One of the deadliest hurricanes to hit America made ground in Long Island back in the late 30's. Are L.I. property owners paying premiums commiserate with that risk? Hardly.
If you buy a security that's yielding 4% over Treasuries you're making a few assumptions. Most people think if they have a diversified basket (1% of portfolio dedicated to each) that 4 defaults in a year will be no worse than capturing the low Treasury yield. As we all know though-defaults aren't distributed in piecemeal. During a boom cycle defaults are rare but during a bear cycle there's numerous defaults. So it takes around 2 decades of no defaults to fully protect a portfolio from total default. The years are just slots on a roulette wheel. Bears like me thought "the end" would be 1987. It wasn't. Or 1998. Wasn't. 2002. Not then either. In fact those were BOTTOMS. If a credit agency had said in THOSE YEARS to stay away-even though risks were quite apparent-the agencies glum would have cost subscribers billions in profits.
Given that some of the BIGGEST CASUALTIES last year were investment banks with traders far better paid and savvy than the folks working at credit rating agencies-the debate is ridiculous. The research departments at LEH, BSC and MER were certainly as equipped to anticipate meltdown as Moody's. You can trust me when i say Dick Fuld didn't load up because Standard and Poors said it's safe to go in the water........
If you buy a security that's yielding 4% over Treasuries you're making a few assumptions. Most people think if they have a diversified basket (1% of portfolio dedicated to each) that 4 defaults in a year will be no worse than capturing the low Treasury yield. As we all know though-defaults aren't distributed in piecemeal. During a boom cycle defaults are rare but during a bear cycle there's numerous defaults. So it takes around 2 decades of no defaults to fully protect a portfolio from total default. The years are just slots on a roulette wheel. Bears like me thought "the end" would be 1987. It wasn't. Or 1998. Wasn't. 2002. Not then either. In fact those were BOTTOMS. If a credit agency had said in THOSE YEARS to stay away-even though risks were quite apparent-the agencies glum would have cost subscribers billions in profits.
Given that some of the BIGGEST CASUALTIES last year were investment banks with traders far better paid and savvy than the folks working at credit rating agencies-the debate is ridiculous. The research departments at LEH, BSC and MER were certainly as equipped to anticipate meltdown as Moody's. You can trust me when i say Dick Fuld didn't load up because Standard and Poors said it's safe to go in the water........
Quote from trendlover:
You said they did not use logic, hmm, or do they have self interest to rate AAA?
Pabst, insurance in Miami has the risk in the (price). It is high risk of hurricane, and that is known, and the price of insurance pay for that risk. So insurance companys bet (with the price they ask) that if the hurricane happens, they still have made big money for many years to cover the bet and profit. For the same house but in a no hurricane state, the price is less. The risk is (known) But when you put AAA on something that is closer to a junk bond, but people buy it thinking it is AAA, then add leverage, then add side bets (derivatives), then it is not the same openess of risk as knowing where the hurricane is more likely to happen...Miami or New Jersey. And that systemic risk is so big because now the risk is bought and sold in instruments that have no regulation of ratio of money to cover their bet. Now it blows up. Is that capitalism, or is that scheme?
)