Q33, run 2026-11-04-1644-haiku

← back to the run

Whose credit risk does a holder of the Halden Leasing 2028 notes take, and how is it rated?

Tests: Roles: the guarantor is the parent, not the ultimate parent.

Expected: risk_of = E10 rating = BBB+

✅ R1 csv run 1 graded by code

E10 (Halden Bank AG), rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, and the instrument rating (A29) matches E10's BBB+ (A27).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R1 csv run 2 graded by code

E10 (Halden Bank AG), rated BBB+ (A29). I05 is guaranteed by E10 (guarantor_id).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R1 csv run 3 graded by code

Halden Bank AG (E10), as guarantor of I05. The rating is BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

🟡 R1 csv run 4 graded by code

Issuer E11 (Halden Leasing), with E10 as guarantor. The notes are rated BBB+ (A29, DG from A-, 2026-04-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E11", "rating": "BBB+"}

Why: risk_of: expected E10, got E11

✅ R1 csv run 5 graded by code

E10, rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10 (guarantor), and the instrument was downgraded to BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

🟡 R2 rdf run 1 graded by code

E11, BBB+
I05 (Halden Leasing 2028) is issued by E11 and guaranteed by E10, and A29 (2026-04-15) rates it BBB+. As with Q5, the data doesn't say whether the rating reflects the guarantee.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E11", "rating": "BBB+"}

Why: risk_of: expected E10, got E11

🟡 R2 rdf run 2 graded by code

E11 (Halden Leasing SA) takes the risk, with E10 as guarantor. I05 is rated BBB+ (A29, DG, 2026-04-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E11", "rating": "BBB+"}

Why: risk_of: expected E10, got E11

✅ R2 rdf run 3 graded by code

Halden Bank AG (E10), rated BBB+. I05 is issued by E11 and guaranteed by E10, and its BBB+ (A29) matches E10's BBB+ (A27). As in Q5, this relies on the guarantor reading.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

🟡 R2 rdf run 4 graded by code

E11 (Halden Leasing SA, the issuer), rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, but the rating is on the issuer side, from A29 (2026-04-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E11", "rating": "BBB+"}

Why: risk_of: expected E10, got E11

🟡 R2 rdf run 5 graded by code

E11, rated BBB+
I05 is issued by E11 and guaranteed by E10. Its latest rating is BBB+ (A29, 2026-04-15). The data does not give the guarantee's terms.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E11", "rating": "BBB+"}

Why: risk_of: expected E10, got E11

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 1 graded by code

Halden Bank AG (E10). It guarantees I05, which is rated BBB+ (A29) and matches E10's FC BBB+ (A27).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 2 graded by code

E10 (Halden Bank AG), rated BBB+.
I05 (2028 notes) is guaranteed by E10, and its latest rating is BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 3 graded by code

Halden Bank AG (E10), as guarantor of I05. I05 is rated BBB+ (A29), in line with E10's issuer rating.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 4 graded by code

E10, rated BBB+. The 2028 notes are I05, guaranteed by E10, and I05's latest rating is BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 5 graded by code

E10 (Halden Bank AG), rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, so it is rated in line with E10, and A29 (2026-04-15) set it at BBB+.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 1 graded by code

Halden Bank AG (E10). I05 is guaranteed by E10 and is rated BBB+ (A29), in line with E10's issuer rating.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 2 graded by code

E10 (Halden Bank AG), rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, so its credit risk is E10's, and its latest rating is A29 (DG, BBB+).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 3 graded by code

The holder takes the credit risk of E10 (Halden Bank AG), and the note is rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, and A29 (2026-04-15) set it at BBB+.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 4 graded by code

E10, which guarantees the notes; they are rated BBB+ (A29), in line with the guarantor's issuer rating.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 5 graded by code

Halden Bank AG (E10), rated BBB+
I05 is guaranteed by E10, so holders take E10's risk, and the instrument rating is BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 1 graded by code

E10, rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, so the holder takes E10's credit risk, and A29 (2026-04-15) rates the instrument BBB+.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 2 graded by code

Halden Bank AG (E10). I05 is guaranteed by E10, so holders take its risk, and I05 is rated BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 3 graded by code

The guarantor, Halden Bank AG (E10). I05 is guaranteed by E10 and rated BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 4 graded by code

E10 (Halden Bank AG). I05 is guaranteed by E10, so it is rated on the guarantor and is BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 5 graded by code

Halden Bank AG (E10). I05 is guaranteed by E10, so it is rated on E10's risk, at BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R3 csv+padding run 1 graded by code

Halden Bank (E10), as guarantor of the notes. The issuer is Halden Leasing (E11), and the notes are rated BBB+ after the 2026-04-15 downgrade (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

🟡 R3 csv+padding run 2 graded by code

E11 (Halden Leasing SA), guaranteed by E10. Instrument I05 is rated BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E11", "rating": "BBB+"}

Why: risk_of: expected E10, got E11

🟡 R3 csv+padding run 3 graded by code

E11, rated BBB+. I05 is issued by E11 and guaranteed by E10, and A29 (2026-04-15) cut it to BBB+.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E11", "rating": "BBB+"}

Why: risk_of: expected E10, got E11

🟡 R3 csv+padding run 4 graded by code

E11 (Halden Leasing), which issued I05, guaranteed by E10. The rating is BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E11", "rating": "BBB+"}

Why: risk_of: expected E10, got E11

🟡 R3 csv+padding run 5 graded by code

The holder takes E11's (Halden Leasing SA) risk, with E10 as guarantor; rated BBB+ (A29). The data does not say whether the guarantee shifts the risk to E10.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E11", "rating": "BBB+"}

Why: risk_of: expected E10, got E11