Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

McGraw Family (Owners of S & P) are Longtime Intimates of the Bush Family

COMMENT: Standard and Poor’s is owned by publishing giant McGraw-Hill. In the wake of S & P’s downgrade of U.S. bonds’ rating from AAA (for the first time in history), it comes as no great surprise that the McGraw family are long time associates of the “Family of Secrets.”

This multi-generational association goes back to the 1930’s, when Joseph and Permelia Pryor Reed (daughter of Bush/Walker associate   Samuel Pryor), established Jupiter Island as a playground for the Northeastern power elite.

McGraw-Hill chief Deven Sharma worked for Dresser Industries, now a division of Halliburton and a long time jewel in the Bush/Harriman corporate tiara. Dresser was George H.W. Bush’s first real job after his graduation from Yale.

One must wonder, also, who was the “mystery investor” who stood to make the better part of a $billion on the downgrade (at least according to media projections before the S & P downgrade)?

The SEC is investigating the matter.  It remains to be seen if anything substantive emerges from the investigation.

Similar profiteering took place upon the occasions of the JFK assassination and 9/11. The Bush milieu was deeply involved in the events of 11/22/1963 and 9/11/2001.

“Reading Between the Lines” by Stephen Metcalf; The Nation; 1/10/2002.

EXCERPT: . . . . While critics of the Bush Administration’s energy policies have pointed repeatedly to its intimacy with the oil and gas industry–specifically the now-imploding Enron–few education critics have noted the Administration’s cozy relationship with McGraw-Hill. At its heart lies the three-generation social mingling between the McGraw and Bush families. The McGraws are old Bush friends, dating back to the 1930s, when Joseph and Permelia Pryor Reed began to establish Jupiter Island, a barrier island off the coast of Florida, as a haven for the Northeast wealthy. The island’s original roster of socialite vacationers reads like a who’s who of American industry, finance and government: the Meads, the Mellons, the Paysons, the Whitneys, the Lovetts, the Harrimans–and Prescott Bush and James McGraw Jr. The generations of the two families parallel each other closely in age: the patriarchs Prescott and James Jr., son George and nephew Harold Jr., and grandson George W. and grandnephew Harold III, who now runs the family publishing empire.

The amount of cross-pollination and mutual admiration between the Administration and that empire is striking: Harold McGraw Jr. sits on the national grant advisory and founding board of the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. McGraw in turn received the highest literacy award from President Bush in the early 1990s, for his contributions to the cause of literacy. The McGraw Foundation awarded current Bush Education Secretary Rod Paige its highest educator’s award while Paige was Houston’s school chief; Paige, in turn, was the keynote speaker at McGraw-Hill’s “government initiatives” conference last spring. Harold McGraw III was selected as a member of President George W. Bush’s transition advisory team, along with McGraw-Hill board member Edward Rust Jr., the CEO of State Farm and an active member of the Business Roundtable on educational issues. An ex-chief of staff for Barbara Bush is returning to work for Laura Bush in the White House–after a stint with McGraw-Hill as a media relations executive. John Negroponte left his position as McGraw-Hill’s executive vice president for global markets to become Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations.  . . .


Discussion

8 comments for “McGraw Family (Owners of S & P) are Longtime Intimates of the Bush Family”

  1. From the Daily Mail article: “Whoever it is stands to earn a 1,000 per cent return on their money, with the expectation that interest rates will be going up after the downgrade.”

    The problem with this line of speculation is that if such a trade did in fact occur, the person who placed the trade has in fact lost money – bond yields were headed down before the downgrade, they plunged on the news of the downgrade, and they have continued trending down since then. In other words, the market flipped the bird to the S&P, which is what it usually does – though you wouldn’t know that from reading the coverage in the mainstream media. That’s not to say the trade wasn’t made on inside information; however, your claim that they made “the better part of a $billion” betting on increased rates is just plain wrong.

    Posted by Mark | August 17, 2011, 10:28 am
  2. This is interesting, it links the head of S&P (and the man personally responsible for the downgrade) to the Bilberbergers: http://seekingalpha.com/article/285737-the-rise-of-financial-terrorism

    Posted by Mark | August 22, 2011, 7:50 am
  3. (please correct my spelling in my last comment – that should be “Bilderbergers”)

    Posted by Mark | August 22, 2011, 7:52 am
  4. Comment on story below: It should be noted that Spain is the only country that has attempted to prosecute members of the Bush Administration for crimes of torture.

    S&P lowers Spain’s debt rating a notch to ‘AA-’

    By Agence France-Presse
    Thursday, October 13, 2011

    WASHINGTON — Standard & Poor’s cut Spain’s credit rating by one notch to “AA-” from “AA” with a negative outlook on Thursday, following downgrades to the country’s top banks.

    S&P said Spain’s high unemployment, tighter financial conditions and “the likely economic slowdown in Spain’s main trading partners” prompted the downgrade.

    “The financial profile of the Spanish banking system will, in our opinion, weaken further,” S&P said, adding that while the factors that impede Madrid’s recovery of domestic demand “are not unique to Spain, they impact Spain with particular force given its high level of private sector leverage, much of which is funded externally.”

    On Tuesday, the credit ratings of top Spanish banks, including Santander and BBVA, were downgraded on Tuesday by Standard & Poor’s as well as ratings agency Fitch over poor growth prospects.

    S&P had said the “tougher-than-previously-anticipated macroeconomic and financial environment in Spain” prompted its downgrade of 10 bank ratings.

    Spain is slashing spending to reduce its deficit and convince markets it can stay on top of its debt and does not need a bailout.

    However, the austerity drive has nearly stalled growth, with S&P and others warning Spain risks ending up in double-dip recession.

    Posted by R. Wilson | October 13, 2011, 8:42 pm
  5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/26/federal-judge-credit-rati_n_1114034.html

    REUTERS – A federal judge has said credit ratings are not always protected opinion under the First Amendment, a defeat for credit rating agencies in a lawsuit brought by investors who lost money on mortgage-backed securities.

    The November 12 decision was a little-noticed setback for McGraw-Hill Cos’ Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Corp’s Moody’s Investors Service and Fimalac SA’s Fitch Ratings, which have long invoked First Amendment free speech protection to defend against lawsuits over their ratings.

    These agencies had argued that the Constitution protected them from claims they issued inflated ratings on more than $5 billion of securities issued in 2006 and 2007, and backed by loans from former Thornburg Mortgage Inc and other lenders.

    But the judge said the ratings were shared with too small a group of investors to deserve the broad protection sought.

    “The court rejects the rating agency defendants’ arguments that the First Amendment provides any protection to them under the facts of this case,” U.S. District Judge James Browning in Albuquerque, New Mexico, wrote in a 273-page opinion.

    Browning nonetheless dismissed claims accusing Moody’s and Fitch, but not S&P, of misrepresentations, saying the investors did not adequately allege that the two agencies did not believe their ratings, or knowingly concealed their inaccuracy.

    He also said federal law preempts some arguments that the investors used to recover under New Mexico securities law.

    The judge said the investors may file an amended complaint, which had sought class-action status. If the state law claims went forward, it could provide an avenue for investors to go after the agencies in other states.

    Browning had denied the agencies’ motion to dismiss the complaint on September 30, without giving reasons.

    S&P, in a statement, called the First Amendment ruling “inconsistent” with other court rulings. Fitch spokesman Daniel Noonan said that agency is pleased that claims against it were dismissed. Moody’s and lawyers for the investors declined to comment or had no immediate comment.

    Credit Suisse Group AG and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc are among the other defendants in the case.

    Rating agencies have been widely faulted by investors, regulators and Congress for contributing to the global credit and financial crises that began in 2007 by issuing high ratings on debt that did not deserve it.

    Thornburg made “jumbo” home loans, larger than $417,000, to borrowers considered good credit risks, but collapsed after margin calls and a plunge in the value of mortgages it held.

    The Santa Fe, New Mexico-based lender filed for bankruptcy on May 1, 2009, and is now called TMST Inc.

    LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

    Investors led by two pension funds, the Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission Employees’ Retirement System, and the Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund in Illinois, claimed the agencies issued false and misleading investment-grade ratings for Thornburg securities, and were paid “substantial” sums that compromised their independence.

    But Browning said the ratings were distributed only to a “limited group” of investors, not the public at large.

    He also said that unlike publicly traded companies, the trusts from which the securities were issued were not “public figures” entitled to more protections.

    “The court rejects the rating agency defendants’ argument that the First Amendment protections regarding provably false opinions apply to their credit ratings,” Browning wrote.

    Rating agencies have largely been successful in raising the First Amendment defense.

    For example, in September, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit by then-Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray on behalf of pension funds, and said ratings were “predictive opinions.”

    In contrast, a Manhattan federal judge, in a 2009 ruling involving Morgan Stanley, said the defense does not apply when ratings were provided to a “select group of investors” in a private placement.

    S&P has asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission not to file threatened civil charges over its ratings for a 2007 offering, Delphinus CDO 2007-1.

    Posted by R. Wilson | November 26, 2011, 8:20 pm
  6. http://www.forbes.com/sites/brendancoffey/2011/10/26/the-four-companies-that-control-the-147-companies-that-own-everything/

    The Four Companies That Control The 147 Companies That Own Everything

    Excerpt: “… That means the real power to control the world lies with four companies: McGraw-Hill, which owns Standard & Poor’s, Northwestern Mutual, which owns Russell Investments, the index arm of which runs the benchmark Russell 1,000 and Russell 3,000, CME Group which owns 90% of Dow Jones Indexes, and Barclay’s, which took over Lehman Brothers and its Lehman Aggregate Bond Index, the dominant world bond fund index. Together, these four firms dominate the world of indexing. And in turn, that means they hold real sway over the world’s money …”

    Posted by R. Wilson | December 26, 2011, 10:42 am
  7. @R. Wilson: Nice find! I suspect that a certain faction of the Establishment shills & useful idiots will still keep blaming ‘the Jews’ for all this, however……they’re getting VERY desperate.

    Posted by Steven l. | December 26, 2011, 4:59 pm
  8. OMFG, yes S&P, it was just free speech. Very expensive free speech:

    Wall Street Journal
    Updated February 5, 2013, 12:37 a.m. ET

    U.S. Sues S&P Over Ratings
    Justice Department Says Endorsements of Risky Mortgage Bonds Fueled Crisis

    By JEAN EAGLESHAM, JEANNETTE NEUMANN and EVAN PEREZ

    The Justice Department sued Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services late Monday, alleging the firm ignored its own standards to rate mortgage bonds that imploded in the financial crisis and cost investors billions.

    The civil charges by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder against the New York company, one of the bond-rating industry’s three giants, are the first federal enforcement action against a credit-rating firm over the crisis. Several state attorneys general are likely to join.

    S&P said in a statement earlier Monday that the government suit would be “entirely without factual or legal merit,” and denied wrongdoing.

    After The Wall Street Journal reported Monday afternoon that the government intended to launch the civil case, S&P confirmed the expected lawsuit and said the rating firm was being punished unfairly by the U.S. government for “failing to predict” the housing meltdown or financial crisis.

    S&P said Monday that it “would be wrong” to contend that its ratings were “motivated by commercial considerations and not issued in good faith.”

    The suit alleges that S&P from September 2004 through October 2007 “knowingly and with the intent to defraud, devised, participated in, and executed a scheme to defraud investors in” CDOs and securities backed by residential mortgages.

    S&P “falsely represented that its credit ratings of RMBS and CDO tranches were objective, independent, uninfluenced by any conflicts of interest that might compromise S&P’s analytical judgment, and represented S&P’s true current opinion regarding the credit risks” of the securities, the lawsuit says.

    The firm’s “desire for increased revenue and market share” led it to “downplay and disregard the true extent of the credit risks,” the suit alleges.

    In 2011, S&P, Moody’s and the Fitch Ratings unit of Fimalac SA FIM.FR -1.69% and Hearst Corp. were accused by a Senate committee of giving overly rosy ratings to CDOs and then causing an “economic earthquake” by downgrading hundreds of the bonds when the scale of the housing collapse became clear.

    S&P has said its ratings are opinions protected by the First Amendment, and judges have thrown out dozens of suits based on that argument.

    The Justice Department is expected to seek a way around this defense by suing S&P under the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act, a 1989 law passed following the savings-and-loan crisis that imposes a relatively low burden of proof.

    “The Justice Department appears to be using an end-run strategy of trying to bypass the substantial barriers to suing rating agencies by dusting off FIRREA,” said Jeffrey Manns, a law professor at George Washington University.

    He added that a rating agency’s First Amendment defense could be vulnerable if the firm was a party to alleged wrongdoing by other parties—for example, if S&P knew that information supplied by an investment bank to rate a mortgage bond was misleading.

    The S&P case relies, in part, on the Justice Department’s view that the First Amendment wouldn’t protect a ratings firm if it defrauded investors by ignoring its own standards, according to people close to the investigation.

    S&P is no doubt terrified.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 5, 2013, 8:19 pm

Post a comment