Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spekulatius who wrote (28653)	10/21/2007 11:25:44 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78732

Oh, they'll get sued; that's a given. But will they (MCO, others) lose the lawsuits? I say MCO will prevail. MCO issues opinions. Just as their business competitors do. None of the competitors came to the correct opinion (evaluation) as far as I can tell. And there was no conspiracy. Or if so, how is that going to be proved? Even if a company says they rely - solely or totally - on a rating agency for an opinion and that is the only measure of safety that these resource-rich, sophisticated companies (the JPM's, the mort. reits, all the banks who bought subprime) use, I do not see how the rating agency will have to pay $ to anyone of these who bought Subprime/Alt. just because the rating company issued in good faith, a rating which subsequently proved to be incorrect. Yes, MCO got revenue and profit for issuing those opinions. I would like to see how someone could show that MCO purposely, illegally, and/or improperly issued ratings to drive that revenue, knowing that long-term, an intentionally false rating would come back to haunt them and ultimately cost more than any short-term benefit. Perhaps it is in the insider sales. I do not know.