Every now and then I read articles from the Financial Times just to confirm that they are still a terrible source of information.

BB+ is technically junk. But the it is one notch from investment grade. Also Junk ratings are normal for young. So the framing is sensationalized.

"Growth has slowed" is technically true but misleading. Q2 to Q3 still went from $11.5bn to $16.8bn. And at those levels, it’s not wildly unexpected that it has to slow down.

And the bias is obvious when they write "Despite limited disclosures" which makes it sounds suspicious, when it’s normal thatrivate companies don't publish financials.

It’s also technical errors. Broadcom agreed to support the residual value of the chips, they did not guarantee the loan.

When journalists and news organizations are this terrible at basic reporting, Within their own specialized domain, it's hard to find sympathy for their complaints about AI-generated content taking over.

Edit: after another look I found that the agency that gave the rating also is a new small one with not very good record eighter (Kroll Bond Rating Agency).

Alternative title: Small Agency, which is previously has been fined for Ratings Without Method, Guesses that Anthropic's Numbers are close to normal for startups; FT Reports the Guess as News.

‘Growth has slowed" is technically true but misleading. Q2 to Q3 still went from $11.5bn to $16.8bn. And at those levels, it’s not wildly unexpected that it has to slow down.’

The growth slowdown is decidedly unexpected. The market priced in a $2T valuation that assumed it wouldn’t slow down.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/investors-temper-an...