You're watching...
Egan-Jones Ratings co-founder Sean Egan on the Dept. of Justice’s lawsuit against S&P.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Hello another huge story to David Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the credit ratings company Standard and Poor's.
-- up -- five billion dollars it accuses S&P of knowingly inflating ratings that helped trigger the financial crisis in 2008.
It's the government exit might have a smoking gun.
Listen to what Tony west the acting US associate attorney general said to -- S&P documents make clear.
That the company would regularly tweak -- -- and -- updating or otherwise adjust.
It's ratings models to suit the company's business needs.
That's -- all right so experts and analysts questioning the real motivation behind the lawsuit.
It's taken so long for the government to act joining us now on the phone AB Fox Business it's.
-- -- -- He runs Egan Jones rating company he has been in.
His own dog fight with the government of course welcome back to the show shine.
-- similar to what your reaction to this because a lot of people are asking the question today why just SMP.
As opposed to Moody's and Fitch as well.
And is -- -- political motivation behind this may be driven by the fact that you know S&P has been a critic of the government its own rating.
-- I think this has spent a long time coming.
That the by the -- -- not just the US government.
About fifteen.
States that are also involve kids in pursuit of and a number of people spend asking why the why there hasn't Bennett action taken.
-- -- About -- primary cause the 20072008.
Credit crisis whereby.
According to several commissions would be inflated ratings -- genocide is a principal cause.
-- the collapse.
-- -- does that mean that you think that others will follow -- the other guys are just as guilty we'll hear about it what about yourself.
I'm.
I don't know whether there'll be others certainly.
From patent peace.
Perspective they say -- -- -- -- ratings says there.
Two major competitors so why should -- be singled out.
I think it's function of what sort of investigations.
Underway at the two other two firms.
Do you think that they're looking at your -- us.
I've we've already out band -- -- -- that whole process we have double what the FTV.
Last month that and the issue -- -- was not.
Big concern any of our ratings news -- rather 82008.
Application.
Well by it was -- that we I think was there and ended public -- contract.
That we didn't have we can publish properly and that I application was was basically yeah.
So do you think the reason why they're looking at S and he right now as opposed to the other's house to do it -- some big.
Has he would be email a lot of people have been talking about today from an analysts are calling an analyst.
Into burning down the house -- -- -- talking about those sub prime market in the real estate market in general.
Which really is the kind of thing that that you -- we heard about from analysts when the tech bubble burst.
That shows that internally they thought one thing but external either were sort of publishing another do you think that's what makes the critical difference here for -- -- I don't know early as deep but the government has to prove is that.
The ratings firm knew that the ratings -- issued.
Well Paul and some comments they have been relieved.
Concern did the emails -- -- talks.
They could be structured by cows and we we I would -- -- -- Preventative -- perspective they -- -- well what they will was really meant by that he now.
Is that no matter what we're going to waking -- -- for the government's perspective that they they could be.
They could big garbage transaction and and they would still give it a high ratings -- I think this is.
Didn't grow -- be if it goes to trial -- landmark case closed it's fascinating to.
A number of industry observer and.
Right -- and thanks so much for coming on thank you.
