WASHINGTON (AP) – The U.S. government is readying civil charges against Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services for improperly giving high ratings to toxic mortgage bonds before the financial crisis, the company says.
It would be the government’s first big enforcement action related to a credit rating agency’s actions in the lead-up to the 2008 crisis. S&P on Monday denied any wrongdoing and said any lawsuit would be without merit.
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 expected 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: They would be 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.
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 the value of those mortgages. 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 buy 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.
Q: Why would they give ultra-safe ratings to risky mortgages?
A: Critics have long argued that the agencies suffer from a fundamental conflict of interest: They are paid by the same companies whose bonds they rate.
According to various investigations of the crisis, rating agencies competed with each other for the business of the banks and brokerages that were packaging the mortgage-backed bonds. In some cases, critics say, rating-agency analysts were pressured to give unrealistically high ratings to curry favor with Wall Street.
Q: So who’s going to jail?
A: No one. The charges are civil, so the harshest penalties would be fines and limits on how the company does business.
In general, law enforcement officials have had a tough time making criminal cases against high-profile people involved in the 2008 financial crisis. Justice Department officials have argued that they simply don’t have the evidence to prosecute criminal cases, which would carry a higher burden of proof than civil charges.
As a result, most of the cases related to the crisis have been actions by regulators or lawsuits against small-time mortgage industry workers who committed on-the-ground fraud. No major Wall Street executive has faced the threat of jail time in relation to the crisis.
Q: Have lawmakers fixed the credit rating system?
A: There have been some reforms, but critics say they don’t go far enough.
Under the 2010 overhaul of financial rules known as the Dodd-Frank Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission gained stronger powers to oversee rating agencies. Safeguards were put in place to prevent banks from shopping around for the best rating.
Some proposals went farther. One would have randomly assigned a rating agency to each investment. It did not make the final bill.
Daniel Wagner can be reached at
(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
- Skin Cancer in Arizona: Stats, facts and new immunotherapy drugs making strides
- Caring Crisis: Rising tide In Alzheimer’s disease leads to shortage of caregivers
- Distracted walking injuries end up not so funny
- Scary situations: 5 quick tips before you let a contractor in your home
- Four ways telemedicine is changing the health care industry
- 5 mistakes homeowners make in the spring
- Three rivers run through it: Exploring Arizona's waterways
- Smart home basics: things you need to know to get started
- 5 Surprising things causing back pain
- Arizona agriculture is a $17.1B industry
- Timeline: Arizona's roots in brewing history
- 5 reasons to love the D-backs this season
- Tips for taking your home entertainment experience to the backyard
- Tech-related injuries your parents never experienced
- Workers comp: Signs your co-worker could be a fraud
- Who's the real founder of America's pastime?
- Epidemic rising? What you need to know about Alzheimer's in Arizona
- 5 unforgettable Wooden Award winners
- Family and hard work are keys to success of modern dairy farmers
- Genetic testing could hold answers for colon cancer survival
- Cold beers and baseball: A beer lover's guide to Spring Training
- Telecommuting: 5 tips to make it work for employers and employees
- See how top CFOs feel about economic growth in the Valley
- Migraine myths that keep patients from effective treatments
- Here’s why Gaydos went tankless with his water heater
- Bocce ball and basketball: How you can help Arizona's Special Olympics athletes
- Tips on building the best wine room in Arizona
- Avoid the nightmare: 6 tips to choose a great contractor
- Breast cancer: Improved testing and treatments means more survivors
- Failed back surgery: New hope for patients living in pain