A proposed new bond rating system
Posted by Ray on April 14, 2010 under Main | 
Be the First to Comment
Since the meltdown last year much attention has been paid to how rating agencies determine the difference between AAA and junk paper. In a nutshell, and as you already know, the agencies gave AAA ratings to paper that was literally worthless and according to several books I have just read it is clear that the agencies had no idea how these debt instruments actually worked, I am referring to CDO and asset backed paper. Therefore, I humbly submit this new, simplified, rating system to the SEC and the ratings agencies.
My rating system will clear up any confusion as to the safety of the bonds you buy and investors will be fully aware of the risks. I am confident my recommendations will be turned down because the last thing Wall Street wants is transparency or to give the average (or institutional for that matter) investor a shot of actually understanding the risk they are assuming when they buy fixed income. I mean, what kind of fun could we have if AAA rated paper was actually safe? I am assuming Wall Street likes the fact that they can game the system and make total junk into AAA, which is exactly what they did with ABS. The last thing they want is for investors to make money because that would mean there is less money for them to make, right Goldman?
So, here is my proposed rating system:
AAA – Will now will be called “we think you will get your money back”
AA – Will now be called “we are somewhat confident you will get your money back”
A – Will now be called “you probably will not get your money back”
BBB – Will now be called “crappier”
BB – Will now be called “total crap”
B – Will now be called “are you freaking serious?”
CCC – Will now be called “what, do you hate your money?”
Unrated – Will now be called “there is a sucker born every minute, congratulations you are the sucker”
After reading so many stories about the financial crisis there is one thing that is consistent, regardless of who is telling the story or what context that story is being told, the ratings agencies had no idea what they were doing. In fact, in The Big Short, I highly recommend that book, there were several accounts of money managers talking to the ratings agencies and they said they were totally clueless. They went on to say that their models could not even calculate negative returns, how is that possible? No one at the biggest agencies had any idea how CDO’s or asset backed securities were created. They had no interest in looking at the makeup of what was sub-prime and what was not. They never looked at individual loans and instead used an “average FICO score,” how could you give a AAA rating when you did not look at the instruments backing the bond? These agencies are clueless and they still have no clue.
Sure, they are now downgrading this junk paper, 2 years later, but where were they when defaults were at 4-5%? This is why I am confident that the U.S. and the U.K. will keep their AAA rating right up until the day these countries are in receivership. After all, past actions do dictate future results. For example, Did AIG keep their AAA rating pretty much right up until they were acquired by the government? How about Freddie and Fannie, by the way there was never a government guarantee to this debt, it was merely implied, read a prospectus if you don’t believe me, did they not keep a AAA rating until the end? Then there is Executive Life, an insurer in the early 1990’s that collapsed with the help of Michael Milken’s junk bonds, which kept their AAA rating right until they were in receivership. Executive Life was downgraded only after receivership.
These firms cannot foresee risk or rate risk properly. After lawsuits were filed these firms defenses revolved around “free speech” and not around actually rating risk. Seriously? They now admit that one needs to do their own research and not trust their ratings alone. This must be news to all the insurance companies or pension funds that can only invest in A to AAA paper only. What they are telling you is that their ratings are not real and must have been always been fake. So, how can you trust their ratings on such things as sovereign debt? One simple question, do you think the U.S. will ever actually pay off its debt, all $12T worth of their debt? Not a chance, but they keep the U.S. at AAA and that is why their ratings are a joke.
P.S. – Sorry for the bad attempt at humor, come on, I am a geek, what do you expect?
Subscribe to Annuity IQ's FeedLS Blogs
