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
Iran strikes a stress test for CCP margin models
CME’s Span2 and Ice’s IRM2 are performing as advertised. The next few days could test their mettle
Most banks run physical climate scenarios beyond 2050
Risk Benchmarking data finds majority rely on geospatial asset mapping, while a third use third-party catastrophe models
Big banks love their climate vendors; small banks, not so much
Risk Benchmarking: Lenders with blue-chip loan books more likely to favour climate tools, research finds
Mob rule: populism’s rise pits banks against the people
Trump and fellow mavericks are reshaping politics, leaving banks scrambling to adjust to new and unpredictable risks
JSCC considers default fund consolidation
Japanese clearing house looks for efficiency gains amid expansion of clearing products and influx of international firms
EU clearing houses pressured to diversify cloud vendors
CROs and regulators see tech concentration risk as a barrier to operational resilience
Why better climate data doesn’t always mean better decision-making
Risk Benchmarking research finds model and systems integration challenges almost as limiting to effective climate risk management
CanDeal looks to simplify third-party risk management
Six-bank vendor due diligence utility seeks international reach