One of PF2's experts recently testified that a rated bond is worth more than an unrated bond. Was he right?
Let's consider this from the perspective of structured finance. One often hears the question: "how can you take all this sub-prime and make AAA out of it?" Of course, that's the whole premise of structured finance - that one can take a portfolio of (more) credit risky assets and create at least some less credit risky (AAA) assets out of it.
But if we dig deeper into what's happening, we see it's simply a ratings transformation that's taking place. The securitization process enables a bundle of unrated securities (e.g. mortgage loans or credit card receivables) to be "converted" into a set of (tranched) rated notes.
The rated notes - in higher demand, more liquid, and demanding less regulatory capital - are cheaper to issue, creating the so-called "excess spread." In sum, acquiring a cheap rating enables the wider dissemination of all sorts of securities, through the securitization process.
The rating provides this value - liquidity, increased demand, lower capital requirements. And so a rated bond is worth more than an unrated bond. What do you think?
Note: Keep in mind the argument is not that ALL rated bonds are worth more than ALL unrated bonds, but that all things equal the rated bonds are worth more: that the rating, reliable or not, provides a value.