Skip to main content

Regulation: Success or Failure?

  • Chapter
  • 1021 Accesses

Abstract

This book has taken a holistic view by examining various regulations ranging from self-regulation, statutory regulation and common law regulation in the US and EU. The intention of regulation is to solve the problems of conflicts of interest, lack of competition and lack of accountability on the part of credit rating agencies (CRAs). The regulation consists of soft laws, statutory regulations and common law. The book’s premise is that for any regulation to play an effective role, it needs to have a deterrent effect in the form of imposing gatekeeper accountability on CRAs, thus compelling them to issue reliable ratings. Although this was critically examined in the preceding chapters, this last chapter aims to highlight the key issues, which hinge on whether or not regulation introduced in the US and EU is a success or a failure, and to consider the conclusions reached and make recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Financial Oversight of Enron (2002), p. 98.

  2. 2.

    Ibid.

  3. 3.

    Lamb (2013). See also Glossary for definition of “structural products”.

  4. 4.

    CDO consisted of private equity debt, auto debt, credit card debt, etc. See Glossary for definition of CDO.

  5. 5.

    See Buckley (2011), p. 69. See also Chapter 8 “Why Everyone Loved Moody’s” in McLean and Nocera (2010).

  6. 6.

    Ryan (2012a).

  7. 7.

    Ryan (2012b), p. 19.

  8. 8.

    Haynes (2013).

  9. 9.

    Ryan (2012b), p. 19.

  10. 10.

    Cadbury (2000).

  11. 11.

    Donoghue (or McAlister) v Stevenson, [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562 (House of Lords).

  12. 12.

    See Chap. 6.

  13. 13.

    [1978] AC 728, [1977] 2 All ER 492, [1977] 2 WLR 1024.

  14. 14.

    Part 11 of the UK Companies Act 2006.

  15. 15.

    Cf Pavlides v Jensen [1956] 1 Ch 565.

  16. 16.

    Section 232 (1) of the UK Companies Act 2006; See also Morse et al. (2007), p. 214.

  17. 17.

    Section 232 (2) of the UK Companies Act 2006.

  18. 18.

    Section 177 of the UK Companies Act 2006.

  19. 19.

    Section 234 Ibid. See also Morse (2007), p. 215.

  20. 20.

    Davies (2010), p. 123.

  21. 21.

    Tombs and Whyte (2015).

  22. 22.

    See Clayton et al. (2002). See also, Dembinski et al. (2006).

  23. 23.

    Dodd-Frank Act § 931. Martin and Franker (2011), p. 6. See also Coskun (2008), p. 264.

  24. 24.

    “EU plans to shake up rating agencies”, Reuters (15 November). http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE7AE1KA20111115?irpc=945.

  25. 25.

    “Fitch Comments on U.S. Financial Reform Act’s Implication for Credit Rating Agencies”, Reuters (19 July 2010). http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/19/idUS132937+19-Jul-2010+BW20100719.

  26. 26.

    Dodd-Frank Act, § 459–463.

  27. 27.

    Martin and Franker (2011), pp. 3 and 4.

  28. 28.

    Ryan (2012a, b).

  29. 29.

    See Chapter 23 “Conflict of Interest: Credit Rating Agencies”, in Davies (2010), pp. 123–130.

  30. 30.

    For definition of “solicited ratings”, see Glossary.

  31. 31.

    Deb and Murphy (2009), p. 5.

  32. 32.

    Ryan (2012a, b).

  33. 33.

    Benabou and Laroque (1992), pp. 921–958.

  34. 34.

    Froeba (2009).

  35. 35.

    Froeba (2009).

  36. 36.

    Klintz (2011).

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    See Hume (2013).

  39. 39.

    Gannon (2011–2012), pp. 1015–1017.

  40. 40.

    Zhou and Kumar (2012), p. 1.

  41. 41.

    Haynes (2014).

  42. 42.

    Richardson and White (2009), pp. 101–116.

  43. 43.

    See Glossary for definition of “unsolicited ratings”.

  44. 44.

    For general discussion see Held and McGrew (2000).

  45. 45.

    Campos (2004).

  46. 46.

    Darbellay and Partnoy (2012), p. 16.

  47. 47.

    Hunt (2009), pp. 109–209.

  48. 48.

    Statutory Instruments, 2013 No. 1637 Financial Services and Markets, “The Credit Rating Agencies (Civil Liability) Regulations 2013”, which came into force on 25th July 2013.

  49. 49.

    Duffhues and Weterings (2011).

  50. 50.

    See Duffhues and Weterings (2011). de Savornin Lohman and van’t Westeinde (2006).

  51. 51.

    Haar (2013).

  52. 52.

    Points 1 to 3 and 5 are based on Bathurst; see Harding-Farrenberg and Donovan (2013), p. 190.

  53. 53.

    Such a provision already exists in the EU aiming at eliminating conflicts of interest.

  54. 54.

    The Credit Rating Agencies (Civil Liability) Regulations 2013.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Cooper et al. (2013), p. 1.

  58. 58.

    Rousseau (2009), pp. 36–37.

  59. 59.

    Bussani notes, “CRAs still are almost immune from any form of civil liability, and the regulatory approaches [in the US and EU] still use… the same administrative tools that have so far proved to be largely ineffective”, Jones (2010), pp. 201–231. See Bussani (2010).

  60. 60.

    Refer to the Model of a Formulation of a New Statutory Liability. Kerwer (2004), pp. 1–27.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hemraj, M. (2015). Regulation: Success or Failure?. In: Credit Rating Agencies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17927-8_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics