Withdrawing, Confidently

As structured finance deals wind down and the asset pools grow smaller, the situation often arises that the effectiveness of outstanding tranche ratings – previously based on a portfolio-level diversification – can hinge on the performance of one or two bonds. The problem is compounded, of course, in that many of the models work best for large, diverse, portfolios and often break down when the portfolios become arbitrarily small.

The question then becomes, if a rated tranche can just as easily be rated AAA or D, what does one do?

This tricky situation, now part skill, part luck, calls into question the predictive content of highly sophisticated ratings models when the outcome is really not a model-driven result, but simply a short-term occurrence (e.g., a payoff or a default) or the lack of an occurrence, in a credit-default swap environment.

Moody’s and S&P suffered severe blushes in January when a well-structured CDO, backed heavily by other CDOs and RMBS (including substantial subprime, yes subprime), paid off in full ­– with their outstanding ratings on all tranches having been in the CC to CCC range. What was interesting was that both ratings agencies had visited this deal as recently as June of last year.
From our conversation with analysts at one of the agencies, what happened here was simply that as the deal was winding down, the manager was able to sell the few remaining assets at prices high enough to pay down all the notes, rendering irrelevant the Monte Carlo default simulation trials being run by the raters. In other words, the model let them down.

In an interesting, perhaps prudent decision, S&P took a different course in an announcement they made earlier today, entitled “S&P Takes Various Ratings Actions on 30 U.S. RMBS Deals.” As certain deals dwindled down, compromising the predictive content of their ratings, they chose to simply withdraw the ratings.

“We subsequently withdrew our ratings on certain affected classes that are backed by a pool with a small number of remaining loans. If any of the remaining loans in these pools default, the resulting loss could have a greater effect on the pool's performance than if the pool consisted of a larger number of loans. Because this performance volatility may have an adverse affect on our outstanding ratings, we withdrew our ratings on the related transactions.”

While it may cause frustration to note holders to see the ratings withdrawn, it augurs well that a rating agency is able and willing to say that it cannot have confidence in the outcome, and therefore chooses to withdraw its rating rather than have investors rely, perhaps falsely, on a rating in which it does not have confidence.

Analysis of The Shortcomings of Statistical Sampling in the Mortgage Loan Due Diligence Process

This is a popular litigation-related piece on our website we thought we'd share through this post (pdf version available here) - enjoy the read.



Introduction

Financial institutions, when assembling mortgage pools for the purpose of inclusion in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), often hire independent analytical companies, like Clayton Holdings LLC (“Clayton”), to perform due diligence on the loans and flag any that are problematic.

Leading up to the financial downturn, Clayton reviewed mortgages for its clients - investment and commercial banks and lending platforms, including those of Bear Stearns, Barclays, Bank of America, C-Bass, Countrywide, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Doral, Ellington, Freddie Mac, Greenwich, Goldman, HSBC, JP Morgan, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Nomura, Société Générale, UBS and Washington Mutual (the “Issuers”). As such Clayton was purportedly one of the larger due diligence companies that analyzed whether these loans met specifications like loan-to-value ratios, credit scores and the income levels of borrowers.

Clayton describes, in the presentation it provided to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (“FCIC”), the results of its review of a total of 911,039 mortgage loans between Q1 2006 and Q2 2007 ₁. As can be seen from the chart, of the loans shown to Clayton, Clayton determined approximately 72% of them to be in compliance, and 28% of them to be out of compliance with the standards tested, or “non-conforming.”

Upon determining that a loan failed to meet its guidelines, an Issuer (i.e., Clayton’s client) would have the ability to exercise their contractual right in “putting back” these non-conforming loans to the mortgage lenders – New Century, Fremont, Countrywide, Decision One Mortgage – rather than include them in securitizations.

The regulatory bodies, and the media, have concentrated heavily on the sizeable portions of non-conforming loans, and the lowering of underwriting standards throughout this period; but for this analysis, we concentrate on a more illuminating aspect of the way in which non-conforming loans ultimately found their way into the securitized RMBS pools.

There are at least two ways that non-conforming loans can find their way into the securitizations:

• First, the Issuer may choose to waive the loan back into the pool, despite its being originally rejected by Clayton.

• Second, a more overwhelming mechanism, is to not show the loan to Clayton.

The Intricacies of Loan Sampling

Importantly, it seems to have been common practice for Issuers to show only a sample of the loans to Clayton. A sample risks being unreflective of the population of loans, but random sampling can provide an effective statistical approximation under very strict conditions. It can be a cheaper process and, if the sample is well chosen, can accurately reflect the pool.

The objective of sampling is satisfied if the randomly-selected sample is sufficiently large, and is deemed to be in order. Alternatively, if the sample fails to meet expectations, the entire portfolio ought to be revisited. However, in the mortgage due diligence process the samples were often deemed to be problematic – they resulted in an average of 28% of loans failing their criteria. Importantly, the samples were then adjusted, as we understand it, but the original portfolios were not: the Issuers would only put back certain non-conforming loans from that sample.

In this case, the resulting sample, after throwing out certain non-conforming loans, fails to accurately depict the remaining portfolio of loans it was chosen to represent.



How the Sampling Process Worked, and Difficulties Therewith

Former President and COO of Clayton, D. Keith Johnson, explained to the FCIC committee, during their hearing of September 2010, that in the 2004 to 2006 time period, sample sizes went down to the region of two to three percent₂. As the sample size decreases, which it did, the effect of the sampling process alone begins to undermine the effectiveness of the due diligence process.

The media have focused their attentions on what happened to the 28% non-conforming loans – the slices in red in the associated charts. Indeed, many of these non-conforming loans, approximately 39%, were not “kicked out” or put back to the mortgage lenders, but were “waived” back in to the to-be-securitized portfolio. This 39% is substantial, and a factor worthy of the media’s attentions.

But the game-changing fact is not among these 28% non-conformers, or the 39% of them which remained in the securitized pool. These are only part of a sample, and when the sample becomes insignificantly small, its overall contribution to the portfolio as a whole is rendered less meaningful. Rather, it is more prudent to consider the composition of the pool as a whole.

For illustrative purposes, let us assume that the sample loans shown to Clayton represented 3% of the pools, on the higher end of those referred to in the abovementioned Johnson hearing. Let us conservatively assume that the sample provided to Clayton was truly randomly selected.₃

For a pool of 10,000 loans, Clayton would have been presented with approximately 300 loans, or 3%.

As we can see from the analysis performed, the effect of “throwing out” 61% of all non-conforming loans is marginal: the pool’s overall composition decreased only from 28% non-conforming to 27.67% non-conforming thanks to the due diligence process. Even had the Issuers returned all 84 non-conforming loans, the overall portfolio would not have been greatly altered –non-conforming loans would have declined from 28% to 27.16%.

When a random sample is tampered with, the final product, by definition, no longer represents the original pool. Here, the sample reflects that ultimately 89% of the pool is conforming and 11% are non-conforming (11% = 28% x 39%). But given the reality of the situation, with the original pool remaining status quo, in fact 27.76%, not 11%, of the overall pool was non-conforming, even after the put backs administered as part of the due diligence process.

A well-selected random sample can effectively capture the characteristics of a pool under certain conditions. But an altered sample seldom accurately reflects the original pool.



1 http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-testimony/2010-0923-Clayton-All-Trending-Report.pdf
2 http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/resource/interviews#J
3 course, the sample sizes used and the percentages rejected by Clayton will differ from Issuer to Issuer. So too will the waiver rate.

Illinois Attorney General Sues S&P – Initial Thoughts

Credit risk ratings are becoming a risky business.

Yesterday’s filing of the complaint against S&P (MHP) centers, in essence, on the allegation of false advertising. Stepping in to this issue for a moment, one of the key defenses offered by the raters is that their ratings are protected under the First Amendment rights to express an opinion (their “speech”). But as law professor Eugene Volokh opines in his letter to the House Committee (May 2009) it is within the framework of commercial advertising that “speech aimed at proposing a commercial transaction – is much less constitutionally protected than other kinds of speech.”

In this case, the AG is not really focusing wholly on whether the ratings were wrong, as much as it’s saying that S&P advertised that it was following a certain code in ensuring the appropriate levels of independence and integrity were being brought to the ratings process.

A former SEC enforcement official, Pat Huddleston, once explained that "[when] I say the [financial] industry is dirty, I don't mean to imply everyone in the industry is dirty," … "[only] that the industry typically promises something it has no intention of delivering, which is a client-first way of operating." This is essentially what the complaint argues: that S&P “misrepresented its objectivity” while offering a service that was “materially different from what it purported to provide to the marketplace.”

This goes back, really, to the key reform measure Mark proposed before the Senate in 2009 – that rating agencies would do well to separate themselves from commercial interests, by building a formidable barrier around the ratings process.

First, put a “fire wall” around ratings analysis. The agencies have already separated their rating and non-rating businesses. This is fine but not enough. The agencies must also separate the rating business from rating analysis. Investors need to believe that rating analysis generates a pure opinion about credit quality, not one even potentially influenced by business goals (like building market share). Even if business goals have never corrupted a single rating, the potential for corruption demands a complete separation of rating analysis from bottom-line analysis. Investors should see that rating analysis is virtually barricaded into an “ivory tower,” and kept safe from interference by any agenda other than getting the answer right. The best reform proposal must exclude business managers from involvement in any aspect of rating analysis and, critically also, from any role in decisions about analyst pay, performance and promotions.

Two other elements jump out immediately from the complaint:

First, the complaint specifically argues that the rating agency “misrepresented the factors it considered when evaluating structured finance securities.” Next, the complaint tries to tie S&P’s actions to its publicly-advertised code of conduct, arguing that its actions were inconsistent with the advertised code.

In respect of actions being inconsistent with the code, certain of these arguments are common-place, such as the contention that the rating agencies did not allocate adequate personnel, in opposition to what’s advertised in the code. This of course becomes a contentious issue – you can see S&P coming back with copious evidence of situations in which they did “allocate adequate personnel and financial resources.” But the complaint hones in on the factors considered in producing a rating, and it focuses on two parts of the code:

Section 2.1 of S&P’s Code states: “[S&P] shall not forbear or refrain from taking a Rating Action, if appropriate, based on the potential effect (economic, political, or otherwise) of the Rating Action on [S&P], an issuer, an investor, or other market participant.”

and…

Section 2.1 of S&P’s Code states: “The determination of a rating by a rating committee shall be based only on factors known to the rating committee that are believed by it to be relevant to the credit analysis.”

This brings back to mind, disturbingly, a recent New York Times article (Ratings Firms Misread Signs of Greek Woes) which focuses on the deliberations within Moody’s (MCO) and their concerns about the deeper repercussions of downgrading Greece – rather than the specifics of credit analysis:

“The timing and size of subsequent downgrades depended on which position would dominate in rating committees — those that thought the situation had gotten out of control, and that sharp downgrades were necessary, versus those that thought that not helping Greece or assisting it in a way that would damage confidence would be suicidal for a financially interconnected area such as the euro zone,” Mr. Cailleteau wrote in an e-mail.”

The question then, is whether rating committees were focused on credit analysis, or whether other concerns were at play, aside even from typical business interests. The concerns for rating agencies, from a legal perspective, can become quite real when the debate centers not on ratings accuracy, but on whether the rating accurately reflected their then-current publicly available methodology. There may be substantial risks, therefore, in delaying a downgrade of a systemically important sovereignty or institution (such as a too-big-to-fail bank or a key insurance company) if such downgrade is appropriate per the financial condition of the company or sovereignty, or in providing favorable treatment to certain companies or sovereignties based on the relative level of interconnectedness.

The allegations of misrepresenting factors considered in their analysis opens another can of worms for rating agencies, as they’ll subsequently be increasingly focused on disclosing the sources of the information relied upon. There’s substantial concern, to the extent they’re relying on the issuing entity (in cases in which the issuing entity is itself the paying customer), that such reliance becomes a disclosure issue to the extent the investor may otherwise have assumed the rating agency was independently verifying such information. This was a frequent problem in the world of structured finance CDOs such as those described in the AG’s complaint.

Last, but not least, the complaint focuses on the effectiveness of ratings surveillance. This is a topic of importance to us, as we feel that proper surveillance, alone, may have substantially diminished the magnitude of the crisis. At the very least, certain securitizations that ultimately failed may not have been executed had underlying ratings been appropriately monitored, and several resecuritizations may have become impossible, limiting the the proliferation of so-called toxic assets. See for example: Barriers to Adequate Ratings Surveillance

That’s all for now. There’s a lot more to this complaint, so we suggest you check it out here.

