From the article:

>However, Anthropic’s disclosure to KBRA excluded several important financial metrics, including free cash flow and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation. Credit rating analysts had to come up with their own estimates based on assumptions, the documents show.

>Given the limited information, KBRA produced a “risk score” to assess Anthropic’s creditworthiness rather than the traditional full financial models.

This and the fact they went to a small ratings agency does not inspire confidence in the rating.

No, but a trillion dollar company going to a ratings agency to get an assessment of its credit rating and not giving that ratings agency enough information to do that doesn’t inspire confidence in that trillion dollar company, either.

Why didn’t they give them the info? They either withheld it or don’t have it. Both make them look bad.

>they went to a small ratings agency

that's a bigger red flag. there may be reasons (bad) to not give them all the info, but going to a smaller agency is the largest of red flags when you are that big of a company.

honestly not changing my overall feeling that credit ratings are junk science

so Antropic hid all the bad info, went to more loyal agency...

...and score still showed "high probability of being junk"?

but, but... HN told me that Anthropic is profitable. Their margins are supposedly insane!