Morningstar Potentially Fined for Lack of Internal Control
Life as the fourth-largest Rating Agency has not gone as
planned for Morningstar. Last year the firm acquired DBRS – as we discussed here
– and were hoping to improve investors’ trust in the rating industry by
bringing a new and honest approach to the field. However, as Cezary Podkul of
the Wall Street Journal has recently reported, it appears that they are about
to be fined for falling foul of one of the oldest conflicts of interests that
plagues the rating industry.
The article introduces the news that Morningstar will, in
coming days, be fined ‘several
million dollars’ for ‘violating riles in its bond-rating business that prohibit
analysts who hand out credit ratings from being involved in sales and marketing
for their companies’. There are a number of regulations that came in after
the Financial Crisis – and, in truth, agencies pledged on a self-regulatory
basis to prevent the same thing from happening even before the Crisis – to prevent
this behaviour. The calls
to erect so-called ‘Chinese Walls’
between analysts and sale-side activities were loud and clear after the crisis,
but clearly that particular conflict of interest remains. The SEC and
Morningstar have not commented yet, but the WSJ article suggests it will not be
long until this settlement will be made public. This comes on the back of more
damaging news for Morningstar. Podkul again broke the news that the firm was
struggling to integrate the two sets of rating methodologies since the merger
and that ‘investors received an almighty surprise towards the end of last year
when Morningstar announced that “25%
of the bonds that it had rated were likely to be downgraded”. It turned out
that, after a deluge of calls from investors, the firm had actually made an
error and that it was actually likely to upgrade
25% of the bonds it had rated, with only 3% being downgraded. The article
reports that investors have stated that ‘it certainly isn’t confidence
inspiring’, and that it probably a polite version.
Life as the fourth-largest agency has certainly not gone to
plan for Morningstar since it acquired DBRS. Whilst it is not being suggested
that the firm would not be suffering for these aspects if it has not acquired
DBRS, it is suggested that the level of scrutiny has been raised on account of
its new position in the marketplace. Yes it may not be anywhere near
challenging the Big Three, but it is closer. With that comes scrutiny, and
Morningstar would do well to avoid proclamations that it will be doing business
differently than other agencies, because in all truth it cannot – some of the
conflicts of interests within the credit rating arena are inherent. The adoption of the issuer-pays model precipitates the
potential for conflicts such as this particular violation to occur, and they
cannot be stopped, unless the remuneration model itself is dropped, which will
not happen. It is not anticipated that the fine will be substantial – anything in
double figures would be surprising – but the agency is now beginning to feel
what life is like towards the upper echelons of the credit rating field.
Keywords – credit rating agencies, Morningstar, conflicts of
interest, @finregmatters
Comments
Post a Comment