The BusinessWeek cover story The Home Price Abyss: Why the threat of a free fall is growing. is very interesting. The core argument is that price declines could potentially feed on themselves. Big price declines make people unable to keep paying their mortgages (because their ARMs are resetting and the banks won’t refinance) or unwilling to keep paying their mortgages (because they see no point in throwing good money after bad). That drives up the foreclosure rate, which drives the prices of neighboring homes, adding to the downward spiral.We’re already seeing this happening in some of the markets with the worst price declines such as southern California, Nevada, Arizona, and southern Florida. The question is whether it could spread to more areas and become a national problem. One person which was quote in the story says that the taboo on walking away from your home and leaving the keys behind could be diminishing. He says that in commercial real estate it’s business as usual.
We would like to know what Banksit readers think about the idea of walking out on a mortgage.
Sunday, 13 July 2008
Welcome to our blog!
You are welcome to our blog about banks, investments and taxes worldwide. We hope you will enjoy this site.
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
SEC Finds Shortcomings in Credit Rating Agencies'
The Securities and Exchange Commission today released findings from extensive 10-month examinations of three major credit rating agencies that uncovered significant weaknesses in ratings practices and the need for remedial action by the firms to provide meaningful ratings and the necessary levels of disclosure to investors.
Under new statutory authority from Congress that enabled the SEC to register and examine credit rating agencies, the agency's staff conducted examinations of Fitch Ratings Ltd., Moody's Investor Services Inc., and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services to evaluate whether they are adhering to their published methodologies for determining ratings and managing conflicts of interest. With the recent subprime market turmoil, the SEC has been particularly interested in the rating agencies' policies and practices in rating mortgage-backed securities and the impartiality of their ratings.
The SEC staff's examinations found that rating agencies struggled significantly with the increase in the number and complexity of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO) deals since 2002. The examinations uncovered that none of the rating agencies examined had specific written comprehensive procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs. Furthermore, significant aspects of the rating process were not always disclosed or even documented by the firms, and conflicts of interest were not always managed appropriately.
"We've uncovered serious shortcomings at these firms, including a lack of disclosure to investors and the public, a lack of policies and procedures to manage the rating process, and insufficient attention to conflicts of interest," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "When the firms didn't have enough staff to do the job right, they often cut corners. That's the bad news. There's also good news. And that's that the problems are being fixed in real time. The recent events affecting our economy and our markets have galvanized regulators around the world to re-examine the regulatory framework governing credit rating agencies, but ultimately the responsibility for providing meaningful ratings to investors begins with the credit rating firms themselves."
Lori Richards, Director of the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, said, "These examinations found shortcomings in the ratings processes used by each of the firms examined. The firms have all agreed to implement broad reforms to address the letter and the spirit of the findings, to better ensure that investors can have confidence in their ratings."
The Summary Report of Issues Identified in the Commission Staff's Examinations of Select Credit Rating Agencies describes the significant weaknesses in the rating agencies' processes in rating subprime RMBS and CDOs linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities from January 2004 to the present.
Specifically, the examinations found:
- There was a substantial increase in the number and in the complexity of RMBS and CDO deals since 2002, and some of the rating agencies appear to have struggled with the growth.
- Significant aspects of the ratings process were not always disclosed.
- Policies and procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs can be better documented.
- The rating agencies are implementing new practices with respect to the information provided to them.
- The rating agencies did not always document significant steps in the ratings process - including the rationale for deviations from their models and for rating committee actions and decisions - and they did not always document significant participants in the ratings process.
- The surveillance processes used by the rating agencies appear to have been less robust than the processes used for initial ratings.
- Issues were identified in the management of conflicts of interest and improvements can be made.
- The rating agencies' internal audit processes varied significantly.
