The New York Times weighs in on the Standard & Poor's controversy with a look at what it calls the "secretive" committee of sovereign credit raters that operates "deep inside" the company.

S&P "has declined to say whether the vote was unanimous, to identify all the members of the committee that voted for the downgrade or even say how many people are on it. S&P's downgrade of the nation's credit rating has raised questions about the company's judgment and even its role in the financial markets." And that has generated even more criticism.

While the company has stuck to its guns as the controversy swirls, it has not mounted a detailed defense, and that has left lots of people scratching their heads trying to understand their methodology.

"There is not rater of raters," the article notes. The company has stuck to historical form by invoking the First Amendment, as it has consistently done in the face of criticism over the years. The company's view is that it has a constitutional right to make known its opinion. To some people, it's a fair questions as to whether its timed-for-maximum-impact announcement constitutes falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.

In S&P's view there was indeed a fire, though other rating firms have disagreed. Three people responsible for the decision are apparently David Beers, the head of the company's sovereign ratings division; his deputy, John Chambers; and Nikola Swann, an analyst who is responsible for ratings in the United States, Canada and Bermuda. They will likely get a chance to present their rationale in hearings, which seem inevitable. The PR executives would be wise to prod the company to open up a bit more.  

For more:
- here's the Times article

Related article:
Standard & Poor's U.S. downgrade dilemma