신용평가회사의 책임과 투자자보호

Dodd-Frank Act, legislated to overcome the financial crisis in 2007, provides strengthened regulations over credit rating agencies. The Act also exposes rating agencies to expert liability and confirms the availability of civil remedies against rating agencies, which is a significant change in that rating agencies had been exempt from the liability by the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Changes in attitude toward the liability of rating agencies are also shown in court decisions. Some courts did not grant protection by the First Amendment to the Constitution on credit ratings regarding asset-backed securities, which had worked as successful defenses in previous litigations against rating agencies. These changes were welcomed as a means to enhance investor protection and their compensation. The prospect, however, is not promising. After the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, rating agencies refused to disclose their ratings, which paralyzed the ABS market. The SEC did not show any willing to counteract the reactions of rating agencies and to implement the Act. And the increased cost resulted from potential liability passed on issuers. Decline of confidence in credit ratings and investor detriment due to erroneous ratings are indicated problems also in the Korean market. Considering followings, however, imposing civil liability on rating agencies is not a appropriate solution: first, it would not be possible that investors get substantial compensation due to difficulties in litigation processes and the absence of rating agency's economic competency to pay for the enormous amount of damages; second, responses of rating agencies to potential liability such as ceasing rating services might impair investor protection; and third, it could jeopardize the whole credit rating market. Rather, penalties against violating rating agencies should be substantially strengthened and broker-dealers should be induced to enhance their competency to assess risks of securities.