• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

U.S. Loses AAA Credit Rating as S&P Slams Debt, Politics

nobullsupplements

Site Advertiser
U.S. Loses AAA Credit Rating as S&P Slams Debt, Politics - Bloomberg

Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S.’s AAA credit rating for the first time, slamming the nation’s political process and criticizing lawmakers for failing to cut spending enough to reduce record budget deficits.
S&P lowered the U.S. one level to AA+ while keeping the outlook at “negative” as it becomes less confident Congress will end Bush-era tax cuts or tackle entitlements. The rating may be cut to AA within two years if spending reductions are lower than agreed to, interest rates rise or “new fiscal pressures” result in higher general government debt, the New York-based firm said yesterday.
Lawmakers agreed on Aug. 2 to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling and put in place a plan to enforce $2.4 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years, less than the $4 trillion S&P had said it preferred. Even with the specter of a downgrade, demand for Treasuries surged as investors saw few alternatives amid concern global growth is slowing and Europe’s sovereign debt crisis is spreading.
“The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics,” S&P said in a statement late yesterday after markets closed.
U.S. Response
The U.S. immediately lashed out at S&P, with a Treasury Department spokesman saying the firm’s analysis contains a $2 trillion error. The spokesman, who asked not to be identified by name, didn’t elaborate, saying the mistake speaks for itself.
Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings affirmed their AAA credit ratings on Aug. 2, the day President Barack Obama signed a bill that ended the debt-ceiling impasse that pushed the Treasury to the edge of default. Moody’s and Fitch also said that downgrades were possible if lawmakers fail to enact debt reduction measures and the economy weakens.
“This move should not be much of a surprise to markets, though the timing is at a point where market sentiment is fragile after the drop in stocks this week,” said Ajay Rajadhyaksha, a managing director at Barclays Capital in New York. “What really matters is whether the markets are willing to ‘downgrade’ the U.S. bond market. As this week’s move showed, U.S. Treasuries remain the flight-to-quality asset of choice.”
S&P’s action may hurt the U.S. economy over time by increasing the cost of mortgages, auto loans and other types of lending tied to the interest rates paid on Treasuries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that a downgrade would raise the nation’s borrowing costs by $100 billion a year. The U.S. spent $414 billion on interest expense in fiscal 2010, or 2.7 percent of gross domestic product, according to Treasury Department data.
‘Fiscal House’
“It’s a reflection of the fact that we haven’t done enough to get our fiscal house in the order,” Anthony Valeri, market strategist in San Diego at LPL Financial, which oversees $340 billion, said in an interview before the cut. “Sovereign credit quality is going to remain under pressure for years to come.”
The agreement between Republicans and Democrats raised the nation’s debt ceiling until 2013 and threatens automatic spending cuts to enforce the $2.4 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years.
Even with the accord, S&P said the U.S.’s debt may rise to 74 percent of gross domestic product by year-end, to 79 percent in 2015 and 85 percent by 2021.
S&P also changed its assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush would expire by the end of 2012 “because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.”
American Policymaking
“More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating,” S&P said.
S&P put the U.S. government on notice on April 18 that it risks losing the AAA rating it has had since 1941 unless lawmakers agreed on a plan by 2013 to reduce budget deficits and the national debt. It indicated last month that anything less than $4 trillion in cuts would jeopardize the rating.
“There was still a very narrow cross section of common ground between the parties and we don’t think that this agreement really changes that equation,” David Beers, a managing director of sovereign credit ratings at S&P said in a Bloomberg Television interview.
Capital Weightings
The treatment of Treasuries and other securities backed by the U.S. in terms of risk-based capital weightings for banks, savings associations, credit unions and bank and savings and loan companies won’t change, the Federal Reserve and bank regulators said in a statement following the downgrade.
Obama has said a rating cut may hurt the broader economy by increasing consumer borrowing costs tied to Treasury rates. An increase in Treasury yields of 50 basis points would reduce U.S. economic growth by about 0.4 percentage points, JPMorgan said in a report, citing Fed research and data.
“The minute you start downgrading away from AAA, you take small steps toward credit risk and that is something any country would like to avoid,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive and co- chief investment officer at Pacific Investment Management Co., said in a Bloomberg Television interview before the announcement.
Ten-year Treasury yields fell to as low as 2.33 percent in New York yesterday, the least since October. Yields for the nine sovereign borrowers that have lost their AAA ratings since 1998 rose an average of two basis points in the following week, according to JPMorgan.
Treasury Yields
Treasury yields average about 0.70 percentage point less than the rest of the world’s sovereign debt markets, Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes show. The difference has expanded from 0.15 percentage point in January.
Investors from China to the U.K. are lending money to the U.S. government for a decade at the lowest rates of the year. For many of them, there are few alternatives outside the U.S., no matter what its credit rating.
“Yields are low in the face of a downgrade because there is nowhere else for people to go if they don’t buy Treasuries because they want to be in safe dollar assets,” Carl Lantz, head of interest-rate strategy at Credit Suisse Group AG, one of 20 primary dealers that trade directly with the Fed, said before the announcement.
Bond Dealers
The committee of bond dealers and investors that advises the U.S. Treasury said the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency “appears to be slipping” in quarterly feedback presented to the government on Aug. 3.
The U.S. currency’s portion of global currency reserves dropped to 60.7 percent in the period ended March 31, from a peak of 72.7 percent in 2001, data from the International Monetary Fund in Washington show.
“The idea of a reserve currency is that it is built on strength, not typically that it is ‘best among poor choices’,” page 35 of the presentation made by one member of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from firms ranging from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Pimco. “The fact that there are not currently viable alternatives to the U.S. dollar is a hollow victory and perhaps portends a deteriorating fate.”
Members of the TBAC, as the committee is known, which met Aug. 2 in Washington, also discussed the implications of a downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating. “None of the members thought that a downgrade was imminent,” according to minutes of the meeting released by the Treasury.
Remaining AAAs
S&P gives 18 sovereign entities its top ranking, including Australia, Hong Kong and the Isle of Man, according to a July report. The U.K. which is estimated to have debt to GDP this year of 80 percent, 6 percentage points higher than the U.S., also has the top credit grade. In contrast with the U.S., its net public debt is forecast to decline either before or by 2015, S&P in the statement yesterday.
A U.S. credit-rating cut would likely raise the nation’s borrowing costs by increasing Treasury yields by 60 basis points to 70 basis points over the “medium term,” JPMorgan’s Terry Belton said on a July 26 conference call hosted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
“That impact on Treasury rates is significant,” Belton, global head of fixed-income strategy at JPMorgan, said during the call. “That $100 billion a year is money being used for higher interest rates and that’s money being taken away from other goods and services.”
 
