In the back kitchens of rating agencies
Last Friday, a small twenty senior analysts from the rating agency Standard & Poor's had noted in their agenda a top secret conference call. In fact, they were about to make history: the meeting focused on the debt rating of the United States. After several hours of deliberations, the leading world power has lost its prestigious AAA. Not a word has filtered out of the meeting.
Rating agencies cultivate secrecy around these appointments called "rating committees." The heart of their power: analysts will decide the fate of nations by voting financial, away from the public on the future of the country note. No list of participants has not been released. However, the assessment can set the tone to the market.Law and internal regulations require many investors to buy or sell some of their shares according to the decisions of the trio of major Anglo-Saxon agencies Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch.
The theory and practice
At the beginning of the procedure leading to the convening of a committee must be an event that could have an impact on the rating of a country, a new government or the publication of statistics. That's the theory. In practice, agencies are not locked in their ivory towers. "The noise of the markets or the hype, the phenomena of modes outside the agency also cause internal discussions that may cause the reopening of cases," says a former senior analyst at Moody's.
To prepare for a summit meeting, the analyst in charge of the target country meets members of the tax administration.Once or twice a year in general, often in a crisis. He did not have access to more information than large investors also regularly received by the authorities. Following a strict methodology and specific to each agency, he wrote a memo and draft a proposal for the "conf call." On the day, it will have to convince between 4 and 20 of his colleagues, a figure which varies depending on the size of the country but also … each holiday, a former gliding.
One man, one vote
One man, one vote: in principle, democratic rule prevails in rating committees. In practice, less glorious. Clan wars and other struggles for influence can disrupt the debate. As in any large company. "It can heat from analysts," says Pierre Cailleteau, ex-head of sovereign ratings at Moody's, now adviser at Lazard.For example, he says, "we were very divided about Greece last year. We had some very important debates internally. "Moody's, which was the first to lower the rating of Athens in 2009, then sharply deteriorated four notches, out of season.
In case of disagreement, how to find a majority? Standard & Poor's has found the solution: the committees are always in odd numbers. Then the strict methodology of the agency under discussion. And, theoretically, the great leader is there to calm things down. "In some cases, the director may have a strong grip on the committee," says Norbert Gaillard, specialist rating agencies *. Analysts may come under pressure, admits to spell Pierre Cailleteau: "We arrived during the session to ask an analyst to reconsider its vote, given the dominant position on the committee."Moody's, the bylaws stipulates, however, to limit the pressure, the lowest in the hierarchy and a vote in the first analyst to appeal a decision.
Subjective criteria
Still, the year-end bonus are set by the Area Manager, at Moody's in particular. The criteria are multiple, subjective: the variable compensation of an analyst depends on the work of presenting and representing the firm on the outside, the frequency of updating of countries covered, or the level of the analyst. "There are good and less good," says Pierre Cailleteau, which concluded: "It is I who stood out on bonuses." Moody's says
The former analyst, who left his practice in 2008, said: "The reports became confrontational, the atmosphere would grow over the independence of opinion. This is one reason I left. "And asks: "Given the importance given to them, is it not problematic that the agencies do not communicate about the independence of their analysts?"
In the end, the committee's decision is published, with an argument, in a press release. But no mention of voting results, the agencies do not want to reveal internal divisions. We do not know if the note of the United States has been lowered with a broad consensus. Or with a voice apart.
Agencies to staff shortages
"Agencies do not have the resources corresponding to the importance of financial regulations and investors give them-and they give themselves," lamented a former Moody's. Standard & Poor's, the largest agency in the world, the Wall Street Journal has only 70 to 80 analysts, juniors and seniors, covering 126 countries.Result, "every senior analyst is responsible for an average of 6 to 10 countries, shows the former analyst. When I was at the International Monetary Fund, an economist focused exclusively on one country. "
Same thing during visits to the Ministries of Finance of the State. Former Moody's drives the point home: "At the IMF, the missions are conducted on site by five and last 15 days. Moody's, we were two, and the visit lasted two to three days. "In Fitch's rating committees collect a minimum of four analysts. At most, 20 people participated, but it is very rare. Contacted by lefigaro.fr, Moody's would not say how many senior analysts it employs.
Rating agencies could afford to recruit: profitability is very high. Moody's expects a gross margin between 38 and 40% in 2011.The past year, Fitch was more than half of revenues (58%) and the Standard & Poor's to 43% on the only first three months of 2011.
* Norbert Gaillard is the author of "The rating agencies", Éditions La Découverte, 2010
ALSO READ:
"These men who note states
"GRAPHICS-The world as seen by the rating agencies
"The rating agencies decrypted
"Specially FILE – Depression, fear of debt