But there are still nearly 150 bodies of notation in the world

On the regulation of the financial system, both models are opposed to the G20 in London: the anglo-saxon model based on self-regulation or market discipline and the model of the Franco-German axis based on a more restrictive regulation. The magnitude of the crisis has confirmed the boundaries of the discipline of market and other codes of "conduct"; the Europeans must seize this opportunity and to propose a strengthening of financial regulation able to adapt to the innovation capacity of the actors.

The g-20 finance ministers and Governors of central banks is certainly committed on several points, the doubling of the resources of the IMF to the compensation mechanism for OTC derivatives. More media, bank secrecy, offshore places and "hedge funds" will be the subject of special attention. But it is hoped that concrete reforms for credit rating agencies will be finally recorded.

The arguments for the marking of the credit market supervision are multiple: the implicit recognition of reliability by local and international regulators, the oligopolistic structure of the sector with barrier to entry, conflicts of interest increasing with the growth of activities Board in the rating of structured products. These aspects are known, described and criticized over a decade. Yet almost nothing has been done, if it is "consultations" by the SEC or the European Commission in the early 2000s which have not really taken into account the criticism! And the regulatory authorities themselves have, in accepting the findings of agencies to be used in the calculation of own funds, reinforced the weight given to these ratings, which are, as constantly the clamer agencies, that opinions about the ability of repayment of borrowers.

It is therefore more than urgent to create an international, not only European, the rating agencies supervisory authority. The structure is oligopolistic 3 agencies realize 90 of the market of the notation. But there are still nearly 150 bodies of notation in the world. A homogenization of the operational criteria, accreditation on transparent methods, reliability of the recognized rating if integrated in the calculation of risk are essential to reduce barriers to entry and increase the effectiveness of these "opinions". Thus, for example, modeling errors, recognized by agencies, due to insufficient correlation of defects in structured products, and insufficient information on the assets underlying the component are faults that an independent supervisory authority could be avoided. A condition, of course, that its human resources have the tech required. Transparency is also fundamental, but should be reserved for a supervisory authority to avoid the perverse effect of manipulation by the issuer of the rating process (process optimizing rational!).

In addition, conflicts of interest from the modes of remuneration (paid by the issuer of debt Agency) are not resolved by the issue of reputation put forward by the agencies, as revealed by econometric in-depth studies on the differences in marking. Development of consulting services related to emissions of structured products have not only strengthen these conflicts of interest. CESR (Committee of European Securities Regulators) itself recognizes that it is difficult to precisely define these "services". More reason for a single authority defined in homogeneous way at the international level.

Research conducted in recent years helped to identify the problems and to outline a number of solutions, the majority through the establishment of an authority of supervision of these agencies, which could rely on the resources of the IMF or bis.

Since the loss of national sovereignty is minimal, hope that, at least on this aspect, the heads of State arrive to genuine proposals whose implementation will be fast!