Actions Speak Louder Than Words. Sorry.

"Anybody can make loans. But banks are finding the problem right now is getting the money back." Can you say duhh? I mean, really; isn't that obvious? According to what we're seeing in the financial markets, it certainly does appear as though the banks have forgotten this fundamental principle. This article speaks to the efforts made by the Fed and Treasury to shore-up investor confidence in the financials, but when greater and greater exuberance among the banks is revealed, I don't think that any positive thinking can outweigh the market's pessimism.

Unfortunately for the government, actions speak louder than words and investors aren't going to jump back into the financials en mass before this industry demonstrates that it's learned something from this latest economic bubble and has very clear direction on how to surface once again. The government's efforts to combat speculation (or better phrased, manipulation) by short-traders and commodity futures traders and its support of Freddie and Fannie, are positive and likely necessary, but it's just not enough. These sorts of acts may keep us out of a modern depression, but they're sure not going to prevent a recession.

Almost comical, SEC's Chairman Cox's statements about how he intends to reveal unfounded rumors are just unrealistic. The markets already do a good job of uncovering untruths, but it simply takes time. Sometimes that required time is calculated in minutes and seconds, but in a global economy, this short window of time can represents billions of dollars traded worldwide. Again, such recognition by the government that rumours do possess the power to move markets is good and their intentions, too, are positive. That said, their ability to do anything about it is nil and beyond satisfying some concerns among unsophisticated investors, these sorts of statements will do nothing to help stabilize the markets or the economy. The unhappy truth is that it will take time. The economy didn't fall into this mess overnight and it won't recover that quickly either. Sorry.

More Information Is Always Better

There's a lot of talk about the SEC and its persisting investigation of the ratings agencies. The good news is that, at least it appears at this point, investors will be winners now matter what the outcome.

I wrote earlier about the SEC's consideration of a plan to require the ratings agencies to make their research material available to others. This, of course, would allow others (hopefully individual investors as well) will be able to assess risk-and-reward profile for a given investment - just as the credit ratings agencies do. The advantage is that investors could become less reliant on the AAA-ratings and could review the actual data that goes into such a rating. With the agencies being blamed for having rated mortgage-backed securities as tripple-A (the highest investment-grade rating) that subsequently defaulted and resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses and write-downs.

Now, there's news that the SEC will offer the ratings agencies a choice between two possible outcomes. The first, will be a disclosure of the underlying information as I described above; the second will introduce a new rating scale that would help identify mortgage-backed securities and distinguish them from corporate bonds. While certainly not providing as much information, this too would work to make investors more aware of where they were placing their money and that's never a bad thing. So, no matter what happens, at least its comforting to know that we, lowly investors, will ultimately win.

Ratings Agencies & Structured Securities

The SEC's investigation of the ratings industry continues and the latest target on their hit list is the rating of structured securities. The headlines suggest that the Commission may go so far as to ban the three top ratings agencies. Moody's, the S&P and Fitch from rating such securities at all. All three of these firms help to advise investment banks on the design of such securities, so how can they be trusted (by investors) to also provide impartial evaluation of their risk-and-return profiles?

What's more interesting, and possibly valuable, to investors, however, is the SEC's suggestion that the ratings agencies be required to make available all the data that goes into the ratings so that other firm (and possibly private investors?) be able to make their own determinations based on the very same information. In my previous studies about statistics we were often presented with research papers that claimed one result or another based on some analysis. What I often found quite interesting, however, was when such papers were later refuted by further analysis of the same data by other analysts.

As is often said, statistics can be massaged to say almost anything that you want. I can't help but think that ratings agencies are simply statistical analysts with an especially bring spotlight on their research reports. Data mining, the practice of scouring through numbers to find a particular trend or pattern, is a well known practice; try it for yourself. If you use enough data, I promise you that you can find any patter or trend that you want to find if you look hard enough and make the 'appropriate' assumptions. I think that the skill to analyze data yourself is invaluable and the news that more data may be made available to the public at some time the future will only help individual investors willing to put in the time and effort to make up their own minds about an investment.