Credit Rating Agencies and the protection of the “Public Good” designation: the need to readdress the understanding of the big three’s output

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article is concerned with assessing just one element of how the Big Three Rating Agencies – Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch – have been able to remain profitable despite their dreadful performance in the lead-up (and arguably since) the recent Financial Crisis; the article argues that the understanding that the Big Three provide ‘Public Goods’ is systematically protecting their position. As such, the Big Three are being allowed to contribute to hazardous financial practices without the fear of serious reprisals. The article demonstrates this narrative and ultimately explains the effect that this narrative has upon the ability to understand the Big Three Rating Agencies. Ultimately, the article suggests that in order for the regulation of the Rating Industry to be truly effective, the actual output of the Big Three Rating Agencies must be clearly recognised, rather than any blanket designation attributed to the Industry as a whole remaining prevalent.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)228-233
JournalBusiness Law Review
Volume38
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2017

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2017 Kluwer Law International. Daniel Cash, 'Credit Rating Agencies and the Protection of the ‘Public Good’ Designation: The Need to Readdress the Understanding of the Big Three’s Output' (2017) 38 Business Law Review, Issue 6, pp. 228–233

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Credit Rating Agencies and the protection of the “Public Good” designation: the need to readdress the understanding of the big three’s output'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Profiles

    Cite this