Well, they weren’t quite that crass, but it was certainly the sentiment. They said in a recent report that while the likely govt shutdown will probably not result in a further downgrade, a default on the debt would be a different matter.
I would point out that when I raised this issue in a pit thread a few months ago, almost everyone participating there laughed at the idea. I hope they’re still amused? 
I am. A rating of the US credit-worthiness by S&P is meaningless, and institutional investors around the world know it. It won’t affect interest rates a bit.
I seem to recall this happening before?
If anyone on this forum had ever demonstrated any understanding of the financial markets, that might mean something to me, but as that thread demonstrated, no one here does. Beyond that, no one seems to have any desire to learn either - at least none of the more vocal members. But then those who speak the loudest generally have the least to say so that’s probably not too surprising.
No one?
Why, do you have someone in mind? I’d like to meet them.
I just wondered if there was any reason we should take you seriously, if you are no better equipped than the rest of us.
I hope you don’t take me seriously - because then you’ll make all the stupid mistakes stupid people always make when they think they understand things that are actually quite a bit beyond their pay grade.
I didn’t start a thread about the S&P credit rating, so that is one less mistake than you.
So, what is your pay grade?
It was only a mistake because I overestimated the intelligence of the people here. I won’t make that mistake again.
As for sparring with you, I can find more amusing ways to be bored.
Regardless of credit rating, the US dollar is still the prettiest girl at the ball.
Found a new glory hole at the airport, did you?
TWEEEET.
Both of you take your squabble out of this thread and to the Pit if you so wish, but it stops in this topic now.
I like this analogy. Sure our economy is a bit buck-toothed and wall-eyed right now, but everyone else is a polydactile cleft-palate with mange. I think we’re still pretty stable, relatively-speaking. Certainly the most viable combination of stable, huge, and readily corrected (if we can just all get on the same page). China’s big, but it’s my understanding their economy is largely dependant on the US not screwing them over. Who else is close? Japan? Germany?
Germany but they’ve hitched their wagon to multiple tree stumps with the Euro.
Bear in mind, I am NOT speaking as a mod, here. Only as a private poster.
deltasigma, what do you GET out of threads like this? You make a post, people disagree with you, you insult the knowledge of the board, then say it’s boring. Seriously, what does that get you?
On the subject of the OP…you’re simply wrong. Average decline in economic performance in the markets following a government shutdown is minimal and 3- and 12-month growth following is very good.
Also, what S&P is trying to do is political, not economic. This is just my read on it, but like Moodys before, they’re trying to give a big ‘grow the hell up!’ to the US government. Markets HATE uncertainty most of all but big money holders are - by and large - cowards. They don’t LIKE taking chances they can’t quantify and federal uncertainty in economic policy means they can’t quantify anything. It frightens them.
Also, your comment about ‘no one here understands financial markets’ is silly. Just remember this…people who are professionals can’t discuss such things - for compliance reasons - over a public messageboard. No one will risk a registration over such a thing (or they shouldn’t).
I didn’t say it would affect market performance. My comment was directed to the issues I’d raised in the pit thread which, oddly enough, are precisely the ones you’ve raised.
As for financial advisers never being able to discuss anything related to finance, that sounds as bogus to me as saying that lawyers and judges can never discuss the law and as an attorney I can tell you for a fact that’s not true. We have to maintain the appearance of impartiality but there is no bar to discussing issues of general import, so if you’re going to rely on that as a restriction I’d like to see you cite some authority for that claim.
FINRA’s compliance guide for social media - which includes other Internet communications such as chat rooms and message boards - states that any such communications must be treated as if they were any other form of written presentation. That means they must be approved - in advance - by compliance officers and FINRA. They must also be subject to permanent record keeping.
NASD rule 3010 says that firms must monitor and approve all posting under interactive electronic forums, though principal approval is not required. Further, according to Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and NASD Rule 3110 firms must retain records of all communications under social media and other Internet systems.
Further, suitability rules apply to any securities a broker might recommend via these systems. That is, a broker must be knowledgeable about all people who might read the recommendation before making it. If that’s not the case it’s a compliance violation under NASD rule 2310.
Specifics:
Source: Compliance Guide, Published by Financial Social Media, also FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-06 dated January 2010.
It’s amusing, I know, but brokers operate under stricter controls on the Internet than lawyers and doctors. That whole, “I’m a lawyer but I’m not YOUR lawyer” thing doesn’t fly under FINRA regulations.
Germany can fix that. All they have to do to strengthen the Euro to is incorporate Greece under their own flag and run things The German Way. And since a broken border is untidy they could probably improve things by working Austria and Italy into the same plan. What could possibly go wrong? 
Yes, and I’m sure that’s all meant to apply only to things you say when acting in your official capacity. I’m sure that when you’re at home on your private computer you don’t need to clear you personal communications with your employers. So like I said, if you want to use your license as an excuse for not commenting on issues just to be on the safe side, I can understand that, but to say that it’s a requirement and that you would lose your license is, I think, pushing the envelope a bit - don’t you?
I’d also point out that many financial advisers aren’t necessarily very well equipped to serve their clients - as you probably well know and further that many well qualified people aren’t financial advisers.