The Mortgage Litigation Hangover (and who knew what, when)

Aside from the relatively new foreclosure disputes, including those relating to MERS, the big banks continue to suffer the ill-effects of lawsuits relating to their original portfolio selection and sale of mortgage-backed securities (and derivatives thereof, like ABS CDOs).

A number of these cases were dismissed last year, as judges often failed to sympathesize with the plaintiff's arguments that they were "duped." On the back of Congressional and FCIC-related testimony, plaintiffs have been able to strengthen their arguments as they search for viable legal theories that satisfy these, potentially higher, pleading standards.

Today's two cases filed today focus on the what they believe were material informational asymmetries between the buyers and sellers, and possible scienter on the side of the sellers.

In John Hancock Life Insurance Co. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 650195/2012, New York state Supreme Court (Manhattan), the complaint argues that:

Defendants JPMorgan, Bear Stearns, WaMu, and Long Beach knew about the poor quality of the loans they securitized and sold to investors like Plaintiffs, because in order to continue to keep their scheme running, they completely vertically integrated their RMBS operations by having affiliated entities at every stage of the process. In addition, Defendants JPMorgan, Bear Stearns, WaMu, and Long Beach were aware of lending abuses on the part of the third party originators they purchased loans from due to, inter alia, their financial ties to the third party originators and their reviews of loan documentation and performance.

In Sealink Funding Ltd. v. Morgan Stanley, 650196/2012, New York state Supreme Court (Manhattan), the plaintiff contends that because the seller never disclosed certain of its practices to the investors, the "investors were not compensated for the additional risks that they unknowingly took on in purchasing those Morgan Stanley RMBS."

Morgan Stanley knew or recklessly disregarded that those lenders were issuing high-risk loans that did not conform to their respective underwriting standards. Morgan Stanley did, in fact, conduct extensive due diligence on the loans it purchased for securitization, as represented in the Offering Materials. In the course of that extensive due diligence process, which, in many instances, included an extensive re-underwriting review of the loans it purchased by an independent third-party due diligence provider, Clayton Holdings, Inc. (“Clayton”), Morgan Stanley learned that the originators routinely and flagrantly disregarded their own underwriting guidelines, originated loans based on wildly inflated appraisal values, and manipulated the underwriting process in order to issue loans to borrowers who had no plausible means to repay them. Indeed, both the President of Clayton and the head of Morgan Stanley’s own due diligence arm testified as to the extensive deficiencies identified through Morgan Stanley’s due diligence. Specifically, over one-third of the loans Morgan Stanley evaluated for purchase and securitization at the height of the mortgage boom (from 2006 through mid-2007) failed to meet the originators’ own underwriting guidelines.

We concentrated on the effectiveness of the Clayton due diligence sampling in ar piece late last year. (See Analysis of the Shortcomings of Statistical Sampling in the Mortgage Loan Due Diligence Process.)

But watch this space for more coverage on how legal teams representing investors seek to survive threshold challenges by showing that – even if their client is or was a sophisticated investor – they may not have been privy to the types of information available to the structuring banks.

A Fair (Value) Solution

Hello readers, and a belated welcome to 2012!

In yesterday's FT Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit advocates for heightened transparency across the banking system, enabling an apples to apples comparison that “[clears] some of the obscurity that causes people to believe the system is a game rigged against their interests.”

He is not alone. Late last year, Barclays' Group Finance Director Chris Lucas called for greater transparency in the financial reporting of liability valuations. The concept, of course, is that transparency is desired by investors, once bitten, before they can again get comfortable investing in banks.

Pandit proposes a solution that involves creating a benchmark portfolio against which banks can measure their relative risk.

Asset valuation itself has become the number one concern for the SEC in 2011: through mid-December the SEC had, according to the WSJ, issued a total of 874 “comment” letters to 802 distinct companies concerning their fair valuation and estimation of assets and contracts. Meanwhile, audit firms PwC, KPMG, Deloitte and others have been criticized as to their oversight of their clients' valuations and valuation processes (see Contested Pricing List). And so it is not surprising that banks are trying to overcome these substantial hurdles, though understandably in ways that suit them best.

The problem here is akin to the one faced by technology companies: the evaluation of their patent portfolios is no mean feat and is highly subjective – yet it is a crucial component of their stock price, especially in an acquisition or dismantling process.

Pandit’s solution is one solution. Another is more arduous, but overcomes the dual problems of inconsistency and subjectivity. It also combats the material regulatory arbitrage gaming business that has been created to minimize capital reserves. We would be able to say good-bye to a whole business of utility-free resecuritizations, structured solely to game the ratings models to achieve, or manufacture, lower reserves. It would be the end of certain Re-REMICs and perhaps even AAA-rated principal protected notes.

The solution, of course, is to evaluate each and every bond. This is already being done (to an extent) by the NAIC, and would add stability and assurance to our investor base.

Asset valuation may be more art than science, especially in the world of illiquid assets – but at least it's not a game. If well-performed, it can provide the cross-company valuation consistency even our bankers are calling for.

But it won’t be cheap.

----------------------------------------------
For our Central Pricing Solution, click here.

The Art of Pricing (and the Heart of the War)

The fight for transparency in the financial markets is gaining traction.

Even maverick Judge Rakoff, in his SEC v. Citi settlement ruling, got in on the act with commentary that resonates: “In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth.”

The recent media coverage on the transparency issue is particularly acute as it pertains to asset pricing transparency, which is becoming ever more important as the market seeks alternatives to ratings-based capital allocations, per the requirements of Dodd-Frank.

The problem is that while each asset has only one rating (from each rating agency), there’s no consistency of pricing from one bank to the next. We fear that absent a centralized or standardized solution, any mark-to-market pricing will continue to cause headaches in markets where assets aren’t actually traded (there’s no ready or visible price).

Floyd Norris explains in a recent piece that “[under] the [accounting] rules, banks have a choice of three ways to report the value of identical securities. Even if two banks are using the same valuation method for the same security, they can come up with different values, and it is very difficult for an investor to get any feel at all for just how optimistic, or pessimistic, a bank’s estimates might be.”

He also brings in a quote from former FASB member Ed Trott, explaining that “’we are moving back to the past’ by increasing the ability of banks to massage their numbers as they wish.”

This revelation (unfortunately) jibes well with Gretchen Morgenson’s commentary in her piece entitled Slipping Backward on Transparency for Swaps. Gretchen explains that “[right] now, many swaps are traded one-on-one, over the telephone. The price is usually whatever the dealer says it is.” (Recall in Michael Lewis’ The Big Short, when Scion Capital’s Michael Burry warns that “[whatever] the banks’ net position was would determine the mark,” and that “I don’t think they were looking to the market for their marks. I think they were looking to their needs.”)

And the problem isn’t limited to the comparability of asset valuations at the Big Banks. The Big Auditors are also coming a cropper in their audits of banks. Norris explains in a separate piece that analyzes the PCAOB’s oversight reports of KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers: “[one] virtually identical criticism of the two firms could be a sign of the way all the firms have been auditing how banks value hard-to-measure financial assets.”

“In three of these audits,” the board wrote in its report on KPMG’s audits done in 2010, “for certain financial instruments the firm obtained multiple prices and used the price closest to the issuer’s recorded price in testing its fair value measurements, without evaluating the significance of differences between the other prices obtained and the issuer’s prices.”

With the banks being able to extract greater margins from opaque markets, the war over asset price transparency is currently being won by the might-makes-right team.

But a more simple solution that levels the playing field for investors big and small, and reduces the burden (and cost) of each auditor having constantly to reinvent the wheel, is to create a central platform for pricing.

Confidence will increase in the adequacy, verifiability, and consistency of financial statements. Regulators would have a field day and investors would be better able to spot when they’re being fooled. Of course the Banks wouldn't be too happy.

Here’s an analysis we put together of the material benefits afforded by a centralized (and perhaps standardized) pricing solution.

Update Dec. 2: According to a Bloomberg article by Jesse Hamilton that came out this morning (SEC’s Data Crunchers Find Red Flags Leading to Hedge-Fund Cases), the SEC through a prorietary tool, has been increasingly been taking action against hedge funds for misconduct including "fraudulent valuations and misrepresenting fund investors."

Hamilton brings in a relevant quote from Bruce Karpati, co-chief of the SEC's asset management enforcement unit:

“Hedge-fund managers depend on valuation and performance for both their compensation and marketing,” ... “These managers have either manipulated performance or engaged in other falsehoods in order to line their own pockets at the expense of investors.”

----------------------------
For a updated list of disputes around asset prices provided, click here.

Cross-Border Collateral Complexities

by PF2 consultant Rick Michalek

It's 11:59pm. Do you know where your collateral is?

The question of how to locate and ensure the realization of security is often asked, but rarely definitively answered, particularly in international complex derivative transactions. In an ever increasing number of cases, lenders - and counterparties and their insurers - have been forced to ask exactly this question.

The question is becoming increasingly relevant. Consider the following from a recent Press Release from the Office of the Trustee for the Liquidation of MF Global Inc. (published 11/21/2011)

"Further complicating matters, assets located in foreign depositories for customers that traded in foreign futures are now under the control of foreign bankruptcy trustees, and while the Trustee will pursue them vigorously, it has been his experience that recovery of these foreign assets may take more time. The Trustee's counsel has also stated in open court that the Trustee has only relatively nominal proprietary - that is non-customer - assets in his immediate control."

The "recovery of foreign assets may take more time...." is the key issue, and one that remains despite the wholehearted attempts by the regulatory bodies both in the US, the UK and elsewhere, to address the long standing challenge of rationalizing international and inter- jurisdictional processes for the realization of posted and pledged collateral.

Those experienced with derivative structured finance transactions will recall the litany of "assumptions" contained in the typical security interest opinion delivered by deal counsel and relied upon by the transacting parties. The utility and reliability of that legal opinion was conditioned on every single one of those assumptions being true at the time of delivery. The diligence required in verifying those assumptions was often "delegated down", and whether that diligence was fully and accurately performed - often under the pressure of a closing deadline - is critical to the ultimate outcome when pursuing collateral.

Mirroring those assumptions, the deal's legal opinions will also include critical "qualifications", including those related to the location of the collateral. Exceptions would inevitably be made to cover the possibility of collateral being moved out of relevant jurisdictions after the date of closing (particularly relevant to those secured by physical notes or other forms of indebtedness).

In multi-jurisdictional transactions, involving collateral originated in legal jurisdictions lacking well-developed protocols for settling competing interests of creditors residing in different jurisdictions, a trustee may be faced deciding which of the mutually inconsistent judgments it will recognize and honor. Creditors thinking of suing might want to delve deeply into the documentation - a decision that may make the difference between covering the costs of litigation or suffering the sting of a pyrrhic victory of having paid to prevail.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To get in touch with the author of this piece, email Rick at rm@pf2se.com

Return of the TruPS CDO

The good news, for investors in TruPS CDOs, is that at least one rating agency has responded to our calls for upgrades.

Moody’s, in two separate actions over the last two weeks, upgraded three tranches of Trapeza CDO VI and two tranches of Alesco Preferred Funding CDO I.

All five of the upgraded Alesco and Trapeza bonds were previously downgraded on July 13, 2010.

When you analyze ratings migrations, you notice raters have a tendency to inflate the initial ratings on new structures (the “Type I” error). When things go wrong, rating agencies then tend to exaggerate their downgrades to avoid being caught looking foolish when AAA or AA securities default. But they then run the second risk, which is seldom monitored or advertised, of the “Type II” error – the rating too low of a security that pays off in full. Both of these errors have the potential to be damaging to investors: investors get insufficient coupon reward for taking outsized risks at the beginning, and then they pay too much, in ratings-based margin, for holding under-rated bonds after the magnified downgrades.

We felt we had noticed the exaggeration of downgrades for at least some TruPS CDO bonds. We expect certain of the bonds that have been downgraded, to as low as CCC, to pay off in full. We therefore called for upgrades, of at least certain of these bonds, after noticing a growing disconnect between the actual asset-level performance of TruPS CDOs and the ratings performance of the asset class.

Upgrading bonds is a good thing for TruPS CDO investors: it may provide the support needed to mark them up, or to reduce capital reserves (or margin) held against them. In the best case, for bonds expected to ultimately pay out in full, the upgrade provides “leverage” for small bank managers to justify holding these securities at par in hold-to-maturity accounts; or to combat regulatory pressure to mark them to fair value based on an OTTI write-down.

