The first criticism is that credit agency ratings (that is, the opinions offered by them not including the objective facts contained within their reporting, the best example would be the FICO score), are biased in some way towards the profit of banks and at the expense of the customer. This may or not be intentional. For example, an individual is usually not given a high credit rating initially, but usually must "prove himself" by using credit, many times unnecessarily (incurring expense), in order to build up a credit history. A similar dynamic operates in corporate borrowing.

Large corporate rating agencies like Standard & Poor's are critized for having too familiar a relationship with company management, possibly opening themselves to undue influence or the vulnerability of being misled. These agencies meet frequently in person with the management of many companies, and advise on actions the company should take to maintain a certain rating. Also, more generally, the largest agencies (Moody's and Standard & Poor's) are often seen as agents of soulless global capitalism and/or "Anglo-american" market forces.

Finally, because the rating agency business is itself reputation-based (why pay attention to a rating that isn't recognized by others in the market?), barriers to market entry are high, and the agencies are sometimes accused of being oligopolists. Of the large agencies, only Moody's is a separate, publicly-held corporation that discloses its financial results without dilution by non-ratings businesses. The high profit on Moody's revenues (>50% gross margin), which are consistent with the high barriers to entry, do nothing to allay market fears of monopoly pricing.

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).