Posts tagged ‘Agencies’

Imp Credit Rating Agencies In India

Imp Credit Rating Agencies In India















Video Rating: / 5

How to Boost Your Credit Score Within 30 Days | BeatTheBush

Boost your credit score within 30 days by just paying off your credit card before the statement date. Your credit card reports information to the credit bureaus on the statement date. If you intercept this report by first paying everything off, they will report you as carrying a zero balance while being active.

Even if you pay your credit card in full and on time every month, you can benefit from this trick by making your credit utilization ratio go to zero. The smaller the total credit you have the more this can benefit you because for a given amount of spending, the ratio is bigger for a smaller credit. Doing this will give you a nice boost in your credit score just before you apply for a loan. .

Support more videos like this along with getting a bunch of perks here:

Get a free audiobook and 30-day trial. Even if you cancel, you still keep the book and you still support my channel for signing up. Support my channel by signing up to help me make more videos like this:

Credit Card for Starters
Who Should NEVER Get a Credit Card:
Only Use Credit or Only Use Debit:

Credit Card Basics
How Credit Card Calculates Interest:
How Credit Card Grace Periods Work:
Difference Between Credit Card Inactivity and 0% Utilization:
Credit Card Statement Closing Date vs. Due Date:
Does Canceling Credit Cards Affect Credit Score:
Can You Afford a No Limit Credit Card:
Credit Card Balance Transfer Hack:

Credit Score Less Than 700
Maximize Credit Score while in College:
Build Credit Fast with a 0 Credit Limit:
How to Pay off Credit Card Debt:
How to Build Credit with Bad Credit or No Credit [w/ Self Lender]:
How to Boost Your Credit Score Within 30 Days:

Credit Score More Than 700
How to Increase Credit Score from 700:
740+ is Not Just For Show:
My Credit Score: 848, How to get it Part 1:
My Credit Score: 848, How to get it Part 2:
My Credit Score: 848 – Credit Card Hacks and How I got it:

Advanced Credit Card Tricks
How to get a Business Credit Card:
Keep 16 Credit Cards Active:
Rejected for a New Credit Card with 826 Credit Score:
Make Credit Cards Pay You Instead:
Credit Card Low Balance Cancellation per mont [Still Works]:

Cash Back
Are Credit Card Points Taxable?:
How to Churn Credit Cards:
Best Cash Back Credit Cards for 2017:
5% Cash Back on Everything:
Always get 11% Off Amazon Gift Cards and Amazon Hacks:
Max Rewards: What’s in My Wallet:
How I Make 200 Dollars in 10 Minute [Hint: Credit Card Bonus]:
When Your Best Cash Back Card Gets Cancelled:
Amex Blue Cash Preferred vs. Everyday Effective Cash Back on Groceries:
Double Dip Groceries Cash Back with Safeway Just for U:
Milk the Barclays Cashforward Card for the MOST Cash Back:
Other Channels:
BeatTheBush DIY:
Video Rating: / 5


Video Rating: / 5

This is actually the first movie within our lecture series in which we take a longer glance at even more complicated topics. Now it really is credit scores; whatever they’re made from, what a beneficial one is, and exactly how you can make yours better. It is complicated, but we break it straight down within a couple of minutes to really make it less complicated. Take a glance and tell us when you have any queries!

This video is supposed as an educational resource to prepare consumers for the loan procedure.

NMLS 1579. 25 S Park Pl, Newark OH 43055

Credit history Agencies as well as the financial meltdown (Part 1 of 2)

Credit Rating Agencies together with economic crisis (component 1 of 2) – Committee on Oversight and national Reform – Tape Deck 01 – 2008-10-22 – The Committee held a hearing titled, “Credit history Agencies and the financial meltdown” on Wednesday, October 22, 2008, in 2154 Rayburn home Office Building. The hearing examined those things for the three biggest credit history companies, Standard and bad’s, Moody’s Corporation, and Fitch Ratings, prior to the present economic crisis. Movie supplied by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Warren Buffett on Credit Rating Agencies, Moody’s, S&P, Bonds, and Corporate Shareholders

Moody’s Investors Service, often referred to as Moody’s, is the bond credit rating business of Moody’s Corporation, representing the company’s traditional line of business and its historical name. Moody’s Investors Service provides international financial research on bonds issued by commercial and government entities and, with Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Group, is considered one of the Big Three credit rating agencies.

