Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

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

Excon

---

Did I miss something here?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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:

Quote:

---

"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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

"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...

Quote:

---

Oh, the poor suckers at Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. fooled about the stench of their own garbage 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:

Quote:

---

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.

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