Credit Rating Agencies and the Protection of the 'Public Good' Designation: The Need to Readdress the Understanding of the Big Three's Output

Posted: 30 Jun 2017  

Daniel Cash

Aston University

Date Written: June 29, 2017

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.

Suggested Citation

Cash, Daniel, Credit Rating Agencies and the Protection of the 'Public Good' Designation: The Need to Readdress the Understanding of the Big Three's Output (June 29, 2017). Business Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2017. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2995185

Daniel Cash (Contact Author)

Aston University ( email )

Aston Triangle
Birmingham, B4 7ET
United Kingdom

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
97
PlumX