by nobodypanic » Wed 24 Aug 2011, 21:01:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') certainly can't work up any sympathy for a company who was paid by the banks to evaluate the bank's worthless "instruments" and said those 'assets' were actually worth something.
Do you see the point though, that this time they swung the other direction and a made a bearish call and wound up punished worse than the pollyanna subprime ratings. Look at what being honest and doing a downgrade has cost S&P:
1) Lost clients.. surprise surprise, clients want good ratings or they'll take their business elsewhere
2) Obama Admin openly hostile to them
3) Justice Dept. investigation
4) Somebody very powerful complained to the Board, got the CEO fired
I'm not saying feel sorry for S&P, rather be concerned our financial system has no watchdog. There is no "bondzilla," Treasury can't ever have a bad auction as long as the Fed is willing to print cash and buy bonds. Stock market is pumped up with QE cash. The whole system is rigged, it's not an honest market anymore with balanced market forces at play. That's not sustainable, a rigged market must eventually collapse, it's a natural law. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, intimidating, punishing, busting up S&P doesn't make us a AAA country again.
Actually, there really needs to be some congressional hearings to investigate whether the Obama admin or his campaign had any part in firing the CEO. This isn't cool from a free speech perspective, the executive branch cracking down on a private entity that said something the government didn't like.
actually, not only will a 'rigged' market buy you some time, but it is a signal that the capitalist economic system has hit a wall and is in a state of prolonged crisis.
not sure if this hasn't already been covered but... whereas at one time the ratings agency's business model was one where investors would pay to get the rating of various organizations (subscriber based), now it's one where the organization they are rating pays them for that rating (issuer based) and the public gets it for free. the conflict of interest is obvious.
also, i am fairly sure that the investigation into S&P was initiated some time ago. why isn't anyone hypothesizing that maybe S&P was trying to intimidate the US? after all, i think these sorts of organizations may be starting to feel their oats, since the future seems to indicate that the nation-state as we have known it may be on the way out in favor of international capital concerns.
btw, japan just had its credit rating cut; so, really, it's almost a question of who isn't broke and where is the relatively safest port? i agree w/pops: it's obviously here in the US. so rate accordingly.