Ratings Are Often Fire Starters, Not Fire Stoppers

Published in Tiroler Tageszeitung
(Austria) on 6 July 2011
by Alois Vahrner (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Sean Thacker. Edited by Katerina Kobylka.
The big U.S. ratings agencies are under constant fire from European politics — something that they can partly attribute to themselves.

For months, all of Europe has hung on the words and judgments of the big U.S. ratings agencies. Almost like in the gladiator fights in ancient Rome, [Europeans] are waiting to see if the three big agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Fitch and Moody’s (which together have over 90 percent of the global market share) — will lift a finger to help countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland or not. Recently, the latter was the case: The ratings were partially downgraded to junk status, with devastating consequences for the borrowing costs of the affected states. In the case of Greece, the contribution of billions of dollars from banks, which was forced through with political pressure, is threatening to collapse because it would be judged a national bankruptcy by the agencies. Consequently, the burden of payment would fall on the taxpayers alone once again.

In the meantime, a study out of the University of St. Gallen [Switzerland] published a devastating conclusion: “Ratings agencies can’t predict national bankruptcies, but can cause them in specific situations, and thereby project them.”

The examiners not only played a less-than-glorious role three years ago in the Lehman Brothers crash: Just a few days before the bankruptcy that unleashed the global financial crisis and recession, they had still awarded the bank the highest ratings for its solvency. And to this day, despite extremely high debts, the USA is very highly rated.

What is clear is that a ratings ban, which some people are calling for, is senseless. A financial expert has paraphrased the situation well: “The fever isn’t gone just because someone takes away the thermometer.” What is vital, though, is that a sharp eye is finally kept on the ratings agencies, and if a European rating counterbalance were created, it could only be advantageous.




Die großen US-Ratingagenturen stehen unter Dauerbeschuss der europäischen Politik – was sie sich teils selbst zuzuschreiben haben.

Ganz Europa hängt seit Monaten an den Lippen und Urteilen der großen US-Ratingagenturen. Fast wie bei den Gladiatorenkämpfen im alten Rom wird darauf gewartet, ob die drei Großen, Standard & Poor‘s, Fitch und Moody‘s (haben zusammen über 90 % Weltmarktanteil), den Finger über Ländern wie Griechenland, Portugal, Irland heben oder senken. Zuletzt war eher Letzteres der Fall: Die Ratings wurden teilweise auf Ramsch-Status herabgestuft, mit verheerenden Folgen für die Kreditkosten der betroffenen Staaten. Im Falle Griechenlands droht die mit politischem Druck durchgeboxte Milliarden­beteiligung von Banken zu platzen, weil dies von den Agenturen als Staatspleite gewertet würde. Zahlen müssten somit wieder allein die Steuerzahler.

Eine Studie der Universität St. Gallen brachte indes ein verheerendes Urteil: „Ratingagenturen können einen Staatsbankrott nicht vorhersagen, aber in bestimmten Situationen herbeiführen und damit prognostizieren“, so das Urteil.

Nicht nur beim Crash von Lehman Brothers vor drei Jahren spielten die Prüfer eine wenig ruhmreiche Rolle: Noch wenige Tage vor dem Bankrott, der dann die globale Finanzkrise und Rezession auslöste, hatten sie der Bank noch Bestnoten für ihre Bonität verliehen. Und bis heute werden die USA trotz Riesenschulden bestens bewertet.

Klar ist: Ein Verbot der Ratings, wie das manche fordern, ist sinnlos. Ein Finanzexperte hat dies gut umschrieben: „Das Fieber ist ja nicht weg, nur weil man das Fieberthermometer wegnimmt.“ Unabdingbar ist aber, dass den Ratingagenturen endlich genauer auf die Finger geschaut wird. Und wenn tatsächlich ein europäisches Rating-Gegengewicht käme, könnte dies nur von Vorteil sein.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Australia: Donald Trump Is Taking Over the US Federal Reserve and Financial Markets Have Missed the Point

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Austria: Trump’s Solo Dream Is Over

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Austria: Maybe Trump’s Tariff Bludgeon Was Good for Something after All

Austria: Trump’s Film Tariffs Hurt Hollywood

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

1 COMMENT

  1. The goal is to provide investors with an indication of the likelihood of the bonds being repaid, which affects the interest rate investors will demand before purchasing. “Helping” the countries by understating risk of default isn’t how capitalism works.