Tag Archives: Standard & Poor’s

Balancing Consumer Protection and Access to Credit

Posted on by

S&P posted U.S. RMBS Roundtable: Originators, Aggregators, and Counsel Discuss New Qualified Mortgage Rules. In summarizing the roundtable, S&P notes that

The ability-to-repay rule, ostensibly to prevent defaults and another housing crisis, is still very much open to interpretation. To that end, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services recently held a private roundtable with several market participants. The confidential discussion offered the attendees an opportunity to share their views and interpretations of these rules, offer opinions on how to operate efficiently within the scope of the rules, and highlight perceived conflicts the rules still present.

In our view, the discussion identified some common themes, notably:

    • Most originators will focus on QM-Safe Harbor loans to avoid liability and achieve the best execution.
    • Many originators will also find attractive opportunities to originate non-QM loans.
    • Non-agency originations of QM or non-QM loans will continue to focus on super-prime borrowers as lenders find that the best defense is to limit the potential for default.
    • The documentation standards used by originators will be the key to compliance with the rule. (2)

There are a lot of interesting tidbits in this document, including speculation about the role of technology in the brave new world of mortgage lending.  The summary ended on a guardedly optimistic note:

While the rule leaves significant room for interpretation, originators generally felt that the final rule to be implemented in January 2014 is better than expected. They expressed hope that regulators will be vigilant in pursuing violations that are reasonable. Originators still see challenges for originations of non-QM loans, but they don’t believe they are insurmountable, and many expect that non-QM loans will be represented in origination volume throughout 2014. The challenges that remain are the market’s pricing of QM safe harbor, rebuttable presumption, and non-QM loans; required credit enhancement levels; the effects of risk retention rules, which have yet to be finalized; and the ultimate costs associated with the assignee liability provisions in the rule. (7)

If these industry participants are right, it will look like regulators did a pretty good job of balancing consumer protection and access to credit. Let’s hope!

S&P on Rating Mortgage-Backed Securities Before The Crisis

Posted on by

S&P has posted The Role of Credit Rating Agencies in The Financial System, remarks by its president at the United Nations. The remarks reflect S&P’s narrative of the events leading up to the Subprime Crisis. This narrative is, unsurprisingly, self-serving but revealing nonetheless.

  • We, like others, did not anticipate the U.S. housing downturn, which led to the financial crisis. But with the exception of our ratings on U.S. mortgage-related securities, our ratings have performed as expected. (3) 

Seems like a perfect example of the exception swallowing the rule . . ..

  • In September of 2008, we were all in the depths of the financial crisis. During that time the vast majority of the securities S&P rated performed as we anticipated, including many structured finance ratings. But the performance of our ratings of certain U.S. residential mortgage-related securities was a major disappointment. Like nearly every other market participant, analyst and interested government entity, we did not anticipate the U.S. housing collapse and its effect on the economy as a whole. (4)

As I have said before, this is self-serving revisionism, when S&P’s own analysts predicted the collapse of many of the mortgage-backed securities that they rated before the Bust.

  • We have taken significant actions to further strengthen our independence from issuer influence. We have long had policies to manage potential conflicts of interest such as a separation of analytic and commercial activities, a ban on analysts from participating in fee negotiations, and de-linking analyst compensation from the volume of securities they rate or the type of ratings they assign. After the crisis, we decided to strengthen analytical independence by rotating the analysts assigned to a particular issuer and enhancing analyst training. (4)

No mention here of the fact that their longstanding policies appeared to have not been up to the task of controlling for conflicts as far as anyone was concerned . . ..

  • For mortgage-related securities, for example, we significantly increased the credit enhancement required to achieve a ‘AAA’ rating and made it more difficult for securities to achieve high ratings. (4)

Thank goodness for that! Time will tell if these new assumptions adequately reflect the risk of default for complex MBS.

Rating Agency 1st Amendment Defense Weakened, Again

Posted on by

Federal District Judge O’Toole (D. Mass.) issued an Opinion and Order in Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial Inc. et al., No. 11-10952 (Sept. 30, 2013)  relating to the potential liability of S&P and Moody’s (the Rating Agency Defendants) for their ratings. The case “arises from the purchase of private label mortgage-backed securities” (PLMBS) by the plaintiff, FHLB Boston. (1)  FHLB Boston alleges that the rating agency defendants knew that their ratings “were inaccurate and based on flawed models, and that their conduct gives rise to” a claim for fraud as well as other causes of action. (1) The Rating Agency Defendants sought to have the claims dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court rejected this as to the fraud claim:

The Rating Agency Defendants’ argument that their ratings are non-actionable opinions is unconvincing. As discussed in Abu Dhabi I, “[a]n opinion may still be actionable if the speaker does not genuinely and reasonably believe it or if it is without basis in fact.” 651 F. Supp. 2d at 176 (internal citations omitted). Here the Bank has pled with sufficient particularity that the Rating Agency Defendants issued ratings that they did not genuinely or reasonably believe. For example, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Rating Agency Defendants diluted their own standards and carried out their ratings procedures in an intentionally lax manner as to PLMBS while maintaining higher standards in other contexts. The Bank has also sufficiently pled scienter, alleging that the Rating Agency Defendants competed for business by artificially inflating ratings, as they were only paid if they provided high ratings. (4)

Rating agencies were able to avoid liability for decades, claiming that their ratings were like min-editorials that were protected by the First Amendment. A number of recent cases reject that defense in a variety of contexts (See here, here and here for instance). It is unclear what will happen when these cases are appealed, but for now it appears that a number of courts have identified situations where an opinion can be more than an opinion — it can amount to actionable fraud.

Moody Misrepresentation

Posted on by

Judge Daniels (SDNY) granted Moody’s motion for summary judgment in In re Moody’s Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 07 Civ. 8375 (Aug. 23, 2013). This is a big win for Moody’s, but I did find the following passage striking in its tone:

Moody’s own emphasis on the importance of its independence weakens its case for summary judgment on the issue of materiality. Moody’s 2005 and 2006 Annual Reports, as well as their Forms 10-K from the same timeframe, are replete with pronouncements of Moody’s independence and integrity.  For example, Moody’s stated in its 2005 Annual Report that it “is committed to reinforcing among all relevant stakeholders a sense of trust in the accuracy, independence and reliability of Moody’s products and services . . ..’ Likewise, in its Code of Professional Conduct dated June 2005, Moody’s stated that it “will use care and professional judgment to maintain both the substance and appearance of independence and integrity”, and that the ratings it issues “will not be affected by the existence of, or potential for, a business relationship between Moody’s (or its affiliates) and the Issuer (or its affiliates) or any other party . . ..” In light of the great lengths to which Moody’s has gone to tout its independence and integrity, it is inconsistent for Moody’s to simultaneously argue that a reasonable investor would not find such statements to be material. Moody’s thus fails to demonstrate that no reasonable jury could find the alleged misrepresentation at issue to be material. (13, citations omitted)

We are starting to see judges hold rating agencies to the standards they set for themselves (here, for example), although we have not yet seen a court hold one of them liable for violating them.  That may yet come as more of these cases wend their way through the courts.

Round One to California in Suit Against S&P

Posted on by

California Superior Court Judge Karnow issued a Memorandum Order Overruling Defendants’ Demurrers in California v. The McGraw-Hill Cos. et al., CGC-13-528491 (Aug. 14, 2013 San Francisco County).   California Attorney General Harris alleged “that S&P intentionally inflated its ratings for the investments and that these knowingly false ratings were material to the investment decisions of [California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS)], in violation of the False Claims Act and other statutes.” (2)

S&P demurred to the False Claims Act causes of action [asked for the causes of action to be dismissed], because, among other reasons,

(l) the complaint does not plead that any ‘claims’ were ever “presented” to the state;

(2) if claims were presented, they did not involve ‘state funds’ . . .. (4)

S&P asserts, among other things, that because it “was not the seller, it did not “present” any claims for payment.” (4) The Court stated, however, that the False Claims Act “imposes liability on any person who ’causes’ a false or fraudulent claim to be presented or ’causes to be made or used a false . . . statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.’ C. 12651(a)(1)-(a}(2).” (4, citation omitted) The Court inferred “from the complaint that S&P ’caused’ PERS and STRS to purchase the securities. This is good enough for present purposes.” (4, citation omitted)

I am a longstanding critic of the rating agencies, but I have to say that I am struck by how broadly courts have interpreted statutes relied upon by the federal government and the states as they pursue alleged wrongdoing by financial institutions involved in financial crisis. In the courts’ defense, they typically rely on the plain language of the statutes, but, boy, do they interpret them broadly.

In this case, giving a rating can “cause” someone to purchase a security — is there any limit on what is a sufficient “cause” to trigger the statute? In DoJ’s case against Bank of America, a financial institution may be liable under FIRREA for a fraud it perpetrates even if the only entity affected by the fraud is — Bank of America! Similar broad interpretations of NY’s Martin Act make it relatively easy for NY government to bring a securities fraud case against a financial institution because our normal intuitions about intent are not relevant under that act.

Pursuing alleged wrongdoers: good.

Pursuing alleged wrongdoers with broad, ambiguous and powerful tools:  worrisome.

DoJ All FIRREA-ed Up With S&P Suit

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in a story, Prosecutors Unleashed As $5B S&P Action Rolls On (behind a paywall), about DoJ’s success in fending off S&P’s motion to dismiss its FIRREA case. It reads in part

While the latest ruling against S&P was lighter on substance, Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss called it “a very big deal.”

