Moody’s CEO gives himself a performance review and decides he’s doing an OK job

Yesterday I went to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission‘s hearing on ratings companies.* My story is supposed to go up on Time.com later today. (UPDATE: here it is now.) In the meantime, I’d like to share the most absurd moment from yesterday’s hearing.

One line of questioning revolved around how managers are compensated at Moody’s. Are they incentivized to simply grow market share, or does the quality—and longevity—or ratings matter in a meaningful way, too? During this discussion, one of the commissioners asked CEO Ray McDaniel if he gets some sort of performance review. Yes, he said. And who determines how good a job McDaniel is doing? Well, he does.

That’s right, the CEO of a company with $1.8 billion in revenue is ultimately accountable to… himself. McDaniel writes a “self-evaluation,” and then files it with the company’s board of directors for review. That must be an interesting part of the process, considering McDaniel is chairman of the board.

And there, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with corporate America. If the Founding Fathers taught us anything, it’s that you’ve got to have a system of checks and balances. If you are immersed in a particular job—or  institution, or worldview—you are going to, by definition, lack perspective. The way to make sure you’re not doing something dumb (like, say, letting investment bankers dictate your business) is to get some outside feedback and advice. This is especially important since people are greedy and prone to influence, and from time to time the world goes crazy with housing bubbles and whatnot. The only way we can even start to hope to keep our wits about us is to have strong controls in place to help shape our behavior when we most need it.

A real performance review might not be a bad start. And, in a way, that’s what Phil Angelides and rest of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission gave McDaniel yesterday. They rolled out their charts and data and asked hard questions about what McDaniel was thinking. Unfortunately, at this point, it’s all backward-looking.

Although there is also real value in deeply understanding how the system broke down. Along those lines, one of the commissioners asked McDaniel if he could send the commission copies of his self-evaluations. He said yes. So this morning I put in the same request of Moody’s PR office. I’ll let you know what I hear back.

*I refuse to refer to these profit-seeking enterprises as “agencies,” since they aren’t agencies, even though that’s how they’re popularly known. Just because the U.S. government lends a set of firms its imprimatur doesn’t mean I have to use my language to bolster their already-too-lofty status.

Related Topics: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Moody's, ratings agencies, Raymond McDaniel, Wall Street & Markets
  • Latest on Business

    Thomas Patterson / Statesman-Journal / AP

    The Bleak Unemployment Report: Is Europe to Blame?

    For the first time in almost a year, the unemployment rate rose to 8.2% in May as the economic recovery appeared to not only slow but almost completely stall. And it gets worse.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    Getty Images

    Smartphones of the Future: 6 Predictions

    Future mobile devices will change the way you do business–in ways you probably can’t even imagine. Here are a few predictions.

  • deconstructiva

    Barbara, thanks for this post + lack of real accountability, but please don’t be shy; tell us how you really feel. For publicly traded cos., in theory the chiefs ultimately serve the shareholders. Ha! I’ve held many shares over the years (and good thing too: with still crappy job market, some saved-up shares have helped pay bills) and it’s rare to see any directors removed or similar actions. Indeed, I’ve never once seen a shareholder proposal recommended by the board; they’re always resisted (and defeated).
    .
    One rare exception was back when Harrah’s Entertainment was still public. They used to use Anderson (yes, THAT acct. firm) and pulled a proposal to retain their services. I had already voted against it and remember biz news about pre-vote whispers leaning against them. However, I think the real reason behind the moves was that the New Jersey Gaming Board was going to demand that Harrah’s dump them or risk losing their license. Ergo, Anderson was toast. Fast.
    .
    Other than that, it looks like only big shareholders (funds, other public cos., Buffett) can get things done …if they wish. We peasants don’t count. I imagine BP’s board won’t do squat about post-spill penance without govt. pressure or massive hedge fund / Goldman shorting, etc. Barbara, if you have any examples / thoughts otherwise, please share them. We small potatoes could use encouragement. Thanks for your thoughts.

  • Barbara Kiviat

    And Buffett didn’t seem too open to the argument that, as Moody’s biggest shareholder, he should take more interest in how the company is run.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/business/03rating.html?ref=business

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks for the excellent link. I wonder if Buffett’s Salomon Bros. experience soured him on making picky daily decisions or was always this way. I doubt he can be called a micromanager.

  • jimc1004

    Let me guess, CEO Ray McDaniel gave himself
    a “AAA” rating – which we now know in Moody’s land
    equals “sub-prime”!

    There is No Shame among the members of our obscenely overpaid and sociopathic CEO class.

blog comments powered by Disqus