Submitted by Douglas
Have a read of David Cameron’s comments (highlighted below).
Thursday’s Scottish referendum was interesting not just for what it said about Britain, but also for what it said about the state of political forecasting. I’m calling it a loss not only for the pro-independence movement — the “No” campaign won 55.3 percent of the vote — but also for the pollsters – Justin Wolfers
I totally agree with him; maybe pollsters should be sued for misleading voters by putting their personal opinion and spin on data collected to influence the outcome of elections. They are a parody of those rating agencies that manipulate their findings for their own benefit. Multilateral Corporations (MNCs) and some governments in the developed world have been known to sue some leading international credit rating agencies for misleading investors and the financial/business sectors in the lead-up to the 2007 recession that is still very much with us. Perhaps, our so-called pollsters, who parade as impartial experts, should also be brought to book.
Cameron: Queen ‘purred’ after Scottish vote
LONDON (AP) — Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has been overheard describing his nervousness about the Scotland referendum and how Queen Elizabeth II appeared relieved when he called to tell her the result. The leader was being filmed chatting with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York when microphones picked up what they said. The video showing the conversation was broadcast Tuesday on Sky News.
Cameron was heard describing how the Queen “purred down the line” after he called to tell her “it’s all right, it’s OK” after Thursday’s referendum, in which Scots rejected independence and chose to stay with the United Kingdom. “It should never have been that close. In fact, it wasn’t in the end,” he told Bloomberg. “I’ve said I want to find these polling companies and I want to sue them for my stomach ulcers because of what they put me through, you know. It was very nervous moments.”
A spokesman from Buckingham Palace said it never comments on exchanges between the Prime Minister and the Queen. The Queen is prohibited from taking sides in political debates and rarely makes her personal views public. For that reason, she surprised many when she told well-wishers before the referendum that Scots should think “very carefully about the future” before voting. Following the vote, the monarch said in a statement “all of us throughout the United Kingdom will respect” the poll’s result, and that mutual understanding will overcome the “strong feelings and contrasting emotions” during the Scottish debate.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
AP broke the following story in July last year. The US government’s actions came after a thorough investigation by its Justice Department that turned up outrageous and improper behaviour. Big banks, financial institutions and credit rating agencies have paid out billions of dollars to the US government, so far, because of their alleged ‘infelicities’.
U.S. Accuses Ratings Agency Of Fraud In Lead Up To Financial Crisis
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Tuesday accused Standard & Poor’s of refusing to warn investors that the housing market was collapsing in 2006 because it would be bad for business.
The civil charges against the credit rating agency were the administration’s most aggressive action to date against those deemed responsible for contributing to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. They followed years of criticism that the government had failed to do enough. The Justice Department accused S&P of knowingly inflating its ratings of risky mortgage investments that helped trigger the crisis. It’s demanding $5 billion in penalties.
According to the lawsuit, S&P gave high marks to the investments because it wanted to earn more business from the banks that issued them. “This alleged conduct is egregious – and it goes to the very heart of the recent financial crisis,” Attorney General Eric Holder said at a news conference. Experts said the lawsuit could serve as a template for future action against Fitch and Moody’s, the other two major credit rating agencies.
High ratings from the three agencies made it possible for banks to sell trillions in risky investments. Some investors, including pension funds, can buy only securities that carry high credit ratings. Holder called the case “an important step forward in our ongoing efforts to investigate and punish the conduct that is believed to have contributed to the worst economic crisis in recent history. Michael Robinson, a former communications official at the SEC, said that while all three major rating agencies – S&P, Moodys and Fitch – have lost credibility since the financial crisis, S&P’s downgrade of U.S. debt put a bull’s-eye on its back. “Once you get on the government’s radar, it’s hard to get off scot-free,” Robinson said.
The government charged S&P under a law intended to make sure banks invest safely. If S&P is found to have committed civil violations, it could face not only fines but also limits on how it does business. Critics have long argued that the rating agencies operate with a conflict of interest: They’re paid by the banks that create the investments they’re rating. If one agency appeared too strict, banks could shop around for a better rating.
S&P typically charged up to $150,000 for rating a subprime mortgage-backed security and up to $750,000 for certain other securities, the lawsuit says. If S&P lost the business to Fitch or Moody’s, its main rivals, the analyst who issued the rating would have to submit a “lost deal” memo explaining why he or she lost the business.
Analysts complained in 2004 that S&P had lost a deal because its standards for a rating were stricter than Moody’s. “We need to address this now in preparation for the future deals,” one analyst wrote. The documents “make clear that the company regularly would `tweak,’ `bend,’ delay updating or otherwise adjust its ratings models to suit the company’s business needs,” said acting Associate Attorney General Tony West. (AP)
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.