Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Organizational Responses Canadian Centre for Policy […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Boots Riley in Winnipeg May 11 February 22, 2019
    Founder of the political Hip-Hop group The Coup, Boots Riley is a musician, rapper, writer and activist, whose feature film directorial and screenwriting debut — 2018’s celebrated Sorry to Bother You — received the award for Best First Feature at the 2019 Independent Spirit Awards (amongst several other accolades and recognitions). "[A] reflection of the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA-BC welcomes Emira Mears as new Associate Director February 11, 2019
    This week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – BC Office is pleased to welcome Emira Mears to our staff team as our newly appointed Associate Director. Emira is an accomplished communications professional, digital strategist and entrepreneur. Through her former company Raised Eyebrow, she has had the opportunity to work with many organizations in the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study explores media coverage of pipeline controversies December 14, 2018
    Supporters of fossil fuel infrastructure projects position themselves as friends of working people, framing climate action as antithetical to the more immediately pressing need to protect oil and gas workers’ livelihoods. And as the latest report from the CCPA-BC and Corporate Mapping Project confirms, this framing has become dominant across the media landscape. Focusing on pipeline […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study highlights ‘uncomfortable truth’ about racism in the job market December 12, 2018
    "Racialized workers in Ontario are significantly more likely to be concentrated in low-wage jobs and face persistent unemployment and earnings gaps compared to white employees — pointing to the “uncomfortable truth” about racism in the job market, according to a new study." Read the Toronto Star's coverage of our updated colour-coded labour market report, released […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers


Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Bonds, lame bonds

Below is a dispatch on bond rating agencies from my former CCPA colleague, Stuart Murray:

Here is some more grist for the blog.  Bloomberg just published a very interesting and informative article on the role of the bond rating agencies in the current meltdown.

The pitchforks are out for Moody’s and S&P, as they gave glowing ratings for the Collateralized Debt Obligations that paid for the subprime mortgages.  People have mostly ignored the role of the bond raters, which is a big mistake.  In my opinion, if the bonds that funded the subprime mortgages were correctly rated as “equivalent to toilet paper” then investors would not have bought them, and the loans wouldn’t have been made.  Or at least the interest rates would have been so high that it would have eliminated the profit margin, which would have the same effect.

Instead, the bonds were repackaged in a way that is indecipherable to even those who have economics degrees, and were then rated as “a pretty good investment.”  Apparently, the bond raters were in a conflict-of-interest over their consulting fees, comparable to the role of auditors at Enron.  So now there is a nasty lawsuit.

Also of interest in this article is the fact that you get a better reading of the value of a bond by “tracking the prices of credit-default swaps.”  Apparently, the bonds for troubled banks had investment-grade ratings right up to the week before their collapse, but the credit-default swaps had a far more accurate downward spiral in the months leading up to the collapse.  Who knew?  Apparently, some guy who started switching his investments to gold coins as he saw the spiral on his computer screen.

On the topic of “you’ve got to be kidding” please note the following:  “S&P included a standard disclaimer with Lehman’s ratings: ‘Any user of the information contained herein should not rely on any credit rating or other opinion contained herein in making any investment decision.’”  So the bond raters are building their entire business around helping investors make decisions around what bonds to buy, but throwing in a footnote that “hey, if you use our information to make investment decisions, you are the moron, but thanks we’ll take the cash.  Okay thanks bye.”  All that’s missing is the top-hat, the twisting of the waxed handlebar moustache, and the evil cackling as they walk away with stuffed brown canvas bags with dollar signs on the side of them.

It is fascinating to watch the Wall Street types discuss what to replace the bond raters with.  Wall Street has quickly ruled out a government-owned agency, for the standard reasons you would expect:  “I would be strongly opposed to the government taking over the function of credit ratings… I just don’t think it would work at all. The business creativity, the drive, would go straight out of it.”  I think what they’re saying is that the bond raters wouldn’t get paid as much, and as such the type-A blueblood salesmen types would have less control over the economy.

It looks like people are interested in a bond rating co-op that is owned by the people who use the service, which they compared to Consumer Reports, but sounds more to me like Mountain Equipment Co-op.  Which begs the question, how long will it be before finance ministers are terrified by visits from bond raters who wear goatees, hemp shirts and Birkenstocks?  “Oh crap, there’s a 1979 Volvo in the parking lot, we’re screwed!”

Incidentally (i.e. it’s not in this article), I was always baffled by how the bond-raters gave top ratings to P3 bonds that were backed by bond insurance (aka monoline insurance).  From what I understand, the repackaging of the debt was similar to the repackaging of Collateralized Debt Obligations.  Now that the latter are in disrepute, presto! No money for P3s.

Enjoy and share:

Write a comment

Related articles