Comment by: Anonymous. Posted 11 years ago [2012-05-15 14:22:05]

It is only natural for the investors who lack understanding of the cashflow and underlying dynamics be punished with the severe losses in the adverse market conditions. Perhaps, we should stop blaming it on rating agencies - it's been half--a-decade..

Comment by: Anonymous. Posted 11 years ago [2012-05-09 11:46:01]

Question below is good which I translate as: would a different rating on any bond (AA rather than AAA for the senior tranche, for example) have changed the Delphinus outcome (catastrophic failure)? The answer is "no". But had S&P gotten the ratings "right", then some investors might not have bought into Delphinus. S&P knowingly gave wrong ratings (allegedly) in order not to impede the deal or inconvenience the banker. Surely there's got to be a penalty for that action and it's not at all specious to imagine that some investors would have backed out of the AAA tranche if the rating had been reduced to AA at Closing.

Comment by: Anonymous. Posted 11 years ago [2012-05-08 12:40:49]

can you elaborate on how rating would help it work with 3/4 assets written down?

Comment by: Anonymous. Posted 11 years ago [2012-05-05 01:10:13]

This will be an interesting case. Given just the information here, I'd think S&P would have more accountability. The deal would still work with somewhat lower quality assets. It's the job of the rating agency to translate asset credit quality to debt ratings.