OK, it seems to me that a lower rating that suggests even a slightly higher risk will require a higher return to match the increased risk. I am no expert but it seems to me that a bond worth less results in a higher return.
Let me ask you and all others reading this a question.
Moodys, S&P Caved In to Ratings Pressure From Goldman, UBS Over Mortgages
Is S&P too big to be held liable? No one cares that it appears there is proof that S&P was one of the key enablers of the financial meltdown that led to this mess?
No one cares that S&P could well be the Arthur Andersen of the bond ratings industry?
Personally their holier-than-thou attitude is wholly annoying!
Not really, the two don't have a correlation like that. A bond that is worth less is simply worth less and will take a harder sell to get someone to buy it. People will gamble one high risk stocks for a chance at a higher return but there's no guarantee, the return may be lower or negative.
I don't see a plot from great banking bogeymen, but a serious symptom of failed socialist policies here and abroad.