Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

You don't happen to get a referral fee from Youtube for your valuable contributions to this site?

Posted
  On 12/2/2010 at 7:59 PM, GG said:

You don't happen to get a referral fee from Youtube for your valuable contributions to this site?

capitalism dog! don't be a hater.

Posted
  On 12/2/2010 at 5:36 PM, ....lybob said:

youtube.com/watch?v=5xvXw1HHCq8&feature=related

 

Everybody failed... well everyone who didn't short.

Posted (edited)
  On 12/2/2010 at 10:21 PM, DC Tom said:

The ratings agencies didn't fail. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, exactly how they were supposed to do it.

 

Links please

 

.

Edited by ....lybob
Posted
  On 12/2/2010 at 10:21 PM, DC Tom said:

The ratings agencies didn't fail. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, exactly how they were supposed to do it.

 

By rating subprime backed ABS' triple A?

Posted

In July 2008, the SEC concluded that the CRAs failed to manage

conflicts of interest between MBS and CDO issuers and the CRAs.

CRAs were supposed to serve investors, but conflicts of interest led

some CRAs to cater to MBS and CDO issuers by inflating ratings.

Conflicts of interest were caused by:

1. Relationship conflicts: CRAs have had a close, ongoing working

relationship with the largest MBS and CDO issuers;

2. Issuer-paid ratings: 98% of the ratings produced by the CRAs have

been paid for by issuers, not investors. The pay incentive led some

CRAs to try to inflate ratings of paying issuers in hopes of gaining

repeat business from those issuers; and

3. Advising-rating combination: CRAs advised issuers on how to

structure MBSs and CDOs to get high ratings. Then CRAs

“confirmed” that advice by issuing the “promised” ratings.

Posted
  On 12/2/2010 at 11:57 PM, ....lybob said:

In July 2008, the SEC concluded that the CRAs failed to manage

conflicts of interest between MBS and CDO issuers and the CRAs.

CRAs were supposed to serve investors, but conflicts of interest led

some CRAs to cater to MBS and CDO issuers by inflating ratings.

Conflicts of interest were caused by:

1. Relationship conflicts: CRAs have had a close, ongoing working

relationship with the largest MBS and CDO issuers;

2. Issuer-paid ratings: 98% of the ratings produced by the CRAs have

been paid for by issuers, not investors. The pay incentive led some

CRAs to try to inflate ratings of paying issuers in hopes of gaining

repeat business from those issuers; and

3. Advising-rating combination: CRAs advised issuers on how to

structure MBSs and CDOs to get high ratings. Then CRAs

“confirmed” that advice by issuing the “promised” ratings.

 

So in effect, a bunch of Harvard & Wharton MBAs got hoodwinked for a decade by a bunch of Pace & Fordham, MBAs?

 

Is that your story?

×
×
  • Create New...