Why didn’t they give them the info? They either withheld it or don’t have it. Both make them look bad.
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.
...and score still showed "high probability of being junk"?
All ratings agencies have their own scales, but broadly all ratings fall into one of two overarching categories, investment grade vs. junk.
The article explains that the rating ANT received was the highest within the junk range. So “highest junk rating” means within the junk category, it’s in the best sub-area. In other words, it’s just scratching below the investment grade rating.
This is important for institutional investors who can only buy investment grade, meaning if they can improve even one single grade up, they get access to a lot more debt.
Obviously a financially rational person wouldn't lend money with worse returns it can get from the government risk-free as that would be charity, hence these are considered 'junk'.