Yolocoin
Member
 Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
 |
October 12, 2012, 08:09:59 AM |
|
so... ummm... Why is Kluge still rated AAA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you see garbage posts (off-topic, trolling, spam, no point, etc.), use the "report to moderator" links. All reports are investigated, though you will rarely be contacted about your reports.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Yolocoin
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
October 12, 2012, 08:13:00 AM |
|
so... ummm... Why is Kluge still rated AAA?
It is the only rating  for that matter why is ziggy still AA? |
|
|
|
|
|
PatrickHarnett (OP)
|
|
October 13, 2012, 03:48:29 AM |
|
If you bothered to read the OP, you'll see that those ratings are months old. Enron had a good rating, until they crashed and burned. So do various countries - ratings are (and always have been) a historical view at a point in time. - and it was a simple 0-6 score, so those that want to compare RaboBank to Bitcoin are equally misguided. Ziggy and co rated 5 out of 6 in bitcoin means they had reasonable capacity to pay at the time. However, any half-arsed attempt at looking at what their "high risk" bonds (fonds) were doing would have avoided them for their lower risk offerings - they said they were investing in Pirate to achieve those results.
|
|
|
|
|
proper_proper
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 22
Merit: 0
|
|
October 13, 2012, 03:52:35 AM |
|
If you bothered to read the OP, you'll see that those ratings are months old. Enron had a good rating, until they crashed and burned. So do various countries - ratings are (and always have been) a historical view at a point in time. - and it was a simple 0-6 score, so those that want to compare RaboBank to Bitcoin are equally misguided. Ziggy and co rated 5 out of 6 in bitcoin means they had reasonable capacity to pay at the time. However, any half-arsed attempt at looking at what their "high risk" bonds (fonds) were doing would have avoided them for their lower risk offerings - they said they were investing in Pirate to achieve those results.
Lets look at it this way. You're just as good as those guys that gave Enron a good rating. Let's all gather and worship your mediocrity. |
|
|
|
|
Yolocoin
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
October 13, 2012, 06:37:20 PM |
|
If you bothered to read the OP, you'll see that those ratings are months old. Enron had a good rating, until they crashed and burned.
It's your duty as a rating agency to rate REAL risk, and you've clearly failed in doing so. |
|
|
|
|
|
greyhawk
|
|
October 13, 2012, 06:41:08 PM
Last edit: October 13, 2012, 07:07:53 PM by greyhawk |
|
No, see you people are clearly to stupid too understand how rating works as outlined below. I'm an eagle-eyed investor. Please change all ratings to FFF, for the sake of accuracy.
Thank you Mosrite. However, you're also to stupid to understand the rating metrics and grades used in the real world, let alone the ones used as general guidance here. When you can provide some reasons for your recommendation, then someone might take you more seriously. |
|
|
|
|
bigbox
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
|
|
October 15, 2012, 07:01:50 AM |
|
However, any half-arsed attempt at looking at what their "high risk" bonds (fonds) were doing would have avoided them for their lower risk offerings
Unfortunately, ZiggiStar failed to pay his guaranteed and low risk offerings too. His high risk and guaranteed offerings turned out to be equivalent. |
|
|
|
|
CharlesPonzi
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
October 15, 2012, 07:06:14 AM |
|
If the person rating had to pay a massive fine to the community for getting it wrong things might be different imo.
|
I landed in this country with $2.50 in cash and $1 million in hopes, and those hopes never left me.
|
|
|
|
BorderBits
|
|
October 16, 2012, 12:13:02 AM |
|
No, see you people are clearly to stupid too understand how rating works as outlined below. I'm an eagle-eyed investor. Please change all ratings to FFF, for the sake of accuracy.
Thank you Mosrite. However, you're also to stupid to understand the rating metrics and grades used in the real world, let alone the ones used as general guidance here. When you can provide some reasons for your recommendation, then someone might take you more seriously. Holy fuck. What a piece of shit. |
|
|
|
|
Yolocoin
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
October 16, 2012, 07:59:53 PM |
|
If the person rating had to pay a massive fine to the community for getting it wrong things might be different imo.
Seriously? You expect somebody who offer a free service to be fined if something goes wrong? LOL yeah, things would be surely different. No-fucking-body would even risk to rate anyone else without getting paid enough. Uhhhh yeah, that regularly happens in the real world when people give "financial advice" paid or not. Criminal negligence is still a legal liability. |
|
|
|
|
|
Brunic
|
|
October 16, 2012, 08:51:25 PM |
|
If the person rating had to pay a massive fine to the community for getting it wrong things might be different imo.
Seriously? You expect somebody who offer a free service to be fined if something goes wrong? LOL yeah, things would be surely different. No-fucking-body would even risk to rate anyone else without getting paid enough. Uhhhh yeah, that regularly happens in the real world when people give "financial advice" paid or not. Criminal negligence is still a legal liability. You have any examples? |
|
|
|
|
|
BorderBits
|
|
October 17, 2012, 12:00:51 AM |
|
If the person rating had to pay a massive fine to the community for getting it wrong things might be different imo.
Seriously? You expect somebody who offer a free service to be fined if something goes wrong? LOL yeah, things would be surely different. No-fucking-body would even risk to rate anyone else without getting paid enough. Uhhhh yeah, that regularly happens in the real world when people give "financial advice" paid or not. Criminal negligence is still a legal liability. Didn't Pat McStarfish charge Ponzi operators to go through their financials in order to determine their rating? He is as guilty as the Ponzi operators because his ratings gave many in the community confidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
peasant
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 272
Merit: 250
Cryptopreneur
|
|
October 18, 2012, 07:48:26 PM |
|
Isn't every financial ratings agency in the real world giving negligent advice? How the hell does the USA have a AAA rating, with unsustainable debt? They should have an F, and by micons standards it should be a F-. People need to stop trying to find new ways to blame patrick for there own stupidity. Either accept your losses for gambling, or go after whoever actually took your money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
PatrickHarnett (OP)
|
|
October 18, 2012, 10:10:09 PM |
|
Also, I was not providing advice - the OP was a collection of information and links to save some people the time and effort of sifting through all of the rubbish that was around some months ago. It was stated again and again that people should do their own research.
As a related note, I read with interest a recent rating for a local mobile carrier. The parent company was rated badly (B-), and their US370M of bonds much worse (CCC+ down to CCC). S&P had no qualms at downgrading something they had previously rated higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
