The Tea Party downgrade

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
We really don’t have a two-party (Republican-Democrat) Congress anymore. What we have is a two-goal Congress. It’s those that want to be elected to Congress in perpetuity versus those who want to work hard, compromising with others, to address the problems that threaten our very existence as a nation. Unfortunately, the latter group is far outnumbered by the first. If this country’s citizenry do not stop taking their direction from ill-informed bloggers, hate-filled media personalities, and plastic empty-headed power-hungry politicians, and make the time to research the truth on their own, they will lose the right to do so.[/quote]

I agree eavesdropper.

As you’ve said before, we need to bring back the smart people and elect politicians who will listen to the experts who spend whole careers studying the issues.

In the mean time, how do we get rid of the “ill-informed bloggers, hate-filled media personalities, and plastic empty-headed power-hungry politicians?”

You’ve mentioned Elizabeth Warren before. How we get more people like her appointed to influential positions and running for elected office?[/quote]

Brian, until people stop tossing off bumper sticker slogans like “Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps”, without really thinking about what they mean, and, more important, whether they can say that their own life reflects that slogan, nothing will change. But that takes hard work and honest unflinching introspection, two things that often go against human nature.

Now, in my humble opinion, few things in life are worth more than having the ability to live, and raise your family, in a country where you feel safe. One in which you can advance to the level of your study, hard work, and sacrifice. Where you can freely express your agreement or dissent with the statement of others, including government officials, without fear of being imprisoned or summarily executed. Where you do not worry about feeding your child with produce or meat you did not raise, or water you didn’t test and treat, because government regulations are drafted AND enforced to ensure their safety.

That is what we have here in the U.S., despite claims that are wildly distorted or are flat-out dishonest. The claims are made in an attempt to build up political influence and capital, and are directed at and wildly successful with, small-minded individuals who believe they have been cheated or damaged in some way. These individuals build up their arsenal of misinformation, and any attempt to disprove them is met by an accusation of “traitor” or “unpatriotic”.

Truth can only be found by those searching for it. By that definition, one is sure to come upon evidence that has the potential to disprove core beliefs. Therefore, being fully aware of this, yet forging on in a search for evidence of truth is a difficult task, and one that requires courage, and is not possible for the weak or faint-hearted.

The majority of people will opt for the easy way out, and instead search for “evidence” that is actually opinion of others that aligns with their own beliefs. With the development of the internet, and its availability to virtually every person in every area of the U.S., it has become very easy to find individuals and groups who are sympathetic to your views and values, no matter how extreme.

Unfortunately, excessive and inappropriate use of the internet has fostered an atmosphere of intense polarization in the U.S. Statements and reactions that once horrified most people are now greeted with a shrug. The stakes are continually raised, and an atmosphere of cooperation and compromise has been sacrificed, all the way to the halls and chambers of Congress.

People view immaturity and stubbornness as “courage” and “toughness”. We’re a society in which you no longer are forced to personally confront someone with whom you don’t agree, a situation that many see as doing away with a need for cooperation and compromise. In reality, there has never been a greater need for these qualities. In a world where you can destroy a person’s marriage, career, self-confidence, or even childhood innocence with a few keyboard strokes, it doesn’t take a lot of effort to create doubt or envy or hatred or paranoia in a susceptible populace.

Until people make a determined effort to educate themselves and resist the influence of others over their own self-confidence, no change is possible.

[jstoesz]

[quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.

[jstoesz]

[quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.

[jstoesz]

[quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.

[jstoesz]

[quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.

[jstoesz]

[quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.[/quote]

jstoesz, the Dodd-Frank bill forces the ratings agencies to be more transparent. The ratings agencies are now less likely to give AAA ratings to junk mortgage securities.

Credit Rating Agency Regulation

The Act directs the SEC to establish a new Office of Credit Ratings to oversee and examine credit rating agencies and promulgate new rules for internal controls, independence, transparency and penalties for poor performance. Nationally recognized credit rating agencies will be required to establish, maintain, enforce and document an effective internal control structure and submit an annual internal controls report to the SEC. The Office of Credit Ratings will be required to conduct at least annual examinations of all nationally recognized credit rating agencies and make reports of its findings publicly available. Credit rating agencies will be subject to new disclosure requirements that mandate public disclosure of ratings methodologies, use of third parties’ due diligence and ratings track records, as well as material changes made to, or material errors identified in, ratings procedures or methodologies. The Act authorizes the SEC to penalize nationally recognized credit rating agencies for failing to consistently produce accurate ratings and establishes a new private right of action against rating agencies for a knowing or reckless failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of the facts or to obtain analysis from an independent source.

The conference committee removed a provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have required the establishment of a new self-regulatory organization charged with assigning the task of providing initial credit ratings for certain structured finance products to qualified credit rating agencies. The Act instead requires the SEC to undertake a two-year study for the purpose of determining an independent method for matching credit ratings agencies with issuers, so as to mitigate conflicts of interest in the selection process for ratings of structured finance products.

In an effort to curb reliance on credit ratings, the Act mandates that references to credit ratings be removed from certain statutes and that the SEC conduct studies on, among other things, the standardization of credit ratings.

In a late addition by the conference committee, the Act includes a provision that nullifies Rule 436(g) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), which currently exempts nationally recognized credit rating agencies from the requirements under the Securities Act that apply to experts and, importantly, exempts credit rating agencies from Section 11 liability when ratings are included in Securities Act registration statements. The rescission of Rule 436(g) will mean that the rating agencies must provide written consent before their ratings can be included in registration statements. This will have an immediate impact in the context of registered structured finance issuances, which rely directly on credit ratings, and it may take on even greater importance if the SEC promulgates rules requiring the inclusion of ratings disclosure in the registration statements of corporate debt issuers.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/07/07/summary-of-dodd-frank-financial-regulation-legislation/

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.[/quote]

jstoesz, the Dodd-Frank bill forces the ratings agencies to be more transparent. The ratings agencies are now less likely to give AAA ratings to junk mortgage securities.

Credit Rating Agency Regulation

The Act directs the SEC to establish a new Office of Credit Ratings to oversee and examine credit rating agencies and promulgate new rules for internal controls, independence, transparency and penalties for poor performance. Nationally recognized credit rating agencies will be required to establish, maintain, enforce and document an effective internal control structure and submit an annual internal controls report to the SEC. The Office of Credit Ratings will be required to conduct at least annual examinations of all nationally recognized credit rating agencies and make reports of its findings publicly available. Credit rating agencies will be subject to new disclosure requirements that mandate public disclosure of ratings methodologies, use of third parties’ due diligence and ratings track records, as well as material changes made to, or material errors identified in, ratings procedures or methodologies. The Act authorizes the SEC to penalize nationally recognized credit rating agencies for failing to consistently produce accurate ratings and establishes a new private right of action against rating agencies for a knowing or reckless failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of the facts or to obtain analysis from an independent source.

The conference committee removed a provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have required the establishment of a new self-regulatory organization charged with assigning the task of providing initial credit ratings for certain structured finance products to qualified credit rating agencies. The Act instead requires the SEC to undertake a two-year study for the purpose of determining an independent method for matching credit ratings agencies with issuers, so as to mitigate conflicts of interest in the selection process for ratings of structured finance products.

In an effort to curb reliance on credit ratings, the Act mandates that references to credit ratings be removed from certain statutes and that the SEC conduct studies on, among other things, the standardization of credit ratings.

In a late addition by the conference committee, the Act includes a provision that nullifies Rule 436(g) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), which currently exempts nationally recognized credit rating agencies from the requirements under the Securities Act that apply to experts and, importantly, exempts credit rating agencies from Section 11 liability when ratings are included in Securities Act registration statements. The rescission of Rule 436(g) will mean that the rating agencies must provide written consent before their ratings can be included in registration statements. This will have an immediate impact in the context of registered structured finance issuances, which rely directly on credit ratings, and it may take on even greater importance if the SEC promulgates rules requiring the inclusion of ratings disclosure in the registration statements of corporate debt issuers.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/07/07/summary-of-dodd-frank-financial-regulation-legislation/

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.[/quote]

jstoesz, the Dodd-Frank bill forces the ratings agencies to be more transparent. The ratings agencies are now less likely to give AAA ratings to junk mortgage securities.

Credit Rating Agency Regulation

The Act directs the SEC to establish a new Office of Credit Ratings to oversee and examine credit rating agencies and promulgate new rules for internal controls, independence, transparency and penalties for poor performance. Nationally recognized credit rating agencies will be required to establish, maintain, enforce and document an effective internal control structure and submit an annual internal controls report to the SEC. The Office of Credit Ratings will be required to conduct at least annual examinations of all nationally recognized credit rating agencies and make reports of its findings publicly available. Credit rating agencies will be subject to new disclosure requirements that mandate public disclosure of ratings methodologies, use of third parties’ due diligence and ratings track records, as well as material changes made to, or material errors identified in, ratings procedures or methodologies. The Act authorizes the SEC to penalize nationally recognized credit rating agencies for failing to consistently produce accurate ratings and establishes a new private right of action against rating agencies for a knowing or reckless failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of the facts or to obtain analysis from an independent source.

The conference committee removed a provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have required the establishment of a new self-regulatory organization charged with assigning the task of providing initial credit ratings for certain structured finance products to qualified credit rating agencies. The Act instead requires the SEC to undertake a two-year study for the purpose of determining an independent method for matching credit ratings agencies with issuers, so as to mitigate conflicts of interest in the selection process for ratings of structured finance products.

In an effort to curb reliance on credit ratings, the Act mandates that references to credit ratings be removed from certain statutes and that the SEC conduct studies on, among other things, the standardization of credit ratings.

In a late addition by the conference committee, the Act includes a provision that nullifies Rule 436(g) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), which currently exempts nationally recognized credit rating agencies from the requirements under the Securities Act that apply to experts and, importantly, exempts credit rating agencies from Section 11 liability when ratings are included in Securities Act registration statements. The rescission of Rule 436(g) will mean that the rating agencies must provide written consent before their ratings can be included in registration statements. This will have an immediate impact in the context of registered structured finance issuances, which rely directly on credit ratings, and it may take on even greater importance if the SEC promulgates rules requiring the inclusion of ratings disclosure in the registration statements of corporate debt issuers.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/07/07/summary-of-dodd-frank-financial-regulation-legislation/

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.[/quote]

jstoesz, the Dodd-Frank bill forces the ratings agencies to be more transparent. The ratings agencies are now less likely to give AAA ratings to junk mortgage securities.

Credit Rating Agency Regulation

The Act directs the SEC to establish a new Office of Credit Ratings to oversee and examine credit rating agencies and promulgate new rules for internal controls, independence, transparency and penalties for poor performance. Nationally recognized credit rating agencies will be required to establish, maintain, enforce and document an effective internal control structure and submit an annual internal controls report to the SEC. The Office of Credit Ratings will be required to conduct at least annual examinations of all nationally recognized credit rating agencies and make reports of its findings publicly available. Credit rating agencies will be subject to new disclosure requirements that mandate public disclosure of ratings methodologies, use of third parties’ due diligence and ratings track records, as well as material changes made to, or material errors identified in, ratings procedures or methodologies. The Act authorizes the SEC to penalize nationally recognized credit rating agencies for failing to consistently produce accurate ratings and establishes a new private right of action against rating agencies for a knowing or reckless failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of the facts or to obtain analysis from an independent source.

The conference committee removed a provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have required the establishment of a new self-regulatory organization charged with assigning the task of providing initial credit ratings for certain structured finance products to qualified credit rating agencies. The Act instead requires the SEC to undertake a two-year study for the purpose of determining an independent method for matching credit ratings agencies with issuers, so as to mitigate conflicts of interest in the selection process for ratings of structured finance products.

In an effort to curb reliance on credit ratings, the Act mandates that references to credit ratings be removed from certain statutes and that the SEC conduct studies on, among other things, the standardization of credit ratings.

In a late addition by the conference committee, the Act includes a provision that nullifies Rule 436(g) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), which currently exempts nationally recognized credit rating agencies from the requirements under the Securities Act that apply to experts and, importantly, exempts credit rating agencies from Section 11 liability when ratings are included in Securities Act registration statements. The rescission of Rule 436(g) will mean that the rating agencies must provide written consent before their ratings can be included in registration statements. This will have an immediate impact in the context of registered structured finance issuances, which rely directly on credit ratings, and it may take on even greater importance if the SEC promulgates rules requiring the inclusion of ratings disclosure in the registration statements of corporate debt issuers.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/07/07/summary-of-dodd-frank-financial-regulation-legislation/

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=briansd1]
I do attach importance to what S&P has to say simply because the ratings have become an integral part of our financial system.

Those who don’t give a damn about S&P should really stop pointing to the rating.
[/quote]

Back to the whole fin reg bill. Why is it wrong to beat your opponent with the stick he gives you?

Seems logical to me, But I may be arguing in the alternative.[/quote]

jstoesz, the Dodd-Frank bill forces the ratings agencies to be more transparent. The ratings agencies are now less likely to give AAA ratings to junk mortgage securities.

Credit Rating Agency Regulation

The Act directs the SEC to establish a new Office of Credit Ratings to oversee and examine credit rating agencies and promulgate new rules for internal controls, independence, transparency and penalties for poor performance. Nationally recognized credit rating agencies will be required to establish, maintain, enforce and document an effective internal control structure and submit an annual internal controls report to the SEC. The Office of Credit Ratings will be required to conduct at least annual examinations of all nationally recognized credit rating agencies and make reports of its findings publicly available. Credit rating agencies will be subject to new disclosure requirements that mandate public disclosure of ratings methodologies, use of third parties’ due diligence and ratings track records, as well as material changes made to, or material errors identified in, ratings procedures or methodologies. The Act authorizes the SEC to penalize nationally recognized credit rating agencies for failing to consistently produce accurate ratings and establishes a new private right of action against rating agencies for a knowing or reckless failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of the facts or to obtain analysis from an independent source.

The conference committee removed a provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have required the establishment of a new self-regulatory organization charged with assigning the task of providing initial credit ratings for certain structured finance products to qualified credit rating agencies. The Act instead requires the SEC to undertake a two-year study for the purpose of determining an independent method for matching credit ratings agencies with issuers, so as to mitigate conflicts of interest in the selection process for ratings of structured finance products.

In an effort to curb reliance on credit ratings, the Act mandates that references to credit ratings be removed from certain statutes and that the SEC conduct studies on, among other things, the standardization of credit ratings.

In a late addition by the conference committee, the Act includes a provision that nullifies Rule 436(g) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), which currently exempts nationally recognized credit rating agencies from the requirements under the Securities Act that apply to experts and, importantly, exempts credit rating agencies from Section 11 liability when ratings are included in Securities Act registration statements. The rescission of Rule 436(g) will mean that the rating agencies must provide written consent before their ratings can be included in registration statements. This will have an immediate impact in the context of registered structured finance issuances, which rely directly on credit ratings, and it may take on even greater importance if the SEC promulgates rules requiring the inclusion of ratings disclosure in the registration statements of corporate debt issuers.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/07/07/summary-of-dodd-frank-financial-regulation-legislation/

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz]

Again false…doesn’t france get a new government every twenty years? Who knows what will happen there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_France

[/quote]

jsotoez, I’m not saying that France is more stable than we are.

Based on the S&P ratings, S&P is implying that France is more stable (based on their 5 criteria) and more likely to pay back their sovereign debts.

You and I may not agree with S&P, but their rationale is what it is.

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz]

Again false…doesn’t france get a new government every twenty years? Who knows what will happen there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_France

[/quote]

jsotoez, I’m not saying that France is more stable than we are.

Based on the S&P ratings, S&P is implying that France is more stable (based on their 5 criteria) and more likely to pay back their sovereign debts.

You and I may not agree with S&P, but their rationale is what it is.

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz]

Again false…doesn’t france get a new government every twenty years? Who knows what will happen there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_France

[/quote]

jsotoez, I’m not saying that France is more stable than we are.

Based on the S&P ratings, S&P is implying that France is more stable (based on their 5 criteria) and more likely to pay back their sovereign debts.

You and I may not agree with S&P, but their rationale is what it is.

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz]

Again false…doesn’t france get a new government every twenty years? Who knows what will happen there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_France

[/quote]

jsotoez, I’m not saying that France is more stable than we are.

Based on the S&P ratings, S&P is implying that France is more stable (based on their 5 criteria) and more likely to pay back their sovereign debts.

You and I may not agree with S&P, but their rationale is what it is.

[Author]

Posts