John Authers I strongly object. An ignored evident consequence has nothing to do with an "unintended consequence".

Sir, John Authers writes “The law of unintended consequences applies to new financial regulations… Think of the credit rating agencies, to whom all due diligence was effectively outsourced by rules such as the Basel II bank regulatory regime”, “Rules shake-up and the law of unintended consequences” June 2.

I vehemently object to that. Authers, and FT, has no business fabricating walls behind which regulators can hide in order to avoid being held accountable for their mistakes.

What Authers refers to was NOT an unintended consequence, it was an expected consequence but which was blithely ignored by the regulators. 

In January 2003 the Financial Times published a letter in which I wrote: “Everyone knows that, sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic error to be propagated at modern speeds. Friend, please consider that the world is tough enough as it is.”