从金融危机爆发至今，哈罗德·特里·麦格劳三世（(Harold “Terry” McGraw III），这位标准普尔母公司的掌门人一直试图向公众证明，包括标准普尔在内的三大国际评级机构，正成为利益相关方施压下的受害者，但它们并未因此放弃“客观公正”的评级原则。对此，其他两家评级机构最近用实际行动，支持了麦格劳三世的观点：他们调降了标准普尔母公司的信用评级，却似乎并未太多顾及整个评级行业的颜面。

Since the outbreak of the financial crisis,Harold McGraw iii, terry((Harold "Terry" McGraw III),The standard & poor's parent company boss has been trying to prove to the public,Including the three major international rating agencies, standard & poor's,Are to be victims of under pressure from stakeholders,But they did not so give up"Objective and fair"The principle of rating.For this,Two other rating agencies recently with the practical action,Support the McGraw iii's point of view:Their credit rating downgrade by standard & poor's parent company,Does not seem to be too much of the rating industry face.

　　2月18日，与标准普尔均出身美国的评级机构穆迪将标准普尔母公司的信用评级连降两级，由A3降至Baa2；十天前，总部位于欧洲的惠誉也将标准普尔的母公司的评级，由A-降至BBB+。

On February 18,,With standard & poor's are born in the United States will moody's, a rating agency standard & poor's credit rating by two levels of the parent company,Rating from A3 to Baa2 debt;Ten days ago,Based in Europe, fitch will also be the standard & poor's rating of the parent company,From A - to BBB +.

　　这场三大评级机构罕见内讧的导火索，则是美国司法部对标准普尔发起的诉讼。

This rare faction of the big three ratings agencies,Is America's justice department of standard & poor's action.

　　美国司法部认为，2004年9月至2007年10月期间，在对价值逾2.8万亿美元的抵押贷款支持证券(MBS)和约1.2万亿美元的债权抵押证券（CDO）进行评级时，为从发行这些证券的投行处获得更多业务，标准普尔抬高了这些证券的评级，并低估了它们的风险，从而构成“欺诈”。司法部为此向其索赔50亿美元。这一数额相当于标准普尔母公司麦格劳-希尔过去7年的利润。

The U.S. justice department said,Between September 2004 and October 2007, during the period,In the more than $2.8 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities(MBS)And about $1.2 trillion of collateralised-debt obligations (cdos)(CDO)During the rating,To get more business from issuing the securities investment Banks,Standard &poor's raised the rating of the securities,And underestimated the risk of them,To constitute a"fraud".The justice department to claim $5 billion for this purpose.That amount is equivalent to standard & poor's parent McGraw-hill profits for the past 7 years.

　　穆迪与惠誉正是着眼于该诉讼对标普及其母公司未来盈利可能造成的影响，而对同行痛下杀手。值得一提的是，在遭遇诉讼后，标准普尔并未“一人做事一人当”，反而大呼自己遭遇不公正对待，因为司法部所提到的所有债权抵押证券（CDO）“也获得了另一家评级机构给出的同样高评级”。

Moody's and fitch is focus on the lawsuit to s&p and its parent company, the possible impact of future earnings,For peer under the pain killer.It is worth mentioning,After the lawsuit,Standard & poor's has not"A person when one person",Instead, call themselves suffer unfair treatment,Because the justice department mentioned all collateralized debt obligations(CDO)"Also received another give same high rating, a rating agency".

　　不过正如一位国内评级机构人士所言，穆迪和惠誉的做法可算是“没过河就拆桥”，因为它们同样面临着巨大的诉讼风险。

But, as a domestic rating agency said,Moody's and fitch is"No Bridges across the river",Because they also face a huge risk of litigation.

　　“此次穆迪惠誉给标普母公司降级，不应被视为简单的同行拆台或单纯的业务行为。一旦穆迪和惠誉也卷入诉讼，那么标普也会给他们降级。而当公众和金融机构发现，三大国际评级机构自己的信用状况都令人堪忧，他们做出的评级结果又凭什么有公信力？”这位人士指，“这可能会引发行业性的危机。”

"The moody's, fitch to demote s&p's parent company,Should not be seen as a simple or simple peer disrupting business behavior.When moody's and fitch also involved in a lawsuit,The s&p will downgrade to them.When found the public and financial institutions,The three major international rating agencies own credit conditions are worrying,They make the rating results and with what have credibility?"The person refers to,"This could trigger a crisis of industry."

　　分道之始

The start of the separation

　　对于美国司法部的指控，标准普尔在矢口否认的同时，也极力暗示这一诉讼带有强烈的政治色彩—美国司法部独独拿标准普尔开刀是为了“公报私仇”。

Charges for the U.S. department of justice,Standard & poor's in denied,Also strongly suggest that the lawsuit with strong political color righteousness - the U.S. justice department take the standard & poor's operation is in order"lynching".

　　2012年8月5日晚间，标准普尔宣布将美国长期主权信用评级由最高的“AAA”降至“AA+”，评级展望负面，理由是，美国联邦政府与国会达成的债务上限协议，不足以稳定联邦政府的中期债务状况。这也是美国自1917年以来首次被下调长期主权信用评级。

Late on August 5, 2012,Standard & poor's announced the us long-term sovereign credit rating by the supreme"Aaa"Down to"AA +",Outlook on negative,The reason is that,The U.S. federal government debt ceiling agreement with congress,Not enough to stabilize the federal government's medium-term debt situation.This is also the United States for the first time since 1917 being downgraded long-term sovereign credit rating.

　　然而在此消息引发市场哗然之际，穆迪和惠誉则相继表示将继续维持对美国长期主权信用的“AAA”评级。惠誉甚至在2012年10月底再次对外澄清：“如果没有重大不利因素的冲击，惠誉不大可能在2013年年底之前对美国主权评级的负面展望做出决定。”

However the news sparked outcry,Moody's and fitch ratings have been to the United States says it will continue to maintain long-term sovereign credit"Aaa"The rating.Fitch even foreign clarify again in end of October 2012:"If there is no significant adverse shocks,Fitch is unlikely before the end of 2013 to the U.S. sovereign rating on negative outlook to make a decision."

　　“三家的分歧主要在于，标准普尔认为从长期趋势来看，美国联邦政府削减财政赤字的努力极有可能是徒劳的，美国政府债务在GDP中占比上升的趋势难以扭转。但穆迪认为，奥巴马政府提高政府债务上限之类的举动，已经迈出了实质性财政改革的第一步，只要这种改革得以继续，美国财政状况就不会出现明显恶化。”一位曾在穆迪供职多年的业内人士指，“惠誉则和穆迪持有类似看法。在这个事情上，标准普尔确实激进一些。”

"Differences mainly lie in three,Standard & poor's thought from the long-term trend,The U.S. federal government efforts to cut the fiscal deficit is likely to be in vain,The U.S. government debt to GDP accounted for in the rising trend is difficult to reverse.But moody's believes that,The Obama administration actions, such as increase the government's debt ceiling,The first step has taken a substantial fiscal reform,As long as the reform continued,America's fiscal situation is not significant deterioration."A once worked for many years in the industry refers to moody's,"Fitch and moody's have similar views.In this matter,Standard & poor's radical indeed."

　　但也有不少市场人士认为，标准普尔与穆迪惠誉的分歧，或许根本不在于业务层面评级方法的差异。“如果从那时一直看到现在，就可以发现，标准普尔的问题在于持续迎合市场恐慌情绪，甚至在这条路上一意孤行。”前述国内评级机构人士表示，“在金融危机爆发之初，三大评级机构动辄下调部分国家的主权信用评级，这种轻率做法人为加剧了国际金融市场的动荡，不仅招致欧洲多国以及欧盟的强烈质疑，也遭到不少机构和专业人士的批评。”

But there are many market participants believe,Standard & poor's and moody's, fitch's differences,Perhaps don't lies in the differences in business level rating method."If from then until now,You can find,Standard & poor's, the problem is that continue to cater to the market panic,Even on this road to go."The domestic rating agency said,"In the beginning of the financial crisis,The big three ratings agencies at lower part of the country's sovereign credit rating,Such reckless practices contributed to the international financial market turmoil,Not only from Europe and the eu,Also criticised by many institutions and professionals."

