Skip to main content

The Department of Justice has filed a $5 Billion lawsuit against S&P claiming fraud in their flawed ratings of sub-prime mortgage-backed securities. Meanwhile many have rushed to their defense. Who's right?

In a curious spate of editorials, several prominent media and Wall Street gurus have risen to the defense of S&P regarding their terribly negligent rating of sub-prime mortgage-backed securities.

In a Feb. 6 editorial, the LA Times asks: “Is the S&P to blame” for providing the unwarranted and high ratings it gave to mortgage-backed securities?  And recently the Chicago Tribune wrote: “The government sues S&P for what? Revenge?”  I believe all such commentaries are not only premature, but have poorly crafted defenses.

The first and least persuasive is that S&P “simply expressed an “opinion” that investors were free to disregard”.  The flaw in that argument is that an “opinion” should not be trivialized. Indeed, the word “opinion” is also used in Supreme Court cases and decisions.  The fact is that an S&P opinion carries enormous weight with investors because there are really only three credible rating agencies, and investors rely on them almost exclusively for the viability of their investments.

The fact that S&P merely gave an “opinion” on these terribly flawed financial instruments cannot minimize the affect it had on the reselling of the securities nor the devastating consequences.  The Department of Justice on February 6 filed a $5 Billion suit regarding S&P’s “opinion” claiming it willfully “disregarded the danger signs and skewed its opinions to serve its own interests”.  Well, that is yet to be decided, however, in coming to the defense of S&P so early, the defenders have suggested the suit is really based on revenge by the Obama administration for the S&P downgrading of the United States debt last year.  By that logic, if some agency or other entity raises question about certain government issues, it would then be given some measure of immunity from legal action because any such action always could be characterized as “revenge”.  In this case there is no evidence of a revengeful motive – the case is based strictly on the merits of S&P’s badly flawed analysis, which the DOJ suspects was related to the fact that the Wall Street firms who created these sub-prime mortgage-backed securities also pay S&P huge fees to evaluate their offerings!  S&P owned by McGraw-Hill, is the company’s most profitable unit. This is a clear conflict of interest, and definitely worthy of investigation by the DOJ.

Some who have rushed to question the suit ask why it is only S&P being investigated and sued?  Well, first, there is the fact that S&P is the largest of the three national rating agencies (Moodys and Fitch being the other two), thus having the greatest volume of flawed decisions. Beyond that, there is the statement by Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General who stated when the suit was filed: “We haven’t closed the door on additional enforcement efforts”. Indeed, both New York and California attorneys general may well widen the investigation.  The cost to investors in California public pensions alone were reported to be over $1 billion. The scale of this malfeasance again suggests merit in pursuing both the facts, and possible ultimate recovery of funds that were often outrageously characterized as “blue chip…No. 1…AAA investments. At the least there was roaring incompetence and/or negligence which contributed to the devastation of the American economy; at worst there was fraud based on the above noted conflict of interest. Either way, some recompense is appropriate through a settlement on the former reason or through a serious penalty if it was indeed fraud.

As a side note, the CEO of McGraw-Hill (parent company of S&P) made $44 million in compensation during the period of the flawed ratings; and the DOJ has so far elected not to make this a criminal case. Also noted, S&P is the most profitable subsidiary of McGraw.

Wall Street fears that this suit may precipitate the demise of the S&P and/or even the end of all three vitally needed credit rating agencies. That is unlikely for several reasons. First, this is a highly lucrative business. Secondly it is one which has little competition. And third, should this be the demise of S&P, there would surely be likely new candidates to accumulate the huge profits S&P has enjoyed in the past. Besides, that alone is no reason to obstruct litigation which clearly has some merit and significant ramifications.

No, the media’s rush to the defense of the rating agencies is both premature, and may also prove to be unwarranted. So, asking the question in the Chicago Tribune: The government sues S&P for what? I would answer…not revenge, but ”fraud”. And to the LA Time’s query: “Is S&P to blame?” my answer would be “Probably”.


Dragging the country into a financial crisis, S&P...

4%1 votes
4%1 votes
90%19 votes

| 21 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site