The US Department of Justice is investigating whether the nation’s largest credit ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s (S&P), improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, two people interviewed by the government and another briefed on such interviews said.
The investigation began before S&P cut the US’ “AAA” credit rating this month, but it is likely to add fuel to the political firestorm that has surrounded that action. Lawmakers and some administration officials have since questioned the agency’s secretive process, its credibility and the competence of its analysts, claiming an error in its debt calculations.
In the mortgage inquiry, the Department of Justice has been asking about instances in which the company’s analysts wanted to award lower ratings on mortgage bonds, but may have been overruled by S&P executives, the people with knowledge of the interviews said.
If the government finds enough evidence to support such a case, which is likely to be a civil case, it could undercut S&P’s longstanding claim that its analysts act independently from business concerns.
It is unclear if the Department of Justice investigation involves the other two ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, or only S&P.
During the boom years, S&P and other ratings agencies reaped record profits as they bestowed their highest ratings on bundles of troubled mortgage loans, which made the mortgages appear less risky and thus more valuable. They failed to anticipate the deterioration that would come in the housing market and devastate the financial system.
Since the crisis, the agencies’ business practices and models have been criticized from many corners, including in congressional hearings and reports that have raised questions about whether independent analysis was corrupted by the drive for profits.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been investigating possible wrongdoing at S&P, a person interviewed for that matter said, and may be looking at the other two major agencies, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings.
Ed Sweeney, a spokesman for S&P, said in an e-mail: “S&P has received several requests from different government agencies over the last few years. We continue to cooperate with these requests. We do not prevent such agencies from speaking with current or former employees.”
The people with knowledge of the investigation said it had picked up steam early this summer, well before the debt rating issue reached a crescendo in Washington. Now members of the US Congress are investigating why S&P removed the nation’s “AAA” rating, which is highly important to financial markets.
Representatives of the Department of Justice and the SEC declined to comment, as are those departments’ customs, on whether they are investigating the ratings agencies.
A successful case or settlement against a giant like S&P could accelerate the shift away from the traditional ratings system. The financial reform overhaul known as Dodd-Frank sought to lessen the emphasis on ratings in the way banks and mutual funds invest their assets. However, bank regulators have been slow to spell out how that would work. A government case that showed problems beyond ineptitude might spur greater reforms, financial historians said.
“I think it would have a major impact if there was a successful fraud case that would suggest there would be momentum for legislation that would force them to change their business model,” said Richard Sylla, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business who has studied the history of ratings firms.
Zhang Yazhou was sitting in the passenger seat of her Tesla Model 3 when she said she heard her father’s panicked voice: The brakes do not work. Approaching a red light, her father swerved around two cars before plowing into a sport utility vehicle and a sedan, and crashing into a large concrete barrier. Stunned, Zhang gazed at the deflating airbag in front of her. She could never have imagined what was to come: Tesla Inc sued her for defamation for complaining publicly about the vehicles brakes — and won. A Chinese court ordered Zhang to pay more than US$23,000 in
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) yesterday held its first board of directors meeting in the US, at which it did not unveil any new US investments despite mounting tariff threats from US President Donald Trump. Trump has threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on Taiwan-made chips, prompting market speculation that TSMC might consider boosting its chip capacity in the US or ramping up production of advanced chips such as those using a 2-nanometer technology process at its Arizona fabs ahead of schedule. Speculation also swirled that the chipmaker might consider building its own advanced packaging capacity in the US as part
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) yesterday said that its investment plan in Arizona is going according to schedule, following a local media report claiming that the company is planning to break ground on its third wafer fab in the US in June. In a statement, TSMC said it does not comment on market speculation, but that its investments in Arizona are proceeding well. TSMC is investing more than US$65 billion in Arizona to build three advanced wafer fabs. The first one has started production using the 4-nanometer (nm) process, while the second one would start mass production using the
‘NO DISRUPTION’: A US trade association said that it was ready to work with the US administration to streamline the program’s requirements and achieve shared goals The White House is seeking to renegotiate US CHIPS and Science Act awards and has signaled delays to some upcoming semiconductor disbursements, two sources familiar with the matter told reporters. The people, along with a third source, said that the new US administration is reviewing the projects awarded under the 2022 law, meant to boost US domestic semiconductor output with US$39 billion in subsidies. Washington plans to renegotiate some of the deals after assessing and changing current requirements, the sources said. The extent of the possible changes and how they would affect agreements already finalized was not immediately clear. It was not known