Treason

Originally posted by wittywonka
My point was to question whodey's implication that the legitimacy of S&P's rationale stemmed from some perceived intellectual superiority of S&P's "economic professionals," when by all appearances S&P indeed acted in response to an obviously fragmented political system.

Well they are supposed to be professionals in assessing risk though clearly they did a remarkably crappy job of doing so in regards to mortgage backed securities. As such, the actions of decision makers that effect the degree of risk of a particular security is surely a relevant and important factor.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well they are supposed to be professionals in assessing risk though clearly they did a remarkably crappy job of doing so in regards to mortgage backed securities. As such, the actions of decision makers that effect the degree of risk of a particular security is surely a relevant and important factor.

One wonders how relevant the rating agencies still are after their abysmal failure of 2008. I certainly wouldn't be paying much attention to them, if I was investing long-term.