Let's Face It: S&P's Analysis Is A Joke... But It Still Has A Right To An Opinion
from the you-probably-just-shouldn't-believe-it dept
There's been a lot of attention paid to S&P over the past couple weeks, after it was the first of the big three credit rating agencies to "downgrade" US debt. As we pointed out at the time, it's pretty ridiculous to get worked up over the downgrade, because it's just one company's opinion. And, yes, for very ridiculous reasons, the opinions of a few ratings firms are written into the law, and some debt holders are required to hold certain types of debt based solely on the opinions of these companies. The real problem is that such opinions matter. In fact, as many commentators noticed, after the S&P downgrade, people actually rushed to buy up more US debt, driving down the cost, which is the exact opposite of what you would think should happen.Of course, S&P has other problems. Nate Silver did a brilliant (as per usual) takedown of "Substandard and Pourous," in which he noted that S&P's ratings are pretty dreadful. He goes through the data and shows that listening to S&P will make you poorer. Basically, lots of other information will give you a much better indicator of the likelihood of default on sovereign debt. The specific problem?
S.&P. ratings tend to lag, rather than lead, the market. That is, in cases where the market’s view of default risk is misaligned with S.&P.’s, S.&P. is a good bet to change their rating to catch up to market perception.And, of course, lots of people have pointed out how poorly S&P did in the housing bubble, rating crap bundles of mortgages as investment grade when it was clearly junk. Then there's other general sleaziness. Pro Publica points out that S&P -- who, it should be mentioned, apparently made a $2 trillion "error" right before downgrading the US debt, is apparently lobbying against a regulation that would require it to report "significant errors."
But does this, as some have suggested, mean that S&P should get into some sort of legal trouble? Michael Moore even made the ridiculous suggestion that the company's CEO should be arrested. Really? You would think that Moore, who has been pretty damn critical of US government policy over the years, would think twice before thinking that someone should be "arrested" for stating an opinion that was critical of the government's ability to repay its debts.
But, of course, we still have some of the First Amendment, and that means you can state an opinion -- even one that turns out to be wrong or useless -- and not be arrested for it. Once again, the real issue is this idea that we need a ratings agency to determine the quality of debt. In the equity world, plenty of investment banks issue "ratings" on the equity (usually some form of "buy, sell, hold") but no one takes them quite as seriously as the debt ratings from S&P, Moody's and Fitch. Again, I'd argue that this is because of the requirements in law about the kinds of debt certain operations can hold, and tying that to just a few opinions. If we had the same rules for equity, we'd see a very different stock market today. Sure, when a big bank downgrades a stock, people sell, but people implicitly recognize it's an opinion. When it comes to debt, something about the ratings system and the requirements about it makes people think that the ratings are more "fact" than opinion.
So, let's get away from that entirely. Let's dump the requirements that any debt holdings should be required of certain levels based solely on the opinions of these ratings agencies with terrible track records. Instead, what's wrong with just letting the market price decide how trustworthy the debt is? You don't have to do away with ratings entirely. Anyone can have an opinion. But without the requirements that make just a few firms integral to the market, you could have a lot more open competition on who really has the best opinion on the viability of certain debt.
So don't arrest the head of S&P. But, stop giving the ratings from these few firms special status that makes people think they're something more than just a random company's opinion.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: debt, markets, michael moore, opinion, ratings
Companies: s&p
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What the law actually requires
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How 'bout Enron?
As for 'conflict of interest' in this case, see the point about impending regulation by the US government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mortgage Debacle
Yes, it does. The mortgage debacle was a symptom of the culture of scheming which has infected just about all of the US finance industry. That culture is still there and shows no sign of going away. Why should it? The New York banks made gigantic profits out of it during the mortgage debacle, so why should they give it up?
The mortgage debacle was also highly significant in that it proved conclusively that the ratings agencies were under the control of the New York banks. They rated junk paper (CDOs) from the New York banks at AAA, despite the fact that they knew full well that it was junk. The New York banks pay the ratings agencies for their opinions, so the New York banks get what they want. Then the AAA-rated paper went down to a price of zero, yes, zero. Investors lost trillions and the New York banks and their friends walked away with the money.
