The CFA Institute Centre is siding with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and against some in the investment industry, by suggesting that structured finance products should be subject to separate ratings scales.

Yesterday, the SEC proposed a variety of reforms to the credit ratings process, including calling for the introduction of a separate ratings scale for structured products. Some in the credit rating business and institutional investors oppose that move.

Today, the CFA Institute Centre said it is pleased to see several of the changes proposed by the SEC. “One important concept is making sure the characteristics of structured finance instruments are more directly identified via credit rating symbols that are different from those used for more traditional forms of issuer debt. Many fixed income investors need additional information to alert them to difference in the structure, cash flow, and volatility of such investments,” said Jim Allen, director of the Capital Markets Policy Group at the CFA Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity.

“Regardless of how the SEC decides to identify the different investment types, investors will benefit from having more transparent information. Most importantly, the changes begin to restore investor confidence in the CRA industry, the ratings process, and the markets these ratings firms serve,” he noted.

Allen added that “the SEC’s refinement of the various rules and disclosures required of credit rating agencies is good progress toward improving the ratings process itself, the ways that conflicts of interest are managed in this ‘issuer-paid’ model for ratings, and information about performance or track record of ratings over various periods. These are all strong recommendations and bode well for a more rigorous process combined with a greater clarity of credit rating firm procedures.”

Also, the CFA Institute Centre continues to call for the elimination of the term ‘investment grade.’ “While this term relates to a credit rating meeting a certain industry-devised threshold, it and the mish-mash of symbols used in ratings has created confusion,” Allen said. “Specifically, the term can be misleading and can cause less sophisticated funds to invest in markets and structures they are ill-prepared to understand and monitor, particularly in times of illiquidity. By reconsidering the ratings designation and nomenclature that was the basis for this ‘investment-grade’ concept, the commission will remove considerable confusion in the market.”