Q&A: The federal charges against Standard & Poor's

Published on NewsOK Modified: February 5, 2013 at 4:30 pm •  Published: February 5, 2013
Advertisement
;

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government charged Standard & Poor's Ratings Services with misleading investors about the quality of mortgage-backed investments in the run-up to the financial crisis.

It is the government's first big enforcement action related to a credit rating agency's actions before the 2008 crisis. S&P said it would vigorously defend itself against charges that it deemed "meritless."

So what's the big deal? And what did the bond-analysis shops have to do with the financial crisis?

Here are some questions and answers about the charges against Standard & Poor's:

Q: The government brings civil charges against financial companies all the time. What's so important about this case?

A: These are the first federal charges against one of the credit rating agencies that are widely blamed for contributing to the financial crisis that brought about the worst recession since the Great Depression.

They appear to signal a new, tougher direction for the Justice Department, which has faced years of criticism for failing to punish those responsible for the crisis.

The crisis crested when a bubble in U.S. home prices popped, making it more difficult for people to refinance their mortgages and setting off a wave of defaults and foreclosures.

Wall Street banks had created trillions of dollars' worth of investments whose value was based on what those mortgages were worth. The investments were spread through the financial system. Without rating agencies, none of that would have been possible.

Q: If they didn't create or sell the investments, why are credit rating agencies blamed for their proliferation?

A: Agencies like Standard & Poor's gave high ratings to complex pools of mortgages and other debt. That gave even risk-averse buyers the confidence to own them. Some investors, including pension funds, can only buy securities that carry a high rating. In short, credit ratings provided by S&P greased the assembly line that allowed banks to push risky mortgage bonds out the door.

When they realized the bonds were worth far less than previously thought, in late 2007, Standard & Poor's and other agencies lowered the ratings on nearly $2 trillion in mortgage securities. The downgrades helped spread panic because holders of the bonds and any potential buyers of them no longer knew their value.

The government says S&P knew the bonds were risky, but gave them artificially high ratings in a quest for higher revenue and greater market share.

Q: Why would they give ultra-safe ratings to risky mortgages?

A: The government sided with critics of the industry, who believe it suffers from a fundamental conflict of interest: Rating agencies are paid by the same companies whose bonds they rate.

Continue reading this story on the...