Dear Editor,

It

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.

If

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.

Michael Hansen

Phnom Penh

Send letters to:

[email protected] or P.O.鈥圔ox 146, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The

Post reserves the right to edit letters to a shorter length.