i

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1

II. COMMISSION RULES AND OTHER ACTIONS RELATING TO NRSROs..............2

III. STATUS OF REGISTRANTS AND APPLICANTS....................................................3

IV. COMMISSION’S VIEW ON COMPETITION.............................................................4

A. Summary of Select Statistical Information...................................................... 4

B. NRSRO Products and Other Credit Analytic Products................................. 9

C. Regulatory and Economic Factors that Potentially Affect Competition in 

the Credit Rating Industry.............................................................................. 10

D. The Status of Competition among NRSROs ................................................. 15

E. Assessing the Impact of Additional Competition.......................................... 16

F. The Potential Impact on Competition of NRSRO Rules.............................. 17

V. COMMISSION’S VIEW ON TRANSPARENCY.......................................................18

VI. COMMISSION’S VIEW ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.......................................19

VII. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................22
1

REPORT ON NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED

STATISTICAL RATING ORGANIZATIONS

As Required by Section 6 of the Credit Rating Agency

Reform Act of 2006

I. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is providing this 

report under Section 6 of the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 (“Rating Agency 

Act”).

1

 Section 6 of the Rating Agency Act requires the Commission to submit an 

annual report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate 

and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives that, with 

respect to the year to which the report relates:

• Identifies applicants for registration as nationally recognized statistical 

rating organizations (“NRSROs”) under Section 15E of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”);

• Specifies the number of and actions taken on such applications; and

• Specifies the views of the Commission on the state of competition, 

transparency, and conflicts of interest among NRSROs.

This report provides an overview of the rules and rule amendments that the 

Commission proposed and adopted during the period from June 26, 2009 to June 25, 

2010, and addresses each of the items specified in Section 6 of the Rating Agency Act. 2

 1 See Pub. L. No. 109-291 (2006). On June 5, 2007, the Commission approved the rules 

implementing a registration and oversight program for NRSROs under the Rating Agency Act. 

The rules became effective that same month. During the year-long period beginning on June 26, 

2007 – the effective date of the Rating Agency Act – and ending on June 25, 2008, the 

Commission registered the first ten NRSROs. The annual report published in June 2008 related to 

this period from June 26, 2007 to June 25, 2008. See “Annual Report on Nationally Recognized 

Statistical Rating Organizations,” June 2008, 

http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/ratingagency/nrsroannrep0608.pdf. The annual report 

published in September 2009 related to the period from June 26, 2008 to June 25, 2009. See

“Annual Report on Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations,” September 2009, 

http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/ratingagency/nrsroannrep0909.pdf. 2 The Commission notes that subsequent to this reporting period the President signed into law on 

July 21, 2010 the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (PL 111-203)

(the “Dodd-Frank Act”). Although this report does not discuss the details of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

because its enactment falls outside of the reporting period, the Dodd-Frank Act entails significant 

changes. For example, Title IX, Subtitle C, of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to impose new self-executing requirements with respect 

to NRSROs and mandates that the Commission adopt rules in a number of areas. Further, Section 

932 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Commission to establish an Office of Credit Ratings and 

also eliminated the safe harbor from expert liability in Rule 436(g) under the Securities Act of 

1933. Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that each federal agency shall remove any 
2

II. COMMISSION RULES AND OTHER ACTIONS RELATING TO NRSROs

The Commission issued the following releases during the reporting period: 

o Notice Regarding the Requirement to Use eXtensible Business Reporting 

Language Format to Make Publicly Available the Information Required 

Pursuant to Rule 17g-2(d) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Release No. 

3460451 (August 5, 2009). The Commission provided notice that an NRSRO 

subject to the disclosure provisions of paragraph (d) of Rule 17g-2 can satisfy 

the requirement to make publicly available ratings history information in an 

HBRL format by using an XBRL format or any other machine-readable 

format, until such time as the Commission provides further notice.

o Order Providing NRSROs a Temporary Exemption from the Requirement in 

Rule 17g-2(d) (Incorporating the Provisions of Rule 17g-2(a)(8)) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that CUSIP Numbers be Displayed,

Exchange Act Release No. 34-60473 (August 10, 2009). The Commission 

provided NRSROs with a 30-day exemption from the requirement of Rule 

17g-2(d) that the CUSIP for each rated security be included with the ratings 

action information.

o Final Rule: Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical 

Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 61050 (November 23, 

2009), 74 FR 63832 (December 4, 2009). The Commission adopted 

amendments to paragraph (d) of Rule 17g-2 and paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) of 

Rule 17g-5. The amendments to 17g-2 require an NRSRO to disclose ratings 

action histories for all credit ratings initially determined on or after June 26, 

2007 in an interactive data file that uses a machine-readable format. The 

amendments to 17g-5 require an NRSRO that is hired by issuers, sponsors, or 

underwriters (i.e., the arrangers) to determine an initial credit rating for a 

structured finance product to (1) disclose to non-hired NRSROs that have 

furnished the Commission with a certification that the arranger is in the 

process of determining such a credit rating and (2) to obtain representations 

from the arranger that the arranger will provide information given to the hired 

NRSRO to the non-hired NRSROs that have furnished the Commission with 

the certification.

o Proposed Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations

Exchange Act Release No. 61051 (November 23, 2009), 74 FR 63866 

(December 4, 2009). The Commission proposed amendments and rule would 

require an NRSRO: (1) to furnish a new annual report describing the steps 

taken by the firm’s designated compliance officer during the fiscal year with

respect to compliance reviews, identifications of material compliance matters, 

 

reference to or requirements in regulations regarding credit ratings and substitute in such 

regulations such standard of creditworthiness as each agency shall determine as appropriate. 
3

remediation measures taken to address those matters, and identification of the 

persons within the NRSRO advised of the results of the reviews; (2) to 

disclose additional information about sources of revenues on Form NRSRO; 

and (3) to make publicly available a consolidated report containing 

information about revenues of the NRSRO attributable to persons paying the 

NRSRO for the issuance or maintenance of a credit rating. The Commission 

also solicited comments regarding alternative measures that could be taken to 

differentiate NRSROs’ structured finance credit ratings from the credit ratings 

they issue from other types of financial instruments through, for example, 

enhanced disclosures of information.

o Order Granting Temporary Conditional Exemption for Nationally Recognized 

Statistical Rating Organizations from Requirements of Rule 17g-5 under the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Request for Comment, Exchange Act 

Release No. 34-62120 (May 19, 2010). On May 19, 2010, the Commission 

issued an order conditionally exempting, with respect to certain credit ratings, 

NRSROs from requirements in Rule 17g-5(a)(3) that apply whenever an 

issuer, sponsor, or underwriter hires an NRSRO to determine an initial credit 

rating for a security or money market instrument issued by an asset pool or as 

part of any asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities transaction. Under the 

order, an NRSRO was exempted from compliance with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) until 

December 2, 2010, with respect to credit ratings where: (1) the issuer of the 

structured finance product was a non-U.S. person; and (2) the NRSRO had a 

reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance product would be 

offered and sold upon issuance, and that any arranger linked to the structured 

finance product would effect transactions of the structured finance product 

after issuance, only in transactions that occur outside the U.S.3

III. STATUS OF REGISTRANTS AND APPLICANTS

Ten credit rating agencies have applied for and been granted registration as 

NRSROs. The registered credit rating agencies and the dates of their registration are

NRSRO Date of Registration

A.M. Best Company, Inc. (“A.M. Best”) September 24, 2007 

DBRS Ltd. (“DBRS”) September 24, 2007 

Fitch, Inc. (“Fitch”) September 24, 2007 

Japan Credit Rating Agency, Ltd. (“JCR”) September 24, 2007 

Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) September 24, 2007 

Rating and Investment Information, Inc. (“R&I”) September 24, 2007 

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services (“S&P”) September 24, 2007 

 3 On November 23, 2010, the Commission issued a new order extending this temporary conditional 

exemption until December 2, 2011. See Order Extending Temporary Conditional Exemption for 

Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations from Requirements of Rule 17g-5 under 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Request for Comment, Exchange Act Release No. 34-

63363 (November 23, 2010).
4

Egan-Jones Rating Company (“EJR”) December 21, 2007 

LACE Financial Corp. (“LACE”) February 11, 2008

Realpoint LLC (“Realpoint”) June 23, 2008 

On December 24, 2009, Dagong Global Credit Rating Co., Ltd. (“Dagong”), a credit 

rating agency based in Beijing, China, submitted to the Commission its application for 

registration as an NRSRO. Dagong subsequently consented to two extensions of time for the 

Commission to act on its application. On April 14, 2010, the Commission issued an order 

pursuant to Section 15E(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act instituting proceedings to 

determine whether Dagong’s application for registration as an NRSRO should be denied. 4

(1) whether Dagong has a sufficient connection with U.S. interstate commerce to 

register as an NRSRO, and thereby invoke the regulatory and oversight 

authority of the Commission; and 

 In 

these proceedings, grounds for denial under consideration included: 

(2) whether Dagong’s application for registration should be denied pursuant to 

Section 15E(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) on the grounds that, if registered as an NRSRO, 

Dagong would be subject to having its registration suspended or revoked 

under Section 15E(d)(1) of the Exchange Act, because in light of requirements 

in its home jurisdiction, Dagong would be unable to comply with provisions 

of the U.S. securities laws and rules, including, in particular, Section 17 of the 

Exchange Act and Rules 17g-2 and 17g-3 thereunder.

Although this proceeding was pending before the Commission as of the end of the 

period covered by this Report, on September 22, 2010 the Commission issued an order 

denying Dagong’s application for registration as an NRSRO.5

 The Commission found 

that at this time Dagong is unable to comply with the Exchange Act’s recordkeeping, 

production, and examination requirements. Because the Commission found that Dagong 

cannot comply with these requirements, it did not reach the issue of whether Dagong at 

this time has sufficient connection with U.S. interstate commerce to register as an 

NRSRO and invoke the Commission’s regulatory and oversight authority. 

IV. COMMISSION’S VIEW ON COMPETITION

A. Summary of Select Statistical Information

As discussed above, the Commission has granted NRSRO registration to ten 

credit rating agencies. The first seven firms (A.M. Best, DBRS, Fitch, JCR, Moody’s, 

R&I, and S&P) applied for registration as NRSROs in June of 2007 under the new 

 4

 Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15E(2)(A)(ii) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 and Notice for Hearing, Exchange Act Release No. 61906 (Apr. 14, 2010), 

75 FR 20645 (Apr. 20, 2010).

5 Order Denying Application for Registration as a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating 

Organization, Exchange Act Release No. 62968 (Sept. 22, 2010). 
5

registration and oversight program adopted by the Commission that month. 

Subsequently, the Commission granted three additional credit rating agencies NRSRO 

registration (EJR, LACE, and Realpoint). The following sections summarize certain 

information reported by each NRSRO on its Form NRSRO.

1. Ratings Outstanding by NRSRO

The table and charts below report the number of outstanding ratings reported by 

each NRSRO in its Form NRSRO annual certification for the year 2009. For each 

NRSRO, the table sets forth the number of outstanding ratings for the five classes of 

ratings identified in Section 3(a)(62) of the Exchange Act: (1) financial institutions, 

brokers, or dealers; (2) insurance companies; (3) corporate issuers; (4) issuers of assetbacked securities; 6 and (5) issuers of government securities, municipal securities, or 

securities issued by a foreign government (“sovereign securities”). 

Outstanding Credit Ratings Reported by NRSROs on 

Form NRSRO by Ratings Class

NRSRO Financial 

Institutions

Insurance 

Companies

Corporate 

Issuers

AssetBacked 

Securities

Government, 

Municipal & 

Sovereign

Total 

Ratings 

A.M. Best 3 5,364 2,246 54 0 7,667

DBRS 16,630 120 5,350 8,430 12,400 42,930

EJR 82 45 853 14 13 1,007

Fitch 72,311 4,599 12,613 69,515 352,697 511,735

JCR 156 31 518 64 53 822

LACE 17,263 60 1,000 0 61 18,384

Moody's 76,801 5,455 31,008 106,337 862,240 1,081,841

R&I 100 30 543 186 123 982

Realpoint 0 0 0 8,856 0 8,856

S&P 52,500 8,600 41,400 124,600 1,004,500 1,231,600

Total 235,846 24,304 95,531 318,056 2,232,087 2,905,824

HHI 2,599 2,601 3,145 3,145 3,767 3,495

HHI Inverse 3.85 3.84 3.18 3.18 2.65 2.86

 6 As the term is defined in 17 CFR 229.1101(c).
6

Of the ten credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as NRSROs, 

seven operate predominantly under the issuer-pay model.7 The remaining three operate 

predominantly under the subscriber-pay model.8 The NRSROs operating under the 

issuer-pay model have determined approximately 99% of the total currently outstanding 

credit ratings issued by NRSROs.9

Market concentration is generally measured by economists using the HerfindahlHirschman Index (“HHI”), which is a measure of the size of firms in relationship to the 

industry and an indicator of the amount of competition among them. It is calculated by 

 7 A.M. Best Company, Inc., DBRS Ltd., Fitch, Inc., Japan Credit Rating Agency, Ltd., Moody's Investors 

Service, Rating and Investment Information, Inc., Standard and Poor's Ratings Services.

8 Egan-Jones Rating Company, LACE Financial Corp., Realpoint LLC.

9 According to Form NRSROs made public by NRSROs.

Financial Institutions Ratings by NRSRO

A.M. Best 0%

DBRS 7%

EJR 0%

Fitch 31%

JCR 0%

LACE 7%

Moody's 33%

R&I 0%

Realpoint 0%

S&P 22%

A.M. Best DBRS EJR Fitch JCR LACE Moody's R&I Realpoint S&P

Corporate Issuer Ratings by NRSRO

A.M. Best 2.35%

DBRS 5.60%

EJR 0.89%

Fitch 13.20%

JCR 0.54%

LACE 1.05%

Moody's 32.46%

R&I 0.57%

Realpoint 0.00%

S&P 43.34%

A.M. Best DBRS EJR Fitch JCR LACE Moody's R&I Realpoint S&P

Insurance Company Ratings by NRSRO

A.M. Best 22.07%

DBRS 0.49%

EJR 0.19%

Fitch 18.92%

JCR 0.13%

LACE 0.25%

R&I 0.12% Moody's 22.44%

Realpoint 0.00%

S&P 35.39%

A.M. Best DBRS EJR Fitch JCR

LACE Moody's R&I Realpoint S&P

Asset Backed Securities Ratings by NRSRO

A.M. Best 0.02%

DBRS 2.65%

EJR 0.00%

Fitch 21.86%

JCR 0.02%

LACE 0.00%

Moody's 33.43%

R&I 0.06%

Realpoint 2.78%

S&P 39.18%

A.M. Best DBRS EJR Fitch JCR LACE Moody's R&I Realpoint S&P

Government, Municipal & Sovereign Ratings by NRSRO

A.M. Best 0.00%

DBRS 0.56%

EJR 0.00%

Fitch 15.80% JCR 0.00%

LACE 0.00%

Moody's 38.63%

R&I 0.01%

Realpoint 0.00%

S&P 45.00%

A.M. Best DBRS EJR Fitch JCR LACE Moody's R&I Realpoint S&P

Total Ratings Excluding Government Sector

A.M. Best 1.14%

DBRS 4.53%

EJR 0.15%

Fitch 23.61%

JCR 0.11%

LACE 2.72%

Moody's 32.59% R&I 0.13%

Realpoint 1.31%

S&P 33.71%

A.M. Best DBRS EJR Fitch JCR LACE Moody's R&I Realpoint S&P
7

squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the 

resulting number. The HHI is measured on a scale of 0 to 10,000 and approaches zero 

when a market consists of a large number of firms of relatively equal size. The HHI 

increases both as the number of firms in the market decreases and as the disparity in size 

between those firms increases. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, markets in 

which the HHI is between 1,000 and 1,800 points are considered to be moderately 

concentrated, and those in which the HHI is in excess of 1,800 points are considered to be 

concentrated.10

The HHI for all NRSRO ratings outstanding is 3,495, which is the equivalent of 

there being approximately 2.86 equally sized firms. Three NRSROs (Fitch, Moody’s, 

and S&P) issued approximately 97% of all outstanding ratings across all categories 

reported. The concentration of outstanding ratings for these three NRSROs is high across 

all five categories but does vary across those categories. For instance, Fitch, Moody’s, 

and S&P account for over 99% of all outstanding ratings for government securities,

 The inverse of the HHI (“HHI Inverse”) is a measure of the number of 

equally sized firms which would constitute a comparable level of concentration for a 

given HHI and is calculated by dividing 10,000 by the HHI.

11

Among these three largest NRSROs, concentration is not consistent across rating 

classes. For credit ratings related to financial institutions, Fitch and Moody’s each had 

issued substantially more ratings than S&P. Moody’s and S&P were the two dominant 

issuers of credit ratings for corporate issuers. 

but 

less than 77% of all ratings for insurance companies. For various reasons, including 

those discussed below in section IV.D, concentration needs to be considered together 

with other factors to identify the level of competition.

Among the other NRSROs, DBRS and LACE report having the two largest 

numbers of outstanding credit ratings for financial institutions (16,630 and 17,263 

respectively or approximately 7.1% and 7.3%, respectively, of all ratings in this 

category), while A.M. Best reports the largest number of outstanding ratings for the 

insurance company category (5,364, or approximately 22.1%, of all ratings in this 

category). DBRS reports the largest number of outstanding ratings for the corporate 

sector (5,350, or 5.6%, of all ratings in this category).

Of the 318,056 outstanding credit ratings for asset-backed securities, all but 

17,604 are issued by Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P. Among the other NRSROs, Realpoint 

reports having the largest number of outstanding credit ratings for asset-backed securities 

(8,856, or 2.78%, of all ratings in this category).

The table below reports the HHI Inverse statistic calculated for the ratings 

outstanding in each class of ratings and overall for the years 2007 through 2009.

 10 http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/testimony/hhi.htm. 11 Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P issued 2,348,144 of the total 2,359,184 credit ratings for government, 

municipal and sovereign securities and issuers.
8

HHI Inverse for Each Class of Ratings

Year Financial 

Institutions

Insurance 

Companies

Corporate 

Issuers

AssetBacked 

Securities

Government, 

Municipal & 

Sovereign

Total 

Ratings 

2007 3.37 4.02 3.27 2.71 2.35 2.65

2008 3.72 4.05 3.79 2.82 2.83 2.99

2009 3.85 3.84 3.18 3.18 2.65 2.86

2. Number of Credit Analysts employed at each NRSRO

The table below reports the total number of credit analysts and credit analyst 

supervisors employed at each NRSRO as reported by each NRSRO in Exhibit 8 of its 

Form NRSRO.

Credit Analysts and Credit Analyst Supervisors Employed at Each NRSRO

NRSRO Credit 

Analysts

Credit 

Analyst 

Supervisors

A.M. Best 134 42

DBRS 67 20

EJR 5 3

Fitch 1,035 345

JCR 61 27

LACE 7 4

Moody's 1,096 143

R&I 81 6

Realpoint 15 7

S&P 1,019 223

Total 3,520 820

The three largest credit rating agencies report employing 3,150 credit analysts, or

approximately 90%, of the total number of credit analysts employed by all of the 

NRSROs. Among the other NRSROs, A.M. Best reported employing the largest number 

of credit analysts (134, or approximately 4%, of the total number of credit analysts).

3. NRSRO Financial Results

Exhibit 12 to Form NRSRO requires each NRSRO to provide information as to 

the amount of revenue generated from various credit rating services and a separate 

computation of total revenue from all other services. In addition, Exchange Act Rule 

17g-3 requires each NRSRO to furnish the Commission with annual financial reports. 

Pursuant to Section 15E(a)(3) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17g-1(i) thereunder, an 

NRSRO is not required to make this information publicly available.
9

The total aggregate revenue reported by all of the NRSROs was approximately 

$3.7 billion dollars, down from the $3.8 billion reported last year.12 The HHI for total

revenues reported by NRSROs is 3,358, which is the equivalent of 2.97 equally sized 

firms. The HHI for earnings reported by NRSROs is 3,926, which the equivalent of 2.55 

equally sized firms. The HHI for earnings is higher than the HHI for revenue because the 

firms which reported the largest amounts of revenue also tended to have higher after-tax 

profit margins. The earnings reported by the three largest NRSROs made up over 98% of 

the earnings reported by all of the NRSROs.

B. NRSRO Products and Other Credit Analytic Products

Credit ratings produced by credit rating agencies, including NRSROs, are 

generally letter-based symbols intended to reflect assessments of credit risk for various 

entities issuing debt obligations in public markets. These credit assessments are designed 

to measure and predict the probability of default, or the expected loss, a measure which 

also includes an assessment of loss given default, for an individual debt obligation or for 

an obligor. These assessments, in most cases, reflect a variety of quantitative and 

qualitative factors which vary based on sector. In addition, credit rating agencies may 

employ different rating scales for different regions, sectors, jurisdictions, or types of 

securities. For example, the rating scale a credit rating agency employs to assign short 

term obligations may differ from the rating scale it uses for long term obligations. Credit 

ratings are described by the credit rating agencies as intended to reflect only credit risk, 

not other valuation factors such as liquidity or currency risk. Thus, while bond yields are 

strongly correlated with credit ratings, ratings are not the sole determinant of prices. 

Demand for credit ratings exists from investors, both individual and institutional, 

who value an independent assessment of the relative or absolute credit risk of a particular 

debt obligation or obligor. As such, credit ratings serve a certification function in the 

marketplace, providing rated issuers with less costly access to debt markets. 13 In many

cases, investment managers and financial institutions are required by regulations, 

including Commission rules, to use credit ratings to establish investment risk standards 

for their portfolio holdings. 14

 12 The fiscal year end used by different NRSROs as a basis for their reporting varied from September 

2009 to March 2010.

 Parties can write contracts that create obligations based on 

13 See, e.g., . Frank Partnoy, “The Siskel and Ebert of Financial Markets?: Two Thumbs Down for 

the Credit Ratings Agencies,” Washington University Law Quarterly, 77 (3), 619-714 (1999);

Arnoud W.A. Boot, Todd T. Milbourn and Anjolein Schmeits, “Credit Ratings as Coordination 

Mechanisms,” Review of Financial Studies, 19 (1), 81-118 (2006); Deiter Kerwer, “Ratings 

Agencies: Setting a Standard for Global Financial Markets,” Economic Sociology European 

Electronic Newsletter, 3 (3), 40-46 (2002); Timothy J. Sinclair, “Reinventing Authority: 

Embedded Knowledge Networks and the New Global Finance,” Environment and Planning C: 

Government and Policy, 18 (4), 487-502 (2000) (these articles, among other things, argue that 

credit ratings agencies create value through standardizing the credit assessment process).

14 See, Joint Forum Report Stocktaking on the use of credit ratings published in June 2009 (available 

at http://www.bis.org/publ/joint22.pdf?noframes=1) (discussing, among other things, the use of 

credit ratings in “(a) determining capital requirements; (b) identifying or classifying assets, usually 

in the context of eligible investments or permissible asset concentrations; (c) providing a credible 
10

a change in credit ratings – the use of so-called “ratings triggers” (see additional 

discussion in the following section).

In addition to NRSROs and other credit rating agencies, the staff is aware of other 

relevant providers of credit research and analysis.15 Credit models and assessments by 

third-party providers may be used by investors as indicators of value or price for a given 

debt obligation. Where available, third-party providers of credit analytics and internal 

models are natural competitors to NRSROs for all non-regulatory uses and may serve as a 

check on NRSRO ratings quality or substitutes for non-regulatory uses if they provide 

more accurate or useful ratings. 

Economists point to several factors that have increased the demand for credit 

ratings in recent years. 16 Structural changes in financial markets have increased the 

number of participants, increased their anonymity, and increased the complexity of their 

investment strategies. At the same time, financial disintermediation has shifted credit 

from banks to capital markets, leading to the creation of increasingly complex financial 

instruments through securitization. The increasing complexity likely created additional 

reliance by investors on NRSRO credit ratings as they provided a single summary 

measure of the credit risks of difficult to evaluate financial instruments. At the same 

time, banking and finance regulators around the world have increased their reliance on 

NRSRO credit ratings.

As noted above, NRSROs are one type of entity providing third-party credit 

assessments to the market. When users of credit assessments for non-regulatory purposes 

also need NRSRO credit ratings for regulatory purposes, they may choose to purchase 

only NRSRO credit ratings so as to avoid purchasing both. The economic case for 

purchasing a non-NRSRO credit assessment may be even more difficult if the entity is a 

newer entrant to the third-party credit assessment field, without the same established 

level of reputation as more established entities, even when that assessment is valuable to 

the investor. 

C. Regulatory and Economic Factors that Potentially Affect Competition in 

the Credit Rating Industry

The Findings section of the Rating Agency Act noted that “the 2 largest credit 

rating agencies serve the vast majority of the market.”17

 

evaluation of the credit risk associated with assets purchased as part of a securitization offering or 

a covered bond offering; (d) determining disclosure requirements; and (e) determining prospectus 

eligibility”). 

 Further, the Senate Report 

accompanying the Rating Agency Act described the largest two NRSROs (Moody’s and 

15 See, e.g., Arturo Estrella, “Credit Ratings and Complementary Sources of Credit Quality 

Information,” Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Working Papers, Aug. 2000. 

16 See, e.g., Fabian Dittrich, 2007, “The Credit Rating Industry: Competition and Regulation,” 

Doctoral Dissertation, Universitat zu Koln, Koln, Germany; Isabelle Gras, “The Power to Rate,” 

REGEM Analysis No. 6 (2003). 17 See Section 2 of the Rating Agency Act (Pub. L. No. 109-291 (2006)). 
11

S&P) as a “duopoly” or “partner-monopoly.”18 Information obtained from NRSROs 

about the number of ratings they have outstanding, the number of credit analysts, and 

their financial results, as presented above, suggests that in combination with Fitch, these 

two entities are still the dominant market players. 

Economists note that the credit rating industry has exhibited a high level of 

concentration throughout much of its history, dating from the early twentieth century. 19 

Analysts have cited the regulatory use of ratings as a factor that has created barriers to 

entry and led to concentration in the credit rating industry. 20 Financial regulators 

including the Federal Reserve Banks, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and 

state banking and insurance departments have used credit ratings to assist them in their 

oversight of financial institutions since the 1930s. Early ratings-dependent rules included 

requirements to mark-to-market lower rated bonds and restrictions on the purchase of 

speculative securities. In the 1950s, the National Association of Insurance Companies 

imposed higher capital requirements on the lower rated bonds of insurance companies.21 

The Commission first used the term NRSRO in 1975 in the Net Capital Rule for 

broker-dealers as an objective benchmark to prescribe capital charges for different types 

of debt securities. Since then, the Commission has used the designation in a number of 

regulations. Although the use of the term NRSRO was originated for a narrow purpose in 

the Commission's own regulations, ratings by NRSROs today are used widely as 

benchmarks in federal and state legislation as well as in rules issued by other financial 

regulators.

22

Congress has incorporated the NRSRO concept into other pieces of financial 

legislation. For example, when Congress defined the term "mortgage related security" in 

Section 3(a)(41) of the Exchange Act as part of the Secondary Mortgage Market 

Enhancement Act of 1984, it required, among other things, that such securities be rated in 

one of the two highest rating categories by at least one NRSRO. Further, in 1989, 

Congress added the NRSRO concept to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, prescribing 

that corporate debt securities are not “investment grade” unless they are rated in one of 

the four highest categories by at least one NRSRO.23

 18 See Senate Report, 109-326, p.1.

19 See, e.g., Richard Sylla, “A Historical Primer on the Business of Credit Ratings” and Lawrence J. 

White, “The Credit Rating Industry: an Industrial Organization Analysis” both papers in Ratings, 

Rating Agencies and the Global Financial System (2002).

20 See, e.g., Partnoy (1999), White (2001). 

21 See, e.g., Richard Cantor and Frank Packer, “The Credit Rating Industry,” FRBNY Quarterly 

Review, Summer-Fall, 1994.

