What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder? More credit rating companies equals more competition but greater attack surface and chance of breach, but fewer companies approaches a monopoly situation which isn't good for consumers either. This feels like a lose-lose...
Pass a law that (a) lets Equifax fail, thereby (i) sending a clear message while (ii) solidifying, in law, the industry's liability to consumers; and (b) prohibits existing credit rating agencies from purchasing Equifax's data, thereby priming the pump for a new entrant. Alternatively to (b), mandate a separation (Glass-Steagall style) between those who warehouse credit data and those who use it to calculate a credit score.
It seems clear: a transition away from the economic and financial models of the industrial age, which Experian, TransUnion and Equifax - along with the banking cartels and various national reserve banks - represent.
Fortunately, that's happening; the best-case scenario seems inevitable.
This is a time for optimism.
Can you link to some sources? How is our current system post-industrial?
And that these sorts of developments are tantamount to entry into a different age (the "information age" is the typical vernacular) which has a different set of norms than the industrial age did.
1. The Banks and National Reserves will fold the technology into their operations making it apart of the current system. This process is already in the works. This will result in the same system we have today just backed by different technology, but will not lead to the end of Centralized Authority like the vision of block-chain supporters seem to have
2. The Technology will fizzle and die. Which seems unlikely at this point but it is still possible. Security concerns and other aspects still remain high....
However I very pessimistic that block chain will be what brings us to a different age, where these entities are no longer relevant
Outside of the Tech Bubble, there are very few people that even know what a block chain is.
I know it's probably a rash idea full of a million flaws and unintended consequences, but sometimes bankruptcy is too lenient of a punishment. And this feels like one of those cases.
The purpose of bankruptcy is to determine how to proceed when a company's liabilities exceed its assets. The company had $10B in assets and $7B in liabilities, a fine added another $5B to their liabilities, now they're bankrupt. Not all creditors can be paid the amount they're owed. Bankruptcy laws exist to make sure what happens next is fair, e.g. each creditor gets 75c on the dollar instead of having the CEO pay all the debts owed to his brother's company first and leaving the other creditors with nothing.
In practice what usually happens in a case like that is that the company files for bankruptcy, sells all its assets --including its name -- to a new corporation that continues operating its business, and the proceeds from the sale are used to satisfy the old corporation's liabilities as much as possible.
Assuming the sale price is fair market value, there is no way to extract any more money from the company than that -- that's what fair market value means. You can't get any more money by forcing them to continue operating. Their future profits are built into the price of what you can sell their operations for. If that amount is less than what they owe, there is nowhere for the rest of the money to come from.
Well, you could eliminate limited liability and go after the shareholders, but if that's the intention then it shouldn't be done ex post facto.