In her opening remarks today at the Securities and Exchange Commission's Roundtable on Credit Agencies, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro stated that the role of credit rating agencies must be an area for the agency's "intense review" as it considers how to promote investor protection and restore confidence.

Schapiro stated that while the SEC has undertaken five rulemakings in the area of credit agencies following the 2006 Credit Rating Agency Reform Act that gave it exclusive authority over rating agency registration and qualifications, there is still much more to do. She commented that the performance of rating agencies in the subprime area "has shaken investor confidence to its core."

Schapiro also stated that the purpose of today's Roundtable is to ask some very basic questions:

Should the Commission consider additional rules to better align the raters' interests with those who rely on the ratings — that is, principally, investors?

Stated another way, does one form of rating agency business model represent a better way of managing conflicts of interest than another? Is there a way to realign incentives so that rating agencies view investors as the ultimate customer?

Do users of ratings — whether they are issuers or investors — have all of the information they need to make the most informed decisions? For example, is there more information about performance, expertise with regard to certain types of securities products, or fees that would be meaningful in restoring investor confidence or would provide investors with the tools to discern the value of the rating? Should we borrow a page from the research analyst conflicts of interest settlement of several years ago and require a mechanism that provides for the issuance of multiple ratings for every security, including one generated independently?

Are there additional behaviors — for example, concerning the way that agencies bid for work — that should be examined and modified? Would increased competition in the rating agency space benefit investors and how would we achieve that?

Are some securities products so inherently complicated or risky that ratings are, at best, meaningless or, even worse, misleading? In other words, is everything really ratable?

Should investors re-examine the way that they look at ratings to ensure that ratings represent the beginning of due diligence and not the end? Should the government end its reliance on ratings or limit that reliance?

To watch a video of today's Roundtable, please click on the SEC seal below: