Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

FT Story Hammers Moody's Stock
The stock market has spoken: Moody's shares are down 14% today in the wake of the ratings scandal uncovered by the FT.
Portfolio did a good job of rounding up the reactions, including a unwisely dismissive piece by the WSJ's Aaron Lucchetti simply parroting the company line. Weirdly, no one seems to be picking up on what I consider the smoking gun: while the likes of Tanta and Alea and Yves Smith and Andrew Leonard all basically get the story right, none of them mentions the most damning quote of all.
Documents show that three methodological changes were proposed, but only two were adopted. The third was ditched because it "did not help the rating." Of the two changes which were made, the document states: "the impact of our code issue after those improvements is then reduced."
Why ignore this clear evidence of Moody's trying to maximize the rating it was giving to CPDOs? It's probably because the quote doesn't appear in the ink-on-newsprint FT story, it only appears in the FT Alphaville blog.
If the quote's so damning, why wasn't it included in the newspaper story? My gut feeling is: UK libel law. After all, we know that the FT has proved itself to be spineless and craven in such matters in the past, even when it was reporting the truth.
I really wish that the FT would simply release these documents into the public domain, instead of simply reporting what they say, so that we can all see them and judge for ourselves. After making suitable redactions to protect their sources, of course.






