Diverging Opinions: S&P refuses to follow Moody's, instead reaffirming the UK's AAA

A few weeks ago, Moody's downgraded the UK one notch to AA1, depriving it for the first time of its top AAA rating. It was roughly a month before the Chancellor was due to deliver his budget, and we wondered what Moody's knew that we didn't. Well, maybe not a great deal. In a counter move, Standard & Poor's yesterday announced that it would be maintaining the UK's AAA rating, albeit with a negative outlook and a one in three likelihood of downgrade over the next 18 months. The agency expects the UK economy to grow by 1.6% per year for the next three years - below estimates provided by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility. It also states that any easing of the austerity program may precipitate a downgrade. Fitch Inc has altered the UK's status from "negative outlook" to "negative watch", indicating that a downgrade may yet be imminent, but allowing the UK to cling on to the top rating for a little longer.

So why did the largest two ratings agencies come to different conclusions about the UK economy?

I discussed the downgrade by Moody's in a previous post, and will focus on S&P's decision here. 

S&P's reaffirmed the UK rating because “the Government remains committed to implementing its fiscal programme, and has the ability and willingness to respond rapidly to economic challenges”. This is despite the fact that the national debt as a percentage of GDP in 2016 is expected to rise from 85% to 95% while the deficit falls to only 4.2%. While this clearly remains within the 'acceptable' limits of fiscal consolidation according to S&P's, the agency warned that should the pace slow any further, a downgrade will follow. The top rating was apparently spared on the back of the UK's wealthy and diverse economy, the flexibility of fiscal and monetary policy, as well as flexible and adequate product and labour markets. These were taken into account by Moody's as well though, indicating perhaps that S&P's has placed slightly more weight on the willingness and political commitment of the government to stick to its austerity plans, come rain or shine.

Standard & Poor's also made mention of the EU referendum promised to UK voters by David Cameron. The agency's assumptions are based on the premise that corporate sentiments are unaffected by the uncertainty created by the referendum. In other words the CRA acknowledges that the referendum creates uncertainty - that businesses are cautious in uncertain climates - but goes on to conclude that this is not the case here. Why? Much of the literature on investment emphasises the role of certainty and predictability in creating a suitable investment climate to attract businesses and long-term investment. Uncertainty surrounding the future of the UK within the EU, and a potential end or alteration to the free movement of goods, people, services and capital across British borders within the European Union could seriously harm the UK.plc's outlook. Not that there is much Mr. Cameron can do about this now, having made the promise to the electorate. S&P's does state that should it's assumptions about business here prove wide of the mark - and investment does suffer as a result of uncertainties - a downgrade could follow.

Oddly enough, having chronicled this, the next question is 'does it matter'? Well, in short, not really. Even the downgrade by Moody's had been factored in by the markets prior to its announcement, and the expectation that S&P's and Fitch will follow suit is widely assumed. Will it cause markets to reappraise their levels of risk associated with UK bonds, now the AAA has been confirmed? Unlikely. Besides, the AAA rating is becoming an increasingly rare specimen these days. The stigma of suffering a downgrade has been severely diluted by the sheer quantity of downgrades that have taken place over the past few years. 

But this state of affairs does lead to another - perhaps more important - question. If the markets are regularly factoring in risk assessments to their operations weeks (usually) before any announcement on downgrades by the CRAs, and if the impact of a downgrade has been reduced to the extent that sovereigns are no longer worried by an announcement, are we witnessing the slow demise of the role of CRAs in international markets? 

Links to this blog...

This blog was recently mentioned by Richard Levick in his post for Forbes on the fallout from the announcement that the US Department of Justice is bringing civil charges against Standard & Poor's.

I also wrote a guest editorial some time ago for Nutmeg about if and how credit rating agencies can remain relevant in the future.

It's Finally Happened - Moody's Downgrades the UK

Moody's finally confirmed market rumours this evening and downgraded the UK's government bond rating from AAA to AA1. It cited several factors, including the sluggish growth outlook for medium-long term, anticipating that weak growth will last into the second half of the decade, posing challenges for the government's fiscal consolidation programme. The consequences of this include the government's "high and rising debt burden" which reduces the capacity for shock absorption on the government's balance sheets. Importantly, because of the extended time frame of the fiscal consolidation plans, taking them into the next parliament, the level of risk involved has increased. Now, instead of peaking in 2014, Moody's expects the UK's gross general debt to GDP to peak in 2016 at 96 per cent, which is up from just over 90 per cent now.

Despite these problems, Moody's stresses that the UK still retains high creditworthiness, due to its competitive, well-diversified economy, previous and future fiscal consolidation and robust institutional structure. It's favourable debt structures, bond maturity lengths, and the resulting reduced interest rate risk on UK debt are all additional factors in the UK's favour. Moody's seems to believe that the government's fiscal consolidation plan will, in time, be fulfilled, given the UK's underlying economic strengths. The ratings agency does mention that the UK's exposure to the Eurozone is an issue that may become more urgent depending on how the crisis in that area progresses, however the contagion is stated to be mitigated by the UK's independent monetary policy and the status of sterling as a global reserve currency.

Moody's had changed the outlook from stable to negative in February 2012, however today's downgrade shifts the outlook back to stable. Speaking this evening in response to the downgrade, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne took the news as a "stark reminder" of the troubles being faced by Britain, and vowed to "redouble" his efforts to reduce the deficit and maintain historically low interest rates for families. Interestingly, the downgrade comes less than a month ahead of the Chancellor's budget on March 20th in which he will outline fiscal policy for the coming months. 

But will the downgrade actually make any real difference? 

The short answer to this is, well, economically no, but politically, maybe. For a start, bond markets are usually a couple of months ahead of ratings agencies when it comes to anticipating difficulties and slow growth prospects, and sterling has fallen significantly against the dollar over the past few months. This has the advantage of making exports cheaper, helping the UK economy, but it tends to signal that all is not well for economic outlooks (regardless of rumours of currency wars). More to the point, rumours have been circulating for some weeks - some even publicly - that the UK is on the verge of a downgrade. The announcement tonight by Moody's should not have surprised anyone. Will bond yields increase dramatically when the markets open on Monday morning? Unlikely. And considering the role call of countries who have been downgraded over the past few years, the UK is simply the latest to join the list.

But the political issue is slightly trickier. Like other political leaders across the western world, Osborne staked a good deal of political capital on maintaining the AAA rating. I recently posted about the French reaction to their downgrade from AAA. But it's loss in the UK may prove to be a double-edged sword. While it may force reappraisal of fiscal policy, it might also give the Chancellor some room to breathe and reassess his options.

Undoubtedly it marks a recognition by a CRA that the deficit reduction plan is not working as successfully as planned, and that plans for growth haven't produced the desired results. Fiscal policy to get Britain moving after the recession focused around shifting from domestic consumption to an export-oriented base. But as nearly 40 per cent of UK exports are destined for Europe, the ongoing recessions there are less than encouraging. You simply cannot build growth by exporting to contracting economies. The good news is that the markets still appear to have faith in the political and economic ambitions of the UK government. Bond yields remain persistently low, despite some warning of a collapse in the bond markets as seen by Greece. The economic reputation of the UK remains intact, but questions are likely to be asked over the coming days about the political will to stick to austerity, especially given the backlash against pure austerity in other parts of the world, notably Japan and France. It will be interesting to see, therefore, if the Chancellor's "plan A" will be "tweaked" slightly to take account of the latest developments, and shift slightly away from austerity towards growth.

S&P confirms Justice Department is to bring civil action

The credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s has just confirmed that the US Justice Department will bring a civil action against it claiming that model used to rate mortgage-backed securities was inadequate. The Justice Department claims that inflated ratings of securities directly contributed to the housing bubble and in turn the financial crash.

Commentators have been pondering the question of why S&P is the only agency to face a law suit, and why now. Many have been swift to point to the fact that S&P has been the only CRA to date to downgrade the US, lowering the rating to AA+ with a negative outlook in August 2011. Whether this theory holds any water, I suspect we will never know, however if this is successful it is almost certain that other suits will follow (if parties don't settle first). On news of the action, shares in S&P’s parent company, McGraw Hill, fell 13.8%, the largest one day fall since the stock market crash of 1987. Shares in Moody’s were also down 10.7%, as investors anticipate a ripple effect throughout the ratings industry if the action is brought. 

The case could signal a change of approach to the rating agencies, which have so far remained untouchable, shielding themselves (in the US at least) by the First Amendment to the Constitution under which ratings are deemed to be “opinions”, protected as free speech. However, the civil action threatened by the Justice Department has a lower burden of proof than previous criminal prosecutions.

Negotiations between the US Justice Department and the CRA broke down when the Department demanded a settlement of $1 billion from the agency. S&P state the action is “without legal merit and unjustified”, and in a statement lists the steps taken by the agency to enhance systems, governance, analytics and methodologies since 2007. The page of the agency’s website explaining changes brought in by the company also highlights a handy link to a plain-English explanation of what ratings are, and what they are not, in case there was any doubt still. The statement by the agency stresses that ratings were provided in good faith by S&P in the "unprecedented" housing market of 2007. It points out that collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs) that were awarded AAA ratings also received similar ratings from rival firms.

It states that the Department of Justice’s plan to use the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989 would be unprecedented, and would have no legal merit.

Consequently, despite the fact that the agency “deeply regrets” that it failed to anticipate the extent of the downturn in the market, it claims that this was not foreseeable, and that when doubts were raised, the agency took immediate action to reassess the relevant ratings.

The proposed action has reignited debate over the best ways to effectively regulate CRAs. Due to their position as gatekeepers to the markets, both for private issuers and sovereign states, agencies hold a great deal of power within the markets. Owing to the current way in which ratings are requested, paid for and issued, numerous conflicts of interest have been highlighted, many of which have been discussed in earlier posts. The possibility cited above of a previous downgrade being the reason for the current action stresses even further the inter-dependency of nation states and CRAs when dealing with access to international markets and international regulation. The fact that this action could represent any kind of "pay back" on the part of the US Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is a frightening prospect. Issues that are this important for the security and stability of the economy must remain above the "tit for tat" of politics and retribution. 

Since the financial crash, CRAs have responded by separating braches of their operations and repeating that ratings are assigned in good faith. Regardless of regulation, however, the issue remains that the job of assessing risk and assigning a rating to a debt has to be performed. It provides a quick source of information that remains vital to the markets, despite claims by the agencies that investors should rely on their own research rather than simply a rating. As CRAs have come to occupy such positions of power within the markets, it seems likely they will continue to fulfil this role. Questions of effective regulation that deal with conflicts of interest, therefore, will continue to occupy policy makers, market leaders and academics for some time to come.

The Politics of Ratings, and the Politics of Avoiding Ratings

A while back I wrote a post about the muddling of finance and politics. The Eurozone crisis had seen France stripped of its AAA rating, and the move hadn't been taken well in France or the rest of the Eurozone. In particular, there was a significant, and very public, "answer back" from the French government and central bank, claiming that the UK should be downgraded first. 

These downgrades, along with those of Italy and Greece, had been notable for the significant political rhetoric behind the ratings. As was plainly cited at the time, the lack of political leadership and consensus was one of the main factors behind the downgrades, making the CRAs political commentators as well as risk assessors. This has never been denied by the CRAs. In their sovereign rating methodologies, each of the Big Three provide for political risk factors to be included in the assessment, along with "other factors" that the analyst might deem relevant. (Standard & Poor's sovereign rating methodology can be found here, and Moody's methodology is here. Interestingly, Moody's is currently seeking feedback to proposed "refinements" of its sovereign rating methodology. More on this in a later post).

The problem now, though, is that the US is facing the same. The fiscal cliff negotiations that played out in the final minutes of 2012 displayed to the world how divided the US legislature really is when it comes to solving the fiscal problems facing the US. Maybe "problems" is an understatement? 

In August 2011, Standard & Poor's downgraded the US one notch from AAA to AA+. This was the first downgrade in US history and stunned Washington. S&P cited - unsurprisingly - the large debt burden, but also the political stalemate that made tough decisions to tackle the deficit nigh on impossible. It seems that Moody's and Fitch, however, are looking very closely at their top ratings in the US. Fitch, speaking during the negotiations, reminded us that failure to raise the debt ceiling would exacerbate uncertainty over US fiscal policy and send the US into an unnecessary recession. It stated that this could erode medium-term growth potential and financial stability, leading to an increased likelihood that the US would lose its AAA status. Moody's, taking a similar line, has also expressed concern about the lack of political consensus to come up with a credible long term debt reduction plan. It stated that the current AAA rating will only be confirmed if current negotiations lead to a long term strategy that reduces debt to GDP ratio. 

The political aspect of downgrades of Berlusconi's Italy centred on the lack of credibility of the leader. But in the US, the political agenda is not the issue, so much as the lack of ability to reach a suitable agreement. Politics may not be the issue, but it got in the way of finding a solution to the real, underlying problem. The fiscal cliff may have been avoided, but the issues surrounding debt levels remain. It is estimated that without action, the US debt will reach $25 trillion by 2022. Moody's statement that only a reduction in the deficit will lower the likelihood of a downgrade seems rather trite considering the figures. For now, the country remains on "negative outlook".

Cyprus Downgraded

Today, Fitch Inc downgraded Cyprus to junk status - as the country officially the EU for a bail out. Cyprus had been relying on Russia for funds, but has been forced to approach Europe for €1.8billion, approximately equivalent to 10% of that country's GDP, and making it the fifth EU member state to request funds. Cyprus, which is the EU's third smallest economy, cited exposure to Greek debts, and the need to recapitalise Cyprus Popular Bank.

The bailout request comes ahead of Cyprus assuming the Presidency of the EU in the second half of 2012. It follows Spain's request for €100billion, finalised on June 9th. This will be jointly met by the EFSF and the ESM, creating a headache for lenders and future investors as only one of the funds has preferred investor status. However markets have judged neither fund as containing sufficient money to solve Eurozone woes, with blame increasingly falling at Germany's door for failure to take action.

Moody's recently downgraded Spain's sovereign debt to one notch above junk status, and has kept the rating on review for further possible downgrade, although Moody's assigns the lowest rating to that country. It's banks have so far held on to ratings at least one notch above this, due to profitable overseas businesses.

Moody's revises UK and French ratings to "Negative Outlook"

UK sovereign bonds have today been given a "negative outlook" by rating agency Moody's, along with those of France and Austria. All three countries are still rated AAA by Moody's, even though France had lost the triple A rating assigned by Standard & Poor's in January 2012.

Spain was downgraded to A3 from A1 with a negative outlook, Italy was downgraded to A3 from A2 with a negative outlook and Portugal was downgraded to Ba3 from Ba2 with a negative outlook, according to Moody's criteria. The agnecy also cut Slovakia’s, Slovenia’s and Malta’s ratings.

It should be noted that "negative outlook" is not quite as drastic as "negative watch", implying only a one in three chance of losing the top rating over the next 12 to 18 months.