then everything else should be rated something less. It is shear lunacy and nonsense to have highly-leveraged sub-prime mortgages rated as equally secure. But they would tell you this is not how they view it. It is not top down but bottom up. What is the minimum threshold for AAA --- what is the risk of default, they ask -- well now we know! It is a tad more than treasuries.
The second thing I would take issue with among the ratings companies is the categories themselves. It is worth noting that the Moody's scale goes from Aaa to C, the Standard & Poors goes from AAA to CCC and nothing goes from A to F. Why not? Because that would be very poor business etiquette. But I assure you C is F by their measure.
Since I graduated high school many years ago I have been hearing about grade inflation. So now we see grade inflation in its worst form. They simply have eliminated the worst grades. Could it be the people that did the analysis for Moody's and S&P were the same people who benefited from grade inflation in school? Could it be our best and brightest are not leading the charge? Oh dear, it goes even further than that, I'm afraid. I think many Ivy League endowments may have been enamored by the high returns on risky investments camouflaged in AAA ratings and looked the other way. Now they too are crying foul.
There is plenty of blame to go around and I think change is in the air. For now the biggest change is in stock prices, but the ratings agencies will not escape the wrath of the markets or litigation, and like the stock market their credibility may not have found a bottom yet. Their grade is FFF.
Those of you who are new to BloggingStocks can check out my other stories and read Chasing Value or Serious Money to find more potential opportunities and verify my track record as well -- INCLUDING ANY BAD CALLS.
Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-14-2007 @ 4:29PM
Sam said...
Same shit in S&P stock ratings. See my recent post on AHM (a "four star" stock).
S&P, Moody's need to be taken to the cleaners.
==========
2. Four stars at S&P and the company goes under in two weeks ?
S&P ratings is such a joke. Why dopeople
and the street still pay attention to them ?
Posted at 1:13AM on Aug 3rd 2007 by Dan
8-14-2007 @ 4:37PM
DodgeTheBullets said...
re the Sub Primes rated AAA: Annother example that one cannot trust anyone on Wall Street. Did we learn with Derivitives !! Took me years to get this thru my head. It started to sink in when one of our biggest investment houses defaulted on their Retirement Reserves money market 1$ peg in my IRA some years back. Thats when i found out what "hedged" means. THINK FOR YOURSELF !!