Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IT’S BEEN OVER a week now since Standard & Poor’s did the hitherto-unthinkable and decided to downgrade its rating of the United States of America, stripping it of its AAA rating for the first time in its history.
The ripples from that seismic event have been felt around the world – with markets around Earth all showing incredible volatility this week as stock prices went down, then up, then down, and then up again.
But one of the questions that’s been asked about the downgrade – including by many senior figures in the States, who are questioning the logic of the move, is how ratings agencies managed to manoeuvre themselves into such a domineering position in the first place.
It’s a fair question – if countries can live or die by the ratings of an agency (remember: 18 months ago, Ireland was an AAA country!) then it’s only right to ask how they became such a big deal in the first place.
The answer, it turns out, is all to do with the Transcontinental Railroad.
American broadcaster NPR has been doing some digging and learned that the ratings agencies only really came into existence in the latter half of the 19th century, when it was decided to expand railways from small, inter-city things to larger transnational projects.
At that time, if someone was putting up the money to build a railroad, they knew exactly who they were giving it to – they only lived one or two towns away. It would be feasible for a lender to go out and meet the railway’s constructor to check out whether the investment was a worthwhile one.
That all changed when railroads went trans-continental. Suddenly, investors were being asked to put up money for projects on the other side of the country – places they couldn’t physically visit to scope out in advance of an investment. They simply didn’t know the people they were giving money to.
That’s where Henry Poor came along. In 1860 he published a book containing nothing but the financial details of every railway and canal boat operator in the US – simplifying the process of figuring out which operators were worth investing in.
Poor’s company existed in a vacuum all of its own until 1906, when Luther Lee Blake set up his own Standard Statistics Bureau – which essentially covered everything that Poor’s didn’t, ranking everything from corn to timber.
In 1909 John Moody, brought out his own similar data on a broader range of goods, while in 1913 John Fitch set up shop right in the centre of New York City just as the stock markets began to emerge as a formal method of buying and selling ownership in a company.
In 1941, Standard and Poor’s merged to form… well, Standard & Poor’s, and that’s were the three major ratings agencies came from.
But how did they gain such a prominence? That’ll be the fault of the Great Depression in the 1930s- a move which caused the US government to act very much like our own government did in 2008, when it started taking a greater interest in the activity of the banking sector.
With banks suffering massive losses because of the number of companies going out of business – and because all of their collateral was now essentially worthless – the government introduced new rules on the nature of the assets banks could invest in.
Among those rules were the requirement that every prospective investment be vetted – and ranked by a ratings agency.
From then on, the ratings agencies flourished – and grew into the substantial behemoths that we know today.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Here’s a noob question: who pays them?
For the most part they are paid by the companies they rate. I shit you not.
Companies pay massive money for their reports and research services
Informative article, thanks for this.
Interesting stuff, cheers Gavan.
I think the question is more “Why did the media suddenly start giving so much hype and weight to the rating agencies and never question their true motives nor investigate who and what is behind them”. That and what uncomfortable relationships they might hold with mainstream media outlets behind the scenes.
This does leave out the significant parts of the relatiosnhips between economic academics, government policy advisers, banks and other financial institutions like central banks, large corporations and economic lobbyist, and elected representative.
There is a revolving door here.
“But how did they gain such a prominence? That’ll be the fault of the Great Depression in the 1930s- a move which caused the US government to act very much like our own government did in 2008, when it started taking a greater interest in the activity of the banking sector.”
Our governments, and certainly the elected reps have ALWAYS had a great interest in the banking and financial system. Their own interest was paramount. Its our interest they werent so bothered about. Like the Great Depression, these things didnt just happen. They are a result of political and economic decisions made by people who have little concern beynd their own pockets
Thats the history! But the reality is rating agencies are glorified number crunchers , totally detached from reality, they offer ratings on banks etc purely based on information that any one except for confidential stuff that anyone can access. They basically are used to push the agenda of wealthy elites and Banks, and assume that these are honest people, bearing in mind they all come from the same defective gene pool of upper class business colleges , particularly in the US. Some argue that S&P is now trying to save face in light of the disastous AAA rating it gave to sub prime mortgage products, they fear law suits are in the offing. From an Irish perspective , check out the AG reports of all the Irish Banks prior to 2007, including Anglo, triple AAA ratings all the way!!
Isn’t it about time for a truly independent ratings agency or is that even possible?
Also in my humble opinion protected by the right to free speech and all that stuff, now could be a good time to acquire shares of Bank of Ireland, even if to hold them for only a few weeks.
Obviously with new investors subscribing the new shares issued by BoI, the bank will escape nationalisation, which bodes well for its long term credibility. These new investors now hold 34.9% of BoI, the state 14.9%, and initial shareholders 50%.
But take a closer look at one of these new shareholders: Capital Research. They also happen to be a hedge fund and one of the leading shareholders of…. MOOODY’s Investors services! (Moody’s is 100% owned by a handful of hedge funds).
In my humble opinion, Moody’s ratings of BoI (now at Ba1, that is “Junk” level) are quite likely to make a miraculous recovery within a month or two….
So who owns or runs them now??
have your say