Then the idiot politicians threw in colossal sums of the taxpayer's money, in defiance of the clearly expressed wishes of the electorate. Furthermore, none of the bad guys went to jail. Alas, predators are smarter than the prey.
Drive around some of the swanky suburbs near New York, sometime. Ask yourself, "Who is paying for all this?" You are, Americans, by not being suspicious enough when dealing with your own finance industry. If you want to get back to prosperity, full employment and balanced budgets, then start remembering the culture of scheming at all times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUD Busters
Specifically, CBO calculated that the Budget Control Act, including its discretionary caps, would save $2.1 trillion relative to a “baseline” in which current discretionary funding levels grow with inflation.
S&P incorrectly added that same $2.1 trillion in deficit reduction to an entirely different “baseline” where discretionary funding levels grow with nominal GDP over the next 10 years. Relative to this alternative “baseline,” the Budget Control Act will save more than $4 trillion over ten years – or over $2 trillion more than S&P calculated. (The baseline in which discretionary spending grows with nominal GDP is substantially higher because CBO assumes that nominal GDP grows by just under 5 percent a year on average, while inflation is around 2.5 percent a year on average.
The impact of this mistake was to dramatically overstate projected deficits—by $2 trillion over 10 years. As anybody who has followed the fiscal discussions knows, a change of this magnitude is very significant. Nonetheless, S&P did not believe a mistake of this magnitude was significant enough to warrant reconsidering their judgment, or even significant enough to warrant another day to carefully re-evaluate their analysis."
-From the Treasury
Mike, hollering about a $2 trillion error in this situation is kind of like saying that Apple has more $ than the U.S. Government. Yeah, there is a $2 trillion difference if you assume a 5% perpetual growth rate (the USG method using a high GDP growth rate, which IMO is bullshit) versus using a 2.5% growth rate (the S&P method using inflation, a more conservative projection). I have seen this FUD all over the net and just wanted to make the people aware of exactly what this $2 trillion error is. The U.S. will not have a 5% long term nominal GDP growth rate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FUD Busters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seditious opinions
No.
Experience tends to show that most people are not reflective, or self-critical. And if they've been threatened with jail over their opinions, then they're usually more likely to support jail time for other people's opinions, attitudes, religion.
It's just fucked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seditious opinions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But this can be the fun part of corporations as people. Throw all the employees in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A confidence racket requires confidence men.
AND YET here's Mike's characteristic corporate-friendly non-sequitur, from first accusing them of fraud:
"And, of course, lots of people have pointed out how poorly S&P did in the housing bubble, rating crap bundles of mortgages as investment grade when it was clearly junk."
Only to end up protecting those criminals:
"So don't arrest the head of S&P."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A confidence racket requires confidence men.
Please, elaborate. How are they criminals if what they are doing is in alignment with the law? Did you skip the part where not reporting significant errors is not yet illegal?
And how is Mike protecting the "criminals" by suggesting that the law which allow them to make out like bandits (by forcing adoption of their ratings) be corrected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile, Back In The Real World ...
There is a long-term shift in economic power going on, from North American and European centres to the new Asian powerhouses, and possibly South American ones as well. That’s the news you should be paying attention to. Worrying about this one little credit-rating blip is just a waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know that because I do not believe that the people in DC are stupid because they were smart enough to get there in the first place therefore if they are not stupid and they do things that I think are stupid then it must be that I do not know what is happening or that they are trying to do.
If they are doing something that I think is stupid and they think is smart it must because I have no idea of what they are really doing.
Given that, and the fact that a big issue was made over raising the debt ceiling it must be that they are covering up what was really happening behinds the scene. What I no not but it must have been big to rate all that tong wagging.
But even if nothing was going own that the powers to be want burred the down grade by S&P did set up the biggest Bear Raid.
Did S&P corporate?
I dough it.
Where people at S&P in on this?
I dough it.
But some how it got set up and it was no accident.
See I told you I am a conspiracy theorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good example of how spell checker can mislead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Downgrade was entirely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love this bullshit about the 2 Trillion, when S&P took Govt. numbers at face value from may and mac they were later dragged over the coals for poor due diligence. Now when they look at the numbers and make a decision they are again chased by the mob, the numbers from the govt. are more a rosy painting than reality.
Lets look at a hard monetary fact, in 1955 an average auto cost $2500 an oz of gold was $35.15 so it took about 71oz of gold to buy a car. In 2005 an average auto was $25,000 and gold was $513oz or about 48oz of gold to buy a car.
Today you can get a good car for $35,000 or about 20oz of gold.
I would say that the Govt. is not doing a very good job with relation to the economy.
What surprises me is that we are not at junk bond status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would say that the Govt. is not doing a very good job with relation to the economy.
Though, I don't think that the point of the article was to absolve the government of it's share of blame for this mess.
Personally, I think this whole melodrama put on in Washington was more of a "political morality play" than a real reflection of the problem. As usual, much sound and thunder and no real change.
The unfortunate reality is that it took us 50+ years to get into this mess, and it's unlikely we're going to get out of it easily, or soon. (even presupposing anyone in Washington has the will to REALLY deal with the problem, a supposition I find dubious)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lobbying against a regulation that would require it to report "significant errors."
Who is watching the watchmen when the watchmen are watching porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're really reaching. Trust me, stories about Wall St. on a tech/law blog get *shit* for traffic. This is the weakest story of the day, by far. As were the S&P stories from last week.
It's not about the "traffic." It's about what I find interesting. I think this is interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have a goddamn MBA from Cornell University and you post this poop.
Unbelievable.
Or maybe not, judging from the rest of your horribly spun missives here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your reading comprehension gets worse by the day. Did I ever claim that the US wasn't in trouble? No. The only thing I argued was that the S&P's rating change was meaningless in the big picture, and most of the market had already accounted for it. Separately, I pointed out that the S&P has a history of LAGGING the market.
How you could take that and assume it meant that I thought the S&P was *wrong* I really don't know.
You have a goddamn MBA from Cornell University and you post this poop.
And, amusingly, you fail to point out a single thing I got wrong. If you can't contribute constructively, please stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What about it is wrong? And is it honestly that difficult for you to respond without an ad hom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoller/2907411559/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Free Market Is Broken
I can tell you what's wrong with that in two words: Bear Stearns. Here are some market prices for a share of Bear Stearns common stock:
Jan 2007 - $172
Feb 2008 - $93
Mar 12, 2008 - $60
Mar 14, 2008 - $2
The market had no idea of the real value of Bear Stearns. Any existing theory of efficient market pricing was utterly invalidated in 2008. While Bear Stearns is the most egregious example of this failing, it is not alone.
The value revealed by markets merely indicate the price level at which trades will be made. Those trading levels are often wildly unrelated to the underlying value of the thing being traded. In fact, the trade levels are also opinion. They are the current opinions of the buyers and sellers. Those opinions in aggregate ("the market") are no more prone to valuation accuracy than the opinions of the rating agencies. In fact the ratings agencies can at least expose their algorithms and methodologies to the scrutiny of an auditor. The motivations behind most trading is a mystery.
Mike IS right in that the detailed investment approaches for those acting on behalf of the public should not be dictated by statute. However, perhaps the best investment advice and guidance for pensions and trusts would be caveat emptor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so unfortunate
That is why you need to be a little more attentive to the 401(k) process and how it works. Honestly I think it is a bad idea from the beginning, pensions are better. However pensions are dying and 401(k)s are now for everybody. But to many people don't understand them or the power they hold for their future.... A little bit of education and a little less trust in the indexes would keep people from having a heart attack every time the market dips over 300pts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moore
> pretty damn critical of US government policy
> over the years, would think twice before
> thinking that someone should be "arrested"
> for stating an opinion that was critical of
> the government's ability to repay its debts.
You've stumbled upon Michael Moore's singular hypocrisy.
He only believes stating critical opinions of the USA is acceptable when Republicans/conservatives are in charge. Since a Democrat is in charge, Moore believes it's not cool (and apparently criminal) to state an opinion that makes the Democrat look bad.
Moore is chock full of double standards like this. When a college filmmaker tried to make a documentary about Moore and follow him around and harass him the same way Moore did with General Motors CEO Roger Smith in his own film 'Roger & Me', Moore sued and tried to get a restraining order against the kid.
Moore is nothing but a hypocritical douchebag who twists facts and tells half-truths to suit his personal agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]