“It adds to a body of law that gives the government another powerful tool to go after alleged misdeeds by financial institutions,” he said.

The suit, launched in February to much fanfare, targets S&P’s top-notch ratings for complex mortgage-backed securities that later failed. As part of a controversial, widespread practice known as the “issuer pays” model, banks created the securities, paid S&P to rate them and then sold them to investors. The DOJ claims S&P mismarked the securities on purpose to keep clients happy and boost profits.

In its motion to dismiss, the firm argued its public statements touting the ratings as objective, based on solid data and unaffected by potential conflicts of interest amounted to “puffery” and therefore could not form the basis of a fraud suit against S&P and parent company McGraw-Hill Cos. Inc.

But Judge Carter ruled Tuesday that the DOJ had sufficiently alleged S&P’s statements were not general, subjective claims, but were based on specific policies and procedures governing how the firm “shall” or “must not” rate securities. The judge called the firm’s puffery argument “deeply and unavoidably troubling when you take a moment to consider its implications.”

“Despite defendants’ protestations to the contrary, the court cannot find that all of these ‘shalls’ and ‘must nots’ are the mere aspirational musings of a corporation setting out vague goals for its future,” the judge wrote in an 18-page order. “Rather, they are specific assertions of current and ongoing policies that stand in stark contrast to the behavior alleged by the government’s complaint.”

Judge Carter also found the DOJ had sufficiently claimed S&P defrauded investors who had relied upon the ratings in determining the credit risk of certain investments. And the judge ruled the government did not have to plead “with a high degree of particularity” that S&P intentionally issued false ratings because the suit was filed under FIRREA. Tougher pleading requirements set out in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which governs many securities suits, therefore do not apply, the judge ruled.

S&P spokesman Ed Sweeney noted Wednesday that the ruling did not address the merits of the case, as the judge was required to accept the government’s factual allegations as true during the early stages of litigation.

“We now welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the lack of merit to the Department of Justice’s complaint,” Sweeney said. “We firmly believe S&P’s ratings were and are independent, and expect to show just that in court.”

The decision followed a tentative July 8 ruling by Judge Carter. And indeed, given the sheer amount of resources the government has devoted to the case, the finding should have come as no surprise, according to Jacob Frenkel, an attorney at Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker PA who chairs the firm’s securities enforcement practice.

“When you have a deep-pocketed client that is willing to fight, a good lawyer will exhaust all options and remedies,” Frenkel said of S&P’s motion. “It would have been unreasonable to believe it stood any chance of success, but that does not mean you don’t try.”

Still, Judge Carter’s takedown should give the firm pause as it weighs whether to fight the claims or strike a settlement, according to Reiss, the Brooklyn professor.

“We now have a sense that the judge’s take on the guts of the case is pretty favorable to the government,” Reiss said. “And we’re now seeing the rating agencies start to crumble a little bit after their decades-long run of avoiding either settling or losing at trial.”

What Was S&P Puffing?

Posted on by

I have been closely following DoJ’s suit against S&P since the complaint was filed in February (and see here, here and here).  DoJ alleges that S&P “issued or confirmed ratings that did not accurately reflect true credit risks” and seeks to obtain civil penalties pursuant to FIRREA. (4) Yesterday, Judge Carter issued a doozy of an order, denying S&P’s motion to dismiss the case.

Let’s remember that for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the judge takes as true all of the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint.  So, if a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, it means that the legal theory of the case is sound and that the plaintiff can win if the facts are as it alleges.

This should be the scariest passage in the order, as far as S&P is concerned:

Defendants lead off with a proposition that is deeply and unavoidably troubling when you take a moment to consider its implications.  They claim that, out of all the public statements that S&P made to investors, issuers, regulators, and legislators regarding the company’s procedures for providing objective, data-based credit ratings that were unaffected by potential conflicts of interest, not one statement should have been relied upon by investors, issuers, regulators, or legislators who needed to be able to count on objective, data-based credit ratings. (7-8)

This is repudiation of S&P’s “puffery” defense: their statements about their objectivity and rigorous methodology were merely “non-actionable puffery” along the lines of Charmin’s claim that it is the softest of all toilet papers. (8)

The Court follows this line of thought through to its logical conclusion:

if no investor believed in S&P’s objectivity, and every bank had access to the same information and models as S&P, is S&P asserting that, as a matter of law, the company’s credit ratings service added absolutely zero material value as a predictor of creditworthiness? (12)

One wonders how S&P executives responded to their lawyers when they proposed this argument — were they thinking about anything else other than winning this motion?  Did they consider how regulators might react to this argument?

And, while this goes beyond the matter at hand, the Court’s reaction to S&P’s argument is an implicit indictment of the business model of the major rating agencies: they are really in the business of selling licenses to access the capital markets more than they are in the business of issuing mini-editorials about the creditworthiness of securities, as they have successfully argued in previous cases challenging their ratings.