If there was actual change in the way the wall street pays for ratings and if Moody's were to decide and not run a " pay to play" shop I might be inclined to change my opinion.Ok thanks for clearing up. I must have misunderstood: “If they change the rating it will be at the direction of their overlord's”.
You and I may think that Tesla’s default risk is substantially lower than their B3 rating indicates. But I think you’d find the backwards-tested proprietary rating models of any of the banks would give a quite similar result based upon Tesla’s historic performance (particularly using June 2018 and earlier numbers, which Moody’s did).
The reason why the public rating is out of line with our view, is because Tesla is quite an unusual case, a cash cow to be birthed by a financial basket case. A credit rating will only give merit to this argument when it happens. It’s necessarily more conservative than an equity analysis.
I’ve seen no evidence that Moody’s is part of some grand Tesla conspiracy, taking instructions from “overlords”, whatever that means. I have however seen plenty of evidence that other parties are actively undermining Tesla for their own nefarious purposes. This latest skabooska episode being a great example. But it becomes far easier for such episodes to be downplayed in the media when people cry wolf with bogus (and borderline libellous) scare stories like you did with Moody’s.
If overloaded is to strong of a term for you how about ....say .....their financially alligned partners.
Nah....I will stick with overlords....you stick with the idea they are honest merchants doing their level best.