Whitney’s new gloomy doomy

By Cate Long
May 18, 2011

Mark Gongloff of the Wall Street Journal‘s Marketbeat blog wrote this today about Meredith Whitney:

Professional scary person Meredith Whitney took to the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal this morning to sprinkle some more of her fear dust on the muni-bond market:

Municipal bond holders will experience their own form of contract renegotiation in the form of debt restructurings at the local level. These are just the facts.

She makes some good points, frankly, and offers some alarming numbers.

I agree with Mark. Whitney has made some useful comments about the size of unfunded pension liabilities and the need for governors and mayors to address revenue shortfalls. Their need to balance budgets is not new, and most of them are aggressively finding ways to make cuts.

I also agree with Mark here:

The trouble is, the muni market is by now well aware of these concerns. Ms. Whitney’s message has also been muddied by how cagey she has been about her past pronouncements, throwing around mystical terms like “fifth-derivative dimensions” and declining to offer hard numbers or to explain herself in Congress.

Some of this is just squabbling. What makes financial markets fun and interesting is the variety of opinions and the back and forth of market participants. But there are two things about Whitney that really puzzle me and make me think she doesn’t know what she is doing.

The first is her presentation to the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2010. I assume she made a presentation to Chairman Shapiro and her staff members to seek an exemption from the SEC requirement that a rating agency provide credit ratings for three years prior to seeking recognition. Ten institutional investors must “attest to” (swear) that they use the applicant’s credit ratings in decisions about investments. Whitney’s firm is not three years old and would be unable to meet this basic provision of the law without an exemption.

In the November presentation she claimed that her new credit-rating agency would begin existence with approximately 200 analysts and “ramp up” to 650 analysts in its third year. Using her numbers, expenses would rise from $65 million in the first year to $166 million in the third year. To estimate her revenues she replicated Moody’s numbers, implying that she sees the business model for her proposed rating agency as “issuer pay.” This is the truly puzzling part.

Bond issuers and their underwriters “shop” the rating agencies to find the rater that will give them the best rating and lower their cost of funding. This is well known to the market, Congress, regulators and the academic community. Congress and the SEC have adopted some proposals to reduce this — a post for another day. To take business away quickly from the established raters Whitney would have to award higher ratings since issuers would not pay her to receive lower ratings. Her public comments, however, imply that other rating agencies are going much too easy on issuers and disregarding off-balance sheet pension liabilities and other future expenses. She implicitly criticizes Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch for laxity but imagines that issuers will flock to her firm for lower ratings? This confuses me.

The second thing that really puzzles me about Whitney is her refusal to testify to Congress. She was asked to participate alongside very knowledgeable researchers in a hearing of the House Oversight Committee entitled the “State and Municipal Debt: The Coming Crisis?” What was Whitney afraid of? Why did she claim “scheduling conflicts” when given a chance to present her views to the people who write the law? Was she unwilling to defend her views while sworn in as a witness?

Whitney leaves me scratching my head. Her financial market commentary has enormous effects on the people of the country but she doesn’t seem willing to come out and defend her claims in a public forum. If she wants to compete with Moody’s and the other raters she is going to have to come into the sunlight.  I’ll write about the substance of Whitney’s analysis another day.

6 comments

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/

This is nothing more than a poor attempt for her to drum up clients for her business. 6 months ago she predicted disaster and it never happened. She wants to be the female Dr. Doom. Maybe her and Rubini can grab a bottle of $10,000 wine and go off to the Hamptons and make some really scary babies so we can have little mini-dooms for the next generation.

Posted by RufusDaddy | Report as abusive

Talk is cheap! This country needs more inovation and fiscal leadership and much less verbage from people like Whitney.

Posted by Wassup | Report as abusive

Unfortunately, anyone who thinks rationally about the financial problems and relies on proper accounting is bound to be wrong because financial decisions rely on politics where everything has an easy answer and a quick solution – pretend the Fed and Treasury can create as much money as is needed, and keep kicking the can down the road so we can always enjoy the proverbial “free lunch”.

The last thing we need is more financial innovation!

Posted by XRayD | Report as abusive

“What makes financial markets fun and interesting is the variety of opinions and the back and forth of market participants.”

And that’s the problem. The last thing anyone wants their pension to be is ‘fun and interesting’. Whitney is just one more player in the ‘game’ of financial prophesying.

Posted by RexMax46 | Report as abusive

All Meredith Whitney needs to do in order to compete with Moody’s and the other raters is to be more accurate, more often.

Moody’s and other rating agencies have either failed miserably since Y2K or they have been complicit in corporate criminal behavior.

The credibility bar has been set pretty low.

Posted by breezinthru | Report as abusive

Meredith Whitney’s only use, by the business media, is to create headlines. She has been wrong far too often to be taken seriously. The media created this darling by stating that she was the first to define Citi as a dividend cut. She was not !! She was the first on TV to say so, but definitely not the first, by any means , to raise the cry. What about her prediction of 13% non farm unemployment rate ? As long as she can provide doom and gloom headlines, the media will continue to inundate us with her dire forecasts..

Posted by tlk | Report as abusive

[...] outflows from retail investors and mutual funds following Meredith Whitney’s prediction of massive municipal defaults. Essentially the whole municipal bond market has increased slightly in size, growing from $2.842 [...]