If you've seen the latest headlines, one would assume it was an act of revenge. While it's convenient timing on the investigation of Standard and Poor's shady practices, and the resignation of President Deven Sharma, both were said to be in process prior to the US downgrade. The investigation of ocean front property prices that were later determined as swamplands surrounded by quicksand may prove this credit agency was not acting in the best interest of the consumer.
What's good for the gander is not always good for the goose. Neither Moody's nor Fitch, followed in S&P's judgment to drop the US from a AAA to AA+. The United States came from behind surprising S&P with a slick movement of suit. "Who's the goose now?"
The curious matter is still evolving. Will the richest country in the world earn back our high credit rating? We may not need to earn anything, via the investigation of over-valuing mortgage bundles. We may declare a reform on the credit agencies that would put our rating back where it belongs. Are we investigating all three major credit agencies, that is yet to be determined. Our focus at this time remains on the largest and most influential, Standard and Poor's.
Is it possible that S&P downgraded the US rating as an act of defiance? As Deven Sharma spoke from the round table, addressing the SEC on April 15, 2009, “We believe the key is not to choose one model over the others but rather for regulators to provide oversight of rating firms using different models and allow market participants to choose the firms that best serve their needs.” It was an oversight that brought us into this mess. In hindsight, we may now view this statement as one suggesting we look past their previous errors and omissions and allow the participants to determine what companies best serve wall street.
As we look forward to a brighter tomorrow, we see what a little pressure can due to an unstable market. A downgrade from the top rating agency proved to bring significant losses; while a little pressure on a top rating agency has led to significant gains. We investigate oversight and bad calls on sublime investments, yet become upset that we were unfairly judged.
What's good for the gander is not always good for the goose. Neither Moody's nor Fitch, followed in S&P's judgment to drop the US from a AAA to AA+. The United States came from behind surprising S&P with a slick movement of suit. "Who's the goose now?"
The curious matter is still evolving. Will the richest country in the world earn back our high credit rating? We may not need to earn anything, via the investigation of over-valuing mortgage bundles. We may declare a reform on the credit agencies that would put our rating back where it belongs. Are we investigating all three major credit agencies, that is yet to be determined. Our focus at this time remains on the largest and most influential, Standard and Poor's.
Is it possible that S&P downgraded the US rating as an act of defiance? As Deven Sharma spoke from the round table, addressing the SEC on April 15, 2009, “We believe the key is not to choose one model over the others but rather for regulators to provide oversight of rating firms using different models and allow market participants to choose the firms that best serve their needs.” It was an oversight that brought us into this mess. In hindsight, we may now view this statement as one suggesting we look past their previous errors and omissions and allow the participants to determine what companies best serve wall street.
As we look forward to a brighter tomorrow, we see what a little pressure can due to an unstable market. A downgrade from the top rating agency proved to bring significant losses; while a little pressure on a top rating agency has led to significant gains. We investigate oversight and bad calls on sublime investments, yet become upset that we were unfairly judged.
