Opinion

The Great Debate

Debt police go rogue

By Zachary Karabell
July 29, 2011

By Zachary Karabell
The opinions expressed are his own.

As the debt-ceiling storm intensifies, some reports indicate that the White House, and perhaps the global financial markets, are less concerned with paying bills after Aug. 2 than with credit-rating agencies imposing their first-ever U.S. government downgrade, from AAA to AA+.

How did it come to this—that a trio of private-sector companies could wield such enormous influence? More specifically, a trio that has proven chronically behind the curve, analytically compromised, and complicit in the financial crisis of 2008–09 as well as the more recent euro-zone debt dilemmas? Somehow, these inept groups again find themselves destabilizing the global system in the name of preserving it.

While there are more than 100 credit-rating agencies worldwide, three—Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s—occupy their own particular universe, the products of a New Deal ruling from the SEC that enshrined “nationally recognized statistical rating organizations” to ensure that the bonds held by insurance companies, banks, and broker-dealers were appropriate for their capital requirements.

From this well-intended decision, three new private-sector firms attained the status of government regulators but with none of the oversight. Undoubtedly there are many honorable, meticulous, and intelligent people working for these companies. But throughout the last decades of the 20th century and into the 21st, the decisions of the agencies about the creditworthiness of emerging-market countries imperiled financing needs, and we have seen a repeat of the crises of the European periphery, as the best plans to restructure the debts of Ireland, Portugal, and Greece have been jeopardized by the rigid application of formulas that the ratings agencies apply.

These agencies also evaluate private debt. And it was their continual stamp of approval on trillions of dollars of ultimately worthless mortgage-backed securities that allowed pension funds, endowments, and municipalities to buy them up in the erroneous belief that they were safe and sound. That decision cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Yet here they are again, threatening to downgrade the debt of the United States—potentially costing taxpayers hundreds of billions, again, in the form of higher interest payments—because they don’t like the messiness of the political process and they don’t approve of the level of debt relative to GDP, so said David Beers of S&P.

But, really—and I mean this in the most respectful way—who the hell is David Beers and who elected him to be the arbiter of the American financial system?

David Beers is the head of global credit risk for S&P. He has about 80 people working for him, and they rate countries throughout the world. They recently downgraded Greek debt almost as low as it can go, into the C range, which will make what appeared to be a rational plan by the French and the Germans to restructure Greek debt and avoid a meltdown of euro-zone banks that much more complicated. No doubt they are all well trained and have a better grasp of the complexities and trustworthiness of debt than most, but it still begs the question of how one company and a staff of 80—about what a smallish Nasdaq company might have in its accounting department—came to occupy such a central position that their assessments can throw the global system for such dangerous loops.

Then there is Deven Sharma, head of S&P, which is itself a division of the global media company McGraw-Hill. His résumé would seem one of your run-of-the-mill high-level achievers from a decent M.B.A. program: an executive vice president of strategy for McGraw-Hill and a consultant at Booz Allen. Yet somehow, he testified before Congress yesterday that even if a debt deal is struck, the U.S. still faces a possible downgrade—with all the attendant potential costs of higher rates, more capital cushion required for institutions to hold U.S. Treasuries.

I don’t doubt the personal integrity of these individuals, and, frankly, the power of their agencies is the product of endless buck passing: first on the part of the SEC at various points in the 20th century, then of everyone from bank regulators to insurance regulators, and in the institutional world, pension boards and brokers, all of whom wrote into their due-diligence contracts that only “investment grade” bonds could be held for certain purposes. Rather than force the fiduciaries of each of these to do their own due diligence, they were all given the out that if one of the designated ratings agencies certified the credit worthiness, that was enough.

Who the hell is David Beers and who elected him to be the arbiter of the American financial system?

Yet the result is that a few individuals who answer to no one but their own corporate boards can cause massive dislocations. That’s absurd.

To those who say that it’s unfair to blame the messenger—and that on the whole, these agencies are simply calling it as they see it and drawing attention to real risks—there is the pesky fact that they have a legacy of either being chronically late (the mortgage crisis) or then too eager to downgrade (overreaction to the mortgage crisis). And even if they were as good as they could be, they are still simply three companies with a few hundred unelected people making calls that drive the entire global financial system.

