It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


S&P conspiracy

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 06:01 PM
Weeks before the S&P downgrade of U.S debt, many financial institutions made significant changes to their by-laws to allowing them to hold non triple A rated assets. It seems to me that theses various institutions knew that the downgrade was coming, but how did they time it so perfectly?

Either A: They are working for/with the republicans, and this is an attempt to make Obama look bad. [If this is true, it seems to be working]

Or B: They are working for/with the government to create panic within the financial sector in order to get the public to support tax increases.

Or maybe a bit of both. If you really think about it everyone knew U.S debt was garbage long before the downgrade [even most of the countries that are allowed to keep their AAA rating debt is garbage], but why change the rating now? It makes no sense to me, there has to be another reason behind this.

What do you think?

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 06:06 PM

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 06:30 PM
Or they knew about the debt ceiling and that either the US would get downgraded for not fixing it, or whatever solution would not be effective enough to prevent a downgrade. They are in finance after all.

I love when people call out shady actions by government and financial institutions, but this really seems like a non issue.
edit on 6-8-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:34 PM
Most financial institutions 'price in' future changes before people like you and I can make investment decisions. The job of their analysts are to analyze the data and predict a most likely outcome.

Prior to the budget talk, S&P made it clear that to keep the current credit rating, the US had to cut $4T cut in spending, and after all that haggling spending was only cut $2T. The drop in credit rating was predictable.

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:18 PM
The gentleman from S&P that was on FOX today said they went to the government ahead of time letting them know that the downgrade was possible. So I am sure that if the people in the government were made aware, then by extension so were their "contributing" constituents.

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

Could be there new partners. ame%3DSapient_061411.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243 916752220&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8

sapient global markets
edit on 6-8-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by Dbriefed

The job of their analysts are to analyze the data and predict a most likely outcome.

That's fine and dandy, but you guys aren't understanding what I'm talking about =/

The main goal of a financial institution is to make profit. Why would any rational bank ``decrease`` their holding standards to buy more bad U.S debt? I'm no professional analyst here, but if a govt openly admits that it would default on its debt obligations if it could not incur ``more`` debt -- I wouldn't be rushing to buy those bonds.

top topics


log in