przycinek.usa
21.07.10, 07:57
W WSJ ukazal sie wlasnie wazny artykul dotyczacy reformy finansowej, ktora ma
zostac jutro podpisana przez Obame.
Okazuje sie, ze czesc pakietu tego prawa ma wymoc na agencjach
odpowiedzialnosc za ratingi. Z jednej strony jest to zupelnie logiczne i
zrozumiale, bowiem wlasnie agencje ratingowe wpuscily inwestorow w maliny
wystawiajac zbyt wysokie ratingi na ryzykowne bondy oparte o kredyty
hipoteczne. Z drugiej jednak strony agencje ratingowe w obliczu niemalze
natychmiastowego wejscia tego prawa w zycie boja sie wystawiac ratingi i
odmawiaja klientom co powoduje, ze emisje bondow nie moga sie przez to
uplasowac. To zas w oczywisty sposob wplywa na finansowanie i rynkowe stopy
procentowe pozyczek.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723604575379650414337676.html
Interesujace jest to, ze jesli te agencje beda mialy ponosic ryzyko
wspolodpowiedzialnosci za ew. utrate wartosci bondow i papierow wartosciowych
przez nie ocenianych, to moze sie okazac, ze nagle zmieni sie zupelnie ich
model biznesowy i znacznie spadna im obroty.
Wyobrazmy sobie taka sytuacje, ze Goldman Sachs zechce wypromowac i sprzedac
kolejny Abakus. Tym razem to sie nie uda, bo nie dostanie na to ratingu i nie
przygotuje emisji. Agencja ratingowa nawet nie zblizy sie do zawarcia takiego
zlecenia.
I kolejna ewentualnosc to jest zmiana ratingu kredytowego USA. Przeciez jest
mnostwo podmiotow kupujacych obligacje UST. Jesli te podmioty na tym
kiedykolwiek straca, to takie Moodys moze miec problem. Dlatego wyglada na to,
ze ten pakiet prawny moze miec calkiem interesujace konsekwencje, bo agencje
ratingowe moga w zamian zafundowac politykom obnizenie rating dlugu rzadowego.
Po tej reformie Agencje ratingowe praktycznie nie maja zadnej mozliwosci
manewru - albo daja uczciwe ratingi i klienci na ich podstawie sami oceniaja
ryzyko - albo nie daja ratingow i ida z torbami.
Czy oni maja jakies wyjscie? Nie. Nie maja. Jesli Obama to podpisze, a
przeciez zapowiadal, ze podpisze - to agencjon pozostaje tylko jedno - ustawic
poprzeczke ratingu UST znacznie nizej jak dotychczas. I wtedy zupelnie inaczej
beda wygladac rekomendacje Ding-Dongow, czy Dong Bongow...
tekst artykulu:
Bond Sale? Don't Quote Us, Request Credit Firms
By ANUSHA SHRIVASTAVA
The nation's three dominant credit-ratings providers have made an urgent new
request of their clients: Please don't use our credit ratings.
The odd plea is emerging as the first consequence of the financial overhaul
that is to be signed into law by President Obama on Wednesday. And it already
is creating havoc in the bond markets, parts of which are shutting down in
response to the request.
Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings are all
refusing to allow their ratings to be used in documentation for new bond
sales, each said in statements in recent days. Each says it fears being
exposed to new legal liability created by the landmark Dodd-Frank financial
reform law.
The new law will make ratings firms liable for the quality of their ratings
decisions, effective immediately. The companies say that, until they get a
better understanding of their legal exposure, they are refusing to let bond
issuers use their ratings.
That is important because some bonds, notably those that are made up of
consumer loans, are required by law to include ratings in their official
documentation. That means new bond sales in the $1.4 trillion market for
mortgages, autos, student loans and credit cards could effectively shut down.
There have been no new asset-backed bonds put on sale this week, in stark
contrast to last week, when $3 billion of issues were sold. Market
participants say the new law is partly behind the slowdown.
"We are at a standstill right now," said Bingham McCutchen partner Ed Gainor,
who specializes in asset-backed securities.
Several companies are shelving their bond offerings "indefinitely," according
to Tom Deutsch, executive director of the American Securitization Forum, which
represents the market for bonds backed by assets such as auto loans and credit
cards. He said he knew of three offerings scheduled for coming weeks that are
now on hold.
The change caught the ratings agencies by surprise. The original Senate
version of the bill didn't include the provision. It was only on June 30, when
the Dodd-Frank bill was passed, that the exemption was removed. The Senate
passed the amended version on July 15. The offices of Sen. Christopher Dodd
(D-Conn.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.
Rating firms have warned that sections of the legislation concerning ratings'
firms legal liability could cause them to pull back from certain parts of the
market.
In an April 21 conference call, Moody's Chief Executive Raymond McDaniel told
investors that "we remain concerned that the bill's liability provisions would
lead to unintended consequences that could negatively impact the credit markets."
If greater liability provisions were passed, he continued, "we would implement
appropriate changes."
He added that Moody's, a unit of Moody's Corp., would rethink whether it still
made sense in a new regulatory environment to give ratings "for as many small
and perhaps marginal issuers as possible."
The confusion comes as investors, bankers and ratings companies across Wall
Street seek to digest the intricacies of the new law, the most sweeping since
the 1930s. The overhaul touches on virtually every part of the
financial-services world, part of an effort by lawmakers to head off another
financial crisis.
Ratings providers became a lightning rod for criticism after the financial
crisis. Their overly rosy assessments of many bonds, particularly complex
securities and bonds backed by subprime mortgages, were blamed for helping
fuel the meltdown of the credit markets.
In response, the Dodd-Frank bill revamped how the government treated
credit-ratings firms, which receive a special government designation that
allows them certain privileges and market access
Once the bill is signed into law, advice by the services will be considered
"expert" if used in formal documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. That definition would make them legally liable for their work,
meaning that it will be easier to sue an firm if a bond doesn't perform up to
the stated rating.
That is a change from the current law, which considers ratings merely an
opinion, protected like any other media such as a newspaper.
Prior to the Dodd-Frank bill, issuers were allowed to include the description
of the ratings in the offering documents without the consent of the rating
firms. Now, they will have to get written permission. And the rating providers
are concerned that giving such consent exposes them to liability they haven't
been exposed to in the past.
Unlike many parts of the larger financial-overhaul bill, these changes go into
effect as soon as it is signed into law. The speed of the move has spooked the
three firms.
All issued statements in recent days saying they will continue to issue bond
ratings. But they said they won't allow those ratings to be used in formal
documents accompanying bond sales, known as prospectuses and registration
statements.
One solution to the logjam is for sellers of bonds to offer their deals
privately. That means they would offer ratings that can be used in private
transactions but not in deals registered with the SEC and sold to the general
public. The private market is much smaller and more expensive than the public one.
On Friday, S&P, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos., issued a release saying it would
"explore mechanisms outside of the registration statement to allow ratings to
be dissemi