The company ranks the creditworthiness of borrowers using a standardized ratings scale which measures expected investor loss in the event of default. Moody’s Investors Service rates debt securities in several market segments related to public and commercial securities in the bond market. These include government, municipal and corporate bonds; managed investments such as money market funds, fixed-income funds and hedge funds; financial institutions including banks and non-bank finance companies; and asset classes in structured finance.[1] In Moody’s Investors Service’s ratings system securities are assigned a rating from Aaa to C, with Aaa being the highest quality and C the lowest quality.

Moody’s was founded by John Moody in 1909 to produce manuals of statistics related to stocks and bonds and bond ratings. In 1975, the company was identified as a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO) by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Following several decades of ownership by Dun & Bradstreet, Moody’s Investors Service became a separate company in 2000; Moody’s Corporation was established as a holding company.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, commercial paper and bank deposits began to be rated. As well, the major agencies began charging the issuers of bonds as well as investors — Moody’s began doing this in 1970[5] — thanks in part to a growing free rider problem related to the increasing availability of inexpensive photocopy machines,[14] and the increased complexity of the financial markets.[10][15] Rating agencies also grew in size as the number of issuers grew exponentially,[16] both in the United States and abroad, making the credit rating business significantly more profitable. In 2005 Moody’s estimated that 90% of credit rating agency revenues came from issuer fees.[17]

The end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971 led to the liberalization of financial regulations, and the global expansion of capital markets in the 1970s and 1980s.[5] In 1975, the SEC changed its minimum capital requirements for broker-dealers, using bond ratings as a measurement. Moody’s and nine other agencies (later five, due to consolidation) were identified by the SEC as “nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations” (NRSROs) for broker-dealers to use in meeting these requirements.[3][18]

The 1980s and beyond saw the global capital market expand; Moody’s opened its first overseas offices in Japan in 1985, followed by offices in the United Kingdom in 1986, France in 1988, Germany in 1991, Hong Kong in 1994, India in 1998 and China in 2001.[5] The number of bonds rated by Moody’s and the Big Three agencies grew substantially as well. As of 1997, Moody’s was rating about trillion in securities from 20,000 U.S. and 1,200 non-U.S. issuers.[12] The 1990s and 2000s were also a time of increased scrutiny, as Moody’s was sued by unhappy issuers and investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice,[19] as well as criticism following the collapse of Enron, the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis and subsequent late-2000s financial crisis.[5][20]

Following several years of rumors and pressure from institutional shareholders,[21] in December 1999 Moody’s parent Dun & Bradstreet announced it would spin off Moody’s Investors Service into a separate publicly traded company. Although Moody’s had fewer than 1,500 employees in its division, it represented about 51% of Dun & Bradstreet profits in the year before the announcement.[22] The spin-off was completed on September 30, 2000,[23] and, in the half decade that followed, the value of Moody’s shares improved by more than 300%.[12]

In June 2013, Moody’s Investor Service has warned that Thailand’s country’s credit rating may be damaged due to an increasingly costly rice-pledging scheme which lost 200 billion baht (.5 billion) in 2011-2012.
Video Rating: / 5

Problems With Credit Rating Agencies

Problems With Credit Rating Agencies

Professor Timothy Sinclair, University of Warwick

Getting credit ratings ‘right’ seems vitally important to many professional observers and politicians. The increasingly volatile nature of markets in a post-Bretton Woods world of international capital mobility has created a crisis in relations between the rating agencies and governments, which seek to monitor the performance of the agencies and stimulate ‘reform’ in their procedures and business models, even if the exact purpose of this reform seems to elude them. This process started with the Enron bankruptcy, but the subprime crisis has generated a veritable ‘moral panic’ about agency performance in relation to asset-backed securities. In pursuing improvement in the rating system policy-makers need to appreciate the limits to rating. Our expectations of the agencies are founded on a rationalist or machine-like understanding of the workings of capital markets, and on an exogenous understanding of the causes of financial crisis. This worldview implies a correct rating can be determined, and that finding this correct answer is purely a technical matter. A more accurately social and dynamic view of markets and financial crises makes the challenge of effective rating even more daunting.
Video Rating: / 5

Will Credit Relief Agencies Be Willing to Offer Free Legal Advice Before I Sign Anything?

