It seems possible that you might be implying that S&P should adjust their actual ratings in order to help their business. That view is sort of off base. Let's put it another way: If you had to make an investment, which rating agency would you trust - S&P, which has the strictest methodology or another ratings agency?
I guess S&P was WAY ahead of the curve with their AAA rating of CMOs and CDOs. Hang on to your mortgage bonds, guys, they're coming back!
Are you so naive to think that they did otherwise with respect to the mortgage securities they rated for the investment banks pushing that crap ? Does the Board of Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to both clients and shareholders ?
I'm talking about what is ongoing now, not something 6 or 7 years ago. Obviously, they learned their lesson and now they rate more aggressively. Also, answer my question, who would you choose to rate a potential investment today: S&P or a more lenient rating agency?
I would not use any ratings agency for fixed income. I do my own research - that's why they invented Bloomberg terminals.
S&P was right in downgrading the US ratings. First by right analysis and second to send the politicians a clear message that they have to do something genuine to help the debt and related problems. btw, cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry basket does not earn 'AAA' because it is still the cleanest. Cleanest shirt can be still tooooooo dirty to barely earn 'BBB'. Please do not mix or shove politics into the market study. S&P is atleast truthful in conveying its message to the common investors.
Sorry man. You sound like a mook. You started out ok with the US deserved the downgrade. Then you started going academic with the cleanest underwear in dirty laundry basket. The correct jargon is cleanest dirty underwear. Then you went mook with the "Please........." S&P is not about troof. If you actually give S&P credibility, you are S&P. Stupid and going to be Poor.