The cited record supports the material proposition.
The SEC said in September 2024 that S&P Global Ratings agreed to pay a US$20 million penalty for failures to keep electronic communications and admitted the facts in its order.
- About
- S&P Global Ratings
- Claim made by
- US Securities and Exchange Commission, regulator statement
- Published
- 3 September 2024
- Evidence score
- 93 How it was scored
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026
Why this label
The SEC release states the US$20 million penalty, the failures to maintain and preserve electronic communications and the firms' admission of the facts in their ordersS3. S&P Global Ratings confirmed the settlement and the penalty the same day and said the order recognised its remedial acts and cooperationS4. The admission covers recordkeeping only. The release makes no finding about the accuracy of any rating. The order itself was not read, so the detail rests on the release.
Current procedural position
Settled SEC administrative proceeding with admissions, announced on 3 September 2024S3. Final.
Record supporting the assessment
S&P Global Ratings agreed to pay a $20 million civil penalty
The firms admitted the facts set forth in their respective SEC orders
Conflicting or limiting record
No record located that conflicts with this assessment.
Evidence score: 93 of 100
The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of S&P Global Ratings. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.
| Component | Points | Max | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition? | 28 | 30 | An SEC release is a competent record of its own enforcement action. |
| DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts? | 19 | 20 | The release states the penalty and the admission directly. |
| CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point? | 13 | 15 | The company's statement confirms the settlement and amount. |
| Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes? | 14 | 15 | A settled order with admissions is final. |
| CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments? | 9 | 10 | No later change to the order was found as of October 2026. |
| ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment? | 10 | 10 | Both releases are public. |
| Total | 93 | 100 |
Timeline
Related cases
- In the Matter of S&P Global RatingsUS Securities and Exchange Commission. Regulatory. Not published.Stage: Settled order with admissions.
- US$20 million civil penalty for recordkeeping failuresS3
Responses
- S&P Global Ratings, 3 September 2024: S&P Global Ratings said it was pleased to have concluded this matter and noted the SEC recognised its cooperation.S4
Revision history
- Assessment first published with label Supported.
Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.
Sources
- S3Tier A SEC Charges Six Credit Rating Agencies with Significant Recordkeeping FailuresUS Securities and Exchange Commission. Regulator press release. 3 September 2024.Supports the US$20 million penalty and the admission of facts. It does not address the quality of any rating.
- S4Tier B S&P Global Ratings Reaches Settlement With SECS&P Global Ratings. Company statement. 3 September 2024.Company confirmation of the SEC settlement and its description of itself as a division of S&P Global. It is the company's own account.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
Other claims about S&P Global Ratings
- Partly supported83A senior Justice Department official said in February 2015 that S&P had admitted facts that make clear its own unlawful role in the financial crisis.Regulator statement, 3 February 20154 records citedFraud
- Outdated82Lawyers for S&P argued in 2013 that the Justice Department suit was retaliation for the August 2011 downgrade of the United States credit rating.Press report, 4 September 20132 records citedCorporate status
- Unresolved63S&P said in February 2013 that the Justice Department suit was without factual or legal merit, and it had argued in investor cases that its ratings were opinions protected as free speech.Company statement, 6 February 20133 records citedFraud