　　随着美国政府债务问题自2011年二季度开始日益为市场所担忧，部分评级机构已经意识到，如果“像他们之前在西班牙或者希腊所做的那样”，仅仅凭借一些标志性事件，就调整美国的主权信用评级，将有可能彻底动摇全球金融市场稳定的基础。

As the U.S. government debt since the second quarter of 2011 growing concerns over the market,Part of the rating agencies have realized,if"In Spain or Greece before as they did",With only some of the landmark event,Adjust the U.S. sovereign credit rating,Is likely to be completely shake the foundation of the global financial market stability.

　　“在西班牙或者法国、意大利，评级机构可以因为该国政府只拿出了一个临时性的财政解决方案，就对该国的长期主权信用降级，但这个做法不能行之于美国。”这位国内评级机构人士认为，在穆迪和惠誉都已经意识到这种风险并变得日益谨慎之时，标准普尔却继续以自己“严苛的标准”，为市场的恐慌情绪火上浇油。这种做法最终在2012年8月达到了顶点。

"In Spain or France/Italy,Rating agencies could be because the government only come up with a temporary fiscal solution,On the country's long-term sovereign credit downgrade,But this approach cannot go to the United States."The domestic rating agencies say,In moody's and fitch ratings have been aware of the risk and become more cautious,Standard & poor's has continued to yourself"Stringent standards",For the market panic.This approach eventually reached its zenith in August in 2012.

　　打碎护身符

Broken amulet

　　根据彭博社的消息，美国司法部选择在洛杉矶法院以涉嫌邮件欺诈、通信欺诈和金融机构欺诈的罪名，对标准普尔及其母公司发起民事诉讼。在部分法律界人士看来，司法部之所以选择上述罪名对标准普尔提出指控，主要还是希望绕开美国宪法第一修正案这个评级机构惯常使用的“护身符”。

According to bloomberg news,The U.S. justice department in court in Los Angeles on suspicion of mail fraud/Communication on charges of fraud and fraud financial institutions,In standard & poor's (s&p) and its parent company, launched a civil action.It seems to some lawyers,The justice department chose the above charges for standard & poor's charges,Mainly want to bypass the first amendment to the U.S. constitution the rating agencies routinely use"amulet".

　　在过去三十年间，标准普尔等评级机构在面对诉讼时，最常见的抗辩理由，就是美国宪法第一修正案对于“言论自由”权利的保护。“如果人们仅仅是单纯指出，评级机构的报告存在错误或者其他瑕疵，评级机构会以言论自由的名义为自己辩解，而此时要证明评级机构是具有主观恶意，将是一件困难的工作。”一家外资律所从事海外证券市场业务的资深律师表示。

In the past 30 years,Standard & poor's, a rating agency, such as when faced with a lawsuit,The most common justification,For the first amendment to the us constitution"Freedom of speech"Right to the protection of the."If people just simply pointed out,Rating agencies report errors or other defects,Ratings agencies will defend himself in the name of free speech,And to prove that the rating agencies is a subjective malice,Will be a difficult task."A foreign law firms engaged in overseas stock markets, a senior lawyer said.

　　于是，在金融危机爆发后，为了破解评级机构的护身术，试图发起诉讼的苦主及政府机构大体开辟了两种新的诉讼模式。其一便是指控评级机构在评级过程中存在失职或操作失误，进而要求评级机构为主观过失进行赔偿。这一思路至少已经在美国及澳大利益收到了不错的效果。

so,After the outbreak of the financial crisis,In order to crack the rating agencies' insulation,Tried to lawsuits were happy and government generally opened two new lawsuit pattern.One is accused in the process of rating, a rating agency exists negligence or error,And then demand a compensation for subjective fault, a rating agency.It at least has the interests in the United States and Australia, received good results.

　　2012年，曾向荷兰银行购买了经过标准普尔评级的金融衍生品并因此在金融危机中蒙受重大损失的13个澳大利亚市议会，向荷兰银行和标准普尔提出索赔。在当年11月初，澳大利亚联邦法院的Jayne Jagot 法官作出裁定，标准普尔需要为这些市议会遭受的损失负责。其理由正是在评级过程中，面对荷兰银行提供的错误的债券指数历史数据，标准普尔不仅没有加以检查和纠正，甚至在意识到自己被荷兰银行误导后，继续听之任之，而给相关金融衍生品始终保持AAA的最高信用评级。

In 2012,,Once at the Dutch bank bought after standard & poor's ratings of financial derivatives and thus suffered heavy losses in the financial crisis of the 13 city council Australia,Claim compensation from the abn amro bank and the standard & poor's.In early November,Australia's federal court Jayne Jagot the judge ruled,Standard & poor's need for the city council is responsible for losses.Its reason is in the rating process,In the face of Dutch Banks offer wrong bond index, history data,Standard & poor's, not only to check and correct them,Even after realized they misled by abn amro,To continue it,And related financial derivatives throughout the highest Aaa credit rating.

　　另一种诉讼思路则是如美国司法部这样，从评级机构的利益关联方入手，证明评级机构存在蓄意操纵评级结果以换取商业利益的欺诈行为。美国司法部在起诉状中就指，为了从发行金融衍生品的投行那里获得更大的市场份额，标准普尔故意抬高了部分衍生品的信用评级，而非评级机构此前所声称的，它们的评级系统是合理的，惟一的问题在于无法预料的房地产泡沫破灭。

Another lawsuit ideas such as the U.S. department of justice,From the interests of related parties of rating agencies,Prove the existence of the rating agencies deliberately manipulate ratings for commercial interests of fraud.The U.S. justice department is refers to in the complaint,In order to get more from issuing financial derivatives investment Banks greater market share,The standard & poor's deliberately raise the credit rating of partial derivatives,Rather than the rating agencies have claimed before,Their ratings system is reasonable,The only problem is that unpredictable of the real estate bubble burst.

　　“对于这种指控，联邦政府应该是从投行或者标准普尔内部获得了部分资料，从而能够判断出，标准普尔是在明知部分产品存在重大风险的情况下，而故意给出与其风险水平不相符的高评级。”一位要求匿名的司法界人士表示。

"For this kind of charges,Should the federal government from Banks or standard & poor's internal part data are obtained,Able to determine that,Standard & poor's is in knowing that some products the presence of significant risk,And intentionally given risk level is not consistent with high ratings."A judiciary on condition of anonymity said.

　　或许，更大的问题还在于，即便不是主动篡改评级结果，如果评级机构明知自己也无法完全认知那些复杂金融衍生品的风险，却依然以信心满满的姿态为这些产品给出评级结果，那么评级机构又应该承担何种责任呢？

perhaps,The bigger problem is that,If not take the initiative to tamper with the rating results,If the rating agencies know they cannot completely cognitive complex financial derivatives risk,But still with confident attitude ratings results for these products,The rating agencies also should assume what responsibility?

　　在金融危机爆发前，部分跨国监管机构以及评级机构自身都曾宣称，评级机构存在的价值之一，就是帮助普通市场参与者，分析那些市场难以分析的复杂金融产品。然而在金融危机爆发后，不少评级机构人员坦言，他们同样对这些复杂的结构性产品束手无策。在危机前的颠峰时期，为这些“自己都看不懂”的金融衍生品评级，占到了部分国际评级机构超过40%的业务量。在这种情形下，错误的评级结果，究竟是能力问题还是道德问题？

Before the financial crisis,Part of the international regulators and rating agencies have claimed,One of the ratings agencies are worth,Is to help market participants,Analysis of the market is difficult to analysis the complex financial products.However, after the financial crisis,A lot of ratings agency staff said,They also stranded in these complex structured products.The peak of before the crisis,For these"Look not to understand yourself"Financial derivatives of the evaluation level,Accounts for part of the international rating agencies more than 40% of the portfolio.In this case,Error of the rating results,Whether ability problem or ethical issues?

　　不管目前这场“伟大的内讧”究竟结果如何可预见到的是，一场针对评级机构的诉讼浪潮行将掀?起。

Regardless of the current"Great infighting"Exactly how the results can be foreseen that is,A wave of litigation against ratings agencies will lift?since.