Moody's Finally Explains Why BHAC is Rated AAA

Moody's finally explains why BHAC is rated AAA while Assured Guaranty and FSA are under rating review (for what it's worth S&P and Fitch still rate them AAA.) From their FAQ, this is what Moody's says (report not free):

Q4. If a decline in industry fundamentals is an important factor leading to the rating actions on FSA and Assured, why was Berkshire Hathaway Assurance not similarly affected?

A:

(...snip...)

Although the portfolio risk at BHAC is low and capitalization is high, the company would still be rated below Aaa, due to its positioning on the key rating factors, were it not for a guaranty from its Aaa-rated affiliate, Columbia Insurance Company. As outlined in Moody's credit opinion on BHAC, the company's stand-alone rating (before consideration of the guaranty) is Aa2.


As far as I'm concerned this is a lame excuse. It's true that if Columbia Insurance is AAA and is guaranteeing BHAC then it should get a stronger rating. However, when did a guarantee matter more than actual cold cash on hand? If a company is way above rating requirements it seems bizarre to rate them lower except for one company that supposedly has a guarantee.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thoughts on the stock market - March 2020

Image
Right now, DJIA has a P/E of 16.8 and forwand P/E of 15.1, whereas S&P 500 is at 20.1 with forward P/E of 15.8. Source: WSJ market Data If you ignore interest rates and inflation expectations--both of these influence valuations but depends on your macro call-- the market is not cheap. Long-term P/E is around 15. Trailing P/E is around 20% (Dow) to 40% (S&P500) higher than average. Forward P/E is in line with long term average but that assumes a strong V recovery. Consensus forecast is for profits to drop 1.2% in 2020. In 2008, it dropped 25.4% so current forecast is a very mild recession. Covid-19 coronavirus is not going to last more than a few months but these forecasts are still too rosy in my opinion. So I wouldn't rely on forward P/E. The richly valued (mostly tech or high quality) have not fallen much but the distressed ones have. So if you want to outperform in the long run, I think one’s choice right now is to: • Wait for market to fall another, say
✖ READ MORE >>>

Warren Buffett's Evolution and his Three Investment Styles

Image
A Young Warren Buffett In a comment to one of my posts , Mark Carter, who incidentally appears to have a  good blog worth checking out , asked: "Buffett Prime is 1970's to early 1990's" Could you elaborate? I have vaguely indicated how I view Warren Buffett in the past, but I thought I would detail my view of his investing behaviour. This is more of an opinion piece and many others would disagree with me (if you do, I'm curious to hear your thoughts). I don't follow Warren Buffett as closely as many value investors so I may get some facts wrong. My view is that Warren Buffett went through three different phases, with each consisting of different investment techniques. The overall investment theory remained the same—what people call value investing—but his execution, tactics, and strategy differs across the three phases. Some people may break up his career into additional periods but my feeling is that the three I will describe essentially capt
✖ READ MORE >>>

Hugh Hendry discussion at the Alternative Investment Conference

Thanks to Value Investing World for bringing this Hugh Hendry interview to my attention. I may not agree with all the things—short-term orientation of hedge funds is actually worse IMO; the sharp pencil effect doesn't always work—but Hendry is a true contrarian and worth listening. Like Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, you also can't take everything Hugh Hendry says seriously. I had always felt Hugh Hendry was firmly in the deflation camp but I get the feeling that he is now opening up to high-inflation possibilities. Otherwise, his stance appears to be similar to past opinions.
✖ READ MORE >>>