Talk:Standard & Poor's

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Companies (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Finance (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
 

Origin?[edit]

What is the origin of the name of this company? Anyone?

A short bit about the company's origins and that of it's name is now included in the Corporate History section. Further information can be found on S&P's website (follow the "History of Standard & Poor's" external link). Richc80 06:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratings[edit]

Any chance of showing some example ratings, or a colour-coded map? The effect they can have might also be good.Larklight (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Indices[edit]

How does Standard & Poor's profit from publishing their indices? The information is freely available to anyone. I think there ought to be a short paragraph explaining this. I'm curious as to how the indices are profitable, and I'm sure many others are as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.36.45.136 (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  • And you see those indexes as reliable? THis is just like people who write Astrology, so i guess they get their money like those. Or are paid by some to increase or lower country ratings... --Pedro (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The Italian index is now called FTSE MIB, no longer S&P/MIB.--188.39.76.19 (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Source for Criticism section[edit]

This France24 Report is largely a criticism http://www.france24.com/en/2010-04-28-Greece-Spain-Portugal-credit-ratings-downgraded (of the type "They weren't accurate on a Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis, why are they reliable now that they downgrade largely European countries?". --212.54.199.46 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism line[edit]

One thing to consider, Standard & Poor's never publicly admitted to making an error on the $2 trillion dollar discrepancy for projected discretionary spending growth. S&P states in a press release (http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DPressReleaseAug6.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243943612380&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8) "In response to questions, Standard & Poor’s today said that the ratings decision to lower the long-term rating to AA+ from AAA was not affected by the change of assumptions regarding the pace of discretionary spending growth. In the near term horizon to 2015, the U.S. net general government debt is projected to be $14.5 trillion (79% of 2015 GDP) versus $14.7 trillion (81% of 2015 GDP) with the initial assumption. We used the Alternative Fiscal Scenario of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which includes an assumption that government discretionary appropriations will grow at the same rate as nominal GDP. In further discussions between Standard & Poor’s and Treasury, we determined that the CBO’s Baseline Scenario, which assumes discretionary appropriations grow at a lower rate, would be more consistent with CBO assessment of the savings set out by the Budget Control Act of 2011. Our ratings are determined primarily using a 3-5 year time horizon."

S&P's President, Deven Sharma, also alludes to this in an interview with Fortune Magazine, http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/09/sp-president-obama-knows-the-problem-is-serious/

INTERVIEWER: S&P's competence has been called into question by the Treasury because of a $2 trillion error that your analysts made when they looked at the U.S. debt situation.

Deven Sharma: Let me clarify. This was not an error. It was a change in assumptions based on conversations we had with the issuer. That is part of the ratings process for any credit [including corporate, sovereign, and structured credit]. We talk to the issuer. If they have feedback, we listen. If we agree, we have no qualms about saying that we will adjust our analysis.

While widely disputed and reported in the media, this was not an error but rather a change in assumption that had very little effect on S&P's decision to downgrade the U.S. Sovereign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigyinzer43 (talkcontribs) 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Further, Bloomberg’s Caroline Braum wrote on August 19th (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-19/larry-summers-s-bad-math-is-s-p-informed-opinion-caroline-baum.html)

“S&P didn’t make an arithmetical error, as Summers would have us believe. Nor did the sovereign-debt analysts show "a stunning lack of knowledge," as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner claimed.

Rather, they used a different assumption about the growth rate of discretionary spending, something the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office does regularly in its long-term outlook.

CBO’s "alternative fiscal scenario," which S&P used for its initial analysis, assumes discretionary spending increases at the same rate as nominal gross domestic product, or about 5 percent a year. CBO’s baseline scenario, which is subject to current law, assumes 2.5 percent annual growth in these outlays, which means less new debt over 10 years.

But S&P’s rating horizon is three to five years. The difference between the two assumptions amounts to a gap of about $250 billion in debt estimates for 2015: $14.5 trillion, or 79 percent of GDP, under the baseline scenario, versus $14.7 trillion, or 81 percent of GDP, under the alternative. (S&P includes federal, state and local government debt in its calculations.)

Over 10 years, the difference is, as Treasury says, $2 trillion and eight percentage points as a share of GDP.

In its response to the S&P downgrade, Treasury used the word "mistake" eight times, "error" five times, and other pejorative words three times -- all in a 550-word memo. Just in case anyone missed the point.

