|
CNBC'S MOST SHARED
- UBS Says It Stays Committed to US Brokerage
- Plan to Sell General Motors' Assets Is Approved
- China Launches Major Step to Yuan Internationalization
- China Says 140 Die in Rioting
- Obama's Russia Visit to Bring Over $1.5 Billion in Deals
- UK Spy Chief's Wife Posts Life on Facebook
- BOJ Shirakawa: Japan Corporate Finance Still Tight
- Alcoa to Post Loss — What Does This Mean?
- A Goldman Trading Scandal?
- Market 360: The Week's Best & Worst
- Fireworks At Pharma's Market
- Value of Warren Buffett's Annual Gift to Gates Foundation Falls Along With Berkshire's Stock
- Michael Jackson: The Music And The Money
- Five Stock Picks for This Market
- Realities of the New Obama Refis
- Weak Dollar Means Gold at $1,040: Strategist
- Court Ruling Could Mean Trouble for TiVo
- Lance, Please Back Out Of Tour
Text Size 
In a hearing today before the House Oversight Committee, the credit rating agencies are being portrayed as profit-hungry institutions that would give any deal their blessing for the right price.
Case in point: this instant message exchange between two unidentified Standard & Poor's officials about a mortgage-backed security deal on 4/5/2007:
Official #1: Btw (by the way) that deal is ridiculous.
Official #2: I know right...model def (definitely) does not capture half the risk.
Official #1: We should not be rating it.
Official #2: We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it.
A former executive of Moody's says conflicts of interest got in the way of rating agencies properly valuing mortgage backed securities.
Former Managing Director Jerome Fons, who worked at Moody's until August of 2007, says Moody's was focused on "maxmizing revenues," leading it to make the firm more "issuer friendly."
Print
Email
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes