Contrast that with stocks, where anybody can be an analyst and issue a rating, and where there is no mechanical, legalistic system of downgrades and upgrades.
I think this statement is a little stronger than is accurate. For a time I was on the career path of a stock analyst, and before my name could be on any notes urging investors to buy or sell, I had to take and pass a number of licensing tests: Series 7, 63, 86, and 87. These tests were mandated and run by FINRA, as ordered by the SEC.
So not just "anybody" can issue a rating.
However, I understand your larger message that there aren't larger legal implications surrounding your rating; other than simple anti- market manipulation type things.
I think this statement is a little stronger than is accurate. For a time I was on the career path of a stock analyst, and before my name could be on any notes urging investors to buy or sell, I had to take and pass a number of licensing tests: Series 7, 63, 86, and 87. These tests were mandated and run by FINRA, as ordered by the SEC.
So not just "anybody" can issue a rating.
However, I understand your larger message that there aren't larger legal implications surrounding your rating; other than simple anti- market manipulation type things.