Financial writer John B. Taylor also adds (http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/treasury-versus-s-on-downgrade-its-not.html), “But if you examine the details of the S&P--Treasury--White House dispute, rather than a “math error” you will find what is better described as a “difference of opinion” about a forecast for future government spending. In other words, the issue is about the appropriate “baseline” for government spending in the absence of more actions. Since when did different views or assumptions about the future become a math error?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigyinzer43 (talkcontribs) 15:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


I just removed the following sentence from the criticism section:

"As other rating agencies, Standard and Poor's actions are a new form of financial terrorism, and its ratings are directed by hidden financial and political interests, and less based on actual financial data, ruthlessly manipulating the markets for their own benefit, or the benefit of others."

Someone who is interested in doing so should reword it so that it isn't stated as an absolute fact and is given proper sourcing. Troodon311 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Terrorism" is a term that requires actual violence. Adding modifiers to it leads to inappropriate conclusions. It is perfectly fine to describe S and P's activities as containing a sinister aspect ... "either cut your expenditures and increase tax revenues OR ...," but "terrorism" is not appropriate. Perhaps a section on "Nation-States and the S and P" would be appropriate. There is a problem in terms of the institution's relationship with democratically elected governments and trying to whitewash it away due to the use of inappropriate language is not viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.135.71 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative to these American Standard rating companies[edit]

We see in all American rating companies there is a definite bias favoring US economy and under rating other countries to prove that US is superior by any standard. Why we do not have a rating organization managed by UN to avoid this, not so repliable rating system? As we clearly see that US standards are not up to the mark now but they are kept at AAA or AA+ how is it? Pathare Prabhu (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Colored Map - Sovereigns listings by Standard & Poor's[edit]

The map shows korea in Gray which means "not rated or below B", but Korea has the foreign Rating of A,

Korea (Republic of) A+ A AA-

Link to S&P's list: http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/sovereigns/ratings-list/en/us/?subSectorCode=&start=50&range=50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.174.168 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed [[:File:World

countries by Standard & Poor's ratings 20110805.png|the map]]. It shows the U.S. as AA, while the cited source gives AAA. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Map is correct. US is now AA+, not AAA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.35.169 (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The source for the map says AAA.[1] If the map is using another source, it needs to cite that source. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

the Map is not correct not all countries are correctly colored : e.g: lebanon has a B rating from all agancies ...--Jadraad (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That separate source was previously given only in the image main page in Commons, but I've reinserted it now with that separate reference included here as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
And what about the Korea concern? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. has a AAA credit credit rating with Moody and Fitch. It is only Standard and Poors that has the AA rating. The U.S. Credit rating is AAA and AA would be not correct at this time.

Understood and never disputed. The dispute was on the cited source not stating this. Now it does. (Moody's and Fitch were not being discussed here. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Still nothing on the Korea and Lebanon concerns? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Police raids in Italy[edit]

Should the article mention that Standard & Poor is under a criminal investigation in Italy ?

Yes.TANSTAAFL (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Kaupthing & Landsbanki[edit]

I removed the claim that S&P had not rated these banks. Kaupthing's own website says that they did, and this press release says that they took a bright view of Landsbanki. The claim might have been based on this UK Treasury memorandum, but the Treasury were only talking about the banks' UK subsidiaries. --Heron (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Contribution history[edit]

