Credit Rating Agencies the heart of global financial systems Part.II

The market for credit ratings in recent years is subject to much criticism. Indeed, it is the issuers that pay the agencies questioning the independence of these. How to be neutral given that the issuer needs only a single note? It will tend to compensate the agency assigning the highest rating. The multiple criteria analysis are, for obvious reasons of confidentiality, never disclosed which increases the opacity a little more of the rating process that can be conditioned on the purchase of related services commonly known as "notching."

By focusing on the area of credit institutions, that summarizes the scoring of key players reveals a strong tendency to align the ratings (all these establishments are located in the first five layers). This convergence makes difficult the choice of investors who may consider not having to provide a rating scale commensurate with the risks involved.

The three leaders in the market for credit ratings are today: Standard and Poor's, Moody's and Fitch Ratings. This virtual monopoly is that international organizations and regulators, the market is fragmented and anticompetitive. In addition, there may be twenty years since the ouster of the firms of smaller sizes, mainly through mergers and acquisitions process which may eventually become a disincentive to impartiality and innovation.


The existence of a thriving market and strongly oligopolistic have IOSCO to react on the limits of the rating agencies through the publication of a code of Conduct "IOSCO CRA Code". CESR has meanwhile called for a self-supervised after which the rating agencies have indicated their willingness to collaborate.

In January 2006, the European Commission considered the establishment of a regulatory framework to oversee the activities of rating agencies superfluous, and therefore formally requested in May 2006 at CESR to produce an annual report on the consideration by rating agencies the principles set out by IOSCO (quality and integrity of the rating process, independence and avoidance of conflicts of interest, transparency and relevance of the ratings, confidentiality of information).