I don't know all what is going on or the entire proposal so I need to be careful but at first glance the story on page C1 has got to be one of the more dumb moronic things I have read. It talks about the effort to overhaul the credit rating system and adding new symbols which somehow gives more information. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? So for example. The new proposal is that a bond would be rated AAA.sf which indicates the bond is a structured finance bond as opposed to a government or corporate bond. Excuse me?? I am sorry, personally I study and look at the bond and then go look at the rating. Hopefully I know it is a "structured finance" bond and not a government bond. How in the world does that help the system? Another proposal is to change to a numeric system. I.E. 111 instead of AAA. Does that change anything?
The problem is not what symbols you prescribe to rating. Why not make it Good, Dumb, Idiot rating? It isn't the characters used it is the system. The problem is where incentives lie. The fact that the rating agencies get paid by the bankers wanting a rating not the investors who use the rating. How can the SEC and Senate banking committee be so moronic in thinking these proposals actually solve or address anything. In the words of Charlie Munger "its asinine."
Sorry I usually don't rant and usually not emotional but that article infuriated me.