U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-08-2016, 11:53 AM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,160,286 times
Reputation: 8607

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Lol. They admitted they mislead investors.... ADMITTED AND SETTLED FOR IT.
No, they did not.

Via the SEC:
Quote:
"There is no requirement that a rating agency verify the information contained in RMBS loan portfolios presented to it for rating. Additionally, rating agencies are not required to insist that issuers perform due diligence, and they are not required to obtain reports concerning the level of due diligence performed by issuers.

...The [SEC] Staff notes that each rating agency publicly disclosed that it did not engage in any due diligence or otherwise seek to verify the accuracy or quality of the loan data underlying the RMBS pools they rated during the review period. Each rating agency’s “Code of Conduct” (available on each rating agency’s website) clearly stated that it was under no obligation to perform, and did not perform, due diligence. Each also noted that the assignment of a rating is not a guarantee of the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information relied on in connection with the rating."
Read the terms of the settlement. No laws were violated. No fraud was committed. Has everything to do with the ratings agencies complying fully with regulations AND fully disclosing the limitations of their ratings, exactly as the SEC indicated.

Quote:
"The settlement contains no findings of violations of law by the Company, S&P Financial Services or S&P Ratings.

The settlement agreement states that all parties, including the Company, the DOJ and the States, settled this matter "to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience, and expense of further litigation."
News Release - S&P Global

S&P was bullied by the US Government, etc. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2016, 11:54 AM
 
3,792 posts, read 1,882,686 times
Reputation: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Who are you asserting broke the law, and what law was broken?
Fraud.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 12:00 PM
 
12,241 posts, read 3,151,985 times
Reputation: 1519
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Those are settlements, accompanied by statements admitting no guilt and no illegal activity.

When the US Government with its unlimited resources goes after (bullies) a private sector corp with limited resources, what do you think is going to happen? Settle to make it go away.

The important takeaway? The SEC's and the US Government's admissions that no laws were violated.

Furthermore... by the SEC's own admission:
So, again, I'll ask you... What culpability? Exactly which laws do you assert were violated by the ratings agencies?

Put up or shut up.
... but that's an awful lot of money to pay for no wrong doing no matter how you want to dismiss that fact. $687.5 million to 19 states and the District of Columbia as well. $125 million settlement with public pension fund California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Seems it would be easier to simply show these plaintiffs the disclosures, right? Save some money...

S&P signed a statement of facts acknowledging that its executives in 2005 delayed implementing new models that produced more negative ratings.

What confuses me is what these new or old "models" might have looked like that determines these ratings, apparently a bit more involved than simply "rubber stamping" investment securities based on "data provided by the products' issuers."

While you are more inclined to simply declare innocence based on disclosures.

As usual, simple and wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 12:06 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,775,576 times
Reputation: 2033
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, they did not.

Via the SEC:Read the terms of the settlement. No laws were violated. No fraud was committed. Has everything to do with the ratings agencies complying fully with regulations AND fully disclosing the limitations of their ratings, exactly as the SEC indicated.
I have you are wrong. You can keep posting the same thing over and over and it doesn't make you right. But hey.... POST THE PAGE NUMBER FROM THE PARAGRAPHS YOU KEEP QUOTING...

Stop playing semantics... Did S&P admit they misled investors or not. I am not asking if they were found guilty of fraud or anything...

Did S&P admit the misled investors, yes or no.

Quote:
News Release - S&P Global

S&P was bullied by the US Government, etc. Period.
Nope. They admitted and settled. Period. BOA, who also owns countrywide had to admit and settle. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 12:12 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,775,576 times
Reputation: 2033
No one let informedconsent quote a reference without the accompanying page number. That's how he operates.... Misleading quotes and taking stuff out context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2016, 12:38 PM
 
12,241 posts, read 3,151,985 times
Reputation: 1519
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
No one let informedconsent quote a reference without the accompanying page number. That's how he operates.... Misleading quotes and taking stuff out context.
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 10:09 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,775,576 times
Reputation: 2033
Well it seems IC has finally slumped off after being exposed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 10:13 AM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,160,286 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
Fraud.
Nope. The SEC admitted otherwise when they outlined the ratings agencies' public disclosures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 10:15 AM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,160,286 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
... but that's an awful lot of money to pay for no wrong doing no matter how you want to dismiss that fact.
When it's less than what it would cost to prove one's innocence in court against an entity that has unlimited resources (the US Government), which is the fiscally responsible choice? Settle with both sides admitting there was no wrongdoing? Or let this drag on in the courts continuing to cost $$$$$.

Critical thinking is required to assess the reality of the situation.

Step up...

Let me remind you that the IRS strips individuals' bank accounts of $$$$$$ and any individually held assets before any wrongdoing has been ascertained. So do LEOs. See what I mean?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/inv...e-law-who-won/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 10:25 AM
 
3,792 posts, read 1,882,686 times
Reputation: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Nope. The SEC admitted otherwise when they outlined the ratings agencies' public disclosures.
Page number?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:43 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top