The examinations were conducted by staff in the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Division of Trading and Markets, and Office of Economic Analysis. The report summarizes generally the remedial actions that credit rating agencies are expected to take as a result of the examinations, and includes observations by the SEC's Office of Economic Analysis about conflicts of interest that are unique to these products. A factual summary of the models and methodologies used by the rating agencies is provided in the report to provide transparency to the ratings process and the activities of the rating agencies in connection with the recent subprime mortgage turmoil.
The SEC last month proposed a three-fold set of comprehensive reforms to regulate the conflicts of interests, disclosures, internal policies, and business practices of credit rating agencies. The first portion of rulemaking would address conflicts of interest in the credit ratings industry and require new disclosures designed to increase the transparency and accountability of credit ratings agencies. The second portion would require credit rating agencies to differentiate the ratings they issue on structured products from those they issue on bonds through the use of different symbols or by issuing a report disclosing the differences. The third part of the SEC's proposed rulemaking would clarify for investors the limits and purposes of credit ratings and ensure that the role assigned to ratings in SEC rules is consistent with the objectives of having investors make an independent judgment of credit risks.
Under new statutory authority from Congress that enabled the SEC to register and examine credit rating agencies, the agency's staff conducted examinations of Fitch Ratings Ltd., Moody's Investor Services Inc., and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services to evaluate whether they are adhering to their published methodologies for determining ratings and managing conflicts of interest. With the recent subprime market turmoil, the SEC has been particularly interested in the rating agencies' policies and practices in rating mortgage-backed securities and the impartiality of their ratings.
The SEC staff's examinations found that rating agencies struggled significantly with the increase in the number and complexity of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO) deals since 2002. The examinations uncovered that none of the rating agencies examined had specific written comprehensive procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs. Furthermore, significant aspects of the rating process were not always disclosed or even documented by the firms, and conflicts of interest were not always managed appropriately.
"We've uncovered serious shortcomings at these firms, including a lack of disclosure to investors and the public, a lack of policies and procedures to manage the rating process, and insufficient attention to conflicts of interest," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "When the firms didn't have enough staff to do the job right, they often cut corners. That's the bad news. There's also good news. And that's that the problems are being fixed in real time. The recent events affecting our economy and our markets have galvanized regulators around the world to re-examine the regulatory framework governing credit rating agencies, but ultimately the responsibility for providing meaningful ratings to investors begins with the credit rating firms themselves."
Lori Richards, Director of the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, said, "These examinations found shortcomings in the ratings processes used by each of the firms examined. The firms have all agreed to implement broad reforms to address the letter and the spirit of the findings, to better ensure that investors can have confidence in their ratings."
The Summary Report of Issues Identified in the Commission Staff's Examinations of Select Credit Rating Agencies describes the significant weaknesses in the rating agencies' processes in rating subprime RMBS and CDOs linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities from January 2004 to the present.
Specifically, the examinations found:
- There was a substantial increase in the number and in the complexity of RMBS and CDO deals since 2002, and some of the rating agencies appear to have struggled with the growth.
- Significant aspects of the ratings process were not always disclosed.
- Policies and procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs can be better documented.
- The rating agencies are implementing new practices with respect to the information provided to them.
- The rating agencies did not always document significant steps in the ratings process - including the rationale for deviations from their models and for rating committee actions and decisions - and they did not always document significant participants in the ratings process.
- The surveillance processes used by the rating agencies appear to have been less robust than the processes used for initial ratings.
- Issues were identified in the management of conflicts of interest and improvements can be made.
- The rating agencies' internal audit processes varied significantly.
The examinations were conducted by staff in the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Division of Trading and Markets, and Office of Economic Analysis. The report summarizes generally the remedial actions that credit rating agencies are expected to take as a result of the examinations, and includes observations by the SEC's Office of Economic Analysis about conflicts of interest that are unique to these products. A factual summary of the models and methodologies used by the rating agencies is provided in the report to provide transparency to the ratings process and the activities of the rating agencies in connection with the recent subprime mortgage turmoil.
The SEC last month proposed a three-fold set of comprehensive reforms to regulate the conflicts of interests, disclosures, internal policies, and business practices of credit rating agencies. The first portion of rulemaking would address conflicts of interest in the credit ratings industry and require new disclosures designed to increase the transparency and accountability of credit ratings agencies. The second portion would require credit rating agencies to differentiate the ratings they issue on structured products from those they issue on bonds through the use of different symbols or by issuing a report disclosing the differences. The third part of the SEC's proposed rulemaking would clarify for investors the limits and purposes of credit ratings and ensure that the role assigned to ratings in SEC rules is consistent with the objectives of having investors make an independent judgment of credit risks.
Saturday, 5 July 2008
UK HMRC lost in a case about European "tax havens"
The UK government has lost a court battle of 6 years against Vodafone, in a failled effort to prevent companies using European tax havens. A UK judge ruled that Vodafone does not have to pay extra corporation tax on a Luxembourg-based subsidiary.
The UK HMRC has the right to appeal the decision, and if success for Vodafone, the ruling is likely to be closely watched by many other major multinational businesses with overseas subsidiaries, which are waiting the end of the case.
In an article about the case from The Guardian, it is remembered that the case centres around the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) legislation introduced in 1988 to try to claw back tax from companies with overseas businesses.
In the article, it was also remembered that two years ago the European court of justice ruled in a case involving Cadbury Schweppes that the legislation is restrictive and can only be justified where subsidiaries are set up artificially to gain a tax advantage. Today's high court judgment relates to the question of the compatibility of the CFC legislation with EU law rather than the facts of the Vodafone case. The judge said that as a result of the Cadbury ruling that no charge could be imposed on Vodafone, or any other company in the same position, under the 1988 legislation and parliament needs to rectify the situation with a new set of rules.
"In my judgement, the CFC legislation must be disapplied so that, pending amending legislation or executive action, no charge can be imposed on a company such as Vodafone under the CFC legislation".
"It seems to me that all UK taxpayers, including Vodafone, were and are entitled to be told by legislation, of which the meaning is plain, what the tax consequences for them will be if they decide to incorporate a controlled foreign company in a (EU) member state."
Vodafone Investments Luxembourg Sarl (VIL) was set up in 2000 as a vehicle for the holding of investments, and it is resident for tax purposes in Luxembourg.
The UK HMRC has the right to appeal the decision, and if success for Vodafone, the ruling is likely to be closely watched by many other major multinational businesses with overseas subsidiaries, which are waiting the end of the case.
In an article about the case from The Guardian, it is remembered that the case centres around the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) legislation introduced in 1988 to try to claw back tax from companies with overseas businesses.
In the article, it was also remembered that two years ago the European court of justice ruled in a case involving Cadbury Schweppes that the legislation is restrictive and can only be justified where subsidiaries are set up artificially to gain a tax advantage. Today's high court judgment relates to the question of the compatibility of the CFC legislation with EU law rather than the facts of the Vodafone case. The judge said that as a result of the Cadbury ruling that no charge could be imposed on Vodafone, or any other company in the same position, under the 1988 legislation and parliament needs to rectify the situation with a new set of rules.
"In my judgement, the CFC legislation must be disapplied so that, pending amending legislation or executive action, no charge can be imposed on a company such as Vodafone under the CFC legislation".
"It seems to me that all UK taxpayers, including Vodafone, were and are entitled to be told by legislation, of which the meaning is plain, what the tax consequences for them will be if they decide to incorporate a controlled foreign company in a (EU) member state."
Vodafone Investments Luxembourg Sarl (VIL) was set up in 2000 as a vehicle for the holding of investments, and it is resident for tax purposes in Luxembourg.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
SEC Proposal to Reduce Reliance on Credit Ratings
The Securities and Exchange Commission today published for public comment proposed rule changes to make the limits and purposes of credit ratings clear to investors and ensure that the role assigned to ratings in SEC rules is consistent with the objectives of having investors make an independent judgment of credit risks.
The Commission voted unanimously on June 25, 2008, to issue for public comment this third set of proposed recommendations to bring increased transparency to the credit ratings process and curb practices that contributed to recent turmoil in the credit markets. The Commission voted to propose the first two sets of recommendations on June 11, 2008.
"This action is designed to ensure that the role we assign to ratings in our rules is consistent with the objective of having investors make an independent judgment of the risks associated with a particular security," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "It should be neither the purpose nor the effect of any SEC rule to discourage investors from paying close attention to what credit ratings actually mean."
Erik R. Sirri, Director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, said, "These proposals complete the rulemaking initiative begun two weeks ago with respect to NRSROs. I believe the proposed amendments will further promote the Commission's goals of strengthening the ratings process by reducing any undue reliance on NRSRO ratings and by encouraging independent evaluation and analysis of credit risk."
John White, Director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, added, "These proposals are an important step toward clarifying the appropriate role of credit ratings in investors' decisions about the securities in which they invest. Not only do the proposals establish new criteria, independent of ratings, for issuers to access our forms and utilize the shelf registration process, they do so in a manner that protects the interests of investors."
The Commission has reviewed the requirements in its rules and forms that rely on credit ratings. In many cases, it has concluded that such references can be removed or revised. These proposals also address recent recommendations issued by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Financial Stability Forum, and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Consistent with these recommendations, the SEC has considered whether the inclusion of requirements related to ratings in its rules and forms has, in effect, placed an "official seal of approval" on ratings that could adversely affect the quality of due diligence and investment analysis. The SEC's proposal would reduce undue reliance on credit ratings and result in improvements in the analysis that underlies investment decisions.
Public comments on this third set of proposed rules should be received by the Commission no later than Sept. 5, 2008.
The proposing releases comprising this third set of rule proposals have been posted to the SEC Web site:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/34-58070.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/33-8940.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/ic-28327.pdf
The Commission voted unanimously on June 25, 2008, to issue for public comment this third set of proposed recommendations to bring increased transparency to the credit ratings process and curb practices that contributed to recent turmoil in the credit markets. The Commission voted to propose the first two sets of recommendations on June 11, 2008.
"This action is designed to ensure that the role we assign to ratings in our rules is consistent with the objective of having investors make an independent judgment of the risks associated with a particular security," said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. "It should be neither the purpose nor the effect of any SEC rule to discourage investors from paying close attention to what credit ratings actually mean."
Erik R. Sirri, Director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, said, "These proposals complete the rulemaking initiative begun two weeks ago with respect to NRSROs. I believe the proposed amendments will further promote the Commission's goals of strengthening the ratings process by reducing any undue reliance on NRSRO ratings and by encouraging independent evaluation and analysis of credit risk."
John White, Director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, added, "These proposals are an important step toward clarifying the appropriate role of credit ratings in investors' decisions about the securities in which they invest. Not only do the proposals establish new criteria, independent of ratings, for issuers to access our forms and utilize the shelf registration process, they do so in a manner that protects the interests of investors."
The Commission has reviewed the requirements in its rules and forms that rely on credit ratings. In many cases, it has concluded that such references can be removed or revised. These proposals also address recent recommendations issued by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Financial Stability Forum, and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Consistent with these recommendations, the SEC has considered whether the inclusion of requirements related to ratings in its rules and forms has, in effect, placed an "official seal of approval" on ratings that could adversely affect the quality of due diligence and investment analysis. The SEC's proposal would reduce undue reliance on credit ratings and result in improvements in the analysis that underlies investment decisions.
Public comments on this third set of proposed rules should be received by the Commission no later than Sept. 5, 2008.
The proposing releases comprising this third set of rule proposals have been posted to the SEC Web site:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/34-58070.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/33-8940.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2008/ic-28327.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