Means nothing.

The other companies have kept it at AAA.

The difference is next to nothing and these ratings have been a shame for years anyway.
 
Interesting read. We knew the world was f*cked, but.. yeah.

 
Interesting read. We knew the world was f*cked, but.. yeah.

I would rather have not read that lol.

I have quite a bit of money tied up in managed funds (shit financial advice), suffice to say this whole debacle is hurting me a lot lol.
 
That's it I'm moving to Africa. At least you can see the fucked up shit coming at you over there. Don't expect me to help you guys out when the worlds economy comes crashing down.
 
Yeh pretty fuurked up, I'm studying economics (only a module for a business degree in accounting) and we have done a case study on the 2008-9 financial meltdown. Suffice to say, when US is going down we all will follow as we back our own money on theirs. Spun out when I found out that 1 in every 5 dollars is US currency in the whole world. Haven't learn't enough to know what this all brings to our door step though, interesting stuff when you consider China is considered our biggest buyer, and US is their biggest market. Knock-on effect can't be good there.
 
China and Japan hold the largest portion of the US currency in the world.

But you'll learn more as you go on. Don't just take what your lecturer says as gospel. They teach the system they are given and provide a bias based on their personal beliefs.

I had one teach us the whole "100% unregulated market" bullshit in 07 lol

The problem is, people look at these situations like there is only two completely opposite approaches.

Unregulation got us into this mess, over-regulation made it worse. Moderate regulation from government the whole time would have avoided this.

But look at the world economy at a bigger level. Historically, the US dollar has strengthened in times like these. For some reason people go back to it.

It is not beyond recoverable at the moment.

The problem also comes down to too many people with little knowledge thinking they are mad investors who pull out of the market the second the is any speculation of bad news. Just because one shame rating system downgraded the US from "an excellent chance of paying their debts" to "a very good chance..." shouldn't have been a call for fuckwits to withdraw from the market.

The media sensationalism of the events amplifies the negative effects of it. People are sheep in a lot of ways.
 

