text:
Credit rating agency

A credit rating agency (CRA, also called a ratings service) is a company that assigns credit ratings, which rate a debtor's ability to pay back debt by making timely principal and interest payments and the likelihood of default. An agency may rate the creditworthiness of issuers of debt obligations, of debt instruments, and in some cases, of the servicers of the underlying debt, but not of individual consumers.

Other forms of a rating agency include environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) rating agencies and the Chinese Social Credit System.

The debt instruments rated by CRAs include government bonds, corporate bonds, CDs, municipal bonds, preferred stock, and collateralized securities, such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.

The issuers of the obligations or securities may be companies, special purpose entities, state or local governments, non-profit organizations, or sovereign nations. A credit rating facilitates the trading of securities on a secondary market. It affects the interest rate that a security pays out, with higher ratings leading to lower interest rates. Individual consumers are rated for creditworthiness not by credit rating agencies but by credit bureaus (also called consumer reporting agencies or credit reference agencies), which issue credit scores.

The value of credit ratings for securities has been widely questioned. Hundreds of billions of securities that were given the agencies' highest ratings were downgraded to junk during the financial crisis of 2007–08. Rating downgrades during the European sovereign debt crisis of 2010–12 were blamed by EU officials for accelerating the crisis.

Credit rating is a highly concentrated industry, with the "Big Three" credit rating agencies controlling approximately 95% of the ratings business. Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's (S&P) together control 80% of the global market, and Fitch Ratings controls a further 15%. They are externalized sell-side functions for the marketing of securities.

Early history
When the United States began to expand to the west and other parts of the country, so did the distance of businesses to their customers. When businesses were close to those who purchased goods or services from them, it was easy for the merchants to extend credit to them, due to their proximity and the fact that merchants knew their customers personally and knew whether or not they would be able to pay them back. As trading distances increased, merchants no longer personally knew their customers and became wary of extending credit to people who they did not know in fear of them not being able to pay them back. Business owners' hesitation to extend credit to new customers led to the birth of the credit reporting industry.

Mercantile credit agencies—the precursors of today's rating agencies—were established in the wake of the financial crisis of 1837. These agencies rated the ability of merchants to pay their debts and consolidated these ratings in published guides. The first such agency was established in 1841 by Lewis Tappan in New York City. It was subsequently acquired by Robert Dun, who published its first ratings guide in 1859. Another early agency, John Bradstreet, formed in 1849 and published a ratings guide in 1857.

Credit rating agencies originated in the United States in the early 1900s, when ratings began to be applied to securities, specifically those related to the railroad bond market. In the United States, the construction of extensive railroad systems had led to the development of corporate bond issues to finance them, and therefore a bond market several times larger than in other countries. The bond markets in the Netherlands and Britain had been established longer but tended to be small, and revolved around sovereign governments that were trusted to honor their debts. Companies were founded to provide investors with financial information on the growing railroad industry, including Henry Varnum Poor's publishing company, which produced a publication compiling financial data about the railroad and canal industries. Following the 1907 financial crisis, demand rose for such independent market information, in particular for independent analyses of bond creditworthiness. In 1909, financial analyst John Moody issued a publication focused solely on railroad bonds. His ratings became the first to be published widely in an accessible format, and his company was the first to charge subscription fees to investors.

In 1913, the ratings publication by Moody's underwent two significant changes: it expanded its focus to include industrial firms and utilities, and it began to use a letter-rating system. For the first time, public securities were rated using a system borrowed from the mercantile credit rating agencies, using letters to indicate their creditworthiness. In the next few years, antecedents of the "Big Three" credit rating agencies were established. Poor's Publishing Company began issuing ratings in 1916, Standard Statistics Company in 1922, and the Fitch Publishing Company in 1924.

Post-Depression era
In the United States, the rating industry grew and consolidated rapidly following the passage of the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 and the separation of the securities business from banking. As the market grew beyond that of traditional investment banking institutions, new investors again called for increased transparency, leading to the passage of new, mandatory disclosure laws for issuers, and the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In 1936, regulation was introduced to prohibit banks from investing in bonds determined by "recognized rating manuals" (the forerunners of credit rating agencies) to be "speculative investment securities" ("junk bonds", in modern terminology). US banks were permitted to hold only "investment grade" bonds, and it was the ratings of Fitch, Moody's, Poor's, and Standard that legally determined which bonds were which. State insurance regulators approved similar requirements in the following decades.

From 1930 to 1980, the bonds and ratings of them were primarily relegated to American municipalities and American blue chip industrial firms. International "sovereign bond" rating shrivelled during the Great Depression to a handful of the most creditworthy countries, after a number of defaults of bonds issued by governments such as Germany's.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, ratings were extended to commercial paper and bank deposits. Also during that time, major agencies changed their business model by beginning to charge bond issuers as well as investors. The reasons for this change included a growing free rider problem related to the increasing availability of inexpensive photocopy machines and the increased complexity of the financial markets.

The rating agencies added levels of gradation to their rating systems. In 1973, Fitch added plus and minus symbols to its existing letter-rating system. The following year, Standard and Poor's did the same, and Moody's began using numbers for the same purpose in 1982.

Growth of bond market
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. In 1975, SEC rules began explicitly referencing credit ratings. For example, the commission changed its minimum capital requirements for broker-dealers, allowing smaller reserves for higher-rated bonds; the rating would be done by "nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations" (NRSROs). This referred to the "Big Three", but in time ten agencies (later six, due to consolidation) were identified by the SEC as NRSROs.

Rating agencies also grew in size and profitability as the number of issuers accessing the debt markets grew exponentially, both in the United States and abroad. By 2009 the worldwide bond market (total debt outstanding) reached an estimated $82.2 trillion, in 2009 dollars.

1980s–present
Two economic trends of the 1980s and 90s that brought significant expansion for the global capital market were
 * the move away from "intermediated" financing (bank loans) toward cheaper and longer-term "disintermediated" financing (tradable bonds and other fixed income securities), and
 * the global move away from state intervention and state-led industrial adjustment toward economic liberalism based on (among other things) global capital markets and arms-length relations between government and industry.

More debt securities meant more business for the Big Three agencies, which many investors depended on to judge the securities of the capital market. US government regulators also depended on the rating agencies; they allowed pension funds and money market funds to purchase only securities rated above certain levels.

A market for low-rated, high-yield "junk" bonds blossomed in the late 1970s, expanding securities financing to firms other than a few large, established blue chip corporations. Rating agencies also began to apply their ratings beyond bonds to counterparty risks, the performance risk of mortgage servicers, and the price volatility of mutual funds and mortgage-backed securities. Ratings were increasingly used in most developed countries' financial markets and in the "emerging markets" of the developing world. Moody's and S&P opened offices Europe, Japan, and particularly emerging markets. Non-American agencies also developed outside of the United States. Along with the largest US raters, one British, two Canadian and three Japanese firms were listed among the world's "most influential" rating agencies in the early 1990s by the Financial Times publication Credit Ratings International.

Structured finance was another growth area of growth. The "financial engineering" of the new "private-label" asset-backed securities—such as subprime mortgage-backed securities (MBS), collateralized debt obligations (CDO), "CDO-Squared", and "synthetic CDOs"—made them "harder to understand and to price" and became a profit center for rating agencies. By 2006, Moody's earned $881 million in revenue from structured finance. By December 2008, there were over $11 trillion structured finance debt securities outstanding in the US bond market.

The Big Three issued 97%–98% of all credit ratings in the United States and roughly 95% worldwide, giving them considerable pricing power. This and credit market expansion brought them profit margins of around 50% from 2004 through 2009.

As the influence and profitability of CRAs expanded, so did scrutiny and concern about their performance and alleged illegal practices. In 1996 the US Department of Justice launched an investigation into possible improper pressuring of issuers by Moody's in order to win business. Agencies were subjected to dozens of lawsuits by investors complaining of inaccurate ratings following the collapse of Enron, and especially after the US subprime mortgage crisis and subsequent financial crisis of 2007–2008. During that debacle, 73%—over $800 billion worth —of all mortgage-backed securities that one credit rating agency (Moody's) had rated triple-A in 2006 were downgraded to junk status two years later. In July 2008, SIFMA formed a global task force with members drawn from a cross-section of the financial services industry, including asset managers, underwriters, and issuers, and provided industry input to lawmakers and regulators in Europe and Asia, and was designated by the U.S. President's Working Group on Financial Markets as the private-sector group to provide the PWG with industry recommendations on credit rating matters. It published the "Recommendations of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Credit Rating Agency Task Force", which included a dozen recommendations to change the credit rating agency process.

Downgrades of European and US sovereign debt were also criticized. In August 2011, S&P downgraded the long-held triple-A rating of US securities. Since the spring of 2010, "one or more of the Big Three relegated Greece, Portugal, and Ireland to 'junk' status—a move that many EU officials say has accelerated a burgeoning European sovereign-debt crisis. In January 2012, amid continued eurozone instability, S&P downgraded nine eurozone countries, stripping France and Austria of their triple-A ratings."

