Talk:Moody's Ratings/Archive 1

Misplaced information
Very recently, someone added some new information to the end of the introduction that I believe does not belong in this article. The sentence noting the reported revenue and number of employees actually refers to Moody's Corporation, rather than subsidiary Moody's Investors Service. It belongs more appropriately in the article for the corporation, and is in fact already included there, using more recent numbers.

I should mention that I work with Moody's and I am aware of the COI rules, so I am cautious about making edits to the article. I'd like to see the above information be removed from this article and hope to find consensus with other editors to do so. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Info removed per request; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to undo new error introduced to article: Aaa, not AAA
Earlier in the week an unregistered editor visited this page and changed all occurrences of the "Aaa" rating to "AAA". However, this is incorrect. "AAA" is S&P's designation, while Moody's is "Aaa". This is easily verifiable from Moody's Ratings Definition page on its website. Because I am affiliated with Moody's, I prefer not to undo this change myself, and I wish to ask that another editor do so instead. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. You're a patient man or woman, Mysidae; thanks. (Or dog, I suppose.) I've also moved Moody's Aaa Bond, the title of which had a similar issue. Should you want to suggest any revisions to that page, I've put it on my watch list; and, indeed, Moody's Analytics. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your speedy response is highly appreciated, Tagishsimon. If I have any proposals to bring to the topic or a related one, I will certainly do so. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

ratings in order
It would be nice to include a section with all the ratings in order:

Best Aaa Aa1 Aa2 Aa3 A1 A2 A3 Baa1 Baa2 Baa3 Ba1 Ba2 Ba3 B1 B2 B3 Caa1 Caa2 Caa3 Ca1 Ca2 Ca3 C1 C2 C3 Worst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.32.2 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue critical material
Around two weeks ago, an unregistered editor added a new paragraph to the "Alleged conflicts of interest" section regarding critical public comments from a former Moody's employee. The addition, which one may review here, seems to present an undue level of detail, particularly with regard to the article's overall length. While I do not challenge the report, nor ask for a whitewash of the article, I am concerned that the article be properly weighted. Although I do not have a revision to suggest at this time, I believe this material should be reduced. I am affiliated with Moody's, so I prefer not to make any change myself and ask that others make such edits as seem fit. I am open to discussing alternative ways to address this as well. Further, I am interested to hear others opinions on this edit, particularly if they have an alternate course of action in mind. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the new paragraph; I think it was undue weight. The earlier (and slightly bigger) content is a lot more solid and less gossipy; that should definitely stay, I think. bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, even more simple than I expected. I appreciate this tremendously, thank you. Mysidae (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Out of place trivia in lead section
Recently an unregistered IP user added a new sentence to the end of the first paragraph: "Warren buffett is the largest shareholder of Moody's."

There is truth in the statement, Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is the largest investor in Moody's, but there is more that is wrong: Moody's Investors Service is a subsidiary, not the publicly traded company Berkshire invests in (that's Moody's Corporation). If this belongs anywhere, it should be that article, but there isn't a good place for it. There isn't any discussion of Moody's investors in that article, and ultimately this seems to be trivia. Berkshire Hathaway invests in many companies, and this is one. One more problem with the addition, the source given is an unauthorized YouTube upload of a copyrighted TV broadcast.

I wish to seek consensus to remove this statement from the article, for being poorly written, incorrectly cited and ultimately trivial. Disclosure: I am a representative of Moody's, for this reason I have placed a request template on this note and choose not to edit the article directly. Is there agreement from an independent editor to remove this? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that, as it stands, it's pretty bad. I'd be happy to remove it from the lede. However, I think that a reworded version (with an appropriate source) is probably worth mentioning over at the parent article. Surely there's a better source out there... bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done TOW  talk  05:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Concern about a recent addition
Recently a new paragraph was added to the end of the Financial crisis section, which is problematic for several reasons. Most importantly, it is almost entirely plagiarized from the Wall Street Journal article it is based on. Second, while the subject matter is encyclopedic, it omits the fact that Moody's was not the only party to settle, and only the views of the plaintiffs are included. In full disclosure, I watch this page on Moody's behalf, and following best practices such as WP:PSCOI I wish not to make direct edits to this article. Instead I would like to suggest a replacement section this week, and I have posted this message in hopes of finding another editor's attention before I share it. Please leave me a message if you have any questions, and I will return with a better suggestion soon. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Following on the above message, I have now written a better version of the paragraph. It is based on the same source, however it uses original language as much as possible, and concludes with the reported outcome of the case. This is what I suggest:


 * In April of 2013, Moody's, along with Standard & Poor's and Morgan Stanley, settled lawsuits filed in 2008 and 2009 by fourteen plaintiffs, including Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and King County, Washington. The lawsuits alleged that the agencies inflated their ratings on purchased structured investment vehicles. The terms of the settlement were confidential.


 * It is my hope another editor will recognize the problems of the current version and make the change I have proposed, or something very close to my solution. If one has a question about anything I would be very happy to comment further. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ With a few changes, I've implemented a replacement to avoid potential wp:copyvio issues. drewmunn talk 14:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, drewmunn. Would you support including the final sentence I had prepared, stating that terms of the settlement were not disclosed? Currently the paragraph ends with the complaint, rather than its conclusion. I am concerned that readers may ask themselves "but what happened?" Please let me know what you think. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I left that out as it was a little less encyclopaedic in tone than really necessary; the current version notes that the suits were settled, but doesn't go into unecessary detail. It's common for outcomes in these cases to be undisclosed, so it's a little bias to put weight onto the fact in this instance. drewmunn talk 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I do see your point. I'll think about it, but I have marked the request as complete. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Copal Partners
merging small purchased company with main firm  DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would only support the merge if it could be shown that Copal in itself (independent of Moodys) was not notable. The sources cited in that article include 3 that I thought supported the independent notability here:  . On that basis I do not agree with the merge. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Moody's Investors Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102043852/http://www.american.com/archive/2009/agency-problems2014and-their-solution to http://www.american.com/archive/2009/agency-problems2014and-their-solution
 * Added tag to http://afgi.org/resources/Subprime_Crisis_Timeline.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112165911/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112165911/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112165911/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)