« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Barney Frank Rousts Credit Rating Firm For...Being Too Negative?
Credit rating agencies are coming under fire from Congress again -- but this time it's for being too pessimistic. After Moody's issued an unprecedented across-the-board negative credit outlook on all American cities and towns yesterday, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank issued his own negative assessment of Moody's, and scheduled a hearing to investigate:
I am troubled by the action of Moody's Investors Service to issue a negative outlook across the board on America's municipalities, which could raise the interest rates on cities and towns making it more expensive to borrow funds for infrastructure improvements.On the face of it, this seems like a perverse round of messenger shooting. But last March, as cities and towns across the country started getting flooded with demands for huge payouts rooted in arcane details of "swap" contracts they'd inked with banks that managed their bond offerings, Frank discovered something truly perverse: the public sector was being scammed on multiple fronts by the investment banks underwriting their bond offerings -- and the profits directly fed the disastrous trade of risky mortgage-linked credit default swaps that hastened the financial meltdown.
The scheme started at the credit ratings agencies, which keep two sets of standards for grading corporate and municipal bonds -- and municipalities are held to a much higher standard, as Frank explained in a hearing using Moody's own data:
I will be giving out this chart, sectoral breakdown of Moody's rated issuers and defaulters, 1970 to 2000, general obligation bonds, there it is. Number of issuers 14,775. Number of defaults, 0.
So why, given this sterling record, did states and cities across the country suddenly start getting hit with huge collateral calls early last year? Because despite this sterling record, most had been pressured into buying a form of bond insurance to protect investors from the (minute) risk they might default.
When the rating agencies downgraded the ratings of the insurance companies that protected those bonds, it triggered provisions in the insurance contract that required them to post collateral. Those insurance companies, you see, had essentially turned into mini AIGs, as the CEO of AMBAC, the insurer that triggered all the collateral calls in Tennessee we read about yesterday, explained in a Wall Street Journal interview just before the hearing:
We then decided, because we wanted some growth we didn't perceive available in the muni market, that golden triple-A kind of proposition, we then decided we would get into this thing called [collateralized debt obligation]. And we went beyond that and got into CDO-squareds...In other words, they got sick of what Frank termed "selling life insurance to vampires" and decided to try out the Joseph Cassano business model, flooding the market with "insurance" swaps on riskier and riskier bonds.
The "perverse" part, of course, is that if the credit rating agencies had been grading municipalities on the same curve they used to assess the companies insuring their bonds, they wouldn't need "insurance" in the first place.

















DOES MOODY'S CHANNEL RUSH?
Barney is precisely correct. I have been purchasing munis for a personal account for years. I also have some expertise in the legal underpinings of a couple of states' issues. In further disclosure, other than my personal investments, I have no financial interest in this issue, zip, nada, and, no other prospective interest, other than that already disclosed.
Moody's blanket downgrade is absurd and an admission that they are incompetent. There are some jurisdictions where I would be quite reluctant to purchase given the publicly reported financial situation--Jefferson County/Birmingham, Alabama, being a prime example. The problem is the incompetent financial reporting going on of which Moody's dodgy rating is but the latest example. The Alabama situation, for example, is creating problems for the Louisville-JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY, Sewer District causing the value of their bonds to drop because they are confused with Alabama. I own Louisville-Jefferson County Sewer bonds, and I am perfectly satisfied with their legal security as well as the financial stability of the jurisdiction. If I were in a position where I needed to sell (which I do not), I would take a bath because of the inability of outfits such as Moody's to properly and competently do what they say they do. [If I had the spare cash I would be buying munis including Lousiville-Jefferson County sewer bonds. I also own common stocks which are holding their own and have FDIC insured CD's, etc., to keep myself in an appropriate balance]
Barney correctly points out that Moody's incompetence will cost local and state governments money. I would add that Moody's neglegent, blanket downgrade may very well retard the economic recovery be decreasing the funds available for infrastructure investments at the state and local level.
Is Moody's in league with Rush?
April 10, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ratings agencies (why are they called agencies when they're corporations?) were integral to the mortgage bubble by giving unrealistic assessments of risk, and allegedly propping up corporate ratings when they had business with the company. If the allegations pan out, maybe people at Moody's will be heading off to jail.
April 10, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
A blanket downgrade or upgrade is pretty much an admission of negligence. It's also something in the way of self-dealing, because people who have to pay higher interest rates often end up having to borrow more money, which means more payments to the rating firm. (Some, of course, decide not to borrow at all, which hurts the firm's bottom line.)
April 10, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink