62 online
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 70 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
General News    H3'ed 2/28/14

Rating Agency Lawsuit: How S&P Fabricates Evidence Out of Thin Air

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   No comments, In Series: Credit Rating Agencies
Message David Fiderer

(Article changed on February 28, 2014 at 10:23)

"Last month we wrote about the threatening phone call from then-Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner to the head of the parent company of Standard & Poor's after S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating in 2011," says opinion piece at The Wall Street Journal. "Now we learn that Mr. Geithner placed the call to McGraw Hill Chairman and CEO Harold McGraw III just five minutes after leaving an Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama."

Except there is no evidence of any threat, just some verbal sleights of hand contrived by McGraw's lawyer. And McGraw was first contacted the day before Geithner's meeting with the President.  Smoke and mirrors is not evidence. Which is why Standard & Poor's allegation, that the Justice Department sued the rating agency as retaliation for its downgrade of U.S. government bonds, is complete bulls***.

S&P's lawyer, Floyd Abrams of Cahill Gordon, is a master of doublespeak. He concocted a story of a government payback in the same manner that swindlers and crackpots concoct their conspiracy theories.  He cherry picked words and facts, which he then sliced, diced and separated from any formal nouns. By removing key identifiers--pertaining to who, what, when, where or why--he was able to insinuate that Geithner's straightforward and banal remarks constituted some kind of veiled threat. And then he plucked out a new factoid to implicate Barack Obama.  

If you go back to the beginning of Abrams' disinformation campaign, on February 5, 2013, you can see how easy it is to fabricate something out of nothing. On the same day that the government filed its suit, claiming that S&P assigned fraudulent ratings to a litany of residential mortgage bonds and CDOs, Abrams appeared on CNBC.  He insinuated that the government's litigation strategy changed after August 5, 2011, when S&P announced its downgrade of Treasuries from triple-A to double-A-plus.

"Is it true that after the downgrade the intensity of this investigation [S&P] significantly increased? Yea," he told CNBC's David Faber. "We don't know why."

His insinuation fails the laugh test.  Abrams would have no idea how or when the government inquiry gained steam. The Justice Department is not in the practice of informing outsiders about the ebb and flow of its investigations. Abrams had access to some information, a small tip of a large iceberg. And what, exactly, did he mean by an "increase in the intensity of the investigation"?

Bloomberg's reporting suggests the investigation accelerated in July 2011, when the Justice Department interviewed three former S&P executives. Or perhaps things really got going once the agency had sifted through evidence forwarded by Sen. Carl Levin's  Permanent  Subcommittee on Investigations in May 2011 , and by State attorneys general in Connecticut, Illinois and California. In addition to the U.S. government, at least 17 State attorneys general all brought lawsuits against S&P based on substantially identical fact situations set forth in their complaints. Are we to believe that all these plaintiffs were driven by grudges against the downgrade of U.S. government debt?  The evidence, that the processes for rating CDOs had devolved into a sham, is pretty overwhelming.

If the government investigation had some identifiable inflection point after August 5, 2011, that date could have occurred on any business day over the span of one year. The sheer vagueness of Abrams' timing, combined with his fuzzy concept of "increased intensity," add up to nothing.

But his comments did lay out the pretext for his baseless assertion that the government  retaliated against S&P because it exercised its First Amendment rights. Abrams' devices are amplified in Harold McGraw's three-page affidavit, a masterwork of factual slicing and dicing.

Here's the context: On late Friday, August 5, 2011, the rating agency downgraded U.S. government bonds, from triple-A to double-A-plus, primarily because of the Congressional brinksmanship over raising the debt ceiling, which raised the specter of a US default.

Whether or not the downgrade was justifiable, it posed a threat to the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, and it added a measure of instability to the markets, since some funds that only invest in triple-A bonds.

S&P notified Treasury of the downgrade at 1:30 pm that day, before the announcement was made public. Right away, Treasury officials identified a big error in S&P's math, which increased discretionary spending levels by $2 trillion above what was estimated by the CBO. So S&P hastily revised its numbers, and there was some internal wrangling, which is why the downgrade was not publicly announced until 8:00 p.m. S&P said it did not think that $2 trillion swing was so significant that it should reconsider its rating opinion, which was driven primarily by political analysis.  

Treasury offered a stinging and detailed rebuke to S&P's analysis the very next day, after the rating agency publicly admitted to the initial $2 trillion error.

Geithner was pissed and he wanted to let Harold McGraw know why.  So on Sunday August 7, an Executive Vice President at the New York Fed left a message at McGraw-Hill headquarters, along with his office and cell phone numbers. He asked Harold McGraw to call back on Monday morning.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Must Read 1   Supported 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

David Fiderer Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

For over 20 years, David has been a banker covering the energy industry for several global banks in New York. Currently, he is working on several journalism projects dealing with corporate and political corruption that, so far, have escaped serious (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Fatal Flaws In The Lawsuit Against Fannie Mae Execs, Part 2

Fannie Mae "Accounting Scandal" Discredited In Court

Mortgages, Ed Pinto, And A Vast Conspiracy Of Silence

How Niall Ferguson Invented False Quotes By Paul Krugman

How Paulson's People Colluded With Goldman to Destroy AIG And Get A Backdoor Bailout

Fox News Embraces Cyber-Terrorism to Subvert the Copenhagen Summit

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend