Other Insights

Competency, Trustworthiness of Ratings, and Conflicts of Interest

Credit rating agencies have not been held accountable for their ratings. Meaning, an inaccurate rating brings no repercussion to these agencies. If one is not held accountable for their actions, logically there is less incentive to perform well or even at a high standard.

These agencies knew their services were needed under government recommendation yet they were not held to a standard which required the utmost diligence and scrutiny to measure the accuracy of their ratings (15 Chap. L. Rev. 138). This type of attitude towards the agencies allowed the agencies to become comfortable with their existing practices and did not encourage any improvements in the methods these agencies used to rate the instruments.

Read more

What is a Credit Rating Agency and What Task Does it Perform?

Since 1931, the United States government has encouraged or even required certain types of investors to use financial instruments or securities that have been rated high by rating agencies (15 Chap. L. Rev. 139). These agencies use available financial data, economic conditions, and various other factors to determine the strength of a particular firm, security, or instrument offered on the market. Logically, no rational investor would choose to use a financial instrument that possessed primarily bad qualities. The market should realize these bad qualities and the price of this instrument should decrease accordingly.

The credit rating agencies provide ratings which investors are advised or even required to rely on when investing in certain financial instruments. These ratings are intended to provide the investor with an accurate picture toward the quality of the financial instrument without having to do the tedious homework required to determine if credit rating given by an agency is in fact an accurate rating. Under this logic, in comparison to the average individual investor, shouldn’t a credit rating agency be more qualified and have more information to provide the most accurate credit ratings available?

Read more

As our techno-centric culture increasing depends on email as a form of communication, an increasing amount of regulatory attention has been devoted to policing unsolicited bulk electronic communication, much of it unwanted, also known as “SPAM.” Although bulk mail has been in existence for decades, mass electronic messages are extremely inexpensive to produce and distributed, especially when programmers use cookies[1] or other “trolling” features to obtain them. While direct email marketing (along with search engine marketing) is widely considered as the next evolution for early-stage companies looking to raise awareness of their product/service, SPAM is viewed as a considerable annoyance by the general public. Users are often inundated with unsolicited messages and have to waste a lot of precious time sorting through a sea of junk mail, often risking the possibility that legitimate or important email messages will be lost while deleting unwanted mail messages from their inboxes.[2] In addition, a vast majority of the messages received are for products of suspect legality, scams, chain letters, and often pornographic material.[3]

Read more