Well it is long overdue and let us hope it doesn't just phizzz but action is to be taken against S&P for their ratings of mortgage backed securities that ultimately led to the GFC
Standard & Poor's says it will face Justice Dept suit over subprime ratings - Feb. 4, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/04/news/economy/s-and-p-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

I wonder how much S&P is worth? Will they survive the class actions, I think it is goodbye S&P and good riddence

Or maybe they will be deemed 'too big to fail' .But why now ? The Feds had plenty of time to act.
I wonder if this move by Holder et al has something to do with S&P downgrading Illinois credit rating recently?? Nahhh .or the fact that S & P downgraded the US rating while other credit agencies didn't .

Moody's and Fitch get off clean ?

This is nothing more then retaliation. Its this administrations attempt to yet again demonize the opposition. You don't think it has anything to do with this do you?

S&P lowers U.S. credit rating - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/05/SP-lowers-US-credit-rating/UPI-63661312591495/)

This is nothing more then retaliation. Its this administrations attempt to yet again demonize the opposition. You dont think it has anything to do with this do you?

S&P lowers U.S. credit rating - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/05/SP-lowers-US-credit-rating/UPI-63661312591495/)

Largely agree. If they committed fraud in their ratings ,then criminal charges should be filed ,not civil. Also noteworthy is that Moody's is owned by Buffett (He owns 30 million shares ) .So don't expect them to be taken to the shed.

It will be another nail in Laisse Faire capitalism when S&P are removed. You can say it is retaliation, or you can say it is justice for putting profits before prudence

Laisse Faire capitalism ?? What's that ? If that was ever the system operated here ,it was well before my grandpa was born.

Yeah right, congress let everyone think the government was backing all those GSE issued mortgage-backed securities and now wants to sue S&P for the high ratings? One more example of the breathtaking hypocrisy of shifting the blame from those who created the problem in the first place, congress.

S&P gave their opinion based on the best available information. That must be criminal activity these days.Here you had a lead Dem in Congress saying that there was no housing bubble .
Barney Frank 2005: "This is not a housing bubble, it wont collapse" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6coIcgdgF5U)
What fine did he get for his opinion ?

???? What's that ? If that was ever the system operated here ,it was well before my grandpa was born.

come now, Tom, don't be so modest, those founders whose ideals you cling to knew the system well and you have often pushed the deregulation barrow seeking a return to the days when capitalism ran free. S&P were the lackies who made the whole GFC possible. Now you want to run off and say we don't do that anymore. If the system operated anywhere, the true expression of it was in the USA

Speech thinks the Congress led everyone to believe the securities were government backed and S&P fell for it, it that were true the government should have assumed all the debt and there wouldn't have been a crisis, but no dumbo let it all fail and we still haven't picked up the pieces

Take it out of the Democrat coffers .Bush and the Repubics tried to reform the GSEs involved throughout his Presidency
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html)

;and in 2006 got a bill that moved through the Senate until Chris Dodd filibustered it . So "dumbo" as you call him tried to do the right thing.

So "dumbo" as you call him tried to do the right thing.

Yes he was noted for trying to do the right thing, this was one thing he couldn't say mission accomplished too, oh wait, there was another, or was there more?

Speech thinks the Congress led everyone to believe the securities were government backed and S&P fell for it, it that were true the government should have assumed all the debt and there wouldn't have been a crisis, but no dumbo let it all fail and we still haven't picked up the pieces

The government was set up to assume the debt. And the money was there. Bush performed his end of the bailouts at a time when his presidency was ending. The other half of the money was to come later after the paperwork was caught up. That fund was given over to the Obama administration and they squandered it on pet projects rather then bail out the system. There was plans in the making to do buybacks of bad loans in the form of relief of the top end. Meaning if the home was now worth 100,000 and it had been 150,000 with the loan at 150,000 the relief would come at the first 50,000 to offset the loss.

It was there. But as Obama had many to pay back he threw it around like monopoly money to all his friends and pet projects.

Yes he was noted for trying to do the right thing, this was one thing he couldn't say mission accomplished too, oh wait, there was another, or was there more?

You still refuse to blame the members of the government who were responsible .

Speech thinks the Congress led everyone to believe the securities were government backed and S&P fell for it, it that were true the government should have assumed all the debt and there wouldn't have been a crisis, but no dumbo let it all fail and we still haven't picked up the pieces

When Congress makes a AA rated MBS the legal equivalent of a Treasury security or government bond why wouldn't you think that?

When Congress makes a AA rated MBS the legal equivalent of a Treasury security or government bond why wouldn't you think that?

And I don't see anyone in the Fed being blamed for loose money and credit... imagine that

you still refuse to blame the members of the government who were responsible .

What part of the buck stops here don't you understand?


When Congress makes a AA rated MBS the legal equivalent of a Treasury security or government bond why wouldn't you think that?

Oh I don't know and nor did anyone else it seems, All this being true why did we have a GFC? Something about those government backed securities not being government backed? something about corporate greed? The man in charge when it all falls down is the one who gets the blame

what part of the buck stops here don't you understand?