While Moody’s upgrading intentions are a healthy sign, they do not always precipitate a similar response from the other rating agencies in the short term:

- The upgrades are due, in no small part, to the generation of excess spread by the underlying assets. Fitch, for one, does not model these structures and so by definition cannot adequately capture, in their ratings, the effects of this excess spread. It may thus be reasonable to expect Fitch’s TruPS CDO ratings to linger in this regard, until they ultimately follow the direction of the other rating agencies. (To be fair to Fitch, Fitch did in its September review retroactively upgrade a single tranche when Fitch saw the tranche was being paid down – but it also downgraded seven tranches and affirmed the ratings of 488 tranches. The A2 tranche of PreTSL 8 was upgraded, wait for it, from CC to B, less than one year after it was downgraded from B to CC. The bond was originally rated AAA by Fitch.)

- Rating agencies also, understandably, have a natural tendency to want to avoid flip-flopping on their ratings. The CLO downgrade-turn-upgrades within a year have caused the raters significant embarrassment. How will they look if, so soon after downgrading these 30 year TruPS CDOS, they then re-upgrade them? The market may be led to believe that the raters’ economic models hold little predictive content.

Trading in TruPS CDOs presents serious money-making opportunities, heightened somewhat by the ratings arbitrage available: for example, the recently upgraded A1A tranche of Trapeza VI is now rated Aa3 by Moody's, A by Fitch, while rated CCC+ by S&P. This dynamic should also provide holders with all the encouragement they need to examine the “true” flow of funds of their TruPS CDOs, rather than relying purely on their ratings (and succumbing to associated regulatory pressure to boost reserves).

What Value the Rating?

I often ask myself how valuable any sell-side research can be, given the obvious conflicts being suffered through by a banks’ research team. The attributes that undermine the effectiveness of a banks’ research analysis are numerous – here are some:

1. the bank typically has many more buy recommendations than sell recommendations (The Big Short’s Vincent "Vinny" Daniel neatly captures the conflict when he says “You can be positive and wrong on the sell side,”… “[but] if you’re negative and wrong you get fired.”)

2. similar to the prior point, the uneven distribution of ratings renders the “buy” rating less meaningful

3. the accuracy of a rating isn’t easy to test, as its term and range isn’t always well-defined

4. the rating changes with regularity, and so never adjusts or converges to a final number, so the same analyst may appear right then wrong then right again. Were they right, overall? (see for example “S&P upgrades Google stock days after "sell" view”)


I remember chatting, a while back, to a former sell-side research analyst from a so-called Yankee Bank about what it was like rating stocks during the heat of the financial downturn (2007-2008).

He commented on the futility of his position: his predictions may just as easily be right as wrong, given the heavy influence of emotions, or market technicals, rather than any reliance on company fundamentals – which he was being asked to judge.

But he also described his position as awkward: in a market in which he truly expected almost everything to keep going down, he wasn't in a position to issue sell ratings on all his stocks. Why maintain a buy rating, or a hold, if you really think the client out to sell? But what effect would be produced if you put a sell rating on everything? Putting a sell rating is bad for business, and by way of the influence banks wield in providing ratings, serves only to increase the likelihood of a further decline, or to exacerbate that decline.

So in a down market, we have an influential bank analyst, who otherwise provides useful market color, feeling his position to be both awkward and futile.

I remember his remarks from time to time, especially when people ask me what I think of the US downgrade by S&P or the downgrading of other sovereigns like Italy or Spain.

While the downgrade may or may not be the right action, from a legal perspective based on the code of NRSRO ratings, one has to wonder what the benefit may be. If the downgrade action reflects the rater's perception that a sovereign entity may struggle to raise funds – as was the case in the Italy downgrade action – the actual downgrade itself only serves to heighten the sovereignty's difficulties in raising such funds. Economists often call this a self-fulfilling prophecy or a self-effectuating phenomenon.

As opposed to the threat of downgrade hanging like Damocles' sword above a finance minister, encouraging him/her to get the country's finances in order, the downgrade action serves little purpose - only making it harder to get one's finances in order.

And thus the duality of the position: can one credibly support an action that only serves to exacerbate a difficult situation, while helping nobody (aside, perhaps, from short sellers and political opponents to controlling regimes or parties).

The bank analyst felt his position to be futile and awkward. The rating analyst may struggle to sleep: his or her option is to defy the company's code, or to be destructive.

Will S&P's Wells Notice Change Their Behavior?

The role of the credit rating agencies in the recent financial crisis has been highlighted by numerous investigations including the Financial Crisis Commission and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). It therefore comes as no surprise that Standard & Poor’s receipt of a Wells Notice, indicating the SEC’s intention to sue, has garnered its fair share of attention. Challenges presented by the issuance of the so-called Wells Notice, and the circumstances surrounding it, will likely culminate in rating agencies and issuing entities having to adjust their approaches to the ratings process.

The various forms of media speculation have focused on Delphinus CDO, a crisis-era structure backed by subprime mortgage bonds, as the focal point of the SEC’s investigation. This transaction was highlighted by Senator Levin’s PSI report as a “striking example” of how banks and ratings firms branded mortgage-linked products safe even as the housing market worsened in 2007.

The implications of S&P’s internal emails, made public through the Senate’s investigative process, are that the rater may have known, at the time it was issuing its ratings on Delphinus, that the ratings being provided were inconsistent with its then-current methodology. In essence, S&P’s model and ratings were contingent on certain preliminary information made available to them by the underwriting bank. When that information changed at a late stage of the deal’s construction, S&P’s model was no longer able to produce results consistent with the desired rating.

That S&P nevertheless issued the originally-requested rating, despite its being incompatible with the new information, opens a line of questioning into whether S&P’s ultimate rating adequately reflected its own analysis. In issuing the Wells Notice, the SEC may at this juncture reasonably suspect S&P of committing a Rule 10b-5 violation.

The SEC would be pressed to show that S&P knew, at the time it was providing the rating, that the rating was ill-deserved (and thus misleading to investors). If the SEC is able to show that S&P intentionally provided a misleading rating, they would distinguish this case from several of the other rating agency complaints that have been dismissed.

Importantly, the SEC’s case would almost certainly survive the rating agency’s preferred defense motion that invokes their First Amendment rights to express an opinion. Floyd Abrams, S&P’s external counsel on First Amendment issues, himself confesses in his September 2009 testimony before the House that “[the] First Amendment provides no defense against sufficiently pled allegations that a rating agency intentionally misled or defrauded investors,” … “nor does it protect a rating agency if it issues a rating that does not reflect its actual opinion.” (emphasis added)

Aside from the abovementioned Wells Notice, the SEC is showing a keen focus on each rater’s application of its own public methodology: their annual rating agency examination report, released late last week, cites as an “essential finding” that “[one] of the larger NRSROs reported that it had failed to follow its methodology for rating certain asset-backed securities.”

The result of the Delphinus investigation notwithstanding, the mere threat of legal action alters a rater’s approach to issuing ratings and maintaining current ratings. We have already seen the fruits borne of pressure instilled by the new regulatory landscape. In late July of this year, S&P stunned the market by pulling away from rating a commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction, led by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, on the evening prior to the deal’s closing. S&P reportedly needed to adjust its model to reflect “multiple technical changes,” ultimately leading to the deal being shelved.

The manner in which S&P dealt with a controversial and costly methodological change suggests a new-found sensitivity towards violating the 10b-5 legal standard. Such a drastic action, bringing significant embarrassment to S&P in addition to the loss of market share, would have been inconceivable in the prior, revenue-centric, competitive landscape.

With raters seeking at all costs to avoid a 10b-5 violation, we foresee them increasingly turning away bankers who pressure them with “last-minute” demands. Bankers, risking their deals falling through, will be driven to accommodate the rater’s requirements in providing their supporting data in a more timely fashion, well in advance of a deal’s closing. Perhaps we’ll have fewer deals done as a result; but perhaps those deals will be safer, supported by less-hurried analyses.

As we have seen before, it continues to be legal risk, and not reputational risk, that has encouraged oligopolistic rating agencies to re-focus their attentions on the quality of the product being provided. With Damocles’ sword swinging over-head, we can only hope for more objective ratings going forward – and fewer stale ones.