ESMA’s research found that CRAs were not ensuring that the due diligence underlying issuances was obtained prior to rating the instruments, something the supervisor said prejudiced a rating agency’s ability to conclude whether information on those assets was of “sufficient quality”.“ESMA also noted that, while some CRAs have enhanced the process of collecting such due diligence or third party assessment for new ratings, the same information is not always available for outstanding ratings issued before the entry into force of the [CRA] Regulation.”The supervisor suggested that disclosures on the assessment of the quality of information underpinning issuances be made as each rating was issued.A spokeswoman for Fitch told IPE that it had reviewed the review’s findings of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) with interest.“While we are confident that our policies and procedures are robust and meet regulatory standards, we will continue to co-operate fully with ESMA,” she added.A spokeswoman for Moody’s added: “Moody’s continuously strives to improve its strong analytical processes. We will review our policies and procedures and adjust as appropriate.”Asset-backed securities, such as RMBS and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), have been controversial in the wake of the credit crisis, which saw a number of large pension investors suffer losses and subsequently sue a number of banks over their holdings.Dutch civil service scheme ABP in late 2013 settled with Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley over alleged mis-selling of RMBS.The European Commission has recently said it would like to see renewed growth in the European securitisation market in order to stimulate lending to small firms.Read more about the European Central Bank’s attempts to grow the asset-backed securities market in a recent issue of IPE,WebsitesWe are not responsible for the content of external sitesLink to ESMA’s investigation into structured finance ratings Credit ratings agencies’ assessment of structured finance instruments is, at times, unsatisfactory and must be improved, Europe’s markets supervisor has insisted.The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) examined the procedures employed by four large credit ratings agencies (CRAs) – DBRS Ratings, Fitch, Moody’s Investors Services and Standard & Poor’s – and said it found shortcomings in the way the underlying data was reviewed.Steven Maijoor, chairman of ESMA said that the high volume of structured finance instruments and the renewed interest in securitisation, partially stemming from the European Commission, made its nearly year long investigation timely.“All registered CRAs should take note of the problems identified and ensure that they properly incorporate the requirements and objectives of the CRA Regulation into their working practices in order to ensure the quality of credit ratings and maintain investor confidence,” he added.
Facebook Twitter Google+ Syracuse and Colgate cut ties to their football rivalry 23 years ago. It was probably for good reason. In what can only be described as a ‘nasty’ game in every way, the Orangemen routed the Raiders 52-6 on Oct. 24, 1987, in the Carrier Dome. Despite the storied rivalry creating some emotions, Colgate, an I-AA school, did not have enough to compete with Syracuse, which had improved to 7-0 on the season. For the Orangemen, Colgate was just the game between a Penn State victory the week before and a game against Pittsburgh the next week. In the grand scheme of things, it’s probably one of the least memorable games in an 11-0-1 season for Syracuse that ended with a tie against Auburn in the Sugar Bowl. But boy, did it spur up the emotions during the game. While Colgate didn’t have the physical talent the Orangemen had, the players stood their ground. And then some, said Syracuse defensive tackle Ted Gregory, who left the game with a bruised knee after what he considered to be a cheap shot. ‘They obviously didn’t come to play football, and the score indicated it,’ Gregory told the (Albany) Times Union after the game. ‘They were terrible. I’m very complimentary to the opposing team, always. This is the first time … I have absolutely no respect.’AdvertisementThis is placeholder text Syracuse Athletic Director Jake Crouthamel decided this would be the last meeting between Syracuse and Colgate, due to the different paths the two schools were taking athletically. Colgate was a pretty good I-AA team, even defeating I-A school Army earlier in 1987, but the Orangemen entered this game ranked No. 9 in the nation after defeating Joe Paterno’s Penn State team, 48-21. After the result that occurred that Saturday, it was probably a good idea. ‘Personally I’m sorry to see the series end because I’m an old-timer,’ Colgate head coach Fred Dunlap said to the Times Union. ‘But if Syracuse is going to be in the Top 10, it’s certainly not a good thing.’ Despite the extracurricular activities, which included two ejections (one from each team), the game had a lot of positives for the Orangemen. The offense produced 560 total yards, proving it could avoid Colgate being a trap game in between two tough opponents. Quarterback Don McPherson had people talking Heisman Trophy after his performance. He went 10-for-11 for 244 yards and four touchdowns. His top target, wide receiver Tommy Kane, went for 193 yards and all four of McPherson’s touchdowns. The ability of the Orangemen to not overlook Colgate and to cruise to a blowout may have done wonders for SU’s fate the rest of the season. The two-week period of defeating Penn State and then avoiding a letdown against the Raiders sent Syracuse into Pittsburgh as confident as it could have been. Said McPherson to the Times Union after the game: ‘The guys are playing very good football right now. Right now, I think we’re unstoppable.’ —Compiled by Asst. Copy Editor Mark Cooper Published on September 23, 2010 at 12:00 pm Contact Mark: [email protected] | @mark_cooperjr Comments