Article Preview – ‘Sigma Ratings: Adapting the Credit Rating Agency Model for the Anti-Money Laundering World’
In today’s post we will preview an article by this author that
is due to be published soon in the Journal
of Money Laundering Control. The article is available in its
pre-published format here. In
this post we will review the underlying premise of the article, and present the
target of the article which is a new venture in the anti-money laundering arena
– Sigma Ratings.
The article aims to introduce the new venture to the
literature and examine its potential against the backdrop of the anti-money
laundering (AML) arena, and also against the experiences of its model-sharing
cousins, the credit rating agencies. For clarity, Sigma Ratings is essentially
a mixture of the two worlds and seeks to bring the credit rating model into the
AML arena, with the hope being that the agency will enable the world to ‘transact with confidence’. To achieve this
aim, the article presents a number of different contexts. The first context
presented is that of the AML world and some of the competing theoretical
pressures that underpin it. This is followed by an analysis of the banking
arena and its importance to the concept of AML, before the article concludes by
introducing Sigma Ratings and then discussing some of its potential strengths
and weaknesses.
Money laundering is contextualised genealogically at first.
We see that the concept of money laundering is a long-existing one, but efforts
to formally combat it emanated from the 1980s and the spread of drugs around
the global system. The links between money laundering and organised crime are
analysed closely, because as one scholar notes, ‘money laundering has become instrumental
in both the success and collapse of organised crime’. This is emphasised by the
statistical notion that estimates suggest that the money laundering industry is
the world’s third-largest industry behind oil and agriculture, which
demonstrates the societal importance of affecting this particular sector. In
attempting to understand the theoretical underpinnings of money laundering, we
see that there are a number of competing pressures that influence the
development of AML efforts, including political, economic, and legal-based
concerns. In utilising the systems theory lens, it is discussed that these competing
pressures produce inefficiencies that are systemic to the AML effort – the reasoning
for this is, potentially, that the systemic nature of AML is not properly
considered by those who can affect the regime, and the result is that many
initiatives tend to focus on the symptom rather than the cause.
This concept is examined from within the context of banking.
We start by seeing that banking is widely recognised as being one of the crucial
‘pinch-points’ for money laundering and, thus, the global AML effort. However,
the dynamics of banking in general, and in ‘correspondent banking’ in
particular, are advanced to show that there are a massive number of pressures
on the banking system when AML is considered. It is suggested by scholars that
banks were ‘unwillingly recruited’ into the AML regime and that this is based
on a number of aspects. Those aspects are discussed in the article and range
from the increased cost of participating in the regime, particularly when
placed against the lack of opportunity to derive profit from the expense. It is
discussed that there have been attempts to correct this imbalance, most notably
with the invention of ‘Financial Inclusion’ (FI), which aims to open previously
untapped markets to the banks as a sort of quid-pro-quo for their AML efforts. FI
includes categories such as low-income individuals, rural sectors, or
undocumented groups, but a large amount of the focus is in developing
countries. However, the aims of tempting banks into FI as some sort of reward
for increased AML compliance have not come to fruition, with it being suggested
that there exists a massive fear of dealing with entities from other
jurisdictions when their practices are not fully vetted – this is the issue
with ‘correspondent banking’ and is one of the main issues that underlies some
of the headline-grabbing stories of massive banking penalties for AML failures
for institutions such as HSBC and BNP Paribas.
It is within this gap that Sigma Ratings, potentially, is
best suited. The article introduces Sigma Ratings to the literature and some of
the declarations form the new company are assessed. The agency declares that
they are different to the recognised ‘Big Three’ rating agencies in that Sigma
rate entity-level ‘non-credit’ risks such as financial crime compliance and
governance. Sigma is championing its usage of ‘deep domain expertise and
cutting-edge computer science’ in order to generate a number of risk scores for
companies around the world. One of the founders of the company – Stuart Jones –
describes the company as the world’s first ‘business integrity rating agency’,
which is particularly apt and contextualises the new offering nicely. The
agency’s internal processes are discussed and we see that they have a simple
rating system akin to that of the rating agencies – these simplistic rating
scales are one of the key selling points in the rating arena – and a prescribed
system for coming to a rating decision. The article goes on to discuss that,
because of the agency’s adoption of the infamous ‘issuer-pays’ remuneration
model, there exists a potential conflict of interest, but the article advances
the notion that this may not be as prevalent as in the credit rating industry
because regulators may be one of the key users of Sigma’s ratings, more so than
in the credit rating industry. However, there still exists the potential of
rating inflation, and this is something the article focuses upon and warns
against. We see that Barclays have been involved in the funding of this new
addition, and that this is not surprising given the potential importance to the
banking industry via the concept of ‘signalling’ – the ability to convey to external
bodies like investors but, more importantly, regulators, will be a key selling
point to Sigma Ratings and the products that it develops.
The article concludes with a positive sentiment in that the
new offering is particularly welcome and, if it continues to develop, will be
of great benefit to the AML system. There are potential issues if the agency
grows, but these can be off-set (or, maybe they will not be). Nevertheless, the
agency is a welcome addition to the field of AML and will hopefully inject
useful information into a system that needs clarity and, in a lot of cases,
some simplicity. The ability to ‘signal’ to a number of entities should make
the banking process, especially where money laundering and the fight against it
is concerned, much more efficient and, therefore, potentially more systemically
positive than it currently is. There is a widespread understanding that more is
needed from the global AML effort and this offering that Sigma represents may
be a positive addition on that regard.
Keyword – Sigma Ratings, Money Laundering, AML, Banking, @finregmatters
Comments
Post a Comment