22 In Section 939(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress struck language in the Section 3(a)(41) (the 

definition of “mortgage related security”) and Section 3(a)(53) (the definition of “small business 

related security”) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to ratings by NRSROs and 

replaced it with the language “meets standards of credit-worthiness as established by the 

Commission.” Additionally, Section 939A requires the Commission to replace references to 

credit ratings in all of its regulations with a standard of creditworthiness that it deems appropriate. 23 See “Report on the Role and Function of Credit Rating Agencies in the Operation of the Securities 

Markets As Required by Section 702(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002” (2003),

http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/credratingreport0103.pdf. 
12

Finally, a number of other federal and state laws and regulations today employ the 

NRSRO concept. For example, the U.S. Department of Education uses ratings from 

NRSROs to set standards of financial responsibility for institutions that wish to 

participate in student financial assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended (Title IV). In addition, several state insurance codes 

rely, directly or indirectly, on NRSRO ratings in determining appropriate investments for 

insurance companies. Most recently, credit ratings have been used to determine the 

eligibility of assets for a number of the programs established by the Federal Reserve and 

the Department of the Treasury in response to the credit crisis.24

Credit ratings are also used widely by financial regulators outside the United 

States. 25 According to a Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) study 

published in 2000, eleven out of twelve countries that are members of the BCBS used the 

ratings of credit rating agencies in financial regulatory supervision. 26 The Basel II 

framework, which has been implemented by members of the European Union, relies on 

the ratings of credit rating agencies recognized as External Credit Assessment Institutions 

(ECAI) in order to calculate bank capital requirements within its standardized approach 

for credit risk measurement. 27

Economies of scale and sunk costs may be economic factors which may favor the 

larger, more established rating agencies. Large rating agencies can allocate the costs of, 

among other things, analytical software, administrative, legal, compliance, marketing and 

support staff across a wider range of ratings providing a more efficient cost base. In 

addition, these rating agencies have large sunk costs in the form of developed ratings, 

methodologies and procedures and ratings outstanding which new entrants must create 

from scratch. 28

The importance of reputation is another economic factor that is often cited by 

analysts.29 When the quality of a firm’s product is difficult to assess at the time of 

purchase, consumers often use the quality of prior products produced by the firm as a 

benchmark for their purchasing decision.30

 24 See, e.g., “Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: Terms and Conditions,” (2009), 

 A firm that has a long history of producing 

quality products develops a reputational asset which allows it to command a higher price. 

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/talf_terms.html. 25 See The Joint Forum, “Stocktaking on the Use of Credit Ratings,” (June 2009), available at 

http://www.bis.org/publ/joint22.pdf. 26 See Arturo Estrella, “Credit Ratings and Complementary Sources of Credit Quality Information,” 

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Working Papers No. 3 (Aug. 2000).

27 See Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, “International Convergence of Capital 

Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework - Comprehensive Version,” (June 

2006).

28 See, e.g., Herwig M. Langohr, “The Credit Rating Agencies and Their Credit Ratings,” address 

given to the Bond Market Association (Feb. 2006).

29 See, e.g., Dittrich (2007).

30 See, e.g., Carl Shapiro, “Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations,” 

Quarterly Journal of Economics 98(4): 659-79 (Nov. 1983).
13

The value of this reputational asset can provide an incentive for the firm to continue to 

produce high quality products.31

Credit ratings are an example of a product whose quality, at time of purchase, is 

particularly difficult to evaluate. In most cases, credit ratings are estimates about the 

probability of default or expected loss for a given debt obligation or obligor. Defaults are 

expected to occur rarely and are highly sensitive to macroeconomic forces which may be 

difficult to forecast. The accuracy and consistency of ratings produced by a given rating 

agency may only be revealed over an extended period. Because it is difficult to evaluate 

a particular credit rating easily, establishing and maintaining a reputation for ratings 

accuracy, a process which can take years, is very important for any credit rating agency.

A rating agency’s reputation can be damaged by a failure to continue to assign 

ratings accurately. The assignment of high credit ratings to many residential mortgagebacked securities (“RMBS”) and collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) in recent years 

followed by the scope and magnitude of subsequent downgrades during the current credit 

crisis appears to have resulted in a loss of confidence among at least some investors in the 

reliability of credit ratings issued by the largest NRSROs in this sector. There has also 

been a broader dislocation in the credit markets, to which any such loss of confidence 

could have contributed. In the wake of these events, the NRSROs that rated asset-backed 

securities (“ABS”) have come under intense criticism and scrutiny. However, their 

market share does not seem to have been affected within this asset class. And while the 

revenue they derive from rating asset-backed securities has declined, the dollar amount of 

new issuance in this asset class has also declined. In short, the integrity of all ABS 

ratings has been questioned and the uncertainty around ABS credit quality has increased. 

During this time, investors’ willingness to purchase ABS has declined. This is consistent 

with the dramatic drop-off in ABS issuances during 2009.

Network externalities may also play a role in the credit rating industry. Network 

externalities which are often considered in connection with such products as computer 

operating systems, or video recorders, exist when the value of a product increases as 

more people use it.32 Network externalities can create a significant obstacle to entry for a 

new entrant in an industry where these effects are strong. In these types of industries, a 

company may make a product which has superior attributes to an entrenched competitor 

and still fail to win market share. The procedures and methodologies of a rating agency 

create a standardized way of looking at credit risk, and one function of the rating is to 

facilitate communication about credit risk among market participants. 33

 31 See, e.g., Benjamin Klein and Keith Leffler, “The Role of Market Forces in Assuring Contractual 

Performance,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 89, No. 41 (1981).

Another function 

of credit ratings is to facilitate comparisons between credit instruments within a sector 

and potentially across sectors. Market participants may consider how widely the ratings

32 See, e.g., Michael L. Katz and Carl Shapiro, “Network Externalities, Competition, and 

Compatibility,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 424-440, (June 1985). For 

application to credit rating industry see Jerome S. Fons, “White Paper on Rating Competition and 

Structured Finance,” (Jan. 2008).

33 See, e.g., Kerwer (2002). 
14

of a particular rating agency are used by other investors and the breadth of coverage a 

rating agency provides as factors in determining the usefulness of its ratings.34

A wide range of private contractual agreements which reference the ratings of 

particular rating agencies create another barrier to entry for new entrants. 35 These 

include, for example, minimum ratings requirements that specify the ratings of specific 

rating agencies in the investment management contracts of institutional fund managers 

and the investment guidelines of fixed income mutual fund managers, pension plan 

sponsors, and endowment fund managers. In addition, fixed income indices used to 

evaluate the performance of investment managers often have inclusion characteristics 

which refer to the ratings of specific rating agencies. The effect of these contractual 

agreements can be to increase the demand and liquidity for securities bearing the ratings 

of specific providers. 

In addition, ratings triggers are commonly found in bank loan agreements, 

guaranteed investment contracts, and the credit support annexes and other provisions of 

derivatives contracts. 36 When ratings triggers are present, a decline in the rating of an 

issuer or obligor below a certain level can alter the obligations of parties to an agreement, 

for example, providing a counterparty to a derivatives contract with the right to demand 

collateral or lenders the right to demand repayment of a loan. The ratings of specific 

rating agencies are often specified in such agreements. The extensive use of credit ratings 

in private contracts has enhanced the importance of credit ratings to the marketplace. 

Barriers that prevent some NRSROs from obtaining information needed to assign 

ratings may also limit competition, particularly with respect to structured finance 

products. Generally, when the issuer-paid model is employed, much of the information 

relied on by the hired NRSROs to rate structured finance products is non-public. This 

makes it difficult for other NRSROs to rate these securities. As a result, the products 

frequently are issued with ratings from only one or two NRSROs and only by NRSROs 

that are hired by the issuer, sponsor, or underwriter. In addition, investors may also tend 

to place greater weight on an opinion that is based, in part, on access to privileged 

information.37 The Commission’s recently adopted amendments to Rule 17g-5 are 

designed to reduce these barriers. 

 34 See, e.g., Fons (2008).

35 See, e.g., Richard Cantor, Owain ap Gwilym, Stephen Thomas, “The Use of Credit Ratings in 

Investment Management in the U.S. and Europe,” The Journal of Fixed Income, Vol. 17, No. 2 

(Fall 2007); H. Kent Baker and Sattar A. Mansi, “Assessing Credit Rating Agencies by Bond 

Issuers and Institutional Investors,” Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 29, Numbers 

9-10 (November/December 2002); G. Timothy Haight, George Engler and Kenneth J. Smith, “An 

Examination of the Characteristics of College Endowment Funds,” Journal of Investing (Fall 

2006). 

36 See, e.g., Moody’s Special Comment , “2008 Rating Trigger Trends in the U.S. Life (Re) 

Insurance Industry,” (Jan. 2009).

37 See, e.g., Philippe Jorion, Zhu Liu, and Charles Shi, “Informational Effects of Regulation FD: 

Evidence from Rating Agencies,” Journal of Financial Economics, (May 2005).
15

D. The Status of Competition among NRSROs

Since the enactment of the Rating Agency Act and the adoption of the 

Commission’s rules thereunder, ten firms have registered as NRSROs with the 

Commission. The first seven firms applied for registration as NRSROs in June of 2007 

under the new registration and oversight program adopted by the Commission that 

month. Subsequently, the Commission granted three additional credit rating agencies 

NRSRO registration. The ratings available from these three newest NRSROs increase 

the total number of available outstanding credit ratings that can be relied upon for 

regulatory purposes by about 30,500. In addition, the three newest NRSROs operate 

primarily under the subscriber-pay compensation model, providing users of ratings an 

alternative to the issuer-pay model employed by the seven NRSROs which applied for 

registration in June 2007. 

Although the credit ratings of the two largest NRSROs now represent a smaller 

proportion of all NRSRO ratings, the Commission is unable to discern from this data the 

impact of NRSRO registration on the demand for or the provision of credit ratings for 

several reasons. First, the registration and oversight program implemented by the 

Commission under the Rating Agency Act that requires disclosure of information about 

outstanding ratings for NRSROs is still relatively new. In addition, the credit crisis, 

while potentially creating additional long term demand for providers of credit assessment 

tools, also reduced debt issuance in a number of sectors. Issuance levels have recovered 

in some sectors, such as corporate debt, but remain well below levels prior to the crisis in 

other areas, notably ABS. Consequently, there is insufficient history to evaluate the 

impact that being registered as an NRSRO has had on obtaining additional business.

Second, comparing the number of outstanding ratings of the long established 

NRSROs and newly registered NRSROs may not provide a complete picture. The large 

NRSROs have a significantly longer history of issuing ratings and their reported 

outstanding ratings include ratings for debt obligations (and obligors) that were rated long 

before the establishment of the newer entrants. Consequently, a comparison of the 

number of ratings being determined for more recent issuances may provide a better gauge 

of how well newer entrants are competing with more established firms. 

Third, as noted above, all seven of the NRSROs which applied for registration in 

June 2007 operate primarily on an issuer-pay compensation model, whereas the three 

newer NRSROs primarily rely on a subscriber-pay compensation model. For the earlierregistered NRSROs, each outstanding rating was provided based on the demand by a 

paying client (the issuer) for that individual rating. Increases and decreases in total 

number of outstanding ratings reflect trends in securities issuances and the demand for 

the specific rating by identifiable clients from that NRSRO. 

The subscriber-pay compensation model is a different economic model. 

Subscriber-pay NRSROs typically attract customers who want access to at least some of 

their credit ratings. Investors and other market participants purchase the right to access 

the pool of credit ratings issued by these NRSROs and are not necessarily users of all 
16

credit ratings provided. Thus, a client of a subscriber-pay NRSRO may request a rating 

on an individual security or those securities of a specific issuer or class of issuers, but a 

reported increase in the number of securities rated by the NRSRO as part of its regulatory 

filings does not necessarily demonstrate that those additional credit ratings were 

specifically demanded by investors or that they are being relied upon by market 

participants widely. As a result, the number of ratings issued by an NRSRO using the 

subscriber pay model may not provide an accurate indication of how widely the ratings of 

that particular NRSRO are used. 

E. Assessing the Impact of Additional Competition

As noted above, the Senate Report accompanying the Rating Agency Act stated 

that the statute’s purpose was to “improve ratings quality for the protection of investors 

and in the public interest by fostering accountability, transparency, and competition in the 

credit rating industry.”38 The Senate Report also noted that competition would “provide 

investors with more choices, higher quality ratings, and lower costs.”39 Competition can 

lead to credit ratings that are of higher quality to investors along one or more dimensions 

(e.g., more accurate, more timely) or ratings that are of equivalent quality and reputation 

but at a lower price. 

Increasing the number of entities that are treated as NRSROs for the purposes of 

laws and regulations using that term, by itself, may not have a significant effect on 

competition. The newer NRSROs, by showing themselves (or causing the long 

established NRSROs) to provide ratings that are superior in either quality or price, could 

create additional competition. As discussed above, because of the importance of 

reputation, the difficulty in establishing a reputation quickly, and other economic factors, 

it may take some time before the impact of increased competition can be observed. 

Gaining acceptance in the market for a new NRSRO may be even more difficult when 

investors and their agents rely upon written policies and procedures requiring the use of 

ratings provided by just two or three of the currently market-dominant NRSROs. 

Altering such policies and procedures would require proactive steps on the part of 

investors. In addition, while the Rating Agency Act and the Commission’s registration 

and oversight program have made it easier for smaller entrants to become NRSROs, 

certain regulations, both in the United States and internationally, limit the utility of the 

NRSRO designation by dividing NRSROs into subclasses. For example, the Federal 

Reserve Board’s recent Commercial Paper Funding Facility relied only on ratings issued 

by “major” NRSROs. 40

Section 15E(h) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17g-5 require NRSROs to establish 

procedures to manage conflicts of interest, to disclose applicable conflicts of interest, and 

prohibit them from having certain conflicts of interest.41

 38 See Senate Report, 109-326, p. 1.

 In the credit rating industry, 

39 See Senate Report, 109-326, p. 7.

40 See Commercial Paper Funding Facility: Program Terms and Conditions, available at

http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/cpff_terms.html. 41 See 15 U.S.C 78o-7(h); 17 CFR 240.17g-5. 
17

conflicts of interest may arise from a number of activities, including the manner of 

compensation, the provision of consulting or advisory services, and business relationships 

and affiliations. Reducing the barriers to entry in the market for providing NRSRO 

ratings and, hence, increasing competition, may, in fact, reduce conflicts of interest in 

substantive ways. This market disciplining mechanism will be less effective the more 

difficult it is for investors to determine the true credit quality of the rated debt security or 

obligor. 

F. The Potential Impact on Competition of NRSRO Rules

The Rating Agency Act and the registration and oversight program for NRSROs 

implemented by the Commission pursuant to authority granted by the Rating Agency Act 

are designed, among other things, to promote competition. For example, the registration 

process prescribed by the Rating Agency Act and Rule 17g-1 make it easier for credit 

rating agencies to become NRSROs and, thereby, to compete with long established 

NRSROs. In addition, the disclosure requirements of Form NRSRO make it easier for 

users of credit ratings to compare NRSROs and, therefore, for an NRSRO to distinguish 

itself from its peers. For example, the disclosure of performance statistics and the 

methodologies and procedures for determining credit ratings make it easier for users to 

assess the accuracy of an NRSRO’s credit ratings and how well its procedures and 

methodologies are designed to achieve accuracy. Moreover, the disclosures of conflicts, 

the procedures for managing conflicts, and the procedures for protecting material, 

nonpublic information allow users of credit ratings to assess the steps an NRSRO has 

taken to ensure the integrity of its credit rating processes. 

The Commission’s rules for NRSROs have provisions that were designed, among 

other things, to promote competition. For example, under paragraph (d) of Rule 17g-2, as 

amended, NRSROs are required to publicly provide the histories of 10% of their issuerpaid credit ratings, in each class of ratings for which they have issued 500 or more such 

ratings and with a six month grace period. 42 The rule amendments adopted by the 

Commission in November 2009 further expand Rule 17g-2 to require a broader 

disclosure of credit rating history information by adding the requirement that NRSROs 

disclose rating action histories for all credit ratings initially determined on or after June 

26, 2007.

These enhanced disclosures with respect to the performance of NRSROs’ credit 

ratings are designed to foster greater accountability of NRSROs with respect to their 

credit ratings as well as competition among NRSROs by making it easier for persons to 

analyze the actual performance of the credit ratings NRSROs issue in terms of accuracy 

in assessing creditworthiness. Ultimately, this could make it easier for a smaller, newer 

NRSRO to demonstrate that it has a superior credit rating methodology and, thereby, 

enhance its reputation for issuing accurate ratings.

 42 See Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange 

Act Release No. 59342 (Feb. 2, 2009), 74 FR 6456 (Feb. 9, 2009).
18

NRSROs competing in the structured finance sector will potentially be affected 

by the recent amendments to Rule 17g-5.43

V. COMMISSION’S VIEW ON TRANSPARENCY 

 These rule amendments allow non-hired 

NRSROs to access information relating to the issuance of structured products that was 

previously only readily available to hired NRSROs. An NRSRO may then be able to 

break into the structured finance sector by providing unsolicited ratings on these 

securities. This would also allow market participants to see differences between credit 

ratings issued by a non-hired NRSRO and those issued by a hired NRSRO and to 

observe, over time, the differences in the quality of the ratings. 

One of the goals of the Rating Agency Act is to increase transparency in the credit 

rating industry. Section 15E of the Exchange Act and Rule 17g-1 require NRSROs to 

publicly disclose their Form NRSROs and Exhibits 1 through 9, which contain 

information about their performance statistics; their procedures and methodologies for 

determining credit ratings; their procedures to prevent the misuse of material, non-public 

information; their organizational structure; their code of ethics (or explanation of why 

they do not have a code of ethics); their conflicts of interest; their procedures to manage 

conflicts of interest; information about their credit analysts; and information about their 

designated compliance officers. One of the things that the Commission’s examination 

staff focuses on during an examination of an NRSRO is the quality and accuracy of these 

disclosures. Prior to the implementation of the NRSRO registration and oversight 

program, certain credit rating agencies disclosed some of this information, particularly 

with respect to credit rating performance statistics and their procedures and 

methodologies for determining credit ratings. The NRSRO oversight program has 

increased the amount of information disclosed and concentrated the disclosure in a single 

location: Form NRSRO. The following is a list of the Internet Web site links where the 

Form NRSRO for each credit rating agency registered as an NRSRO currently can be 

obtained:44

A.M. Best Company, Inc.

http://www.ambest.com/nrsro/formnrsro.pdf

DBRS Ltd. 

http://dbrs.com/about/regulatoryAffairs

Egan-Jones Rating Company 

http://www.egan-jones.com/nrsro.aspx

Fitch, Inc. 

http://www.fitchratings.com/jsp/corporate/PolicyRegulation.faces?context=3&det

ail=4

 43 See Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange

Act Release No. 61050 (Nov. 23, 2009), 74 FR 63832 (Dec. 4, 2009). 44 These are the Internet Web site addresses as of June 2010. The addresses may change over time.
19

Japan Credit Rating Agency, Ltd.

http://www.jcr.co.jp/english/nrsro/index.html

LACE Financial Corp. 

http://www.lacefinancial.com/Out/documents/Disclosure.pdf

Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. 

http://v3.moodys.com/Pages/reg001002.aspx

Rating and Investment Information, Inc.

http://www.r-i.co.jp/eng/rating/nrsro/nrsro.html 

Realpoint LLC

https://www.realpoint.com/PublicDocs/NRSRO%20Application.pdf

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services 

http://www.standardandpoors.com/regulatory-affairs/ratings/en/us

As noted above, the November 23, 2009 Amendments to Rule 17g-2 require 

NRSROs to publicly provide the history of 100% of their rating action histories for all 

credit ratings initially determined on or after June 26, 2007, with a twelve month grace 

period for issuer-paid credit ratings and a twenty-four month grace period for non issuerpaid credit ratings. The goal of the rule as amended is to increase transparency by

providing users of credit ratings, investors, and other market participants and observers 

the raw data with which to compare how the NRSROs initially rated an obligor or 

security and, subsequently, adjusted those ratings, including the timing of the 

adjustments.

45

VI. COMMISSION’S VIEW ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

There are two business models used in the credit rating industry and each has 

potential inherent conflicts of interest. As discussed above, the business model of the 

largest NRSROs is to receive compensation from obligors for rating the obligor or 

securities issued by the obligor (the “issuer-pay model”). This issuer-pay model creates a 

potential conflict in that an NRSRO, in order to gain favor with the issuer and retain its 

business, may issue a credit rating that is higher than the NRSRO’s objective analysis 

would imply. This conflict potentially could be broader than a single issuer to the extent 

that an NRSRO determines higher credit ratings for a class of issuers in order to retain or 

attract business across all issuers in that class. 

 45 The Dodd-Frank Act contemplates new rules to require an NRSRO to use a form to accompany 

the publication of each credit rating that discloses eight qualitative types of mandated information 

(e.g., the main assumptions underlying the methodology used, the potential limitations of the 

credit rating, and the extent that third-party due diligence was used) and three quantitative types of 

mandated information (e.g., a measure of the volatility of the rating, the historical performance of 

the rating, and the sensitivity of the rating). These types of new rules should presumably increase 

transparency.
20

The other business model is the subscriber-pay model, which also is subject, 

albeit to a potentially lesser degree, to potential conflicts of interest. For example, a 

subscriber may hold a securities position (long or short) that potentially could be 

advantaged by an NRSRO upgrading or downgrading the position to the extent such 

rating action caused the market value for the security to increase or decrease. 

Furthermore, a subscriber may want to hold a particular security in an investment 

portfolio but may be constrained from doing so because its credit rating is lower than its 

internal investment guidelines, an applicable contract, or an applicable regulation permit. 