Credit agencies have earned a lot of reputation these days, thanks to the amazing performance and the amount of success in helping people in eliminating debt. Studies reveal that more than 70% of the people opting for credit relief are now able to wipe out their debts. So, if you are now confused whether such an agency is reliable and whether you should risk investing on these services, you should go through the following points.

According to the recent amendments in the legal procedures, the debtor has all rights to seek negotiations with the creditors. There are few qualifying conditions that allow you to go for the relief services. If you are still confused where to enter into any agreement with them, here are few points to consider:

a)The credit relief agencies have the whole intention to help the debtors to get the maximum possible relief from the debtors. They operate as a building bridge between the debtors and the creditors and provide a platform for you to convey your limitations.

b)Most of the top rated agencies have provisions of providing relief counseling to the debtors. So, you can always walk to them and discuss with them your problems openly. They are the right people to seek advice whether you should go for negotiation or consolidation. They can assimilate all your current liabilities and advise you on adopting any such relief program.

c)It is possible for you to seek advice from these relief agencies before committing to their services. None of the agencies deny any such service since they believe in providing all information to the debtors.

d)You are not required to pay the debtors without getting any service. So, you can be confident that they will perform their best. None of the agencies charge their fee before putting their services.

So, if you are still confused whether these agencies will give you free advice before you enter into an agreement with them, you can be confident and march forwards to discussing with them and finding a formidable solution.

Credit ratings agencies

Italy is firmly back in the firing line of the eurozone debt crisis after credit ratings agency Moody’s delivered a stinging downgrade to Baa2 from A3, sayin…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

credit rating agencies

Shows how the self serving credit agencies were central to the credit crunch.

SubscriberWise Implores President Obama to help with a Legislative Effort to Require Federal Agencies to Create an Index of Living Childrens Social security Numbers to Substantially Reduce Fraud and Exploitation

Washington, D.C. (PRWEB) October 11, 2014

SubscriberWise®, a leading provider of analytics-driven subscriber decision management technology and the nation’s largest issuing consumer reporting agency for the communications industry, announced today that the company founder is asking the President of the United States to leverage his Office and his persuasive power to help advance a proposed legislative initiative that would dramatically reduce child identity theft.

Read the latest news that exposes the State of Ohio’s failure to advocate and protect a 14-year-old child:

“Today I am respectfully asking the President of the United States to give careful consideration and attention to this urgent child safety initiative,” said David Howe, president of SubscriberWise. “I’m requesting President Obama’s help passing a child safety law that is focused on protecting a minor’s social security number through technology solutions and educational initiatives.”

“I will also use this opportunity to advise Mr. Obama and the First Lady that their daughters may be vulnerable to identity thieves, just like children who are exploited every day in this country,” continued Howe. “But unlike the Obama children and the children of resourceful and powerful women and men, the overwhelming majority of children who become victims of this under-reported and rarely-prosecuted crime, they almost never have a voice or advocacy. These children suffer the consequences alone,” emphasized Howe.

“The police, the prosecutors, the national credit bureaus, business and creditors – none of these organizations is initially aware that a social security number submitted with a credit application or presented to law-enforcement may belong to a living minor child. That’s inexcusable,” declared Howe.

“And if it’s ever confirmed that a child’s identity was stolen, it’s often too late,” argued Howe.


“Over the course of an entire decade, I’ve engaged and educated hundreds of child identity thieves. Contrary to FTC publication on child identity theft, it’s almost always the parent, guardian, or relative of the minor who perpetrates the crime,” explained Howe. “It’s rarely a random thief who just happened upon the child’s personal information.”

“It’s obvious to me from many years’ experience that we as a nation are not doing enough to manage this problem,” insisted Howe. “I’m convinced that Congress – and President Obama – must immediately focus their time and resources to help minimize this problem.”

“As the founder of a national Issuing CRA and a witness to technology solutions, it’s my strong position that a child-SSN index, along with a federal educational initiative, is critical to impacting this problem,” Howe concluded.    

About David Howe and SubscriberWise

David Howe is a consultant and credit manager for MCTV ( During his 18-year career at MCTV, Howe has reviewed more than 50,000 credit submissions. His interest in credit began in 1986 while a 17-year old student in high school.

Howe is the only known individual – living or deceased – to have obtained simultaneous perfect FICO 850 scores across every national credit bureau. Howe has also obtained multiple perfect Vantage 990 scores. Howe has obtained FICO Professional Certification and is also the first and only citizen of the world to describe and report the details of the perfect FICO score to a U.S. reporter.

Howe produced and published two videos on the subject of perfect credit: FICO 850 Credit Report Facts and FICO Scores: The Facts. The first general-purpose FICO scores were debuted nearly a quarter century ago.

SubscriberWise® launched as the first U.S. issuing consumer reporting agency exclusively for the cable industry in 2006. In 2009, SubscriberWise and TransUnion announced a joint marketing agreement for the benefit of America’s independent cable operators. Today SubscriberWise is a risk management preferred-solutions provider for the National Cable Television Cooperative.

SubscriberWise contributions to the communications industry are today quantified in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

SubscriberWise is a U.S.A. federally registered trademark of the SubscriberWise Limited Liability Co.



David E. Howe, +1 330-880-4848 Ext: 137

Credit Rating Agencies – Need For Reform

1. Crisis – Spotlight on Credit Rating Agencies

“Credit-rating agencies use their control of information to fool investors into believing that a pig is a cow and a rotten egg is a roasted chicken. Collusion and misrepresentation are not elements of a genuinely free market ” – US Congressman Gary Ackerman

The smooth functioning of global financial markets depends, in part, upon reliable assessments of investment risks, and Credit Rating Agencies play a significant role in boosting investor confidence in those markets.

The above rhetoric, although harsh, beckons us to focus our lens on the functioning of credit rating agencies. Recent debacles, as enunciated below, make it all the more important to scrutinize the claim of Credit Rating Agencies as fair assessors.

i) Sub-Prime Crisis: In the recent sub-prime crisis, Credit Rating Agencies have come under increasing fire for their covert collusion in favorably rating junk CDOs in the sub-prime mortgage business, a crisis which is currently having world-wide implications. To give some background, loan originators were guilty of packaging sub-prime mortgages as securitizations, and marketing them as collateralized debt obligations on the secondary mortgage market. The agencies failed in their duty to warn the financial world of this malpractice through a fair and transparent assessment. Shockingly, they gave favorable ratings to the CDOs for reasons that need to be examined.

ii) Enron and WorldCom: These companies were rated investment grade by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s three days before they went bankrupt. Credit Rating Agencies were alleged to have favorably rated risky products, and in some instances put these risky products together for a fat fee.

There may be other over-rated Enron’s and WorldCom’s waiting to go bust. The agencies need to be reformed, to enable them pin-point such cancer well-in-advance, thereby increasing security in the financial markets.

2. Credit Ratings and Credit Rating Agencies

i) Credit rating: is a structured methodology to rank the creditworthiness of, broadly speaking, an entity, or a credit commitment (e.g. a product), or a debt or debt-like security as also of an Issuer of an obligation.

ii) Credit Rating Agency (CRA): is an institution, specialized in the job of rating the above. Ratings by Credit Rating Agencies are not recommendations to purchase or sell any security, but just an indicator.

Ratings can further be divided into

i) Solicited Rating: where the rating is based on a request, say of a bank or company, and which also participates in the rating process.

ii) Unsolicited Rating: where rating agencies claim to rate an organisation in the public interest.

Credit Rating Agencies help to achieve economies of scale, as they help avoid investments in internal tools and credit analysis. It thereby enables market intermediaries and end investors to focus on their core competencies, leaving the complex rating jobs to dependable specialized agencies.

3. Credit Rating Agencies of note

Agencies that assign credit ratings for corporations include

A. M. Best (U.S.)

Baycorp Advantage (Australia)

Dominion Bond Rating Service (Canada)

Fitch Ratings (U.S.)

Moody’s (U.S.)

Standard & Poor’s (U.S.)

Pacific Credit Rating (Peru)

4. Credit Rating Agencies – Power and Influence

Various market participants that use and/or are affected by credit ratings are as follows

a) Issuers: A good credit rating improves the marketability of issuers, as also pricing, which in turn satisfies investors, lenders or other interested counterparties.

b) Buy-Side Firms : Buy side firms such as mutual funds, pension funds and insurance companies use credit ratings as one of several important inputs to their own internal credit assessments and investment analysis, which helps them identify pricing discrepancies, the riskiness of the security, regulatory compliance requiring them to park funds in investment grade assets etc. Many restrict their funds to higher ratings, which makes them more attractive to risk-averse investors.

c) Sell-Side Firms: Like buy-side firms many sell side firms, like broker-dealers, use ratings for risk management and trading purposes.

d) Regulators: Regulators mandate usage of credit ratings in various forms for e.g. The Basel Committee on banking supervision allowed banks to use external credit ratings to determine capital allocation. Or, to quote another example, restrictions are placed on civil service or public employee pension funds by local or national governments.

e) Tax Payers and Investors: Depending on the direction of the change in value, credit rating changes can benefit or harm investors in securities, through erosion of value, and it also affects taxpayers through the cost of government debt.

f) Private Contracts: Ratings have known to significantly affect the balance of power between contracting parties, as the rating is inadvertently applied to the organisation as a whole and not just to its debts.

Rating downgrade – A Death spiral:

A rating downgrade can be a vicious cycle. Let us visualise this in steps. First, a rating downgrade acts as a trigger. Banks now want full repayment, anticipating bankruptcy. The company may not be in a position to pay, leading to a further rating downgrade. This initiates a death spiral leading to the companys’ ultimate collapse and closure.

Enron faced this spiral, where a loan clause stipulated full repayment in the event of a downgrade. When downgrade did take place, this clause added to the financial woes of Enron pushing it into deep financial trouble.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company is another case in point which was pressurised by aggrieved counterparties and lenders demanding repayment, thanks to a rating downgrade. PG&E was unable to raise funds to repay its short term obligations, which aggravated its slide into the death spiral.

5. Credit Rating Agencies as victims

Credit Rating Agencies face the following challenges

a) Inadequate Information: One complaint which Credit Rating Agencies have is their inability to access accurate and reliable information from issuers. Credit Rating Agencies cry, that issuers deliberately withhold information not found in the public domain, for instance undisclosed contingencies, which may adversely affect the issuers’ liquidity.

b) System of compensation: Credit Rating Agencies act on behalf of investors, but they are in most cases paid by the issuers. There lies a potential for conflict of interest. As rating agencies are paid by those they rate, and not by the investor, the market view is that they are under pressure to give their clients a favourable rating – else the client will move to another obliging agency. Credit Rating Agencies are plagued by conflicts of interest that might inhibit them from providing accurate and honest ratings. Some Credit Rating Agencies admit that if they depend on investors for compensation, they would go out of business. Others strongly deny conflicts of interest, defending that fees received from individual issuers are a very small percentage of their total revenues, so that no single issuer has any material influence with a rating agency.

c) Market Pressure : Allegations that ratings are expediency and not logic-based, and that they would resort to unfair practices due to the inherent conflict of interest, are dismissed by Credit Rating Agencies as malicious because the rating business is reputation based, and incorrect ratings may lower the standing of the agency in the market. In short reputational concerns are sufficient to ensure that they exercise appropriate levels of diligence in the ratings process.

d) Ratings over-emphasised: Allegations float that Credit Rating Agencies actively promote an over-emphasis of their ratings, and encourage corporations to do like-wise. Credit Rating Agencies counter saying that credit ratings are used out of context through no fault of their own. They are applied to the organizations per se and not just the organizations’ debts. A favourable credit rating is unfortunately used by companies as seals of approval for marketing purposes of unrelated products. A user needs to bear in mind that the rating was provided against the stricter scope of the investment being rated.

6. Credit Rating Agencies as Perpetrators

a) Arbitrary adjustments without accountability or transparency: Credit Rating Agencies can downgrade and upgrade and can cite lack of information from the rated party, or on the product as a possible defence. Unclear reasons for downgrade may adversely affect the issuer, as the market would assume that the agency is privy to certain information which is not in the public domain. This may render the issuers security volatile due to speculation.

Sometimes eextraneous considerations determine when an adjustment would occur. Credit rating agencies do not downgrade companies when they ought to. For example, Enron’s rating remained at investment grade four days before the company went bankrupt, despite the fact that credit rating agencies had been aware of the company’s problems for months.

b) Due diligence not performed: There are certain glaring inconsistencies, which Credit Rating Agencies are reluctant to resolve due to the conflicts of interest as mentioned above. For instance, if we focus on Moody’s ratings we find the following inconsistencies.

All three of the above have the same capital allocation forcing banks to move towards riskier investments like corporate bonds.

c) Cozying up to management: Business logic has compelled Credit Rating Agencies to develop close bonds with the management of companies being rated, and allowing this relationship to affect the rating process. They were found to act as advisors to companies’ pre-rating activities, and suggesting measures which would have beneficial effects on the companys’ rating. Exactly on the other extreme are agencies, which are accused of unilaterally adjusting the ratings, while denying a company an opportunity to explain its actions.

e) Creating High Barriers to entry: Agencies are sometimes accused of being oligopolists, because barriers to market entry are high, as the rating business is reputation-based, and the finance industry pays little attention to a rating that is not widely recognized. All agencies consistently reap high profits (Moody’s for instance is greater than 50% gross margin), which indicate monopolistic pricing.

f) Promoting Ancillary Businesses: Credit Rating Agencies have developed ancillary businesses, like pre-rating assessment and corporate consulting services, to complement their core ratings business. Issuers may be forced to purchase the ancillary service, in lieu of a favorable rating. To compound it all, except for Moody’s, all other Credit Rating Agencies are privately held and their financial results do not separate revenues from their ancillary businesses.

7. Some Recommendations

a) Public Disclosures: The extent and the quality of the disclosures in the financial statements and the balance sheets need to be improved. More importantly the management discussion and analysis should require disclosure of off-balance sheet arrangements, contractual obligations and contingent liabilities and commitments. Shortening the time period, between the end of issuers’ quarter or fiscal year and the date of submission of the quarterly or annual report, will enable Credit Rating Agencies to obtain information early. These measures will improve the ability of Credit Rating Agencies to rate issuers. If Credit Rating Agencies conclude that important information is unavailable, or an issuer is less than forthcoming, the agency may lower a rating, refuse to issue a rating or even withdraw an existing rating.

b) Due Diligence and competency of Credit Rating Agencies Analysts: Analysts should not rely solely on the words of the management, but also perform their own due diligence, by scrutinising various public filings, probing opaque disclosures, reviewing proxy statements etc. There needs to be a tighter (or broader) qualification to be a rating agency employee.

c) Abolition of Barriers to Entry: Increase in the number of players may not completely curtail the oligopolistic powers of the well-entrenched few, but at best it would keep them on their toes, by subjecting them to some level of competition, and allowing market forces to determine which rating truly reflects the financial market best.

d) Rating Cost: As far as possible, the rating cost needs to be published. If revealing such sensitive information raises issues of commercial confidence, then the agencies must at least be subject to intense financial regulation. The analyst compensation should be merit-based, based on the demonstrated accuracy of their ratings and not on issuer fees.

e) Transparent rating Process: The agencies must make public the basis for their ratings, including performance measurement statistics, historical downgrades and default rates. This will protect investors and enhance the reliability of credit ratings. The regulators should oblige Credit Rating Agencies to disclose their procedures and methodologies for assigning ratings. The rating agencies should conduct an internal audit of their rating methodologies.

f) Ancillary Business to be independent: Although the ancillary business is a small part of the total revenue, Credit Rating Agencies still need to establish extensive policies and procedures to firewall ratings from the ancillary business. Separate staff and not the rating analysts should be employed for marketing the ancillary business.

g) Risk Disclosure: Rating agencies should disclose material risks they uncover, during the risk rating process, or any risk that seems to be inadequately addressed in public disclosures, to the concerned regulatory authority for further action. Credit Rating Agencies need to be more proactive and conduct formal audits of issuer information to search for fraud, not just restricting their role to assessing credit-worthiness of issuers. Rating triggers (for instance full loan repayment in the event of a downgrade) should be discouraged wherever possible and should be disclosed if it exists.

These measures, if implemented, can improve market confidence in Credit Rating Agencies, and their ratings may become a key tool for boosting investor confidence, by enhancing the security of the financial markets in the broadest sense.

List of resources