EU now wants to ban ratings agencies from warning that countries may be in financial trouble
EU now wants to ban ratings agencies from warning that countries ma...
techdirt.com
Ratings agencies, who rate the risk and financial viability of all sorts of debt products, were one of the major scapegoats of the financial crisis. A lot of people pointed the blame finger at them, noting that they rated all sorts of incredibly risky and often highly questionable financial instruments as being incredibly safe. And, it's absolutely true that they did a dreadful job. But, it's kind of ridiculous to blame companies for stating an opinion. On top of that, it's a basic free speech issue. You can't tell a company that it can't express an opinion on the financial soundness of something. To me, the real problem with the ratings agencies was that the government built them into the law. That is, the government required certain institutions to maintain specific percentages of "highly rated" bonds in order to engage in certain activities. That not only legitimatized the opinions of ratings agencies like Moody's and S&P, but it also gave those "opinions" much more of a feeling of fact, rather than opinion. Could you imagine if the government said movies could only be shown in theaters if the NYTimes and the Washington Post movie reviewers gave them positive reviews? That's what the law is basically like with ratings agencies.
And while I think that the big ratings agencies can make big mistakes, that doesn't mean the answer is to shut them up. However, some regulators in Europe disagree. They're discussing a plan to require agencies to not give out ratings, specifically on sovereign debt, which is where many of the key concerns are right now. With many countries in Europe facing serious debt problems (Greece, Portugal, possibly Spain and Italy among them), it seems like Europe has decided the best way to deal with the problem... is to stop people from talking about the problem.
It's difficult to think of a worse plan.
The defenders of the plan complain that S&P, Moody's and Fitch represent an oligopoly over ratings. And that may be true, but that's no excuse for stifling speech. The way to deal with an oligopoly is to add more competition to the market, rather than limiting what those companies can do... especially when it comes to things like expressing an opinion.
techdirt.com
Ratings agencies, who rate the risk and financial viability of all sorts of debt products, were one of the major scapegoats of the financial crisis. A lot of people pointed the blame finger at them, noting that they rated all sorts of incredibly risky and often highly questionable financial instruments as being incredibly safe. And, it's absolutely true that they did a dreadful job. But, it's kind of ridiculous to blame companies for stating an opinion. On top of that, it's a basic free speech issue. You can't tell a company that it can't express an opinion on the financial soundness of something. To me, the real problem with the ratings agencies was that the government built them into the law. That is, the government required certain institutions to maintain specific percentages of "highly rated" bonds in order to engage in certain activities. That not only legitimatized the opinions of ratings agencies like Moody's and S&P, but it also gave those "opinions" much more of a feeling of fact, rather than opinion. Could you imagine if the government said movies could only be shown in theaters if the NYTimes and the Washington Post movie reviewers gave them positive reviews? That's what the law is basically like with ratings agencies.
And while I think that the big ratings agencies can make big mistakes, that doesn't mean the answer is to shut them up. However, some regulators in Europe disagree. They're discussing a plan to require agencies to not give out ratings, specifically on sovereign debt, which is where many of the key concerns are right now. With many countries in Europe facing serious debt problems (Greece, Portugal, possibly Spain and Italy among them), it seems like Europe has decided the best way to deal with the problem... is to stop people from talking about the problem.
It's difficult to think of a worse plan.
The defenders of the plan complain that S&P, Moody's and Fitch represent an oligopoly over ratings. And that may be true, but that's no excuse for stifling speech. The way to deal with an oligopoly is to add more competition to the market, rather than limiting what those companies can do... especially when it comes to things like expressing an opinion.
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Always Wondering
The face of reality pressed against your window paneIs it engineered or is it real rain?So, you…See More
how to doanload mp3 online?
An MP3 downloader is a useful online tool that allows users to convert and download their favorite…See More
Another incredibly Stupid!! What, no mirrors?
"Personally , I go for the more classic forms of cosmetic surgery! "
Another incredibly Stupid!! What, no mirrors?
"When the problem is inside, it causes transformations like this. I like the original better. Maybe…"
YouTube Downloader Tools You Never Knew Existed
A YouTube downloader is an online tool or software that helps convert YouTube videos into…See More
Experimenter - Official Trailer
Like on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/experimenterfilmYale University, 1961. Stanley Milgram (Peter Sarsgaard) designs a psychology experiment that stil...
How Did the Soviets First Discover the SR-71 Blackbird?
Although President Lydon Johnson announced the development of the Lockheed SR-71 in 1964 which…See More
"Personally, I don't consider Don Lemon or people like him to be journalists at all. They are…"
The Farmer vs the Billionaire — Jeremy Clarkson Says NO to Bill Gates’ £100 Million Deal | UK News
OFFICIAL NOTICE: This channel is NOT Jeremy Clarkson, is not affiliated with him, and does not represent his official views or Diddly Squat Farm. This is an ...
© 2026 Created by truth.
Powered by
