I've kinda lost track of the analogy at this point. I'm surprised I was downvoted so much. I didn't have a strong case to begin with. To try and carry on, if I was paying for product reviews like companies do for the rating agencies, I'd expect them to be even more accurate and impartial! If the companies (reviewees) are paying the reviewers (bribes?), I'd expect them to be crap. But companies are not paying Fitch to rate them are they. Other investors are paying Fitch for the supposed impartial review. But since high ratings makes markets go up, and monetary policy is greasing the wheels so that nothing can fail, it caused all ratings to creep up. Because after all the rating are based on empirical data and nothing is allowed to fail (bail out).
> But companies are not paying Fitch to rate them are they.
They often are.
A lot of times a large investor pays them to look at a possible investment, and this case is quite ok. But the official ratings they are listed with are set by a third party mandating the company "go pay Fitch to rank you". It's not plain bribery like companies paying reviewers, but it's quite shady.
I understand what you're saying but ultimately it's still the investors paying Fitch. You can clearly see they have no quid pro quo with the company or product they are evaluating. All your saying is who's invoice the bill appears on but the company is not paying that bill. The investor pays through the acquisition.
There is no investor at this point. The mandate is made by a 3rd party that is expected to be neutral. The investor only appears after the entire thing is settled.
Yes, it's not a case of fraud. It's a case of a process structured in a way that facilitates fraud. (Who pays for the invoice has the power to negotiate its value.) It is a very different thing, but it's still a problem to be solved.
