GG Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 You don't happen to get a referral fee from Youtube for your valuable contributions to this site?
....lybob Posted December 2, 2010 Author Posted December 2, 2010 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.
meazza Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 youtube.com/watch?v=5xvXw1HHCq8&feature=related Everybody failed... well everyone who didn't short.
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 The ratings agencies didn't fail. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, exactly how they were supposed to do it.
....lybob Posted December 2, 2010 Author Posted December 2, 2010 (edited) 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 December 2, 2010 by ....lybob
meazza Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 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?
....lybob Posted December 2, 2010 Author Posted December 2, 2010 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.
Magox Posted December 3, 2010 Posted December 3, 2010 Right here. I knew that is where you were originally going.
GG Posted December 3, 2010 Posted December 3, 2010 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?
Recommended Posts