is regrettable the Economist Intelligence Unit did not use simple and
clear English to outline the reasons why the March 19 report might not
give accurate predictions. But, perhaps, this is not a surprise given
that much of the present financial crisis can be laid at the door of
investments where simplicity and clarity were notable by their absence.
As a journal The Economist has always taken a positive view of the
way in which the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism has developed. Now the
emperor has proved to be naked, and people everywhere, particularly in
the developing world, have a right to be suspicious of organisations
shown to have fallen well below legitimate expectations, and should
think twice about trusting those "respected" institutions again. Let me
give an example. Moody's, the American rating agency, is justly and
roundly criticised for giving high ratings to securities that were, in
fact, toxic. Go into any ACLEDA bank and you will see an international
"state-of-banks" chart on the wall, which is drawn on information
provided by that agency. I would suggest that ACLEDA, a well-run and
prudent institution, is a stronger bank than this chart would suggest.
I were a board member, I would press for the charts to be removed, as
the cloud hanging over Moody's will take a long time to disperse.
Send letters to:
firstname.lastname@example.org or P.O.鈥圔ox 146, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The
Post reserves the right to edit letters to a shorter length.