Check out some similar questions!

paraclete · Feb 5, 2013, 05:49 AM

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

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

tomder55 · Feb 5, 2013, 06:15 AM

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 ?

cdad · Feb 5, 2013, 06:21 AM

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

tomder55 · Feb 5, 2013, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by califdadof3

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

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.

paraclete · Feb 5, 2013, 02:17 PM

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

tomder55 · Feb 5, 2013, 02:29 PM

Laisse Faire capitalism

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

speechlesstx · Feb 5, 2013, 02:30 PM

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.

tomder55 · Feb 5, 2013, 02:44 PM

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
What fine did he get for his opinion ?

paraclete · Feb 5, 2013, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

???? 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

tomder55 · Feb 5, 2013, 03:04 PM

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

;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.

paraclete · Feb 5, 2013, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

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?

cdad · Feb 5, 2013, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

tomder55 · Feb 5, 2013, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

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 .

speechlesstx · Feb 5, 2013, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

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?

tomder55 · Feb 5, 2013, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

paraclete · Feb 5, 2013, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

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

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

tomder55 · Feb 5, 2013, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

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

As you lay all the blame on a ratings company.

paraclete · Feb 5, 2013, 06:24 PM

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

excon · Feb 5, 2013, 08:16 PM

Hello:

Barney Frank made the banks do it.

excon

paraclete · Feb 5, 2013, 09:24 PM

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