Various editors are attempting to impute a partisan motivation to the credit downgrade by selectively citing the political donations of Harold McGraw, CEO of S&P's parent company, without citing any actual reliable sources. This is clearly in violation of multiple WP policies, including WP:BLP, WP:RS to name but two. There is practically no way to maintain NPOV in this article if we start using political contributions as a proxy for assumed political bias in the credit decision process. Ronnotel (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The material is sourced to the FEC website where Harold McGraw's contributions are listed. As well, it sounds to me like you're projecting "assumed political bias" into the inclusion of provable facts. 71.175.53.120 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS - use of primary sources, such as the FEC political donors directory, is not adequate for supporting controversial assertions, particularly when the information concerns biographies of living persons. We need rigorously researched articles from top quality sources for this type of content. Ronnotel (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The reason we do this is because, presumably, a balanced, neutrally written journal article would note the contribution histories of all executives - for instance, the President of S&P donates (nearly) exclusively to Democrats - and if there is any such lopsideness, whether there is any reason to believe it had an impact on the credit decision. Simply scanning the list of contributions for an executive that contributed to one side or the other is not objective and not NPOV. Ronnotel (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no controversial assertion here. You're fabricating that. Also the WP:RS has no prohibition against using the FEC as a source. It's not even mentioned. You repeatedly delete the material even though other people restore it. You're obviously pushing a POV here by using loaded terms like "controversial assertion" and your user page shows this is not the first time you've engaged in an edit war like this. Edit wars like you're conducting violate Wikipedia policy. 64.38.198.60 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's well established WP policy (WP:BLPPRIMARY) that controversial material must be supported by reliable sourcing, even more so when the subject is a living person. In fact, WP:BLP requires that any such material is aggressively removed until it can be supported by strong sourcing. The fact that no such sourcing has been provided should be taken as a sign that the underlying assertion is not encyclopedic and there must not be included. Please restrict your comments to the content, and not the contributor. Review the relevant policies I have cited - they are there for a reason. Material that fails to meet these policies will be removed. Ronnotel (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Great job at showing bias. You continuously engage in edit warring then protect your own pages as an administrator. You're a good example of why Wiki is going in the toilet. 208.83.63.222 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Mostly at present, the addition of this material violates two tenets of Wikipedia. First, the conclusions drawn, either explicitly or implicitly, must be supported by "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (See WP:Identifying reliable sources) While the Federal Election Commission data is considered to be reliable, it is not a third-party analysis of the conclusion inferred in the content which is being added to the article. Therefore, it cannot be added as written. ADDITIONALLY, when content is added, and then is challenged by another editor, the appropriate procedure is to seek WP:CONSENSUS. "When there is a more serious dispute over an edit, the consensus process becomes more explicit. Editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion." This was not done. Simply stating "this is my opinion, so I'm changing it" is not consensus. If there is a BLP concern, or a challenge to material, the preferred process is to withhold the addition until a new consensus can be achieved. -- Avanu (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Your analysis is flawed because you're incorrectly assuming there was a "conclusion inferred" and incorrectly assuming there were "conclusions drawn, either explicitly or implicitly." The material in question are facts, just like someone's date of birth is a fact or the recorded temperature on a certain day in a certain place is a fact. McGraw's donations to the Republican Party and Republican candidates are irrefutable facts verified by the definitive source on the subject, which is the Federal Election Commission. Unless you have some source that the FEC website was hacked and incorrect information inserted about McGraw, your objection is irrelevant. Further, couching this as an issue germaine to the "biographies of living persons" policy is a ludicrous overreach. There is nothing defamatory about stating verified facts. As well, your admonition about consensus should be directed at the user who originally kept removing this material. He/she made no attempt to seek a consensus when, in fact, several editors supported inclusion of the material in question. 64.38.197.209 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The material being added was placed in a section called "Criticism". Please provide a source for how this material is 'critical' of Harold W. McGraw or Standard & Poor's. If FEC merely reports 'facts' as you say, then how do we come to the conclusion this is a 'criticism'? -- Avanu (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Your POV and bias are demonstratable. You keep saying "no sourcing has been provided." Sourcing has been provided -- the Federal Election Commission. The fact that you say something wasn't provided, when in fact it was provided, demonstrates how you are distorting and shading the facts to suit your purpose. Instead of saying "the source wasn't sufficient," you distorted the facts by saying no source was provided. You're saying something doesn't exist, when it does exist, in order to push your POV. As well, you once again try to distort the real issue here by saying "restrict your comments to the content, and not the contributor." You are the issue. You are biased. Your bias is relevant. You're trying to distort the facts and then misapplying Wikipedia policy as your rationale. Primary sources are allowable. The Federal Electon Commission is the definitive source as a matter of law. It's not somebody's blog. All Harold McGraw's donations to Republican candidates and the Republican party are spelled out in detail, with date of donation and amount given, on the Federal Elections Commission website. You are trying to hide facts with a distortion of Wikipedia policy as a rationale for your bias. Further, you are mischaracterizing the contributions of editors by subjective conclusions as to why they may edits; for example, you state "editors are attempting to impute a partisan motivation." You have no way of knowing that. You are therefore making assumptions without evidence, then concluding your assumptions are factual. That again demonstrates your bias. You have lept to a conclusion based on subjective guesstimations and then are selectively looking for a rationale to buttress your bias. 64.38.197.209 (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
You assert that primary sources are allowable. However, the policies I read, such as WP:BLPPRIMARY, specifically warn against using primary sources to support assertions, particularly about living people. Instead, they encourage the use of reliable secondary sources, which makes it easier to avoid engaging in original research, which is also prohibited by policy. You feel strongly that Mr. McGraw's history of political activity is an important== aspect worthy of mentioning in this page. However, please understand that it may not seem as important to others. In order to be persuasive, you need to show evidence your concerns have been considered relevant by sources that everyone can agree on as unbiased. In other words, you need reliable sourcing, which means more than just looking up some random facts in an Internet database. You need bylined articles from respected publictions that have a history of thoroughly researching and editing topics, particularly when they are controversial. You would also need to show how citing such an article is relevant to a page describing S&P. These rules and policies are commonly enforced across all WP and protect the pages of people you may or may not disagree with poltically. You'll be a more effective editor if you become more familiar with them. Ronnotel (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed this sort of OR misuse of primary sources is rather common but unacceptable. It's questionable if it belongs in the Harold McGraw page. It definitely doesn't belong here. And I would say the same even if the person involved was dead. Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole foregoing discussion misses the point. I think certain points are obvious: The FEC site is a good source for the fact of the contribution; the contribution itself isn't worth reporting unless it's notable with respect to the company; the notability is in the assertion that McGraw's political leanings may have influenced the company's action. For that last point, the FEC site is not a good source, and no source could establish the point as a fact, because it's an opinion. That doesn't mean that we suppress it entirely, however. We report facts about significant opinions, even though there's never a reliable source to "prove" that the opinion is correct. What's needed is significance to the opinion -- not just some unknown blogger in his basement -- plus a source that reliably establishes that the named person or entity did in fact state that opinion. Then we report it as an opinion, with attribution.

Applying these principles here: The opinion has been voiced, e.g. here. ("Gee, how convenient. Standard and Poor's issues a politically biased rating with a $2 trillion error. Republicans wave that rating around like Moses just brought it down from the mountain as verification of their defamation about the Obama presidency. And the head of the company making those ratings happens to give money to the likes of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.") That quotation was one I found quickly, from a liberal blogger. I'd say to the anon that, if you want to include this, you need to find the same link being drawn by a prominent spokesperson (an elected official, a columnist, etc.), with a source. Then our article can say something like: "Noting that Harold W. McGraw III, the Chairman of S&P's parent company, was a major donor to Republican politicians [cite FEC report], ___ suggested that McGraw's political leanings might have influenced the rating downgrade [cite source where opinion is reported]." Of course, if McGraw or S&P has responded by denying the charge, we'd also report that.

Absent such a source, the bare report of the fact of the contributions would imply Wikipedia's adoption of the opinion, which is not acceptable. JamesMLane t c 18:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reporting criticisms[edit]

Having a separate "Criticisms" section is an inferior method of reporting significant criticisms, if it's used to ghettoize the information. Where possible, reports of conflicting opinions should be integrated into the appropriate section of the article, so that a reader who focuses only on that section will get a full presentation of the topic. Therefore, I'm restoring the report of the Treasury's criticism of the downgrade to the section about the downgrade. JamesMLane t c 18:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Page protection completely blocks the anon editor[edit]

Two separate admins have issued semi-protections, one of the article and one of the talk page. The result is that the anon editor who was discussing the McGraw campaign contributions has been completely blocked out.

The semi-protection policy states that semi-protection may include "Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time."

Here, I don't see persistent disruption of the talk page, just the legitimate expression of opinions (most of them contrary to mine, but not disruptive). Also, although no one editor violated the rule about protecting both pages, the effect is a violation. I strongly suggest that the talk page be unprotected. JamesMLane t c 18:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Done. --John (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

History heading[edit]

The text names one of the founders of the current company both as "Henry Varnum Poor" and simply "Henry Varnum." No explanation is given for leaving off his last name in the second citation. If his name officially changed, it should be so indicated. If not, the name Poor ought to be included.

"The company traces its history back to 1860, with the publication by Henry Varnum Poor of History of Railroads and Canals in the United States. This book was an attempt to compile comprehensive information about the financial and operational state of U.S. railroad companies. Henry Varnum went on to establish....." 184.98.118.64 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)PJ O'Malley

Done. That was an error. Also vandalism of founder name in infobox, which I corrected.--FeralOink (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

missing and incorrect data[edit]

This article has no discussion of the president stepping down and the box showing Deven Sharma as president has been incorrect since august 23 2011. Fix it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8717356/SandP-president-Deven-Sharma-steps-down-just-weeks-after-credit-rating-agency-stripped-US-of-AAA-credit-rating.html 4.249.63.23 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that a request? Daisyfi (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
User 4.249.63.23 has an attitude problem. I corrected the president's name.--FeralOink (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ratings[edit]

In the ratings section, this article describes most of the ratings just by saying what Moody's rating they're equivalent to. This should be rewritten. Liam987 18:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

History of Litigation by Sovereign Nations[edit]

Has S&P ever before been sued by a sovereign nation, and what was the outcome if so? It would seem to have a bearing on the current suit being brought against S&P by the U.S. If they have never been sued before, it's unprecedented, if they have and lost more often, it seems likely they would lose again (but how have they stayed in business?), and if sued and S&P won more often, it would seem likely they would win again, except that the U.S. might be more likely to make a successful suit.

It seems to me that I read of attempted and largely unsuccessful suits somewhere (other WP pages?), but I have no sources to point out at the moment. Thanks for any help. TheLastWordSword (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't recall that any sovereign nation ever sued S&P prior to now. The primary reason is because S&P does not charge any fees, to anyone, for its sovereign credit ratings.
The currently outstanding U.S. Department of Justice charges against S&P are not for breach of commercial law, e.g. failing to deliver a service to a paying customer. Instead, the lawsuit is based on other, broader grounds, for which I don't know the correct terminology. --FeralOink (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I just confirmed: No history of sovereign nation lawsuits in the past.--FeralOink (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about the issue of 'sovereign nation' lawsuits, but I have added in the Federal Court of Australia's Jagot J Nov 12 decision regarding S&P's joint liability in the case of Bathurst Regional Council v Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd. About those TPS reports... (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor Edit to Intro[edit]

I revised the intro to remove a statement that misrepresents a technical legal argument in a court filing in an intentionally pejorative way. While the subject matter may be appropriate for the controversy section, it is misplaced in the intro. Also, the language used is not consistent with the neutral point of view required by this article’s policies:

ORIGINAL:
Although considered one of the Big Three credit-rating agencies, which also include Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Ratings,[1] the company has admitted its ratings lack objectivity and has suggested that no investor should take them seriously.[2][3]

REVISED:
S&P is considered one of the Big Three credit-rating agencies, which also include Moody's Investor Serviceand Fitch Ratings.[2] Its head office is located on 55 Water Street in Lower Manhattan, New York City.[3]


Tgriff007 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit, as the previous version is quite apparently the company's own point of view about itself which has been widely reported in secondary sources. Until we find out otherwise, I fail to see why we shouldn't report the company's own opinion of itself in the lede. -- Kendrick7talk 04:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
It is quite apparent that you want the source to say something that it does not say. There is no "Declaration of lack of objectivity" and they did not say that "no reasonable investor should take their ratings seriously". Heck, directly opposite: "We firmly believe S&P's ratings were and are independent and expect to show just that in court."[2] Let's stop with taking fragments of opinion pieces out of context, distorting them and presenting them as if they are the company's mission statement. We can certainly discuss what we should include and where, but your slams are not it. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Look, if you'd like to contest my gloss of these sources or their location in the article, that's perfectly fine. What you can't do is simply remove them per WP:PRESERVE and WP:YESPOV. From your own source:
Lawyers for S&P have claimed that the statements about independence and objectivity highlighted by the federal government as alleged fraudulent misrepresentations—such as employee codes of conduct and official policy statements about the company’s process for rating deals—were generic, corporate “puffery” statements that weren’t meant to be taken at face value by investors.
What part of "rating[s] ... that weren’t meant to be taken at face value by investors" are we in disagreemnet about, exactly? Because I am rather confused. -- Kendrick7talk 02:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Your edit based on an opinion piece in a blog stated:
  • there had been a "declaration of lack of objectivity". This is completely unsupported. In fact, your source discusses "S&P's claims to offer independent, objective credit ratings..."
  • "...lawyers for the company declared in open court..." - this is simply sensational wording which has no place in this article.
  • "...lawyers for the company (stated) that no reasonable investor should take their ratings seriously." Putting this on the lawyers' lips from the opinion blog's statement that "no reasonable investor would have taken S&P's claims about its own objectivity seriously." You've changed the would to should and, far more significantly, "claims about...objectivity" to "their ratings".
WP:PRESERVE does not, incidentally, mean we should save your opinion based on an opinion or the opinion blog you based it on. Yes, taking this slanted view out of the lead was a step in the right direction, but stepping down from an overweighted, POV accusation based on an opinion piece in a blog in the lead to the same thing in its own section does not suddenly create "appropriate content" that we should preserve.
In short, the reason we shouldn't report "the company's own opinion of itself" in the lead is that it isn't the company's own opinion of itself, it's your version of an opinion piece's rendition of something the company's lawyers said about statements made in support of one of their products taken out of context.
The company's opinion of itself is that they are "one of the world's leading providers of independent credit risk research and benchmarks" and that they "offer insightful opinions that help market participants make more informed business and investment decisions".[3] With the possible exception of some mentally ill individuals, everyone -- EVERYONE -- believes that their actions are completely reasonable and justified. No one believes that they "lack objectivity" and that no one "should take (them) seriously". Any time you find yourself thinking anything to the contrary, it should cause second thoughts. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)