DOUGLAS: Regulate the raters, but not too much

Chris Douglas
January 16, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In Washington, the Senate Banking Committee is considering far-reaching legislation regulating the financial services industry in the wake of the recent and ongoing crisis. This legislation will dramatically change the relationship between the federal government and some of our financial institutions.

Among the most important players in the financial industry, but perhaps not well-known to the public, are the credit rating agencies (CRAs). Like many of the other players, the CRAs did not anticipate the severity of the financial crisis of 2008. Consequently, federal policymakers, and the CRAs themselves, agree that regulatory reform is needed to help avoid a repeat of the disappointing performance of ratings issued in the run-up to the crisis.

While a congressional debate over credit ratings may not dominate the headlines, Indiana’s taxpayers should understand the effect that ratings from these agencies can have on our local economy, especially with respect to infrastructure improvement and taxation.

Often, when local governments raise money for infrastructure projects, instead of taking a loan from a bank, they borrow money directly from the capital markets by issuing bonds or notes. These bonds are typically sold to private investors, who provide the cash to make the building of schools, roads and community facilities possible.

Our ability as a city to secure a nationally recognized rating for our bonds helps expand our access to capital, which makes it easier to finance our projects. This ability directly affects our quality of life and our pocketbook.

So, given the importance of CRAs, a final bill from Congress needs to strike a balance between addressing the status quo, which even the rating agencies agree is unsustainable, and impeding the ability of these private-sector agencies to do their work.

First, there must be meaningful competition among the CRAs. Robust competition provides investors with a range of opinions on the creditworthiness of an issuer; any new regulation should consider the barriers it might erect to encouraging a competitive ratings market.

Second, new regulations must acknowledge that capital markets are now global. Policymakers should coordinate their efforts internationally so that inconsistent approaches do not engender confusion in the global markets.

Third, while there are proposals worth considering that might help address conflicts of interest, Congress should focus immediately on increased transparency and public disclosure, so investors know what they are getting from the CRAs now. Additionally, publicly disclosed measures of historical CRA ratings performance would encourage a healthy free-market discipline.

Fourth, monitor the CRAs, but let them do their job. We need strong government oversight, but the raters, not the government, should still be the ones making analytical decisions.

Finally, under existing laws, CRAs and other market participants may be held legally liable if they intentionally or recklessly issue material and false statements. While we need to ensure greater accountability from the credit ratings agencies, our reforms should not be such that every default of a business or municipality generates a cascade of lawsuits against the ratings agencies. Investors should not mistake ratings for guarantees.•


Douglas is managing partner of C.H. Douglas & Gray LLC, an Indianapolis financial advisory and investment firm.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The deductible is entirely paid by the POWER account. No one ever has to contribute more than $25/month into the POWER account and it is often less. The only cost not paid out of the POWER account is the ER copay ($8-25) for non-emergent use of the ER. And under HIP 2.0, if a member calls the toll-free, 24 hour nurse line, and the nurse tells them to go to the ER, the copay is waived. It's also waived if the member is admitted to the hospital. Honestly, although it is certainly not "free" - I think Indiana has created a decent plan for the currently uninsured. Also consider that if a member obtains preventive care, she can lower her monthly contribution for the next year. Non-profits may pay up to 75% of the contribution on behalf of the member, and the member's employer may pay up to 50% of the contribution.

  2. I wonder if the governor could multi-task and talk to CMS about helping Indiana get our state based exchange going so Hoosiers don't lose subsidy if the court decision holds. One option I've seen is for states to contract with healthcare.gov. Or maybe Indiana isn't really interested in healthcare insurance coverage for Hoosiers.

  3. So, how much did either of YOU contribute? HGH Thank you Mr. Ozdemir for your investments in this city and your contribution to the arts.

  4. So heres brilliant planning for you...build a $30 M sports complex with tax dollars, yet send all the hotel tax revenue to Carmel and Fishers. Westfield will unlikely never see a payback but the hotel "centers" of Carmel and Fishers will get rich. Lousy strategy Andy Cook!

  5. AlanB, this is how it works...A corporate welfare queen makes a tiny contribution to the arts and gets tons of positive media from outlets like the IBJ. In turn, they are more easily to get their 10s of millions of dollars of corporate welfare (ironically from the same people who are against welfare for humans).