Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I don't mind people digging up dirt on Mediapro, but a story like that one about a Moody's rating: it has been demonstrated that Moody's, S&Ps, other rating agencies, deliberately inflated American financial institutions' ratings just before Lehman Bros and the rest of the mess in 2008. They are not objective ratings, they overrate certain enterprises, especially blue-chip American mutlinationals, and are harder, much harder, on foreign governments, regions, cities, and enterprises based outside the US. That is a fact. So if you think Moody's downgrading the parent company of Mediapro is transcendent, great. But why not ask why there are literally hundreds of US companies at the brink of bankruptcy that have a higher rating, and that has been a practice for at least 20 years (answer could be they are being strategically propped up, like Boeing, already in the doldrums for their 737 MAX defects)

 

In the age of Covid, the US Fed, Bank of Canada and other central banks are also buying almost any corporate bond within their reach. So there is no shortage of demand for debt from the most crappiest of companes.

And any corporate bond rating should be viewed skeptically since one of the 3 major rating agencies are being paid by the issuer for the rating. 

Edited by red card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I don't mind people digging up dirt on Mediapro, but a story like that one about a Moody's rating: it has been demonstrated that Moody's, S&Ps, other rating agencies, deliberately inflated American financial institutions' ratings just before Lehman Bros and the rest of the mess in 2008. They are not objective ratings, they overrate certain enterprises, especially blue-chip American mutlinationals, and are harder, much harder, on foreign governments, regions, cities, and enterprises based outside the US. That is a fact. So if you think Moody's downgrading the parent company of Mediapro is transcendent, great. But why not ask why there are literally hundreds of US companies at the brink of bankruptcy that have a higher rating, and that has been a practice for at least 20 years (answer could be they are being strategically propped up, like Boeing, already in the doldrums for their 737 MAX defects)

Related to my above statement about the financial crisis, this is what Wiki reads: "According to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, 73% of the mortgage-backed securities Moody's had rated triple-A in 2006 were downgraded to junk by 2010.[47] In its "Conclusions on Chapter 8", the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated: "There was a clear failure of corporate governance at Moody’s, which did not ensure the quality of its ratings on tens of thousands of mortgage-backed securities and CDOs.""[48]

Maybe stick to something you know something about.  

I have worked in the financial industry for the last 20 years and the 3 major credit ratings agencies have objective criteria for assessing all sovereigns and companies and effectively their ability to pay back to their bond investors. I have never seen an American bias unless you mean by that a market driven finance system.  But even then, these guys would rate companies higher who are backed by the Governement (ie. mom-market based Finance). And probably one of the reasons why they rate Boeing higher as it’s likely to get a government bail out as one of only two large Commerical passenger jet aircraft manufacturers in the world and the only one in the US.  That’s not a bias of the rating agency as they don’t make policy but just asses the risk of where’re someone gets their money back  

Trust me, when compared to local based ratings agencies in places like China and India for example, that is where you see a complete unabashed bias.  95% of all Chinese companies are rated AAA or AA by their credit rating agencies! And the Europeans wanted to start their own government back credit rating agency after the Euro crisis until they found out all major investors worldwide would still require a Moody’s or S&P rating as that is the only objective criteria they would trust and they certainly wouldn’t trust the Europeans to rate themselves.  Talking about conflict of interest. 

In the previous GFC, it is true that the ratings agencies methodology failed on securitisation but that wasn’t exclusive to the US. The same methodology was used in Europe and elsewhere by the same rating agencies. What these guys got wrong was the fact that banks in places like the US, Spain (where you live), Ireland, etc. were incentivised to handout mortgages without really verifying the ability of borrowers to pay back especially in a crisis as they no longer kept the loan on their balanced sheet but instead Securitized it (ie. sold it off to other investors). Securitization was originally held as a very clever way to pool loans and then tranche them so some investors took the real default risk but others would effectively have 0 risk (as not all the loans would ever default) thereby resulting in a more diversified investor base and a much more financially stable system. The ratings agencies gave higher credit ratings to those top tiers as historically housing markets in the US as a whole had never fallen in value together. 

But when you don’t align incentives, greed creeps in. Banks sold the mortgages without a care in the world as they got paid upfront, investors bought the highest tranches of securitised products as they thought they were safe but really didn’t understand what they were buying; ratings agencies got paid to rate them highly as they thought the whole market would never sink; regulators allowed it to happen as they thought securitization was diversifying risk not creating systemic risk, and borrowers (ie mom and pop) happily borrowed beyond their means as the western mentality these days is to gorge on credit to keep up with the Jones. It didn’t take much for all that to unravel and then have knock effects in the derivatives markets, caused runs on banks, and government bail out on a massive scale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Impressive insights guys. In case it's of interest I actually was working for a bunch of the big FIs in Canary Wharf on this topic during the GFC (I even got to work in the empty Lehman Brothers Tower while we managed their receivership).. this doesn't make me any more of an expert than yourselves but one thing I've always been surprised at is just how subjective credit risk decisions are in the first place much less of an external entity of the risk decision maker, eg Moodys. I find it's mostly due to the nature of having both a lack of perfect data, and how aggregation makes risk management so inaccurate. Really Moody's and Co shouldn't even be held accountable for their risk ratings as they in many cases don't even have adequate data points to make a rating - hell even the companies they are rating don't often have adequate information to rate their own solvency. 

A simple example: deciding on the risk of a mortgage for a given person on a given property is loaded with assumptions that really just give you a best guess.. now lump 1000s of different risks about different people and homes together and try to sell it as an investment product - anyone trying to suggest they can determine the risk of such products is full of it in my humble opinion. Now try to sell the risk of that risk being wrong (a poor explanation of a CDS/O) and well there ya go. Incidentally Buffet once described theses products as financial weapons of mass destruction.. BEFORE the GFC. 

Now you're Moody's and your expected to rate a ghost company.. so you rate it as a Junk bond or consider the possibility of buy outs, bail-outs, the impact of a higher rating on their actual ability to survive?? 

So do I think the ratings agencies are playing a game with ratings.. absolutely. Do they apply ratings approaches evenly across borders.. of course not. I think the real question is what alternative there is and if it is only perception that counts then maybe it doesn't matter anyway. 
 

wow I have to cut back on my Father's Day celebrations I think.. I'll probably delete in the morning so hope this helps someone fall to sleep tonight!

Edited by saintjoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, An Observer said:

Maybe stick to something you know something about.  

I have worked in the financial industry for the last 20 years and the 3 major credit ratings agencies have objective criteria for assessing all sovereigns and companies and effectively their ability to pay back to their bond investors. I have never seen an American bias unless you mean by that a market driven finance system.  But even then, these guys would rate companies higher who are backed by the Governement (ie. mom-market based Finance). And probably one of the reasons why they rate Boeing higher as it’s likely to get a government bail out as one of only two large Commerical passenger jet aircraft manufacturers in the world and the only one in the US.  That’s not a bias of the rating agency as they don’t make policy but just asses the risk of where’re someone gets their money back  

Trust me, when compared to local based ratings agencies in places like China and India for example, that is where you see a complete unabashed bias.  95% of all Chinese companies are rated AAA or AA by their credit rating agencies! And the Europeans wanted to start their own government back credit rating agency after the Euro crisis until they found out all major investors worldwide would still require a Moody’s or S&P rating as that is the only objective criteria they would trust and they certainly wouldn’t trust the Europeans to rate themselves.  Talking about conflict of interest. 

In the previous GFC, it is true that the ratings agencies methodology failed on securitisation but that wasn’t exclusive to the US. The same methodology was used in Europe and elsewhere by the same rating agencies. What these guys got wrong was the fact that banks in places like the US, Spain (where you live), Ireland, etc. were incentivised to handout mortgages without really verifying the ability of borrowers to pay back especially in a crisis as they no longer kept the loan on their balanced sheet but instead Securitized it (ie. sold it off to other investors). Securitization was originally held as a very clever way to pool loans and then tranche them so some investors took the real default risk but others would effectively have 0 risk (as not all the loans would ever default) thereby resulting in a more diversified investor base and a much more financially stable system. The ratings agencies gave higher credit ratings to those top tiers as historically housing markets in the US as a whole had never fallen in value together. 

But when you don’t align incentives, greed creeps in. Banks sold the mortgages without a care in the world as they got paid upfront, investors bought the highest tranches of securitised products as they thought they were safe but really didn’t understand what they were buying; ratings agencies got paid to rate them highly as they thought the whole market would never sink; regulators allowed it to happen as they thought securitization was diversifying risk not creating systemic risk, and borrowers (ie mom and pop) happily borrowed beyond their means as the western mentality these days is to gorge on credit to keep up with the Jones. It didn’t take much for all that to unravel and then have knock effects in the derivatives markets, caused runs on banks, and government bail out on a massive scale. 

And your thesis is that the ratings agencies aren't a ******* scam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/22/2020 at 2:09 AM, An Observer said:

Maybe stick to something you know something about.  

I have worked in the financial industry for the last 20 years and the 3 major credit ratings agencies have objective criteria for assessing all sovereigns and companies and effectively their ability to pay back to their bond investors. I have never seen an American bias unless you mean by that a market driven finance system.  But even then, these guys would rate companies higher who are backed by the Governement (ie. mom-market based Finance). And probably one of the reasons why they rate Boeing higher as it’s likely to get a government bail out as one of only two large Commerical passenger jet aircraft manufacturers in the world and the only one in the US.  That’s not a bias of the rating agency as they don’t make policy but just asses the risk of where’re someone gets their money back  

Trust me, when compared to local based ratings agencies in places like China and India for example, that is where you see a complete unabashed bias.  95% of all Chinese companies are rated AAA or AA by their credit rating agencies! And the Europeans wanted to start their own government back credit rating agency after the Euro crisis until they found out all major investors worldwide would still require a Moody’s or S&P rating as that is the only objective criteria they would trust and they certainly wouldn’t trust the Europeans to rate themselves.  Talking about conflict of interest. 

In the previous GFC, it is true that the ratings agencies methodology failed on securitisation but that wasn’t exclusive to the US. The same methodology was used in Europe and elsewhere by the same rating agencies. What these guys got wrong was the fact that banks in places like the US, Spain (where you live), Ireland, etc. were incentivised to handout mortgages without really verifying the ability of borrowers to pay back especially in a crisis as they no longer kept the loan on their balanced sheet but instead Securitized it (ie. sold it off to other investors). Securitization was originally held as a very clever way to pool loans and then tranche them so some investors took the real default risk but others would effectively have 0 risk (as not all the loans would ever default) thereby resulting in a more diversified investor base and a much more financially stable system. The ratings agencies gave higher credit ratings to those top tiers as historically housing markets in the US as a whole had never fallen in value together. 

But when you don’t align incentives, greed creeps in. Banks sold the mortgages without a care in the world as they got paid upfront, investors bought the highest tranches of securitised products as they thought they were safe but really didn’t understand what they were buying; ratings agencies got paid to rate them highly as they thought the whole market would never sink; regulators allowed it to happen as they thought securitization was diversifying risk not creating systemic risk, and borrowers (ie mom and pop) happily borrowed beyond their means as the western mentality these days is to gorge on credit to keep up with the Jones. It didn’t take much for all that to unravel and then have knock effects in the derivatives markets, caused runs on banks, and government bail out on a massive scale. 

I'm glad you believe in the system's objectivity. You have conveniently ignored that the official Financial Crisis report said what it said. 

And you have done the typical "maybe back then but now it's different". Which is the same old song.

You have said nothing about who pays for ratings and which agency still rates directly for clients in function of them being clients.

All I am saying is that if Moody's drops Mediapro down a notch, Moody's of all organizations, you have to take it with a bag of salt and not sit there thinking that their CPL investment is in danger and CPL with it.

Edited by Unnamed Trialist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2020 at 8:07 AM, SthMelbRed said:

And your thesis is that the ratings agencies aren't a ******* scam?

He basically admitted a load of **** and then spent a few hundred words trying to prove it didn't stink. 

That is the logic of global finance for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

 

 

I quite enjoyed this video. 

1-what should have been the first (Bekker) left out

2-some atrocious reffing (Baldissimo, poor guy) 

3-some good calls, like last man

4-that hand in the final vs Cavalry: think it was the right call 

5-very few dirty tackles with studs up

6-give Tefler the prize for gamesmanship 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'll play.

No great amount of nastiness in there but still a couple of gooders, eh?  I always appreciate a 'keeper rushing out of their area for an enthusiastic, full throttle slide, studs 1st of course, and get the ball.  And the on-rushing striker.  And the pursuing defender.  And just for good measure the badly trailing-the-play ref... as well. 

You have to know your appeals to consult the linesman for an opinion on the legallity of your challenge isn't going to go especially well when you observe the linesman laughing into this headset whilst being consulted.  Well, I'll just be on my way then.

Wow, did Wheeldon get away with murder.  Someone call the cops.  Umm, or maybe don't.  I kid... I kid. 

FCE had a couple of moments of infamy, you knew they would.  I'd also say its safe to assume they're not upset about it either.  Joseph with a fine martial arts tackle that only attacking players ever seem to "get right" and I have to admit this, I found Esua's forearm absolutely hockey worthy.    

Still, both better than Mitter's hand ball on the line as he tumbled backwards into the goal.  In hindsight the most disappointing part of that match for me was how Novak neglected to smash the ball right at Mitter as he flopped in the goal.  

Oh, well.  Maybe next season.  

Edited by Cheeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cheeta said:

Still, both better than Mitter's hand ball on the line as he tumbled backwards into the goal.  In hindsight the most disappointing part of that match for me was how Novak neglected to smash the ball right at Mitter as he flopped in the goal.  

Oh, well.  Maybe next season.  

No way, I hope we never see Mitter again.  😈

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2020 at 8:35 PM, BradMack said:

It’d be awesome if they could get any of the SPL, Ligue 1, Liga Nos, Irish League or a combo of these. Outside of the French league, I doubt they’d cost that much but it would add some content and there are a lot of people in Canada with connections to each of these countries. Maybe not the best to watch, but from a business perspective, the Indian Super league might make a lot of sense. 

I would love to see the League of Ireland on onesoccer, it would be cheap tv rights and make great filler content.Canadian Kris Twardek is a stand out playing for Bohemians.League of Ireland is starting back on July 25th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2020 at 8:35 PM, BradMack said:

It’d be awesome if they could get any of the SPL, Ligue 1, Liga Nos, Irish League or a combo of these. Outside of the French league, I doubt they’d cost that much but it would add some content and there are a lot of people in Canada with connections to each of these countries. Maybe not the best to watch, but from a business perspective, the Indian Super league might make a lot of sense. 

Agree here, but I'm going to specify a bit more. I hope that OneSoccer goes for more sub-topper leagues, in other words, leagues just behind the big 5. You mentioned LigaNos already, but adding leagues like the Eredivisie, Jupiler Pro League, Russian Premier League, Ukranian Premier League, Süper Lïg, Czech Superliga, Austrian Bundesliga, and Danish Superliga would be wonderful choices as well. Some cup action can do them well as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was poking around on the Canadian Elite Basketball League site earlier to get some details on their CBC broadcast partnership. In doing so, I stumbled across this little tidbit: 

"MEDIAPRO Canada has been selected to produce live coverage of all 26 games, supplying all technical facilities, production crew, and transmission services. It will use eight cameras, including two netcams, to deliver live coverage of seven games, including the openers, the semi-finals and the final, for nationwide broadcast on CBC, and will also debut AutomaticTV, the MEDIAPRO Group’s proprietary AI-driven fully automated sports production system, to produce High Definition live multi-camera coverage of 19 games for CBC Gem – marking the first time the technology has been used in Canada. MEDIAPRO Group produces live coverage of more than 12,000 events around the world each year through its 58 offices on four continents.

In the CEBL Summer Series each club will play the other once in a round robin competition. The team with the worst record will be eliminated and the remaining six will be seeded into a bracket. The third and sixth seeds, and the fourth and fifth seeds, will face each other for the right to advance to the semifinals against the first and second-seeded teams. The title game is set for August 9."
 
I just assumed that CBC would be producing the content in addition to airing it, but apparently that's not the case. Hopefully this is a good sign for MEDIAPRO and they'll manage to secure similar contracts for leagues like the LHJMQ, OHL and WHL. 
https://www.theblackjacks.ca/canadian-elite-basketball-league-cbc-sports-announce-schedule-for-cebl-summer-series

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is some good news for mediapro, I guess Mr Parrot must have missed that tidbit when he was digging up every tweet or story about Mediapro.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an unnecessary shot at Ozzie. 

When did it become his responsibility to find every mention of CPL or their partners on the internet? While I don't always agree with his thoughts his posts during the pandemic have been neutral.  The vast majority have been posts of news links without any additional commentary without which this forum would go days without any posts at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not his responsibility, but he has been posting a link to everything that has media pro or cpl in the title on twitter lately, but not this one. He even mentions the CEBL and its situation.  But thats an interesting bit of info on media pro branching out to other sports here in canada.  Kudos the mgwilliams for finding some actual news.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bison44 said:

Its not his responsibility, but he has been posting a link to everything that has media pro or cpl in the title on twitter lately, but not this one. He even mentions the CEBL and its situation.  But thats an interesting bit of info on media pro branching out to other sports here in canada.  Kudos the mgwilliams for finding some actual news.  

Thanks! I'd love to say that I was busy sleuthing for new CPL/One Soccer info, but this was 100% accidental. : P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bison44 said:

...for finding some actual news.  

I love seeing active threads, even if I don’t contribute to a specific one - I’ll read and follow. However when a thread is filled with posts that aren’t related to topic or with posts from uncredible sources, it becomes tiresome to see/follow.  So while I’ll agree that actual news is great. The parrot was only repeating(reposting) things that are related to thread topic. 

Blame onesoccer for their tweets lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more info on the MEDIAPRO partnership with the CEBL: 

https://mediaprocanada.tv/en/news/MEDIAPRO_Canada_selected_as_exclusive_supplier_for_all_CEBL_games

"MEDIAPRO Canada will produce seven games, including the semi-finals and the final, for live broadcast on the CBC, Canada’s national public broadcaster, as well as the remaining 19 games which will be carried live and on-demand on CBC GEM, the corporation’s streaming service, available across all connected devices

The company will supply all the technical facilities, production crew and transmission services to bring exciting live CEBL basketball coverage from the 2020 Summer Series, which will be held at the Meridian Centre in St Catharines, Ontario, and is distributing live and highlights rights to the Series to broadcasters around the world.

MEDIAPRO Canada will use AutomaticTV, the group’s proprietary Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven fully automated sports production system, to produce High Definition live multi-camera coverage of the 19 games for CBC GEM – marking the first time the technology has been used in Canada. AutomaticTV offers a unique multi-camera broadcast quality production solution with a 60 frames-per-second 1080p rate, allowing rights-holders to maximize their investment and generate new revenue streams."

I didn't realize that they had integrated AI into their media production. Nifty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I love this news.. I'm not just a footie fan so I'm very excited to see the CEBL come to life. Mediapro seems to feel the Canadian market is an opportunity not only when it comes to soccer. I think a Canadian baseball league would be great as well. A Mediapro/CBC relationship to create a Canadian Sports Channel/Media platform would be great.

Lost in everything was plans for an expanded CPL CBC relationship. I'm eager to see if that comes about with restart tourney 

Edited by SpursFlu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...