Role in capital markets
Credit rating agencies assess the relative credit risk of specific debt securities or structured finance instruments and borrowing entities (issuers of debt), and in some cases the creditworthiness of governments and their securities. By serving as information intermediaries, CRAs theoretically reduce information costs, increase the pool of potential borrowers, and promote liquid markets. These functions may increase the supply of available risk capital in the market and promote economic growth.

Ratings use in bond market
Credit rating agencies provide assessments about the creditworthiness of bonds issued by corporations, governments, and packagers of asset-backed securities. In market practice, a significant bond issuance generally has a rating from one or two of the Big Three agencies.

CRAs theoretically provide investors with an independent evaluation and assessment of debt securities' creditworthiness. However, in recent decades the paying customers of CRAs have primarily not been buyers of securities but their issuers, raising the issue of conflict of interest (see below).

In addition, rating agencies have been liable—at least in US courts—for any losses incurred by the inaccuracy of their ratings only if it is proven that they knew the ratings were false or exhibited "reckless disregard for the truth". Otherwise, ratings are simply an expression of the agencies' informed opinions, protected as "free speech" under the First Amendment. As one rating agency disclaimer read: "The ratings ... are and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell, or hold any securities." Under an amendment to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, this protection has been removed, but how the law will be implemented remains to be determined by rules made by the SEC and decisions by courts.

To determine a bond's rating, a credit rating agency analyzes the accounts of the issuer and the legal agreements attached to the bond to produce what is effectively a forecast of the bond's chance of default, expected loss, or a similar metric. The metrics vary somewhat between the agencies. S&P's ratings reflect default probability, while ratings by Moody's reflect expected investor losses in the case of default. For corporate obligations, Fitch's ratings incorporate a measure of investor loss in the event of default, but its ratings on structured, project, and public finance obligations narrowly measure default risk. The process and criteria for rating a convertible bond are similar, although different enough that bonds and convertible bonds issued by the same entity may still receive different ratings. Some bank loans may receive ratings to assist in wider syndication and attract institutional investors.

The relative risks—the rating grades—are usually expressed through some variation of an alphabetical combination of lower- and uppercase letters, with either plus or minus signs or numbers added to further fine-tune the rating.

Fitch and S&P use (from the most creditworthy to the least) AAA, AA, A, and BBB for investment-grade long-term credit risk and BB, CCC, CC, C, and D for "speculative" long-term credit risk. Moody's long-term designators are Aaa, Aa, A, and Baa for investment grade and Ba, B, Caa, Ca, and C for speculative grade. Fitch and S&P use pluses and minuses (e.g., AA+ and AA−), and Moody's uses numbers (e.g., Aa1 and Aa3) to add further gradations.

Agencies do not attach a hard number of probability of default to each grade, preferring descriptive definitions, such as "the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is extremely strong", (from a Standard and Poor's definition of a AAA-rated bond) or "less vulnerable to non-payment than other speculative issues" (for a BB-rated bond). However, some studies have estimated the average risk and reward of bonds by rating. One study by Moody's claimed that over a "5-year time horizon", bonds that were given its highest rating (Aaa) had a "cumulative default rate" of just 0.18%, the next highest (Aa2) 0.28%, the next (Baa2) 2.11%, 8.82% for the next (Ba2), and 31.24% for the lowest it studied (B2). (See "Default rate" in "Estimated spreads and default rates by rating grade" table to right.) Over a longer time horizon, it stated, "the order is by and large, but not exactly, preserved".

Another study in the Journal of Finance calculated the additional interest rate or "spread" that corporate bonds pay over that of "riskless" US Treasury bonds, according to the bonds rating. (See "Basis point spread" in the table to right.) Looking at rated bonds from 1973 through 1989, the authors found a AAA-rated bond paid only 43 "basis points" (or 43/100ths of a percentage point) more than a Treasury bond (so that it would yield 3.43% if the Treasury bond yielded 3.00%). A CCC-rated "junk" (or speculative) bond, on the other hand, paid over 4% more than a Treasury bond on average (7.04% if the Treasury bond yielded 3.00%) over that period.

The market also follows the benefits from ratings that result from government regulations (see below), which often prohibit financial institutions from purchasing securities rated below a certain level. For example, in the United States, in accordance with two 1989 regulations, pension funds are prohibited from investing in asset-backed securities rated below A, and savings and loan associations from investing in securities rated below BBB.

CRAs provide "surveillance" (ongoing review of securities after their initial rating) and may change a security's rating if they feel its creditworthiness has changed. CRAs typically signal in advance their intention to consider rating changes. Fitch, Moody's, and S&P all use negative "outlook" notifications to indicate the potential for a downgrade within the next two years (one year in the case of speculative-grade credits). Negative "watch" notifications are used to indicate that a downgrade is likely within the next 90 days.

Accuracy and responsiveness
Critics maintain that this rating, outlooking, and watching of securities has not worked nearly as smoothly as agencies suggest. They point to near-defaults, defaults, and financial disasters not detected by the rating agencies' post-issuance surveillance, or ratings of troubled debt securities not downgraded until just before (or even after) bankruptcy. These include the 1970 Penn Central bankruptcy, the 1975 New York City fiscal crisis, the 1994 Orange County default, the Asian and Russian financial crises, the 1998 collapse of the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund, the 2001 Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies, and especially the 2007–8 subprime mortgage crisis.

In the 2001 Enron accounting scandal, the company's ratings remained at investment grade until four days before bankruptcy—though Enron's stock had been in sharp decline for several months —when "the outlines of its fraudulent practices" were first revealed. Critics complained that "not a single analyst at either Moody's or S&P lost his job as a result of missing the Enron fraud" and "management stayed the same". During the subprime crisis, when hundreds of billion of dollars' worth of triple-A-rated mortgage-backed securities were abruptly downgraded from triple-A to "junk" status within two years of issue, the CRAs' ratings were characterized by critics as "catastrophically misleading" and "provided little or no value". Ratings of preferred stocks also fared poorly. Despite over a year of rising mortgage delinquencies, Moody's continued to rate Freddie Mac's preferred stock triple-A until mid-2008, when it was downgraded to one tick above the junk bond level. Some empirical studies have also found that rather than a downgrade lowering the market price and raising the interest rates of corporate bonds, the cause and effect are reversed. Expanding yield spreads (i.e., declining value and quality) of corporate bonds precedes downgrades by agencies, suggesting it is the market that alerts the CRAs of trouble and not vice versa.

In February 2018, an investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission found a serious lack of detail and rigour in many of the ratings issued by agencies. ASIC examined six agencies, including the Australian arms of Fitch, Moody's and S&P Global Ratings (the other agencies were Best Asia-Pacific, Australia Ratings and Equifax Australia). It said agencies had often paid lip service to compliance. In one case, an agency had issued an annual compliance report only a single page in length, with scant discussion of methodology. In another case, a chief executive officer of a company had signed off on a report as though a board member. Also, overseas staff of ratings agencies had assigned credit ratings despite lacking the necessary accreditation.

Explanations of flaws
Defenders of credit rating agencies complain of the market's lack of appreciation. Argues Robert Clow, "When a company or sovereign nation pays its debt on time, the market barely takes momentary notice ... but let a country or corporation unexpectedly miss a payment or threaten default, and bondholders, lawyers and even regulators are quick to rush the field to protest the credit analyst's lapse." Others say that bonds assigned a low credit rating by rating agencies have been shown to default more frequently than bonds that receive a high credit rating, suggesting that ratings still serve as a useful indicator of credit risk.

A number of explanations of the rating agencies' inaccurate ratings and forecasts have been offered, especially in the wake of the subprime crisis:
 * The methodologies employed by agencies to rate and monitor securities may be inherently flawed. For instance, a 2008 report by the Financial Stability Forum singled out methodological shortcomings—especially inadequate historical data—as a contributing cause in the underestimating of the risk in structured finance products by the CRAs before the subprime mortgage crisis.
 * The ratings process relies on subjective judgments. This means that governments, for example, that are being rated can often inform and influence credit rating analysts during the review process
 * The rating agencies' interest in pleasing the issuers of securities, who are their paying customers and benefit from high ratings, creates a conflict with their interest in providing accurate ratings of securities for investors buying the securities. Issuers of securities benefit from higher ratings in that many of their customers—retail banks, pension funds, money market funds, insurance companies—are prohibited by law or otherwise restrained from buying securities below a certain rating.
 * The rating agencies may have been significantly understaffed during the subprime boom and thus unable to properly assess every debt instrument.
 * Agency analysts may be underpaid relative to similar positions at investment banks and Wall Street firms, resulting in a migration of credit rating analysts and the analysts' inside knowledge of rating procedures to higher-paying jobs at the banks and firms that issue the securities being rated, and thereby facilitating the manipulation of ratings by issuers.
 * The functional use of ratings as regulatory mechanisms may inflate their reputation for accuracy.

Excessive power
Conversely, the complaint has been made that agencies have too much power over issuers and that downgrades can even force troubled companies into bankruptcy. The lowering of a credit score by a CRA can create a vicious cycle and a self-fulfilling prophecy: not only do interest rates on securities rise, but other contracts with financial institutions may also be affected adversely, causing an increase in financing costs and an ensuing decrease in creditworthiness. Large loans to companies often contain a clause that makes the loan due in full if the company's credit rating is lowered beyond a certain point (usually from investment grade to "speculative"). The purpose of these "ratings triggers" is to ensure that the loan-making bank is able to lay claim to a weak company's assets before the company declares bankruptcy and a receiver is appointed to divide up the claims against the company. The effect of such ratings triggers, however, can be devastating: under a worst-case scenario, once the company's debt is downgraded by a CRA, the company's loans become due in full; if the company is incapable of paying all of these loans in full at once, it is forced into bankruptcy (a so-called death spiral). These ratings triggers were instrumental in the collapse of Enron. Since that time, major agencies have put extra effort into detecting them and discouraging their use, and the US SEC requires that public companies in the United States disclose their existence.

Reform laws
The 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandated improvements to the regulation of credit rating agencies and addressed several issues relating to the accuracy of credit ratings specifically. Under Dodd-Frank rules, agencies must publicly disclose how their ratings have performed over time and must provide additional information in their analyses so investors can make better decisions. An amendment to the act also specifies that ratings are not protected by the First Amendment as free speech but are "fundamentally commercial in character and should be subject to the same standards of liability and oversight as apply to auditors, securities analysts and investment bankers." Implementation of this amendment has proven difficult due to conflict between the SEC and the rating agencies. The Economist magazine credits the free speech defence at least in part for the fact that "41 legal actions targeting S&P have been dropped or dismissed" since the crisis.

In the European Union, there is no specific legislation governing contracts between issuers and credit rating agencies. General rules of contract law apply in full, although it is difficult to hold agencies liable for breach of contract. In 2012, an Australian federal court held Standard & Poor's liable for inaccurate ratings.

Ratings use in structured finance
Credit rating agencies play a key role in structured financial transactions such as asset-backed securities (ABS), residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), "synthetic CDOs", or derivatives.

Credit ratings for structured finance instruments may be distinguished from ratings for other debt securities in several important ways.

 * These securities are more complex and an accurate prognoses of repayment more difficult than with other debt ratings. This is because they are formed by pooling debt — usually consumer credit assets, such as mortgages, credit card or auto loans — and structured by "slicing" the pool into multiple "tranches", each with a different priority of payment. Tranches are often likened to buckets capturing cascading water, where the water of monthly or quarterly repayment flows down to the next bucket (tranche) only if the one above has been filled with its full share and is overflowing. The higher-up the bucket in the income stream, the lower its risk, the higher its credit rating, and lower its interest payment. This means the higher-level tranches have more credit worthiness than would a conventional unstructured, untranched bond with the same repayment income stream, and allows rating agencies to rate the tranches triple A or other high grades. Such securities are then eligible for purchase by pension funds and money market funds restricted to higher-rated debt, and for use by banks wanting to reduce costly capital requirements.
 * CRAs are not only paid for giving ratings to structured securities, but may be paid for advice on how to structure tranches and sometimes the underlying assets that secure the debt  to achieve ratings the issuer desires. This involves back and forth interaction and analysis between the sponsor of the trust that issues the security and the rating agency.  During this process, the sponsor may submit proposed structures to the agency for analysis and feedback until the sponsor is satisfied with the ratings of the different tranches.
 * Credit rating agencies employ varying methodologies to rate structured finance products, but generally focus on the type of pool of financial assets underlying the security and the proposed capital structure of the trust. This approach often involves a quantitative assessment in accordance with mathematical models, and may thus introduce a degree of model risk. However, bank models of risk assessment have proven less reliable than credit rating agency models, even in the base of large banks with sophisticated risk management procedures.

Aside from investors mentioned above—who are subject to ratings-based constraints in buying securities—some investors simply prefer that a structured finance product be rated by a credit rating agency. And not all structured finance products receive a credit rating agency rating. Ratings for complicated or risky CDOs are unusual and some issuers create structured products relying solely on internal analytics to assess credit risk.

Subprime mortgage boom and crisis
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has described the Big Three rating agencies as "key players in the process" of mortgage securitization, providing reassurance of the soundness of the securities to money manager investors with "no history in the mortgage business".

Credit rating agencies began issuing ratings for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in the mid-1970s. In subsequent years, the ratings were applied to securities backed by other types of assets. During the first years of the twenty-first century, demand for highly rated fixed income securities was high. Growth was particularly strong and profitable in the structured finance industry during the 2001-2006 subprime mortgage boom, and business with finance industry accounted for almost all of the revenue growth at at least one of the CRAs (Moody's).

From 2000 to 2007, Moody's rated nearly 45,000 mortgage-related securities as triple-A. In contrast only six (private sector) companies in the United States were given that top rating.

Rating agencies were even more important in rating collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). These securities mortgage/asset backed security tranches lower in the "waterfall" of repayment that could not be rated triple-A, but for whom buyers had to be found or the rest of the pool of mortgages and other assets could not be securitized. Rating agencies solved the problem by rating 70% to 80% of the CDO tranches triple-A. Still another innovative structured product most of whose tranches were also given high ratings was the "synthetic CDO". Cheaper and easier to create than ordinary "cash" CDOs, they paid insurance premium-like payments from credit default swap "insurance", instead of interest and principal payments from house mortgages. If the insured or "referenced" CDOs defaulted, investors lost their investment, which was paid out much like an insurance claim.

Conflict of interest
However, when it was discovered that the mortgages had been sold to buyers who could not pay them, massive numbers of securities were downgraded, the securitization "seized up" and the Great Recession ensued.

Critics blamed this underestimation of the risk of the securities on the conflict between two interests the CRAs have—rating securities accurately, and serving their customers, the security issuers who need high ratings to sell to investors subject to ratings-based constraints, such as pension funds and life insurance companies. While this conflict had existed for years, the combination of CRA focus on market share and earnings growth, the importance of structured finance to CRA profits, and pressure from issuers who began to 'shop around' for the best ratings brought the conflict to a head between 2000 and 2007.

A small number of arrangers of structured finance products—primarily investment banks—drive a large amount of business to the ratings agencies, and thus have a much greater potential to exert undue influence on a rating agency than a single corporate debt issuer.

A 2013 Swiss Finance Institute study of structured debt ratings from S&P, Moody's, and Fitch found that agencies provide better ratings for the structured products of issuers that provide them with more overall bilateral rating business. This effect was found to be particularly pronounced in the run-up to the subprime mortgage crisis. Alternative accounts of the agencies' inaccurate ratings before the crisis downplay the conflict of interest factor and focus instead on the agencies' overconfidence in rating securities, which stemmed from faith in their methodologies and past successes with subprime securitizations.

In the wake of the global financial crisis, various legal requirements were introduced to increase the transparency of structured finance ratings. The European Union now requires credit rating agencies to use an additional symbol with ratings for structured finance instruments in order to distinguish them from other rating categories.

Ratings use in sovereign debt
Credit rating agencies also issue credit ratings for sovereign borrowers, including national governments, states, municipalities, and sovereign-supported international entities. Sovereign borrowers are the largest debt borrowers in many financial markets. Governments from both advanced economies and emerging markets borrow money by issuing government bonds and selling them to private investors, either overseas or domestically. Governments from emerging and developing markets may also choose to borrow from other government and international organizations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Sovereign credit ratings represent an assessment by a rating agency of a sovereign's ability and willingness to repay its debt. The rating methodologies used to assess sovereign credit ratings are broadly similar to those used for corporate credit ratings, although the borrower's willingness to repay receives extra emphasis since national governments may be eligible for debt immunity under international law, thus complicating repayment obligations. In addition, credit assessments reflect not only the long-term perceived default risk, but also short- or immediate-term political and economic developments. Differences in sovereign ratings between agencies may reflect varying qualitative evaluations of the investment environment.

National governments may solicit credit ratings to generate investor interest and improve access to the international capital markets. Developing countries often depend on strong sovereign credit ratings to access funding in international bond markets. Once ratings for a sovereign have been initiated, the rating agency will continue to monitor for relevant developments and adjust its credit opinion accordingly.

A 2010 International Monetary Fund study concluded that ratings were a reasonably good indicator of sovereign default risk. However, credit rating agencies were criticized for failing to predict the 1997 Asian financial crisis and for downgrading countries in the midst of that turmoil. Similar criticisms emerged after recent credit downgrades to Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain, although credit ratings agencies had begun to downgrade peripheral Eurozone countries well before the Eurozone crisis began.

Conflict of interest in assigning sovereign ratings
As part of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, Congress ordered the U.S. SEC to develop a report, titled "Report on the Role and Function of Credit Rating Agencies in the Operation of the Securities Markets" detailing how credit ratings are used in U.S. regulation and the policy issues this use raises. Partly as a result of this report, in June 2003, the SEC published a "concept release" called "Rating Agencies and the Use of Credit Ratings under the Federal Securities Laws" that sought public comment on many of the issues raised in its report. Public comments on this concept release have also been published on the SEC's website.

In December 2004, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a Code of Conduct for CRAs that, among other things, is designed to address the types of conflicts of interest that CRAs face. All of the major CRAs have agreed to sign on to this Code of Conduct and it has been praised by regulators ranging from the European Commission to the US SEC.

Use by government regulators
Regulatory authorities and legislative bodies in the United States and other jurisdictions rely on credit rating agencies' assessments of a broad range of debt issuers, and thereby attach a regulatory function to their ratings. This regulatory role is a derivative function in that the agencies do not publish ratings for that purpose. Governing bodies at both the national and international level have woven credit ratings into minimum capital requirements for banks, allowable investment alternatives for many institutional investors, and similar restrictive regulations for insurance companies and other financial market participants.

The use of credit ratings by regulatory agencies is not a new phenomenon. In the 1930s, regulators in the United States used credit rating agency ratings to prohibit banks from investing in bonds that were deemed to be below investment grade. In the following decades, state regulators outlined a similar role for agency ratings in restricting insurance company investments. From 1975 to 2006, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recognized the largest and most credible agencies as Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, and relied on such agencies exclusively for distinguishing between grades of creditworthiness in various regulations under federal securities laws. The Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 created a voluntary registration system for CRAs that met a certain minimum criteria, and provided the SEC with broader oversight authority.

The practice of using credit rating agency ratings for regulatory purposes has since expanded globally. Today, financial market regulations in many countries contain extensive references to ratings. The Basel III accord, a global bank capital standardization effort, relies on credit ratings to calculate minimum capital standards and minimum liquidity ratios.

The extensive use of credit ratings for regulatory purposes can have a number of unintended effects. Because regulated market participants must follow minimum investment grade provisions, ratings changes across the investment/non-investment grade boundary may lead to strong market price fluctuations and potentially cause systemic reactions. The regulatory function granted to credit rating agencies may also adversely affect their original market information function of providing credit opinions.

Against this background and in the wake of criticism of credit rating agencies following the subprime mortgage crisis, legislators in the United States and other jurisdictions have commenced to reduce rating reliance in laws and regulations. The 2010 Dodd–Frank Act removes statutory references to credit rating agencies, and calls for federal regulators to review and modify existing regulations to avoid relying on credit ratings as the sole assessment of creditworthiness.

The Big Three agencies
Credit rating is a highly concentrated industry, with the "Big Three" credit rating agencies controlling approximately 95% of the ratings business. Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's (S&P) together control 80% of the global market, and Fitch Ratings controls a further 15%.

S&P is the largest of the three, with 1.2 million outstanding ratings and 1,416 analysts and supervisors; Moody's has 1 million outstanding ratings and 1,252 analysts and supervisors; and Fitch is the smallest, with approximately 350,000 outstanding ratings, and is sometimes used as an alternative to S&P and Moody's.

The three largest agencies are not the only sources of credit information. Many smaller rating agencies also exist, mostly serving non-US markets. All of the large securities firms have internal fixed income analysts who offer information about the risk and volatility of securities to their clients. And specialized risk consultants working in a variety of fields offer credit models and default estimates.

Market share concentration is not a new development in the credit rating industry. Since the establishment of the first agency in 1909, there have never been more than four credit rating agencies with significant market share. Even the Financial crisis of 2007–08—where the performance of the three rating agencies was dubbed "horrendous" by The Economist magazine —led to a drop in the share of the three by just one percent—from 98 to 97%.

The reason for the concentrated market structure is disputed. One widely cited opinion is that the Big Three's historical reputation within the financial industry creates a high barrier of entry for new entrants. Following the enactment of the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 in the US, seven additional rating agencies attained recognition from the SEC as nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSROs). While these other agencies remain niche players, some have gained market share following the Financial crisis of 2007–08, and in October 2012 several announced plans to join together and create a new organization called the Universal Credit Rating Group. The European Union has considered setting up a state-supported EU-based agency. In November 2013, credit ratings organizations from five countries (CPR of Portugal, CARE Rating of India, GCR of South Africa, MARC of Malaysia, and SR Rating of Brazil) joint ventured to launch ARC Ratings, a new global agency touted as an alternative to the "Big Three".

Other credit rating agencies
In addition to "the Big Three" of Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings, other agencies and rating companies include:

Infomerics Credit Rating Nepal Limited (Nepal), Acuité Ratings & Research Limited (India), A. M. Best (U.S.), Agusto & Co. (Nigeria), ARC Ratings (UK) & (EU), DataPro Limited (Nigeria), Capital Intelligence Ratings Limited (CIR) (Cyprus), CareEdge Ratings (India), China Lianhe Credit Rating Co., Ltd. (China), CSCI Pengyuan Credit Ratings Co., Ltd (China), China Chengxin Credit Rating Group (China), Credit Rating Agency Ltd (Zambia), Credit Rating Information and Services Limited (Bangladesh), CTRISKS (Hong Kong), Dagong Europe Credit Rating (Italy), DBRS (Canada), Dun & Bradstreet (U.S.), Egan-Jones Rating Company (U.S.), Global Credit Ratings Co. (South Africa), HR Ratings de México, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico), The Pakistan Credit Rating Agency Limited (PACRA) (Pakistan), ICRA Limited (India), Japan Credit Rating Agency (Japan), JCR VIS Credit Rating Company Ltd (Pakistan), Kroll Bond Rating Agency (U.S.), Levin and Goldstein (Zambia), Lianhe Ratings Global (Hong Kong), (Italy), Morningstar, Inc. (U.S.), Muros Ratings (Russia, alternative rating company), Public Sector Credit Solutions (U.S., not-for profit rating provider), Rapid Ratings International (U.S.), RusRating (Russia), SMERA Gradings & Ratings Private Limited (India), Universal Credit Rating Group (Hong Kong), Veda (Australia, previously known as Baycorp Advantage), Wikirating (Switzerland, alternative rating organization), Feller Rate Clasificadora de Riesgo (Chile), Humphreys Ltd (Chile, previously known as Moody's partner in Chile), National University of Singapore's Credit Research Initiative (Singapore, non-profit rating provider), Spread Research (independent credit research and rating agency, France), INC Rating (Poland), Scope Ratings GmbH (Germany).

Business models
Credit rating agencies generate revenue from a variety of activities related to the production and distribution of credit ratings. The sources of the revenue are generally the issuer of the securities or the investor. Most agencies operate under one or a combination of business models: the subscription model and the issuer-pays model. However, agencies may offer additional services using a combination of business models.

Under the subscription model, the credit rating agency does not make its ratings freely available to the market, so investors pay a subscription fee for access to ratings. This revenue provides the main source of agency income, although agencies may also provide other types of services. Under the issuer-pays model, agencies charge issuers a fee for providing credit rating assessments. This revenue stream allows issuer-pays credit rating agencies to make their ratings freely available to the broader market, especially via the Internet.

The subscription approach was the prevailing business model until the early 1970s, when Moody's, Fitch, and finally Standard & Poor's adopted the issuer-pays model. Several factors contributed to this transition, including increased investor demand for credit ratings, and widespread use of information sharing technology—such as fax machines and photocopiers—which allowed investors to freely share agencies' reports and undermined demand for subscriptions. Today, eight of the nine nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSRO) use the issuer-pays model, only Egan-Jones maintains an investor subscription service. Smaller, regional credit rating agencies may use either model. For example, China's oldest rating agency, Chengxin Credit Management Co., uses the issuer-pays model. The Universal Credit Ratings Group, formed by Beijing-based Dagong Global Credit Rating, Egan-Jones of the U.S. and Russia's RusRatings, uses the investor-pays model,  while Dagong Europe Credit Rating, the other joint-venture of Dagong Global Credit Rating, uses the issuer-pays model.

Critics argue that the issuer-pays model creates a potential conflict of interest because the agencies are paid by the organizations whose debt they rate. However, the subscription model is also seen to have disadvantages, as it restricts the ratings' availability to paying investors. Issuer-pays CRAs have argued that subscription-models can also be subject to conflicts of interest due to pressures from investors with strong preferences on product ratings. In 2010 Lace Financials, a subscriber-pays agency later acquired by Kroll Ratings, was fined by the SEC for violating securities rules to the benefit of its largest subscriber.

A 2009 World Bank report proposed a "hybrid" approach in which issuers who pay for ratings are required to seek additional scores from subscriber-based third parties. Other proposed alternatives include a "public-sector" model in which national governments fund the rating costs, and an "exchange-pays" model, in which stock and bond exchanges pay for the ratings. Crowd-sourced, collaborative models such as Wikirating have been suggested as an alternative to both the subscription and issuer-pays models, although it is a recent development as of the 2010, and not yet widely used.

Oligopoly produced by regulation
Agencies are sometimes accused of being oligopolists, because barriers to market entry are high and rating agency business is itself reputation-based (and the finance industry pays little attention to a rating that is not widely recognized). In 2003, the US SEC submitted a report to Congress detailing plans to launch an investigation into the anti-competitive practices of credit rating agencies and issues including conflicts of interest.

Think tanks such as the World Pensions Council (WPC) have argued that the Basel II/III "capital adequacy" norms favored at first essentially by the central banks of France, Germany and Switzerland (while the US and the UK were rather lukewarm) have unduly encouraged the use of ready-made opinions produced by oligopolistic rating agencies

Of the large agencies, only Moody's is a separate, publicly held corporation that discloses its financial results without dilution by non-ratings businesses, and its high profit margins (which at times have been greater than 50 percent of gross margin) can be construed as consistent with the type of returns one might expect in an industry which has high barriers to entry. Celebrated investor Warren Buffett described the company as "a natural duopoly", with "incredible" pricing power, when asked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission about his ownership of 15% of the company.

According to professor Frank Partnoy, the regulation of CRAs by the SEC and Federal Reserve Bank has eliminated competition between CRAs and practically forced market participants to use the services of the three big agencies, Standard and Poor's, Moody's and Fitch.

SEC Commissioner Kathleen Casey has said that these CRAs have acted much like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other companies that dominate the market because of government actions. When the CRAs gave ratings that were "catastrophically misleading, the large rating agencies enjoyed their most profitable years ever during the past decade."

To solve this problem, Ms. Casey (and others such as NYU professor Lawrence White ) have proposed removing the NRSRO rules completely. Professor Frank Partnoy suggests that the regulators use the results of the credit risk swap markets rather than the ratings of NRSROs.

The CRAs have made competing suggestions that would, instead, add further regulations that would make market entrance even more expensive than it is now.

title: Credit rating agency


text:
720°

720° is a skateboarding video game released in arcades by Atari Games in 1986. The player controls a skateboarder skating around a middle-class neighborhood. By doing jumps and tricks, the player can eventually acquire enough points to compete at a skate park. The game's name comes from the "ultimate" trick, turning a full 720° (two complete circles) in the air after jumping off a ramp.

Plot
From official materials:
 * "It's just you, your trusty skateboard, and a hundred bucks as you skate, jump, slide, spin and move through four levels of difficulty, picking up loose cash, earning money through events, and finally, earning a ticket to one of the big skate parks! If you're lucky, you'll get to buy some rad equipment to make you the coolest skateboarder alive".

Gameplay
The game begins with the player controlling a skateboarder skating around a middle-class neighborhood using common objects as ramps for jumps.

The player begins with a number of "tickets", each of which grants admission to one of four skate parks, or "events" in Skate City, the "hub" between the parks. When a park is entered, one ticket is expended. The player gains additional tickets from earning points. Whenever the player isn't in an event, a bar counts down the time remaining until the arrival of a swarm of killer bees accompanied by the caption of "SKATE OR DIE!". Once the bees arrive, the player still has a small amount of time in which to get to a park, but the longer the player delays, this the faster the bees become, until they are unavoidable. Getting caught by the bees ends the game, though on default settings the player may elect to continue by inserting more money. Reaching a park with a ticket gives the player the chance to earn points, medals and money with which to upgrade equipment, and resets the timer.

The player constantly races to perform stunts, both in the events and in the park itself, in order to earn the points needed to acquire tickets. Thus, the player's score is directly tied to the amount of time available to play the game. In order to win, the player must complete a total of sixteen events through four hubs, a difficult task.

Structure
The game consists of four levels each consisting of four events:
 * Ramp: the player climbs around a half-pipe structure, trying to gain more and more height and performing tricks in the air to earn the most possible points. This ends when the timer runs out.
 * Downhill: a long course consisting of slopes and banks must be navigated to reach a finish line. The quicker the player reaches the finish, the more points are earned.
 * Slalom: an obstacle course in which the player is required to pass between pairs of yellow flags scattered across the course. Each gate passed grants a little extra time, and scoring depends on time remaining upon crossing the finish line.
 * Jump: the player jumps from a series of ramps, attempting to hit a bull's-eye target off the screen. There are cryptic marks on the ramp before the jump that provide clues as to the location of the target. This ends when the timer runs out or the player crosses the finish line, whichever comes first.

Scattered through the levels are several "map" icons placed on the ground which when activated show a map with the roads, parks, shops, and the player's location marked on it. Also scattered about the level are hazards and obstacles; jumping over hazards earns points.

The player earns points and money for high scores in each event, and doing well at the events earns the cash needed to buy equipment that improves player performance, and a chance at a bronze, silver, or gold medal. Completing all four events in all four classes completes the game.

Equipment
There are four types of skating equipment to be purchased at different shops. The prices for each are the same, beginning at $25. Upon each return to Skate City after visiting a park, the price increases by $25, to a maximum of $250.

 * 1) Shoes: Allow higher jumps and faster acceleration.
 * 2) Board: Allows higher top speed.
 * 3) Pads: Give quicker recovery from wiping out.
 * 4) Helmet: Makes the player more aggressive, according to the console description, which translates to making the player spin faster.

Arcade cabinet
The speakers for the game are mounted atop the cabinet in a structure resembling a boombox, in line with the game's skate-rat theme. The display is larger than that of a typical arcade game and very high resolution (similar to that used for Paperboy). The joystick is rigidly mounted to a disc at a steep angle and moves in a circular fashion, instead of in compass directions like standard joysticks. The game also has two buttons, one for "kicking" (which refers not to actual "kicking", but to pushing the skate board with a foot for speed) and the other for jumping.

Development
The game program for the arcade version was written in BLISS.

Other versions
The game was released to the Commodore 64 (twice) in 1987, the Amstrad CPC and ZX Spectrum in 1988, the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) in 1989, and the Game Boy Color in 1999. There is also an unreleased port for the Atari Lynx.

The Amstrad CPC, ZX Spectrum, and the first Commodore 64 versions were developed by Tiertex Design Studios and published by U.S. Gold. Sinclair User described it as "US Gold's finest hour".

The Game Boy Color version was developed by Game Brains and published by Midway Games. It was originally released in March 1999 in North America and Europe.

Reception
The game received an overall positive reception among both users and critics. In 1995, Flux magazine ranked the game 79th on their "Top 100 Video Games", writing that it was "addicting" and completely unique for its time.

Legacy
Emulated versions of the game are included in Midway Arcade Treasures, released in 2003 and 2004, Midway Arcade Origins, released in 2012.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 720°


text:
Parlay Group

The Parlay Group was a technical industry consortium (founded 1998, ended around 2007) that specified APIs for the telephone network. These APIs enable the creation of services by organizations both inside and outside of the traditional carrier environment. In fact, it is hoped that services can be created by IT developers, rather than telephony experts.

Parlay/OSA
Parlay/OSA was an open API for the telephone network. It was developed by The Parlay Group, which worked closely with ETSI and 3GPP, which all co-publish it. Within 3GPP, Parlay is part of Open Services Access.

Parlay APIs include: call control, conferencing, user interaction (audio and text messaging, SMS/MMS), and billing. The APIs are specified in the CORBA Interface definition language and WSDL. The use of CORBA enables remote access between the Parlay gateway and the application code. A set of Java mappings allow the APIs to be invoked locally as well. A major goal of the APIs is to be independent of the underlying telephony network technology (e.g. CDMA, GSM, landline SS7).

Parlay X
In 2003 the Parlay Group released a new set of web services called Parlay X. These are a much simpler set of APIs intended to be used by a larger community of developers. The Parlay X web services include Third Party Call Control (3PCC), location and simple payment. The Parlay X specifications complement the more powerful but more complex Parlay APIs. Parlay X implementations are now (September 2004) in commercial service from BT and Sprint.

Parlay work historically stems from the TINA effort. Parlay is somewhat related to JAIN, and is currently (early 2003) completely unrelated to the Service Creation Community.

Parlay Technology
The objective of Parlay/OSA is to provide an API that is independent of the underlying networking technology and of the programming technology used to create new services. As a result, the Parlay/OSA APIs are specified in UML. There are then a set of realizations, for specific programming environments: CORBA/IDL, Java, and Web services specified by WSDL.

Parlay Framework
The role of the Parlay/OSA Framework was to provide a way for the network to authenticate applications using the Parlay/OSA API. The Framework also allows applications to discover the capabilities of the network, and provides management functions for handling fault and overload situations.

This is to ensure to a telecom network operator that any applications using the Parlay API cannot affect the security or integrity of the network.

Implementing Parlay
The Parlay/OSA specifications define an API, they do not say how the API is to be implemented.

The typical Parlay/OSA implementation adds a new network element - the Parlay/OSA Gateway, which implements the Framework. It may implement the individual service APIs, or may interact with other network elements such as switches to provide individual service capabilities such as call control or location. Some vendors treat the Parlay/OSA Gateway as a stand-alone network element (e.g., the Ericsson NRG, jNetX OSA/Parlay GW, AePONA Network Gateway (formerly known as Causeway), HERIT Parlay/Parlay X Gateway), others include this function in an IN Service Control Point (e.g., the Telcordia OSP).

Parlay and Web Services
The Parlay X APIs define a set of simple telecom-related Web services. Parlay X Version 1, published in May 2003, defines web services for: Third Party Call, Network Initiated Third Party Call, Send SMS, Receive SMS, Send Message, Receive Message, Amount Charging, Volume Charging, User Status and Terminal Location

Parlay X Version 2.1, published in June 2006, defines web services for: Third Party Call, Call Notification, Short Messaging, Multimedia Messaging, Payment, Account Management, Terminal Status, Terminal Location, Call Handling, Audio Call, Multimedia Conference, Address List Management, and Presence.

The current draft specifications for Parlay X 3.0 as of September 2007 defines web services for: Third Party Call, Call Notification, Short messaging, Multimedia Messaging, Payment, Account Management, Terminal Status, Terminal Location, Call Handling, Audio Call, Multimedia Conference, Address List Management, Presence, Message Broadcast, Geocoding, Application Driven QoS, Device Capabilities and Configuration, Multimedia Streaming control, Multimedia Multicast Session Management.

Web

 * Parlay/OSA at ETSI
 * Download specifications
 * Telecommunications Information Networking Architecture Consortium

Journal articles

 * Moerdijk, A-J; & Klostermann, L. Opening the Networks with Parlay/OSA: Standards and Aspects Behind the APIs. IEEE Network.  May/June 2003, 58–64.

Books

 * Unmehopa, Musa; Vemuri, Kumar; & Bennett, Andy. Parlay/OSA: From Standards to Reality. John Wiley, 2006. ISBN 0-470-02595-6
 * Jain, Ravi; Bakker, John-Luc; & Anjum, Farooq (2004). Programming Converged Networks: Call Control in Java, XML and Parlay/OSA,. Wiley Interscience, 2004. ISBN 0-471-26801-1
 * Mueller, Steve. APIs And Protocols For Convergent Network Services. McGraw-Hill, 2002. ISBN 0-07-138880-X
 * Zuidweg, Johan. Next Generation Intelligent Networks. Artech House, 2002. ISBN 1-58053-263-2

News

 * Let your mouse do the dialling (26 May 2004)., Financial Times, IT Review p. 3.
 * BT plc (26 April 2004). BT Wholesale Web Call Connect service: [broken] http://www.btplc.com/News/Pressreleasesandarticles/Corporatenewsreleases/2004/nr0426.htm   Press Release.

Related Company

 * Aepona Ltd. provides OSA/Parlay Gateway and Parlay X System: http://www.aepona.com
 * jNetX provides OSA/Parlay Gateway as Exposure/Integration Layer of N(x) Convergent Service Platform: http://www.jnetx.com
 * HERIT Inc. HERIT provides OSA/Parlay Gateway, Parlay AS and Parlay X System : http://www.herit.net
 * hSenid Mobile provides OSA/Parlay Gateway : https://web.archive.org/web/20090819152055/http://www.hsenidmobile.com/ServiceDeliveryPlatform.php

title: Parlay Group


text:
Linth

The Linth (pronounced "lint") is a Swiss river that rises near the village of Linthal in the mountains of the canton of Glarus, and eventually flows into the Obersee section of Lake Zurich. It is about 50 km in length.

The water power of the Linth was a main factor in the creation of the textile industry of the canton Glarus, and is today used to drive the Linth–Limmern power stations in its upper reaches.

The river and its upper valley forms the boundary between the mountain ranges of the Glarus Alps, to its east and south, and the Schwyzer Alps, to its west.

Course of the river
The river rises to the south-west of the village of Linthal, at the foot the Tödi mountain (elevation 3614 m). It collects the water from several glaciers, including the Clariden Glacier and the Biferten Glacier, as well as various tributary streams, including the Oberstafelbach, the Bifertenbach, the Sandbach, the Walenbach and the Limmerenbach. The last of these is dammed to create the Limmerensee, a part of the Linth–Limmern hydro-electric scheme.

The river then flows north to the village of Linthal, the highest significant settlement on the river, and onwards through the canton of Glarus villages of Rüti, Betschwanden, Diesbach, Hätzingen, Luchsingen, Leuggelbach, Haslen, Nidfurn and Schwanden. In Schwanden, the Linth is joined by one of its principal tributaries, the Sernf, which drains the south-eastern part of the canton of Glarus.

From Schwanden, the river continues to flow north through the villages of Mitlödi and Ennenda and the town of Glarus before reaching the village of Netstal. In Netstal, the Linth is joined by the Löntsch, which drains the Klöntalersee. The Linth then flows between the villages Näfels and Mollis, from where it formerly flowed in a northerly direction to a confluence with its tributary outfall from Lake Walen (Walensee) on the Linth Plain, and then across that plain in a westerly direction to its mouth at the head of the Obersee section of Lake Zurich.

As a result of the river regulation works (see below), the river is today diverted down an artificial channel in an easterly direction into Lake Walen. Another artificial channel (the Linth Channel) then takes the outfall of Lake Walen at Weesen and flows west through the Linth Plain and into the Obersee.

River regulation of the Linth
The taming of the Linth (Linthkorrektur) from 1807 to 1823 was one of the great engineering feats of the early 19th century, the earliest project of such a size undertaken by the new Swiss state, and a great example of solidarity in early Switzerland.

In the second half of the 18th century, the situation of the population in the lower Glarus valley, the Linth Plain and around Lake Walen, was pretty disastrous: cutting down the woods of the Glarus valley during early industrialization led to more and more gravel coming down with the yearly spring high water which was deposited at the joining of Linth and Maag, the outflow of the Lake Walen, in the plain between Lake Walen and Lake Zurich. This caused frequent floodings and backing up of water which made the level of Lake Walen rise several meters and turned the whole countryside into swamps. Agriculture became more and more difficult, the poverty increased, and diseases like tuberculosis and malaria were rampant.

The statesman, scientist, painter and manager Conrad Escher (later named "von der Linth") from Zurich developed and executed the plan of channeling the Linth into Lake Walen, where the gravel could be deposited without damage. A second channel, the Linth Channel, connected the lakes of Walen and Zurich, replacing the former Maag.

The river regulation put an end to the floodings, lowered the level of Lake Walen by some 5.4 meters which greatly improved living conditions for the population, and dried up the swamps, resulting in 20 km2 arable land in the Linth plain.

title: Linth


text:
Joseph Bell

Joseph Bell FRCSE (2 December 1837 – 4 October 1911) was a Scottish surgeon and lecturer at the medical school of the University of Edinburgh in the 19th century. He is best known as an inspiration for the literary character, Sherlock Holmes.

Early life
Bell was the son of Cecilia Barbara Craigie (1813–1882) and Benjamin Bell (1810–1883), and a great-grandson of Benjamin Bell, considered to be the first Scottish scientific surgeon. Bell studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh Medical School and received an MD in 1859 presenting the thesis "Epithelial cancer: its pathology and treatment". During his time as a student, he was a member of the Royal Medical Society and delivered a dissertation which is still in possession of the society today.

Career
In his instruction, Joseph Bell emphasized the importance of close observation in making a diagnosis. To illustrate this, he would often pick a stranger, and by observing him, deduce his occupation and recent activities. These skills caused him to be considered a pioneer in forensic science, (forensic pathology in particular) at a time when science was not yet widely used in criminal investigation.

He served as personal surgeon to Queen Victoria whenever she visited Scotland. He also published several medical textbooks. Bell was a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSEd), a justice of the peace, and a deputy lieutenant. In 1867 Bell was elected a member of the Harveian Society of Edinburgh and served as president in 1897. In 1876 he was elected a member of the Aesculapian Club. He was elected president of the RCSEd in 1887.

Bell wrote the book Manual of the Operations of Surgery, published in 1866.

Personal life
In 1883, Bell bought 2 Melville Crescent, a large townhouse, previously the home of the engineer John Miller of Leithen.

Joseph Bell died on 4 October 1911. He was buried at the Dean Cemetery in Edinburgh alongside his wife Edith Katherine (or Catherine) Erskine Murray (1840–1874) and their son Benjamin, and next to his parents' and brother's plots. The grave is mid-way along the north wall of the northern section to the original cemetery.

Marriage and children
The couple had five children, of whom only three survived infancy:
 * Jane (or Jean) Isabella Erskine Murray McCance (née Bell) (18 January 1866–1923)
 * Cecilia Craigie Stisted (née Bell) (7 December 1867-8 July 1955)
 * Benjamin Bell (14 July 1869-17 June 1893)
 * Katherine (or Catherine) Bell (27 June 1872-Deceased)
 * Stillborn son (1874)

Inspiration of Sherlock Holmes
Arthur Conan Doyle met Bell in 1877, and served as his clerk at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. Doyle later went on to write a series of popular stories featuring the fictional character Sherlock Holmes, who Doyle stated was loosely based on Bell and his observant ways. Bell was aware of this inspiration. According to Irving Wallace (in an essay originally in his book The Fabulous Originals but later republished and updated in his collection The Sunday Gentleman), Bell was involved in several police investigations, mostly in Scotland, such as the Ardlamont mystery of 1893, usually with forensic expert Professor Henry Littlejohn. Bell also gave his analysis of the Ripper murders to Scotland Yard.

Dramatization
The BBC television series Murder Rooms: The Dark Beginnings of Sherlock Holmes was a fictionalized account of Doyle's time as Bell's clerk. The series may have exaggerated Bell's criminal investigations as well as the degree to which Holmes was based on Bell (played by Ian Richardson), and it positioned Doyle in the role of a Dr. Watson to Bell's Holmes. The original one-off production, which led to the later series, was released on DVD and VHS in the US in 2003, titled Dr. Bell and Mr. Doyle – The Dark Beginnings of Sherlock Holmes.

In 2006, Stone Publishing House published a book, written by historian Dr. Robert Hume, aimed at schoolchildren titled Dr. Joseph Bell – the Original Sherlock Holmes.

In the Doctor Who episode "Tooth and Claw" in 2006, the time travelling adventurer known as the Doctor identifies himself as an ex-student of Bell to Queen Victoria.

The comic book Les dossiers du Professeur Bell by Joann Sfar is about the (fictional) supernatural adventures of Dr. Bell.

In episode 11, Season 5, of the Fox TV show House M.D., Wilson presents House with Joseph Bell's Manual Of the Operations of Surgery as a Christmas gift. The character of House is based on Holmes, who, as noted, was based in turn on Bell. In episode 14 of the show's eighth and final season, House briefly comes to believe that his biological father is a man named Thomas Bell, played by prominent Scottish actor Billy Connolly.

The novel Mr. Doyle & Dr. Bell (1997) by Howard Engel is a fictionalized account of Joseph Bell and his influence on Conan Doyle.

In Elementary, an American procedural drama television series that was introduced as a contemporary update of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories of Sherlock Holmes, Holmes and Watson often work with a Detective called Marcus Bell, which is likely a nod to the real-life Joseph Bell.

Memorial
A bronze plaque memorial was erected to Joseph Bell at 2 Melville Crescent in Edinburgh, his home for his final decades, on 8 October 2011, the centenary of his death. The plaque explains Bell's connection to Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes, and was organized and funded by the Japan Sherlock Holmes Club. The building is now the Japanese Consulate in Edinburgh.

The unveiling ceremony was attended by the several people involved in the erection of the plaque (principally Takeshi Shimizu) and representatives of various Sherlock Holmes clubs and societies. All present gave a short speech on their connections to either Holmes or the project, and a speech from Professor Owen Dudley Edwards. The plaque was created and cast by Powderhall Bronze of Edinburgh.

title: Joseph Bell


text:
Pebble in the Sky

Pebble in the Sky is a science fiction novel by American writer Isaac Asimov, published in 1950. This work is his first novel — parts of the Foundation series had appeared from 1942 onwards in magazines, but Foundation was not published in book form until 1951. The original Foundation books are also a string of linked episodes, whereas this is a complete story involving a single group of characters.

Publication history
Pebble in the Sky was originally written in the summer of 1947 under the title "Grow Old with Me" for Startling Stories, whose editor Sam Merwin, Jr. had approached Asimov to write a forty thousand word short novel for the magazine. The title was an adaption of Robert Browning's Rabbi ben Ezra, the first few lines of which (starting "Grow old along with me! / The best is yet to be...") were included in the final novel. It was rejected by Startling Stories on the basis that the magazine's emphasis was more on adventure than science-heavy fiction (despite the editor inviting Asimov to write the latter as an experiment for the magazine), and again by John W. Campbell, Asimov's usual editor. In 1949, Doubleday editor Walter I. Bradbury accepted the story on the suggestion of Frederik Pohl, on the condition it was expanded to seventy thousand words and the title changed to something more science fiction oriented, and it was published in January 1950 as Pebble in the Sky. "Grow Old With Me" was later published in its original form along with other draft stories in The Alternate Asimovs in 1986.

In Before the Golden Age, Asimov wrote that Pebble in the Sky was influenced by the short story "Proxima Centauri" by Murray Leinster.

The book has been reprinted many times: in 1953 by Galaxy, in 1957 and 1964 by Bantam, in 1958 and 1982 by Corgi as the first British edition, in 1968 by Sidgwick & Jackson in hardcover, in 1969, 1972, 1974 (both paper and hard cover editions) and 1981 by Sphere Science Fiction, in 1971 and 1975 by Fawcett Books, in 1983 by Del Rey Books, in 1986 in hardcover by Grafton and in 1990 again by Doubleday in hardcover; in addition, it was reprinted as part of the Empire series, in 1986 by Ballantine Books, in 1992 by Spectra and in 2010 by Orb Books, in both print and Kindle editions.

Pebble in the Sky was also included in a number of omnibuses: first in 1952 in Triangle along with the others in the Empire series (The Stars, Like Dust and The Currents of Space which had only been published earlier that year), in 1978 in The Far Ends of Time and Earth along with The End of Eternity and the short story collection Earth Is Room Enough, and again with the Empire series novels in 2002 as The Empire Novels.

The book was adapted for radio by Ernest Kinoy for Dimension X as "Pebble in the Sky"; first broadcast in 1951 it was released as an audio download in 2007 by Radio Spirits, and again in 2011.

Story background
The book begins with a retired tailor from the mid-20th century, who is accidentally pitched forward into the future. By then, Earth has become radioactive and is a low-status part of a vast Galactic Empire. There is both a mystery and a power-struggle, and a lot of debate and human choices. The protagonist is a very ordinary man, rather than the more typical space opera hero.

This book takes place in the same universe as the Foundation series. Earth is part of the Empire of Trantor, later the setting for Hari Seldon's invention of psychohistory. Asimov returned to the radioactive-Earth theme in The Stars, Like Dust; The Currents of Space; and Foundation and Earth. He would explore it most fully in Robots and Empire.

Pebble in the Sky has been grouped along with The Stars, Like Dust and The Currents of Space as the so-called Galactic Empire series. However, these are only loosely connected, occurring between the era of the Spacers and the Foundation series, but not otherwise overlapping in time, location, or theme.

In this work, unlike The End of Eternity, the time travel is one-way and uncontrolled. It is unlikely that the technologies are related, since, according to Andrew Harlan, the energy requirements for transporting a human with the Eternity's technology far exceed the capabilities of twentieth century Earth.

One element of the novel Asimov was particularly fond of was the inclusion of a scene of exposition conducted over the course of a game of chess between two of the characters. By recounting all the moves, Asimov reacted against the common tendency of novelistic portrayals of chess games to neglect the action on the board. The game that he chose to present was a victory by Grigory Levenfish (black) over Boris Verlinsky (white) in Moscow in 1924, one which gained the victor a brilliancy-prize.

Plot summary
While walking down the street in Chicago, Joseph Schwartz, a retired tailor, is the unwitting victim of a nearby nuclear laboratory accident, by means of which he is instantaneously transported tens of thousands of years into the future (50,000 years, by one character's estimate, a figure later retconned by future Asimov works as a "mistake"). He finds himself in a place he does not recognize, and due to apparent changes in the spoken language that far into the future, he is unable to communicate with anyone. He wanders into a farm, and is taken in by the couple that lives there. They mistake him for a mentally deficient person, and they secretly offer him as a subject for an experimental procedure to increase his mental abilities. The procedure, which has killed several subjects, works in his case, and he finds that he can quickly learn to speak the current lingua franca. He also slowly realizes that the procedure has given him strong telepathic abilities, including the ability to project his thoughts to the point of killing or injuring a person.

The Earth, at this time, is seen by the rest of the Galactic Empire as a rebellious planet — it has rebelled three times in the past — and the inhabitants are widely frowned upon and discriminated against. Earth also has several large radioactive areas, although the cause is never really described. With large uninhabitable areas, it is a very poor planet, and anyone who is unable to work is legally required to be euthanized. The people of the Earth must also be executed when they reach the age of sixty, a procedure known as "The Sixty", with very few exceptions; mainly for people who have made significant contributions to society. That is a problem for Schwartz, who is now sixty-two years old.

The Earth is part of the Trantorian Galactic Empire, with a resident Procurator (who lives in a domed town in the high Himalayas) and a Galactic military garrison, but in practice it is ruled by a group of Earth-centered "religious fanatics" who believe in the ultimate superiority of Earthlings. They have created a new, deadly supervirus that they plan to use to kill or subjugate the rest of the Empire, and to avenge themselves for the way their planet has been treated by the galaxy at large. Citizens of the Empire are unaware of Earth's lethal viruses, and mistakenly believe it is Earth's radioactive environment that causes the characteristic syndrome of "Radiation Fever," and that Earthlings pose the Empire no threat.

Joseph Schwartz, along with Affret Shekt, the scientist who developed the new device that boosted Schwartz's mental powers, his daughter Pola Shekt, and visiting archaeologist Bel Arvardan, are captured by the rebels, but they escape with the help of Schwartz's new mental abilities, and they are narrowly able to stop the plan to release the virus. Schwartz uses his mental abilities to provoke a pilot from the Imperial garrison into bombing the site where the arsenal of the super-virus exists.

The book ends on a hopeful note — perhaps the Empire can be persuaded to restore the Earth and reintroduce uncontaminated soil.

Reception
Boucher and McComas were disappointed by the novel, saying that despite Asimov's good ideas, "his heavy treatment and routine plot are disappointing. L. Sprague de Camp, however, recommended the novel highly, praising it as "excellent; one of the few really mature and professional jobs available in book form [in 1950]. . . . Asimov's characterization is good, his suspense is almost unbearable, and his handling of the theme of group prejudice is masterful." Galaxy Science Fiction's Floyd C. Gale told readers "Don't miss" it and the other Empire novels. Lester del Rey found the novel "a first-rate story."

Chronology
The 50,000-year estimate is at odds with the chronology given in Asimov's later novels, in particular Foundation and Earth and The Caves of Steel. The latter novel indicates that the robot R. Daneel Olivaw was constructed some three thousand years after the founding of New York City. Foundation and Earth, in its concluding scene, establishes that Daneel survives into the Interregnum period, after the First Galactic Empire collapses. He gives his age as (roughly) twenty thousand years. The Galactic Era dating system, to which most of Asimov's Foundation Series adheres, places Foundation and Earth approximately twelve thousand years after the events of Pebble in the Sky. Adding up all the differences, Joseph Schwartz's time displacement ultimately transported him only some eleven millennia into the future.

In Foundation, the Galactic Empire has existed for 12,000 years. Nuclear power is believed to have existed for 50,000 years, even though this is long after the era of Pebble in the Sky.

Historical analogy
The obvious historical analogy is between Earth in the book and the historical situation of Judea under the Roman Empire, with the fanatics plotting rebellion against Trantor being modeled upon the Zealots who in 66 AD launched the First Jewish–Roman War which ended with destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, an event of Jewish history. This fits well in the general scheme of Trantor being the equivalent of Rome, and Trantor's later decline in the Foundation Series being the equivalent of Rome's decline centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem. Asimov's position in this ancient historical controversy is clear, with the fanatic rebels being the undoubted villains of the book. It is noteworthy that Joseph Schwartz – the man from the past who ultimately foils the fanatics' plot – is clearly Jewish, and his action in effect saves the people of the future Earth from re-enacting the great tragedy of Schwartz's own people.

The fate of Earth
In Foundation and Earth, it is described that the Empire began a restoration of Earth, but that this was subsequently abandoned. There are also descendants of the old population at "Alpha," a planet circling one of the suns of Alpha Centauri. They were settled there by the Empire, which intended to make a whole terraformed world, but which ultimately produced just one large island. Janov Pelorat stated that, if he understood the legends of Alpha correctly, the start of the restoration attempt was right before a period of much larger problems for the Empire. Daneel explains that he had a role in attempting the restoration of Earth's soil and also settling humans at "Alpha," but achieved less than he had wanted. Whether he was personally involved in the actual events of Pebble is not discussed, but strongly implied. It is left open that other refugees from Earth might have settled elsewhere in the universe.

Other media
On June 17, 1951, the NBC radio network broadcast a much abbreviated radio dramatization of Pebble in the Sky in the science fiction anthology series Dimension X. In this much abbreviated version (only 25 minutes), the whole story of time travel was cut out with Bel and Pola being the main characters. The ending was quite different, since the virus was released, leaving Earth alone as "a pebble in the sky".

title: Pebble in the Sky


text:
Punched card sorter

A punched card sorter is a machine for sorting decks of punched cards.

Sorting was a major activity in most facilities that processed data on punched cards using unit record equipment. The work flow of many processes required decks of cards to be put into some specific order as determined by the data punched in the cards. The same deck might be sorted differently for different processing steps. A popular family of sorters, the IBM 80 series sorters, sorted input cards into one of 13 pockets depending on the holes punched in a selected column and the sorter's settings.

Basic operation
The basic operation of a card sorter is to take a punched card, examine a single column, and place the card into a selected pocket. There are twelve rows on a punched card, and thirteen pockets in the sorter; one pocket is for blanks, rejects, and errors.

Cards are normally passed through the sorter face down with the bottom edge ("9-edge") first. A small metal brush or optical sensor is positioned so that, as each card goes through the sorter, one column passes under the brush or optical sensor. The holes sensed in that column together with the settings of the sorter controls determine which pocket the card is to be directed to. This directing is done by slipping the card into a stack of metal strips (or chute blades) that run the length of the sorter feed mechanism. Each blade ends above one of the output pockets, and the card is thus routed to the designated pocket.

Sorting operations
Multiple column sorting was commonly done by first sorting the least significant column, then proceeding, column by column, to the most significant column. This is called a least significant digit radix sort.

Numeric columns have one punch in rows 0-9, possibly a sign overpunch in rows 11-12, and can be sorted in a single pass through the sorter. Alphabetic columns have a zone punch in rows 12, 11, or 0, a digit punch in one of the rows 1-9, and can be sorted by passing some or all of the cards through the sorter twice on that column. For more details of punched card codes see Punched card.

There were several methods used for alphabetical sorting, depending on the features provided by the particular sorter and the characteristics of the data to be sorted. A commonly used method on the 082 and earlier sorters was to sort the cards twice on the same column, first on digit rows 1-9, then on the zone rows 12, 11, and 0 (or vice versa, zone rows first then digit rows). Operator switches allow zone-sorting by "switching off" rows 1-9 for the second pass of the card for each column.

Other special characters and punctuation marks were added to the card code, involving as many as three punches per column (and in 1964 with the introduction of EBCDIC as many as six punches per column). The 083 and 084 sorters recognized these multiple digit or multiple zone punches, sorting them to the error pocket.

Earlier sorters
Original census sorting box, 1890, manual.

Sorting cards became an issue during the 1900 agricultural census, so Herman Hollerith's company developed the 1901 Hollerith Automatic Horizontal Sorter, a sorter with horizontal pockets.

In 1908, he designed the more compact Hollerith 070 Vertical Sorting Machine that sorted 250 cards per minute.

The Type 71 Vertical Sorter came out in 1928. It had 12 pockets that could hold 80 cards. It could sort 150 cards per minute.

The Type 75, Model 1, 19??, 400 cards per minute

The Type 75, Model 2, 19??, 250 cards per minute

IBM 80 series Sorters
Card Sorters in the IBM 80 series included:
 * IBM 80 Electric Punched Card Sorting Machine, model 1, Introduced by IBM in 1925, 450 cards per minute. This sorter was almost twice the speed of the older Hollerith 70 vertical sorter and used an entirely new magnetically operated horizontal design. At the close of 1943, IBM had 10,200 of these units on rental.
 * '''IBM 80, model 2, 192?, 250 cards per minute
 * IBM 81 Sorter, ????
 * IBM 82 Sorter, 1949. Sorted cards at 650/minute
 * IBM 83 Sorter, 1955. Sorted cards at 1000/minute
 * IBM 84 Sorter, 1959. Sorted cards at 2000/minute

In August 1957, a basic 082 rented for $55 per month; an 083 for twice that. By 1969, only the 82, 83 & 84 were made available for rental by IBM.

Modern card sorters
In the early 2020s, TCG Machines introduced a card sorting machine to process trading card game cards. The punched cards and brushes in these modern sorters have been replaced with image sensors (cameras) and computer vision technology, but their form and operation remain essentially identical to that of their historical predecessors.

title: Punched card sorter