An upgrade of the credit rating of the security by the NRSRO could remove this 

impediment to investing in the security. This conflict exists only to the extent that the 

subscriber-pay NRSRO is aware of the portfolio holdings of the subscriber. Moreover, 

this conflict is mitigated to the extent that subscribers have different interests with respect 

to an upgrade or downgrade of a particular security.

The Commission took steps to address the potential conflicts in both business 

models when it adopted the rules implementing the registration and oversight program for 

NRSROs. As discussed above, the approach taken in the rules is to require the disclosure 

in Form NRSRO of the general types of conflicts that arise from the NRSRO’s business 

activities. Additionally, the Commission prohibited an NRSRO from having certain 

conflicts of interest unless it discloses them and has procedures for managing them, and 

prohibited outright an NRSRO from having certain other conflicts of interest.

A number of studies have attempted to identify cases of “rating shopping” 

behavior, where, under the issuer pay model, issuers seek to hire rating agencies that 

provide more favorable ratings. For example, according to one study of RMBS 

transactions in the early to mid 1990s, rating agencies whose rating methodologies 

required lower levels of credit enhancement to reach a given rating level than competitors 

tended to increase their market share. 46 A more recent study of corporate ratings 

concluded that the presence of a new entrant could result in more “issuer-friendly” 

ratings.47 Other analysts, however, have argued that the incentives for a rating agency to 

maintain its reputation outweigh the short term gain which can be achieved by issuing 

ratings of lower quality.48

The potential for conflicts of interest may be particularly acute in the structured 

product area, including, among other instruments, RMBS and CDOs, where issuers are 

separate legal entities created and operated by a relatively concentrated group of 

sponsors, underwriters and managers (collectively “arrangers”). These products are 

highly complex and require specific and technical knowledge of financial engineering 

 46 See Cantor and Packer (1994).

47 See Bo Becker and Todd Milbourn, “Reputation and Competition, Evidence from the Credit 

Rating Industry,” Harvard Business School Working Paper 09-051 (Oct. 2008).

48 See, e.g., Steven L. Schwarcz, “Private Ordering of Public Markets: The Rating Agency

Paradox,” University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2002, No. 2 (Feb. 2002); Daniel M. Covitz and 

Paul Harrison, "Testing Conflicts of Interest at Bond Ratings Agencies with Market Anticipation: 

Evidence that Reputation Incentives Dominate," FEDS Working Paper No. 2003-68 (Dec. 2003).
21

and valuation of the underlying assets. But the complexity of the products and the 

issuers’ ability to control the flow of information about the underlying assets may lead to 

an outcome where one party to the transaction, the arranger, has more or better 

information about the transaction than the other party (the investor).49 This informational 

imbalance, combined with very high concentration in NRSRO credit raters, increases the 

potential for conflicts of interest to impair market integrity. As discussed above, however, 

reputational risk provides incentives for firms to produce high quality ratings.

The staff’s examinations of select credit rating agencies regarding their role in the 

turmoil in the subprime mortgage-related securities markets revealed, among other 

things, that the rating agencies examined appear to have failed to properly manage 

potential conflicts of interest.50 In the report issued in response to these examinations, 

the staff noted that the conflicts arising from the issuer pay model in rating structured 

finance products, particularly RMBS and related-CDOs, may have been exacerbated for a 

number of reasons, as described below. 51 

First, the arranger was often the primary designer of the deal and as such, had 

more flexibility to adjust the deal structure to obtain a desired credit rating as compared 

to arrangers of non-structured asset classes. In addition, arrangers that underwrote RMBS 

and CDO offerings had substantial influence over the choice of rating agencies hired to 

rate the deals. 

There was also a high concentration in the firms conducting the underwriting 

function. The combination of the arrangers’ influence in determining the choice of rating 

agencies and the high concentration of arrangers with this influence appears to have 

heightened the inherent conflicts of interest that exist in the issuer pay model. 

Pressure from arrangers could have also come in the form of requiring more 

favorable ratings or reduced credit enhancement levels. Such outcomes would reduce the 

cost of the debt for a given level of cash inflows from the asset pool. 

Finally, high profit margins from rating RMBS and CDOs may have provided an 

incentive for a rating agency to encourage the arrangers to route future business its way

Unsolicited ratings were not available to provide an independent check on the rating 

agencies’ ratings, the structures of these securities were complex, and information 

regarding the composition of the portfolio of assets, especially prior to issuance, was 

difficult to obtain for parties unrelated to the transaction.

 49 Economists typically refer to this outcome as the existence of information asymmetries. See, e.g., 

George A. Akerlof, "The Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," 

Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3): 488–500 (1970).

50 See Summary Report of Issues Identified in the Commission Staff’s Examinations of Select 

Credit Rating Agencies By the Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission, (July 8, 2008),

available at http://sec.gov/news/studies/2008/craexamination070808.pdf (“July 2008 Staff 

Report”). 

51 See July 2008 Staff Report, Section V.
22

Analysts note that fees for structured finance transactions could, in some cases, be 

significantly higher than fees for corporate structures of similar size. 52 The staff 

examinations revealed that revenues derived from RMBS ratings increased between 2002 

and 2006 by a percentage that varied among the three largest NRSROs from 

approximately 100% for the firm which had the lowest percentage growth in revenues to 

over 200% for the firm which had the highest percentage growth. For CDOs, during the 

same period, ratings revenue increased by a percentage that varied from approximately 

200% for the firm which had the lowest percentage growth to over 800% for the firm 

which had the highest percentage growth.53

Rule amendments adopted by the Commission on November 23, 2009 were

designed, among other things, to address conflicts of interest in the credit rating process. 

In particular, the amendments to Rule 17g-5 are designed to address conflicts of interest 

and improve the quality of credit ratings for structured finance products by making it 

possible for more NRSROs to rate structured finance products. Currently, when an 

NRSRO is hired to rate a structured finance product, much of the information it relies on 

to determine the rating is generally not made public. As a result, structured finance 

products frequently are issued with ratings from only one or two NRSROs that have been 

hired by the arranger, with the attendant potential conflict of interest that creates. The 

amendments to Rule 17g-5 are designed to increase the number of credit ratings extant 

for a given structured finance product and, in particular, to promote the issuance of credit 

ratings by NRSROs that are not hired by the arranger. This will provide users of credit 

ratings with more views on the creditworthiness of the structured finance product. In 

addition, the amendments are designed to reduce the ability of arrangers to obtain better 

than warranted ratings by exerting influence over NRSROs hired to determine credit 

ratings for structured finance products. Specifically, opening up the rating process to 

more NRSROs will make it easier for the hired NRSRO to resist such pressure by 

increasing the likelihood that any steps taken to inappropriately favor the arranger could 

be exposed to the market through the credit ratings issued by other NRSROs. 

VII. CONCLUSION

As described above, the Commission took a number of actions during the year 

with respect to NRSROs. In the coming year, the Commission will continue to review 

NRSRO issues through its oversight function, including staff examinations of the 

NRSROs, and engage in rulemaking efforts and other initiatives with respect to NRSROs

in response to the Dodd-Frank Act. 

 52 See, e.g., Fons (2008).

53 See July 2008 Staff Report.