Feel-Good Story of the Day
May 28, 2009 in Commentary
Tags: rating agencies
Calculated Risk reports that Citigroup is livid that S&P would have the audacity to downgrade the senior tranches of commercial mortgage-backed securities.
Citigroup commented that the changes were “a complete surprise”, “flawed”, lacked “justification” and the “S&P methodology changes do not seem rational or predictable”. Ouch.
It’s nice to see that the banks – who spent the last decade shopping for favorable ratings from the rating agencies, and overwhelming them with thousands of complicated offerings backed with sophisticated models – and the rating agencies – who spent the last decade giving AAA ratings to the banks’ models and are now claiming that it was all the banks’ fault – are getting along so nicely. Some marriages truly are forever.
By James Kwak
-
1
Pigs are fighting swine « Stocks Go Up. Stocks Go Down.
Pingback on May 29th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
[...] are fighting swine Jump to Comments Citi v. S&P: Calculated Risk reports that Citigroup is livid that S&P would have the audacity to downgrade [...]
Our Twitter Feed
- Cute: http://t.co/rzK8VjXl. But is it fair to call "ignorance" the result of a steady stream of lies amplified by the media? 9 hours ago
- Purebred dog shows have always been creepy. This just confirms it: http://t.co/6iu2bwjR. /JK 13 hours ago
- Felix Salmon mocking Jack Welch's vacuous management lesson for Facebook http://t.co/oowi0zHZ /JK 1 day ago
- New post: Why Do Investors Pay Lower Taxes Than Workers? http://t.co/Paqo6laS #fb 1 day ago
- New post: Mark Zuckerberg and Tax Policy http://t.co/AQSv0jAf #fb 2 days ago
Tweets About Us- RT @baselinescene: Cute: http://t.co/rzK8VjXl. But is it fair to call "ignorance" the result of a steady stream of lies amplified by the media? emmett_j@twitter.com (Emmett Johnson)
- RT @baselinescene: Cute: http://t.co/rzK8VjXl. But is it fair to call "ignorance" the result of a steady stream of lies amplified by the media? JoScoMac@twitter.com (Scott McLean)
- RT @baselinescene: Purebred dog shows have always been creepy. This just confirms it: http://t.co/6iu2bwjR. /JK gebersole@twitter.com (Garrett Ebersole)
- RT @baselinescene: Purebred dog shows have always been creepy. This just confirms it: http://t.co/6iu2bwjR. /JK april_harding@twitter.com (April Harding)
- RT @baselinescene: Purebred dog shows have always been creepy. This just confirms it: http://t.co/6iu2bwjR. /JK APogonowski@twitter.com (AP)
- RT @baselinescene: Purebred dog shows have always been creepy. This just confirms it: http://t.co/6iu2bwjR. /JK jamiesw@twitter.com (JamieSW)
- The Bear&Bull Blog Daily is out! http://t.co/mcAbzHbi ▸ Top stories today via @thestalwart @baselinescene bearbull@twitter.com (bearbull)
- RT @TheBrowser: Mean-Spirited, Bad Economics: @baselinescene on unemployment benefits & Republican party plans to cut them http://t.co/GVnNzAUN drooperman@twitter.com (Drew)
- Agree with RT @baselinescene: Felix Salmon mocking Jack Welch's vacuous management lesson for Facebook http://t.co/BBKIGOIl /JK Alheri@twitter.com (Lilly Evans)
- #FF for political and other insight: @SarahBarfield @BuddyRoemer @RoyBlunt @StartSnitching @delong @TheGoodReport @baselinescene normanwlucas@twitter.com (Norman Lucas)
Links
- Angry Bear
- Brad DeLong
- Calculated Risk
- Econbrowser
- EconLog
- Economic Principals
- EconomicsUK
- Economist’s View
- Economists’ Forum at Financial Times
- Ezra Klein
- Felix Salmon
- Free exchange (The Economist)
- iMFdirect
- Interfluidity
- Macroadvisers
- Marginal Revolution
- MIT Sloan experts
- Money Supply (FT)
- naked capitalism
- New Deal 2.0
- Nouriel Roubini
- NPR Planet Money
- OECD Insights
- Paul Krugman
- Paul Solman
- Peterson Institute: Crisis Watch
- Rational Irrationality
- Real Time Economics (WSJ)
- Rortybomb
- Sense on Cents
- The Epicurean Dealmaker
- The Pareto Commons
- TripleCrisis
- Washington Outside
- Washington's Blog
Get Updates!
Navigation
Our Book
More Stuff by Us
-
Recent Posts
- Why Do Investors Pay Lower Taxes Than Workers?
- Mark Zuckerberg and Tax Policy
- Stock or Cash?
- Mean-Spirited, Bad Economics
- Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg
- Private Equity and “Job Creation”
- What Did the SEC Really Do in 2004?
- What Is Private Equity?
- Breakthrough: Eric Schneiderman To Chair Mortgage Crisis Unit
- Should We Trust Paid Experts On The Volcker Rule?
- What Do Companies Do with Their Political Spending?
- Department of “Duh”
Tags
aig auto industry bailout Banking Bank of America banks budget deficit CFPA China citigroup Consumer Protection deficit derivatives economics education Elizabeth Warren Emerging Markets eurozone Federal Reserve financial regulation g20 Geithner Global Crisis goldman sachs government debt health care housing imf inflation insurance international macroeconomics Medicare mortgages nationalization politics real economy recapitalization regulation regulatory reform stimulus TARP taxes technology too big to failCategories
Archives

May 28, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I think we should be pushing for an overhaul of the ratings system. Proper banking regulation will be very difficult with the current incentive structure.
May 29, 2009 at 12:20 am
James Kwak’s beautiful phrase “Some marriages truly last forever” BEAUTIFUL…. BEAUTIFUL……. BEAUTIFUL. Classic. I gotta find a way to get that entire posting in audio form, and replay it over and over and over. Robert Frost couldn’t write a stanza that touched my heart so deeply. By the way I’ve belonged to a credit union my entire life. Guys like Warren Spector and Alan D. Schwartz can eat my underwear. Mr. Kwak, what do you mean “feel good story of the DAY”???? Feel good story of the MONTH!!!!!!!!!!
May 29, 2009 at 12:39 am
I like the idea of banks and rating agencies arguing in public. Loud discussion does make it harder to hide things under the rug.
May 29, 2009 at 8:11 am
When the mediocrity of rating agencies was favoring the too big to fail banks, no one ever heard a peep from the banks. Now, when the same mediocrity isn’t playing nicely with the banks, the banks publically complain. Really good stuff! See http://www.bobgreenfest.wordpress.com for additional insights.
May 29, 2009 at 8:58 am
Even if the conflicts of interest posed by the rating agencies’ compensation model were removed, ratings would still make poor standards for use in regulations.
With even the most basic securities, there is still a tremendous amount of subjectivity involved in the ratings process and in deciding when to change a rating once conditions deteriorate. When financial innovations are introduced, the rating agencies can still legitimately fail to appreciate the risks involved on a grand scale. Anyone can.
May 29, 2009 at 9:46 am
Actually, I saw quite a few real feel good stories today. Japan’s exports rising, GDP shrinking less than expected, India’s GDP rising more than expected. Good Friday today.
May 29, 2009 at 10:58 am
How can there be “financial innovations” without appreciating first the risks involved?
What about a strict enforcing a strict deontology, everybody (bankers, raters) under oath, and stiff punishment if not? After all bankers, as it is, are in charge of creating everybody’s money… Such is the essence of the fractional reserve system lauded by Obama…
May 29, 2009 at 11:06 am
Sounds to me like this marriage is in the process of breaking up. Husband and wife are starting to blame each other now that the disfunctional but symbiotic relationship dynamics no longer work for their mutual benefit.
I for one hope this ends in a nasty divorce so that we can once again get independent rating agencies who look to get paid by the asset purchasers rather than the debt issuers.
May 29, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I like that a bank is feeling something other than smug about their worth and performance.
May 29, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I especially like that this could disqualify “assets” from PPIP! Yay!
May 29, 2009 at 3:09 pm
The CRAs are constitutionally privileged to make false statements. For first amendment purposes they are on par with the NYT and the rest of the press, like it or not (you read them right after the sports or style sections, right?). They can not be sued and certainly not punished no matter how wrong they get it. This shields them from all kinds of suits, not just defamation actions. At the risk of sounding like Greenspan, this market should be self-correcting. Investors should not be relying on their opinions any more, so issuers should have no need for their services.
May 29, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Bondgirl, which one of these Credit Rating Agencies do you work for??? (he asked, then guffawed)
May 29, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Is this a case of closing the barn door after all the horses have escaped?
May 31, 2009 at 10:52 am
I do not work for a rating agency and saying that ratings are subjective is hadly defending the rating agencies.
May 31, 2009 at 10:53 am
Um, hardly.