There is one last glaring question: should these agencies even be rating a sovereign entity such as the United States? The dollar is now a global currency of commerce, and U.S. Treasuries are a form of safe-haven currency. It’s not as if the world is unaware of the economic issues of the U.S. The Chinese don’t need Moody’s to tell them about the risks of holding a trillion dollars of U.S. bonds. Shouldn’t the “creditworthiness” of the United States, or the viability of a European debt plan for Greece, be left to the determination of investors large and small worldwide along with the governments of those countries and their electorates? The success or failure of their plans will be evident soon enough, and subject to the thumbs up or down of the people, without the ratings agencies piling on or offering a view.

But such questions don’t help us this week. Frankly, the best possible outcome would be for them to downgrade the U.S.—and for the world to shrug, with rates set by the multitude of buyers and sellers. That would at least demonstrate that these emperors, clothed though they are, wear very frayed robes.

This piece originally appeared on the Daily Beast.

Comments
5 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

When the wheels finally fall completely off in our country and citizen investigative panels are finally implemented, these rating agencies and their executives, along with Wall Street and many government officials should be included at the top of the list in our truth to discover who was behind selling America out.

No one, who was a key player in the destruction of a free and prosperous America should be able to profit and live the rest of their life in the lap of luxury.

I have two words for the coming revolution. “Claw backs”. I’d be willing to bet, a lot of these people will pack their suitcases full of money and head for the exits, just like a middle eastern or a banana republic tyrant.

Posted by garrisongold | Report as abusive
 

Zachary, don’t take these rating agencies too seriously. They are like a stockbroker saying, “Trust me. I have really researched this stock, and it is going to….. (fill in the blank)”. In a calm market the client usually goes along with the recommendation. However in a turbulent market, clients will also do their own research. That is also what can happen with buyers of national debt. The acid test of whether a rating makes a difference or not will be determined by the interest rate of the new offering, and well it is accepted. Bets are little or anything will happen as buyers ignore the “rating”, do their own homework, and discover the USA is still the best investment on the planet. The real rating is that of the “rating agencies” themselves and if they have any credibility in respect to the next sale.

Posted by elusivesolution | Report as abusive
 

Oooohhh, that transparency is a dangerous thing, ain’t it? Don’t you just hate the fact that these ratings agencies, who got blamed for not exposing the financial shenanigans, had the Justice Department breathing down their necks (and still do), and watched their stock get creamed following the 2008 meltdown, are now telling the truth?!?!

Those ratings agencies have incentive to get it right, and that is what they’re doing. They are about the only financial institutions in the entire structure who are being truthful about what is going on now. The rest are withering in the glare of the sunlight shone upon them. The last thing any of the plutocrats want is transparency.

Well, too bad. In the future, if there is a future, people might want to remember to be careful about what they ask for, because they just might get it.

Oh, and who the hell are you Mr. Karabell?

Posted by BowMtnSpirit | Report as abusive
 

In fact, the credit ratings are irrelevant for most Americans. The debt being piled up largely goes for wars and policies that have very little support among the population. The reason there is no money for social benefits is that all that money has been expropriated for disapproved wars. And our dysfunctional, corrupt “representative” system has left over 75% of the population with no representation in the Government at all. Hardly representative by any standard other than the laughable standards of our rulers who turned the Government to this.

Why should the American public pay for wars fought with total disregard for their will? There is a real question about the value of long term Federal debt unless the Government becomes even less representative and manages to hang on to power. Tsarist Railroad Gold Bonds are also still out there. The world changes.

Posted by txgadfly | Report as abusive
 

A downgrade of U.S. creditworthiness is not imminent. Unfortunately neither is the trustworthiness of the rating agencies. Our largely unregulated financial system abounds with conflict of interest from the private sector to the public. Pension systems, 401K holders, banks and government are all dependent upon the performance of the stock and bond markets. No one cares about consequences, just make the numbers look good.

Clearly the reinstatement of Glass Steagal is in order. We have been and are repeating the mistakes of the 1920s. The hedge fund/derivative market has turned investments into a casino game and serve no fundamental purpose as do the short sellers. Wise people in government have warned every administration going back to Clinton of the dangers of the derivative market only to be marginalized or replaced.

Cicero among others stated long ago one can measure how corrupt a society is by how many laws they have. Perhaps “We the People” are unwilling to exercise our inalienable right as sovereign over our elected leaders. They are supposed to serve us, not themselves and their social class.

Posted by coyotle | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •