Without question, the credit rating system is one of the capitalism’s strangest hybrids: profit-making companies that perform what is essentially a regulatory role. The companies serve the public, which expect them to stamp their imprimatur on safe securities and safe securities alone. But they also serve their shareholders, who profit whenever that imprimatur shows up on a security, safe or not.
To make matters more complicated, rating agencies are deeply entrenched in millions of transactions. Statutes and rules require that mutual fund and money managers of almost every stripe buy only those bonds that have been given high grades by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, as the agencies are officially known.
But even if there is no foolproof way to reform the rating agencies, the measures that Congress is now backing are strikingly weak, a number of critics say. There is no talk, for instance, about creating a fee-financed, independent credit rating agency, one modeled along the lines of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which was established to oversee auditors after the Enron debacle — an idea floated by Christopher J. Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman as recently as August.
That approach would attack the conflict of interest problem head on.
AMD's Quiet Edge In AI Inference
18 minutes ago
I was trying to content analyze your blogs and it seems to me that you have heavy bias for NYT and hardly any articles are posted from 'real' business newspapers like The Wall Street Journal or the Investor's Business Daily or even The Economist.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the frequency of NYT articles and of Paul Krugman it seems you are beholden to their viewpoints. Am I right on this?
The NYT provides a lot of content, if not all, for free. Not so with the WSJ or the Economist. I don't know about IBD.
ReplyDeleteI'm a strong believer in free content online. As such, NYT tends to get more hits from me.
Note that I do link to the Economist in my site list at the right-hand side of the page, and I do sometimes link to them.
If you know of a free "real" business newspaper, please do let me know and I'd very likely read them.
"Note that I do link to the Economist in my site list at the right-hand side of the page, and I do sometimes link to them."
ReplyDeleteI meant to say, I do sometimes link to them in my "Reading" posts.
"I'm a strong believer in free content online."???
ReplyDeleteThere is a very pithy idiom: "You get what you pay for"!!.
Maybe you are missing out on important stuff because important stuff is not free.
As a consumer, why would I pay for information when I can get it free?
ReplyDeleteIf information and opinions on economics and business were scarce, I would probably pay for it. However, there is a plethora of content online (from both sides of the political spectrum, mind you), that is free. Much of it seems to be of very high quality. Krugman is a Nobel Laureate. The Baseline Scenario is written by a former chief economist of the IMF. If their opinions are not "important", I'm not sure what is. As such, I see no reason to pay WSJ for their content when others give me excellent, free news and analysis.
Oh really? "Important stuff is not free"?! Yes that explains why most universities publish their academic papers free of cost on the internet! But of course one is free to pay for the drivel put out by a rich Australian or the nonsense put out by a magazine that thinks that calling itself "The Economist" would be enough to dupe people into thinking that it has anything to do with economics .. I suppose they are right.
ReplyDelete