Well, I agree if it's true that they knew for a while that the products were shit before changing the rating. Even worse if they knew all along. They should be held accountable if that's the case. But if they did their due diligence and just had bad info, then changed the rating accordingly as soon as they found out, I can't fault them for that - that's a risk we take as investors.
I'm surprised that people still trust these credit rating agencies after they caused the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 that led to the Great Recession of 2008-2009 due to unethical rating practices in exchange for profit. I really think they need more transparency and release complete justification to the public for every rating they give. When their judgement is backed up by facts and released for public scrutiny, it will prevent shenanigans and restore public confidence to a certain extent.
I sure as hell don't blame rating agencies as being the actual CAUSE of the crisis. The crisis was largely a result of legislation going back many years before that caused lenders to have to lower their lending standards. Greed also factored in, but this all started with the idea some politicians had in their heads that EVERYONE is "entitled" to be a homeowner. Of course a small number of people such as John Paulson saw the crisis before everyone else did, took the appropriate measures, and got filthy stinkin' rich.
Exactly, what do they do? Who gave them the power to rate my country? To say that is A or B? It's crazy...
Yes these rating agencies have a lot of power and do a fairly good job overall. They know what they are doing and will do things at the right time.
What? I don't think I can agree with that natalie, why do you say they do a good job overall? I think they work with an agenda and for me that is not doing things well...