The problem with this argument that you're assuming that the government can reach and maintain this 'happy medium' of regulation. Attempting to regulate the finance sector to avoid crises is desirable, but in reality, it's probably unachievable. Alan Greenspan argued that trying to regulate hedge funds was pointless as their balance sheets change so rapidly, that the information would be irrelevant before the ink dried on the reports.

But, again, don't think that this was necessarily a problem of too little regulation in the first place. When the Great Depression occurred, Keynes and many others argued that this was simply a failure of the market and that was accepted as the standard explanation for about thirty years. It wasn't until the 1960s, however, that Milton Friedman proved that the Depression was a result of the Federal Reserve allowing money supply to shrink and, subsequently, push up real interest rates, which drastically slowed growth. The Federal Reserve having a mandate from the government to regulate money supply means that the Depression was a failure of governance, not the market (that's not to say that the 1929 crash wasn't a fault of the market though.)

In turn, it's entirely possible that another Milton Friedman could come along in thirty years time and completely alter our understanding of the crisis of 2008. We shouldn't be so quick to blame the market when, if you dig a little deeper, you can find fault of the government.
 
Fakepolitik - That was a really good post. But now you are assuming how the regulation should work and by the looks of it, you expect it to be purely reaction. The level of regulation and whether it's proactive or reactive are points we haven't discussed to support either of our posts. Reaction will always lag compared to market movements obviously. Also I don't want to get caught in a round-a-bout argument of whether it was the market or the regulation. It was a mix of both - which is a bit weird and hard to grasp as it kind of sounds like an oxymoron "Well the mix of unregulation, market movements and regulation is what caused it..." sounds strange, right?

I think we can both agree on your statement to what and see what we discover in the future. Hindsight is so marvelous.

TGTL - This is something I haven't talked about in a while. It's quite a draining topic which borders on conspiracy theory, so it can just get out of control.

It was basically done for trading purposes between businesses - instead of trading through different currencies and later using the euro currency unit which wasn't an actual currency, it was brought in for common terms.
Another reason was tourism, if all the countries had the same currency, it would be easier for tourists to travel around - especially considering how small some of them are.
There were some other reasons talked about - to qualify for the euro the countries had to meet a set of criteria regard deficits, debt ratios, investments etc etc. Some economists pushing for the euro claimed once you meet that criteria and obtained use of the euro, the strength of the economy would increase more as it was like joining a stronger countries economy.
It was also a step towards a unified europe - this is where the conspiracies kick in. Let me say that I believe a Unified Europe is different to a One World Government and this isn't a discussion about either - although they both have positives and negatives just as much as alternatives.

It created the second largest economy in the world, it helped and hurt different countries, but it has stood pretty strong and has proven to be useful. Don't forget most of the world outside of (and a lot inside of) Europe predicted it would be detrimental or at least only partly as successful as it turned out to be so far.
 
That's a short version anyway.

If you want to discuss the negatives of the euro WITHOUT conspiracies, then a lot of debt that europe is caught up in right now can be mentioned. But this is a long conversation I don't really want to have lol (sorry).
 
I agree. I'm certainly in no position to offer an in depth explanation, but I would say that it's a bit more complex than simply arguing that the crisis was caused by either too much or not enough regulation.

Paul Krugman wrote some really great stuff about how that wasn't so much that financial deregulation in the 1980s caused the crisis, but the fact that there had been no regulation at all on things like Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDOs) in the first place. It seems that regulators simply haven't been able to keep up with the rapid financial innovations made over the past thirty years.

This is the sort of stuff that disturbs me. In this light, I don't have much faith that the government could enact anything beyond ham-fisted restrictions on the workings of the finance sector. In this case, we would have to choose between the lesser of two evils- I highly restricted, anemic, but stable finance system or a highly flexible, innovative, but chaotic one instead.
 
Last edited:
Just read some articles on the economist website... things are looking bleak in the US and Europe...

Govt approach to slow the recession has been pretty conservative hasn't it? Prop up businesses and austerity measures...

I love this quote from Henry Ford "Cars don't buy cars". Help out consumers to get them spending and stop sitting on their cash! Confidence is the real problem here. Enough with handing crutches to banks.
 

You sound exactly like my friend Steve... You're not into marxism are you?
 
I'm into tat maytalism mate. lol

Basically, I should be made sole ruler of the world for 20 years without question. Then we will all be peachy forever and ever.