undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaaronwall4y ago0 comments

The rating agencies would rate just about everything https://www.cnbc.com/id/27321998

Official #1: Btw (by the way) that deal is ridiculous. Official #2: I know right...model def (definitely) does not capture half the risk. Official #1: We should not be rating it. Official #2: We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it.

And the parts that were so junky they couldn't be rated got remixed into another deal to get rated.

0 comments

chii4y ago

It stems from the idea that multiple junk bonds can be combined together to form a higher quality bond than otherwise. This is actually not true, but was the unquestioned underlying assumption.

Its definitely wrong to make this assumption, but the people who got paid are all incentivized to turn a blind eye.

rsj_hn4y ago

> multiple junk bonds can be combined together to form a higher quality bond than otherwise.

Well it's obviously true. Take your good bond to get paid first from 1000 junk bonds. Then your 999 worse bonds get paid last. Even during the mortgage crisis, not all of the junk bonds returned zero. So there is some number of junk bonds that can be combined into a good bond and worse bonds.

The problem is that people estimated that number to be lower than it actually was. It was a quantitative failure.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse