To: Thomas Kirwin who wrote (448 ) 6/21/1998 9:41:00 AM From: Bob Davis Respond to of 601
Tom, It is nice to read that TASA and its subs have good "credit ratings"...but what Hoovers is providing is not really a "credit rating". Reading the footnotes ("hell is in the details....") you will find "* Our credit Rating Codes are indicators of probable ability to pay. They are based on business demographic factors such as number of employees, years in business, industry stability and barriers to entry, and government data. While they do not reflect actual payment history, the ratings are a good starting point." Yeah...a starting point, but for what....? Credit information in the US is badly screwed up, when it is available at all. And I understand that it has gotten worse in the four years since I actually worked with it directly. And further, I think that this totally invalid "credit rating" only adds to the confusion. Imagine being a business who is turned down for credit solely on the basis of something like this "credit rating". I'll give you a specific example. I was CFO of a Company which attempted to buy PC's from a small manufacturer in Texas, who turned us down because of our supposed "credit rating". There was no way that I could even find out what was reportedly wrong with the Company's "credit rating", or straighten it out. I then turned to Gateway and bought the first of a large number of Gateway PCs, on credit, an invoice which the Company paid promptly. As a result, within two years, the company had pallet-loads of Gateways coming in the door.... This "credit information" did not even list the correct STATE for MLP, which is located in Pennsylvania. Well anyway, as an analyst, this information does not tell me anything at all about TASA. But it is really nice to read that TASA and its subs have good "credit ratings"..... Bob Davis The Napeague Letternapeague.com