Editing S&P Global Ratings (section)

==Criticism and scandal==
{{See also|Credit rating agency#Criticism|United States public debt}}

===Role in the 2008 financial crisis===
Credit rating agencies such as S&P have been cited for contributing to the [[2008 financial crisis]].<ref name=Klein>{{cite magazine |author      = Klein, Joe |title       = Standard & Poor's Downgrades Itself |url         = https://swampland.time.com/2011/08/06/u-s-downgrades-standard-and-poors/ |date        = August 6, 2011 |magazine        = [[Time (magazine)|Time]] |access-date  = August 6, 2011 |url-status     = live |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20110918113641/http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/06/u-s-downgrades-standard-and-poors/ |archive-date = September 18, 2011 |df          = mdy-all|author-link = Joe Klein }}</ref>  Credit ratings of AAA (the highest rating available) were given to large portions of even the riskiest pools of loans in the [[collateralized debt obligation]] (CDO) market.  When the [[real estate bubble]] burst in 2007, many loans went bad due to falling housing prices and the inability of bad creditors to refinance.  Investors who had trusted the AAA rating to mean that CDO were low-risk had purchased large amounts that later experienced staggering drops in value or [[toxic assets|could not be sold at any price]]. For example, institutional investors lost $125&nbsp;million on $340.7&nbsp;million worth of CDOs issued by [[Credit Suisse Group]], despite being rated AAA by S&P.<ref name="cdo">{{Cite news |author1=Tomlinson, Richard |author2=Evans, David |title=CDO Boom Masks Huge Subprime Losses, Abetted by S&P, Moody's Fitch |work=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=May 31, 2007 |access-date=August 6, 2011 |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajs7BqG4_X8I |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720072710/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajs7BqG4_X8I |archive-date=July 20, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name="Klein"/>

Companies pay S&P, Moody's, and [[Fitch Ratings|Fitch]] to rate their debt issues. As a result, some critics have contended that the credit ratings agencies are beholden to these issuers in a [[conflict of interests]] and that their ratings are not as objective as they ought to be, due to this "pay to play" model.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Efing|first1=Matthias|last2=Hau|first2=Harald|title=Corrupted credit ratings: Standard & Poor's lawsuit and the evidence|url=http://voxeu.org/article/corrupted-credit-ratings-standard-poor-s-lawsuit-and-evidence|website=VoxEU.org|access-date=28 May 2017|date=18 June 2013|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170703041242/http://voxeu.org/article/corrupted-credit-ratings-standard-poor-s-lawsuit-and-evidence|archive-date=July 3, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In 2015, Standard and Poor's paid $1.5 billion to the U.S. Justice Department, various state governments, and the [[California Public Employees' Retirement System]] to settle lawsuits asserting its inaccurate ratings defrauded investors.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s-p-settlement-idUSKBN0L71C120150203|title=S&P reaches $1.5 billion deal with U.S., states over crisis-era...|first=Aruna|last=Viswanatha|website=reuters.com|date=February 3, 2015|access-date=April 28, 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170417043301/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-s-p-settlement-idUSKBN0L71C120150203|archive-date=April 17, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

===Criticism of sovereign debt ratings===
In April 2009, the company called for "new faces" in the [[Government of Ireland|Irish government]], which was seen as interfering in the democratic process. In a subsequent statement they said they were "misunderstood".<ref>{{cite news
|author=GAA Video 
|url=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-attacks-call-for-new-faces-in-cabinet-1693290.html 
|title=Cowen Attacks Call for 'New Faces' in Cabinet
| work = [[Irish Independent]] 
|date= April 1, 2009
|access-date= August 7, 2011}}</ref>

S&P acknowledged making a US$2 trillion error in its justification for downgrading the credit rating of the United States in 2011,<ref>{{cite news
 |author      = Paletta, Damian
 |title       = U.S. Debt Rating in Limbo as Treasury Finds Math Mistake by S&P in Downgrade Warning
 |date        = August 5, 2011
 |url         = https://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/u-s-debt-rating-in-limbo-as-treasury-finds-math-mistake-by-sp-in-downgrade-warning/
 |work        = [[The Wall Street Journal]]
 |access-date  = August 5, 2011
 |url-status     = live
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20110813051506/http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/u-s-debt-rating-in-limbo-as-treasury-finds-math-mistake-by-sp-in-downgrade-warning/
 |archive-date = August 13, 2011
 |df          = mdy-all
}}</ref> but stated that it "had no impact on the rating decision".<ref>{{cite news
 |author      = Goldfarb, Zachary A.
 |title       = S&P Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating for First Time
 |url         = https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_story.html
 |date        = August 5, 2011
 |newspaper        = [[The Washington Post]]
 |access-date  = August 5, 2011
 |url-status     = live
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20110806010020/http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_story.html
 |archive-date = August 6, 2011
 |df          = mdy-all
}}</ref>

===Australian Federal Court decision===
In November 2012, Judge [[Jayne Jagot]] of the [[Federal Court of Australia]] found that:
"A reasonably competent ratings agency could not have rated the Rembrandt 2006-3 [[Constant proportion debt obligation|CPDO]] [[Bond credit rating|AAA]] in these circumstances";<ref name="jagot">{{cite AustLII|FCA|1200|2012|litigants=Bathurst Regional Council v Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd (No 5) |date=5 November 2012 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> and
"S&P’s rating of AAA of the Rembrandt 2006-2 and 2006-3 CPDO notes was misleading and deceptive and involved the publication of information or statements false in material particulars and otherwise involved negligent misrepresentations to the class of potential investors in Australia, which included Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd and the councils, because by the AAA rating there was conveyed a representation that in S&P’s opinion the capacity of the notes to meet all financial obligations was “extremely strong” and a representation that S&P had reached this opinion based on reasonable grounds and as the result of an exercise of reasonable care when neither was true and S&P also knew not to be true at the time made."<ref name="jagot" />

In conclusion, Jagot found Standard & Poor's to be jointly liable along with [[ABN Amro]] and Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd.<ref name="jagot" />