As you lay all the blame on a ratings company.

Tom corporate mafeacence takes many forms, the blame, belongs in many hands, but S&P are not blameless and must meet their share of the losses. They sought to gain by endorsing a product with very dodgy credentials, perhaps they just didn't want to know as obviously some others were also blind. Does government bare part of the blame? I have already indicated I think so and that the failure is at the top as well as in lack of regulation.
The GFC was corporate greed abetted by S&P ratings, the whole thing could have been averted if S&P had just said, wait a minute, these securities rate poorly

Hello:

Barney Frank made the banks do it.

excon

He made them concoct a scheme to remove the debt from their books under questionable circumstances and sell junk bonds as AAA rated securities. Come on Ex that doesn't wash

S&P are not blameless and must meet their share of the losses.
This is just a money grab by the Feds . If anyone in S & P committed mafeacence ,then by all means indict them. Civil complaint means no one goes to jail and a fine is paid .S & P writes it off as cost of doing business.

Since the other ratings companies had the same ratings and are not under Federal pressure ,then I am forced to conclude this is a vendetta. Valarie Jarrett predicted that there would be payback in the Emperor's 2nd term. I think that process has begun.. Word to all the others that would downgrade the US in 3 weeks when we come to the next 'fiscal cliff' .

Class action Tom get one you get them all

Kind of odd that the Federal government will sue the very firm it requires investors to rely on (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576518460162935404.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop).


And to this day, more than two years after the Dodd-Frank law ordered their repeal, SEC rules still force institutions to follow the advice of these government-anointed credit raters.

Hello again, Steve:

You can't rely on them if they LIE, and they DID. When you LIE about sh1t people are selling, it's called FRAUD.

Do I understand you? You want to give the banksters a PASS? I never knew you were so PRO criminal.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

You can't rely on them if they LIE, and they DID. When you LIE about sh1t people are selling, it's called FRAUD.

Do I understand you? You wanna give the banksters a PASS?? I never knew you were so PRO criminal.

excon

Like tom said, if there are criminal activities charge them, but what do you not get about suing them while still forcing investors to rely on them?

Hello again, Steve:

They're NOT the only game in town. Nobody is forced to do anything.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

They're NOT the only game in town. Nobody is forced to do anything.

Excon

Did I miss something here?


And to this day, more than two years after the Dodd-Frank law ordered their repeal, SEC rules still force institutions to follow the advice of these government-anointed credit raters.

Like tom said, if there are criminal activities charge them, but what do you not get about suing them while still forcing investors to rely on them?

Investors are not forced to rely on them, investors take advice from a number of sources, I certainly wouldn't make an investment solely on a rating by S&P, what an S&P rating does is suggest there is a certain level of asset backing and security regarding an investment and this is where the process fell down, the asset backing was questionable and the security lacking

"SEC rules still force institutions to follow the advice of these government-anointed credit raters."

That would be federally insured financial institutions, who are also investors.

Hello again, Steve:


"SEC rules still force institutions to follow the advice of these government-anointed credit raters."You're the same people who believe that Barney Frank FORCED the banks to LOSE all their money... So, you'll understand if I'm skeptical of the "force" word.

Excon

"SEC rules still force institutions to follow the advice of these government-anointed credit raters."

That would be federally insured financial institutions, who are also investors.

Rules indicate prudential action which includes proper due diligence. Obtaining independent advice which includes credit ratings is part of that. That S&P may not have acted in an independent capacity will not doubt be part of the action against them

You have to start somewhere to get the greedy b@stards that robbed us. YES it was a robbery, taking advantage of people who wanted a home to raise their families and got conned by the slicker bankers.

Worse, they then tried and succeeded in selling their overated and underfunded bundles all over the world. About time we did something other than suffer for it. Hope it leads somewhere.

What I say strip all those bankers of their inflated salaries and bonuses and suspend dividends of banks involved so that the hurt goes right back to the stockholders. It is a message that needs to be sent if you profit from illicit gains in any form you won't be allowed to keep it

So the DOJ is suing S&P after requiring banks use their services while naming as victims Citibank and Bank of America, for losing money on their own products...


Oh, the poor suckers at Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. fooled about the stench of their own garbage (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06/s-p-lawsuit-portrays-cdo-sellers-as-duped-victims.html?alcmpid=view) by those sneaky credit raters at Standard & Poor’s.

The U.S. Justice Department made some peculiar allegations in its lawsuit this week against S&P and its parent, McGraw-Hill Cos. According to the government, Citigroup was defrauded by S&P credit ratings on subprime mortgage bonds that Citigroup itself created and sold. Bank of America, too, allegedly was defrauded by S&P in the same way.

If this doesn’t make sense, that’s the point. The notion is far-fetched. No wonder S&P wouldn’t agree to a settlement and told the government to see it in court.

Here’s the gist. Near the end of its 119-page complaint, the Justice Department listed about two-dozen collateralized- debt obligations issued in 2007 as examples where S&P allegedly defrauded banks and credit unions. It was important that the Justice Department be able to identify such lenders as investors, because it’s suing S&P under a 1989 statute that covers frauds against federally insured financial institutions.

Under the government’s theory, Citigroup and Bank of America paid S&P for ratings that convinced the banks their own CDO offal was rock-solid. And because S&P deceived them into thinking the best of their own rubbish, these banks and other lenders suffered more than $5 billion of investment losses, according to the suit.

For nine of the CDOs, the government’s complaint listed Citigroup as the harmed investor -- without mentioning that Citigroup’s investment-banking division had managed the bonds’ offerings. The complaint identified Bank of America as the defrauded CDO investor in two instances, also without mentioning that its securities unit underwrote those bonds.

It’s a novel concept. If only S&P had given honest opinions to Citigroup and Bank of America -- which were paying S&P millions of dollars for ratings -- then the banks would have realized they were buying ticking time bombs from themselves. And who knows? Maybe they could have found some other hapless chumps to immolate instead, if S&P had told them in time.

Hello again, Steve:

First it was Barney Franks fault, and now it's S & P. Those poor banks.

They need to be broken up. Their leaders need to go to jail. OCCUPY a bank.

excon

Apparently you don't see the irony of blaming S&P for Citibank selling crapola to itself.

Hello again, Steve:


Apparently you don't see the irony of blaming S&P for Citibank selling crapola to itself.Nahhh.. I'm used to the right wing DEFENDING the banks. Isn't your tune, that Barney Frank MADE them lose all their money??

Now, you admit they sold sh1t? They need to be broken up and their leaders JAILED - along side the POPE.

OCCUPY a bank & the government!

Excon

I think we should be looking at WHERE Obama has his stock holding at right now... I bet its with one of the OTHER rating agencies and NOT S&P.

That's how Nancyu Pelosi and Harry Ried ammassed their fortunes... insider trading on issues they were able to manipulate.

That could be said of everyone in Washington.

Obamas portfolio. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_112763.html)

I just know that Citibank - that sold crapola to itself - is part of his 'grassroots' Organizing For Action PAC.

That could be said of everyone in Washington.

Obamas portfolio. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_112763.html)

Tal.. that article is total BS... I know for a fact how much and where some of his money is sitting... and its more than that article claims is his total net worth... and there is no doubt there is a lot stashed other places.. as it would be wise to do.

But I won't say how much or where... though I do know.

Know it all, eh? Well tell us or shut up

know it all, eh? well tell us or shut up

Why would I want to tell you WHERE... so people I know might get fired? Because you likely won't believe it anyway... because you believe journalists are ALWAYS honest and unbiased.

When I I ever said that smoothy

Read what YOU typed which I quoted again.

Because I know a LOT of things Joe average has no clue about and I can't say... and even in cases like this... go into detail about. For a number of reasons... sometimes legal... sometimes because it would cost several good people their jobs if I did which is the case this time.

Ask a teller at your bank sometime... they will explain to you why. And you won't have to take my word for it. I'm sure Australia has similar laws on the topic as we have.

It would be nice to actually know what you are talking about. We have no laws against whistle blowers but of course retaliation happens. I used to be a bank teller, you keep the clients business confidential and don't even hint you might know something to big note yourself. As an accountant I live by Integrity which means you keep clients information confidential unless of course there are legal issues

It would be nice to actually know what you are talking about. We have no laws against whistle blowers but of course retaliation happens. I used to be a bank teller, you keep the clients business confidential and don't even hint you might know something to big note yourself. as an accountant I live by Integrity which means you keep clients information confidential unless of course there are legal issues

Here there are actual legal issues if someone even looks at an account they are not actually doing business with at that moment... there are other legal issues if that information is passed on... even by the party who did not originally see it themselves.

Here we have a case someone is telling bold faced lies in that article... and who knows where those lies started from. The source or the writer dreaming so called "facts" up to fit the story... which there is a proven record of in journalism in recent decades.

That's why I would not say "X" has Precicesly "X" ammounts in "X", "X", and "X" institutions. Though I do know numbers that are very close to current... I won't say how much or where... beyond the writer of that article being full of bovine excrement.

Integrity and journalism are mutually exclusive terms these days.

Yes smoothy we know certain media rely on sensationalism and the old ploy of make an accusation, how many times do we see reporting that we know to be factually incorrect, or we find later to be factually incorrect, Too much spin and hype and political crap

yes smoothy we know certain media rely on sensationalism and the old ploy of make an accusation, how many times do we see reporting that we know to be factually incorrect, or we find later to be factually incorrect,. too much spin and hype and political crap

Exactly.. and some of us have seen far more of it than most people (speaking for myself). Without having to wait for someone to later prove them wrong... assuming they can get any airtime at all when they do.

Why prove them wrong, unless the accusation is personal, eventually the truth will be apparent

Why prove them wrong, unless the accusation is personal, eventually the truth will be apparent

That's what we try to tell ourselves to make it easier to stomach... the reality is most of this stuff like many a weighted down body in the river... never comes to the surface again. Only a few ever pop up to cause problems for someone.

I'll defer to your knowledge of weighing down bodies in rivers