Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-15-Speech-2-451"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100615.28.2-451"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, not so long ago, voices were raised to say that rating agencies should not have downgraded Greek and other bonds. ‘Look at what it has done to the euro,’ they said.
Now I was going to say whether any more needed to be said to prove the huge conflict of interest that there would be if countries effectively rated their own debt. Then this morning, in the debate on statistics, Commissioner Rehn said yesterday’s downgrade by Moody’s was not ‘conveniently timed’ and that that would influence Commission thinking on credit rating agency regulation.
I am sorry, I do understand frustration, but my thoughts were: have you gone mad? I do not want ratings that are ‘convenient’, whether that be ‘convenient’ for investment banks or ‘convenient’ for central banks. Indeed, ratings have been a bit too ‘convenient’ for regulators to lean on too, driving out proper due diligence.
Now, a public agency for non-sovereign assets has some attractions, but how do we get over the implied guarantee? How do we get over political interference if bank capital is at risk with the macro-economic consequences of that?
We have some way to go in the search for capacity, independence and integrity, but of one thing I am sure, and that is that corporate governance principles play a part, be it in the public or private sector, and that should apply to ESMA and the other ESAs too."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples