View previous stories
	More protection needed for Russian journos: rights groups by Reuters & agencies Russia   June 2009   Politkovskaya murder case to be retried. (Reuters)   Russia"s Supreme Court has overturned the acquittal of three men who stood trial over the murder of investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya.   The three men who had been charged with assisting in the 2006 shooting of Ms Politkovskaya were acquitted by a jury in February. The prosecution has welcomed the latest development and a defence lawyer said it was expected. A gunman shot Ms Politkovskaya in the entrance of her central Moscow apartment block on October 7, 2006.   After a four-month trial, a jury ruled in February that brothers Dzhabrail and Ibragim Makhmudov were not guilty of acting as accomplices in the murder and cleared former police officer Sergei Khadzhikurbanov of organising the crime.   Ms Politkovskaya"s supporters and human rights groups have been highly critical of the case, particularly because the suspected gunman is still at large and the mastermind behind the killing has not been identified.   Feb 2009   The acquittal of three men over the murder of a prominent Russian journalist in Moscow has sparked anger among her supporters.   Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead outside her home in Moscow in 2006. Human rights groups say the case was mishandled and they have called for greater protection for journalists in Russia.   After months of detention, the three men accused of being involved in Ms Politkovskaya"s murder were delighted to head out of the Moscow courtroom and into the cold, fresh air as soon as they heard the jury return "not guilty" verdicts because of insufficient evidence.   Many have felt bitter disappointment about the way the investigation into the murder of ms Politkovskaya has been handled.   Defence lawyers, including Valery Chernikov may have been delighted with the verdicts in this trial, but they had nothing kind to say about the case that put their clients in court. "It"s been such a fiasco, that the country, the government and the prosecutor-general can"t let it go without giving it their attention."   Another defence lawyer, Murad Musaev, said there would be no medals for the investigators. "He"s going to be asked to find the real criminals, because the nation is beginning to ask questions."   In fact, many around the world have been asking questions about the Politkovskaya case, ever since the acclaimed author and journalist was shot dead outside her Moscow apartment in October 2006.   She had been renowned for her reporting on human rights abuses in conflict-torn Chechnya and for her criticism of the Putin presidency and some of its policies. Her journalism had won her praise and produced high-powered enemies.   None of the three at the centre of this trial had been accused of being Ms Politkovskaya"s killer. Investigators say a brother of two of the former defendants was the gunman, but he has yet to be found. Even the mastermind of the murder has not been revealed.   Outside the court, the Politkovskaya family"s lawyer, Karina Moskalenko slammed the investigation as inefficient and demanded investigators do more to solve this case. "We want the real murderer and we will achieve that."   The slain journalist"s children and former colleagues have told a media conference they were not surprised by the verdict, but are angry about the investigation and trial.   Sergey Sokolov is chief editor of Novaya Gazeta, where Ms Politkovskaya worked. }This is a verdict against the entire legal system that has been ineffective from beginning to end" he said.   Elsa Vidal, a member of the press freedom group Reporters Without Borders, says the Politkovskaya murder is the highest-profile case in a country where being a journalist can be highly dangerous. The organisation says in the past nine years, 21 journalists have been killed in Russia because of their job.   "They were expecting independent and impartial justice and that has not been the case so it is casting a very bad shadow on Russian justice," she said. "The question is the question of impunity.   "So we think there is a need for the law to effectively protect journalists but more over there is a real need for the authorities to get on this case and to give clear instruction to the judges and to the police men in charge of investigations concerning journalists."
	What Gave Rise to the Global Financial Crisis? by Alexandra Basak Russell University of Iowa   Credit Rating Agencies Failed to Properly Assess the Risk of Mortgage-Backed Securities and Their Derivatives.   Some economists, argue that private credit rating agencies were the core cause of the global credit crisis. For all debt instruments in the United States, including mortgage-backed securities, three main private credit rating agencies—Moody’s Investor Services Inc. (Moody’s), Fitch Ratings Ltd. (Fitch), and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (S&P)—use mathematical models to evaluate the risk of a particular security to investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires banks, insurance companies, and pension managers to purchase only high-quality debt instruments, the quality of which are judged by ratings agencies.   Several problems arose from the determinations made by the credit rating agencies that fueled the subprime mortgage crisis. In July 2008, an SEC report confirmed that the major ratings firms disregarded conflict-of-interest guidelines, considered the interests of their Wall Street clients and their own revenue when assigning scores, and groundlessly inflated values to stay competitive with other agencies.   First, the credit rating agencies made mortgage securities seem much safer than they ultimately were by giving them high ratings that are normally reserved for investments involving little risk. In rating these securities, credit rating agencies made optimistic assumptions about the default rates on subprime mortgages that were later proved inaccurate. Yet, none of the agencies had written comprehensive procedures for rating the new breeds of securities. Agencies became overwhelmed by the volume and sophistication of the securities as the number of mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives began to grow in 2002. They consequently began to cut corners, assigning a rating after evaluating only part of a deal''s risk.   Second, the issuers of the securities paid these private agencies to rate the securities, inevitably creating a conflict of interest. While investors assumed that the firms’ analyses were independent and diligent, the SEC report showed that this was not always the case. According to New York Times columnist Josh Rosner, the top three agencies have long advised investment banks and hedge funds on how to develop questionable financial products that would still achieve a favorable rating.   Third, although it is commonplace for investment banks and other financial institutions to pay agencies to rate the securities they sell, published SEC methodologies require credit rating agency analysts to be unaware of the profits associated with the assets they assess. This was often not the case. The SEC report found that analysts were privy to e-mails and meetings that discussed agency profits earned from financial institutions. Auditing procedures were disorganized, unaccountable, and varied significantly among agencies.   In early July 2008, Moody’s and S&P suddenly slashed ratings for securities that were previously deemed to be of the highest quality. The downgrades damaged investor confidence, and made the securities hard to sell to investors. As investors saw the value of their assets decline, they became even less willing to invest. This in turn contracted credit even further as lending institutions could not use securitization to remove assets from their balance sheets and therefore could not free up capital to lend to customers. A subsequent E-book section provides more detailed information on credit rating agencies.   * Visit the link below to access the complete paper. Visit the related web page
	View more stories