S&P Downgrades U.S. Outlook to Negative for First Time in 70 Years

amadeus

Bishop of Bio-Dome
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
40,135
Location
Weasel City
From the UK Guardian via the Drudge Report:

Wall Street shares slump as S&P downgrades US debt outlook

Ratings agency cuts long-term outlook from stable to negative for first time since Pearl Harbor attack 70 years ago

Shares fell heavily on Wall Street on Monday after a leading ratings agency fanned fears of Europe's debt crisis spreading across the Atlantic by issuing a strong warning about America's failure to tackle its budget deficit.

In a move seen by Wall Street as a "shot across the bows" of bickering politicians in Washington, Standard and Poor's (S&P) said it was cutting the outlook on the US's long-term rating from stable to negative for the first time since the attack on Pearl Harbor 70 years ago.

The announcement surprised the financial markets, where attention in recent months has been focused on the problems of the weaker nations of the eurozone. Renewed speculation that Greece will be forced to default on its debts led to a sharp sell-off in the euro, but S&P stressed that the US was not immune from the sovereign debt crisis.

In New York, the Dow Jones industrial average ended the day down 140 points, or 1.1%, with the dollar weaker on the foreign exchanges and yields rising on US treasury bills. The FTSE 100 in London was down 126 points at 5870 – a drop of more than 2% – as ongoing concerns about the eurozone's debt crisis were compounded by the setback for the world's biggest economy.

George Osborne, the chancellor, seized on the S&P warning as vindication for the coalition's stance towards deficit reduction. "S&P did the same to the UK before the election but revised us back to 'stable' following the spending review because we had a credible deficit plan," a senior Osborne aide said on Monday. He added that Labour's more cautious approach to cutting the UK's deficit was "way out of step with world opinion".

Speculation that Greece may be forced to default on its debts and a strong performance by nationalists in the Finnish election opposed to supporting the bailout of Portugal combined to send the London index down. The main stock markets in France and Germany were also down sharply on the day.

S&P said that compared with the small number of developed countries with a coveted AAA rating, the US had "very large budget deficits" which reached as high as 11% in 2009. With the political infighting between the Republicans and Democrats on the deficit now so bitter that there was a risk of the US government being shut down earlier this month, S&P said it had taken the decision to change its outlook because "the path to addressing these issues is not clear to us".

It added: "We believe there is a material risk that US policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the US fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA' sovereigns."

The White House, which last week produced proposals that would cut $4tn from the US deficit by 2022, rejected the S&P analysis. "They are saying their political judgment is that over the next two years they didn't see a political agreement" to reduce long-term deficits, Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. "I don't think that the S&P's political judgment is right."

While Europe has decided to make a priority of deficit reduction, the US approach has until now involved running an expansionary fiscal policy in an attempt to deliver faster growth.

Republicans have accused the Obama regime of "mortgaging the country's future", and Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House of Representatives budget committee, has come up with a more aggressive plan that would involve deep cuts in non-defence spending.

Nikola Swann, S&P's credit analyst, said: "We view President Obama's and congressman Ryan's proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting US government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the 2012 congressional and presidential elections."

Ted Scott, director, Global Strategy at F&C, said: "The markets were caught by surprise by today's announcement at a time when analysts had been downgrading growth expectations for the US, mainly as a result of poor weather in the first quarter of 2011 and higher commodity prices.

"The downgrade is, however, only in the outlook and is unlikely to lead to a cut in the rating itself. Indeed, it should focus the mind of the politicians of all parties to agree a credible debt reduction plan now that the clock is ticking on its debt rating."

joelbots.jpg


What do you think, sirs?

To our resident experts: how important is the S&P rating? Do you agree that their prediction is off? Is this ratings system something that simply isn't that important?
 
I'm not sure how this is any surprise. Bill Gross is short treasuries. Partly due to this inevitable, partly due to overvaluation and spreads.

Anyhow, all the stable to negative did was put the government on notice that their actions need to change.
 
The S&P doesn't think a meaningful long-term budget plan will be agreed upon by 2013?

I'm going to have to side with the administration on this one, if this is truly their reasoning.

Odd timing, considering both political parties are proposes large spending cuts over the next decade.
 
It's not specifically the lack of a budget plan that has the S&P spooked--it's the appearance that said plan will not make any real effort to balance the budget.

The deficit spending has to stop, real soon, and that's the end of it.
 
Well, predicting a long term negative outlook for the United States after Pearl Harbor turned out to be a big mistake.
 
I tend to defer to Whomp on matters financial.

So, what Whomp said.

-just another monetary economist
 
Well it's a good thing I sold my winners before today. I look forward to reaping the profits from the hysteria.

This might put more pressure on balancing the budget, or it would in the ideal world. Sadly, everyone wants their piece of the pie and isn't willing to pay for it.
 
I already earned my piece of the pie--I don't want everybody else to get their hands on it. I did the work, it's my slice.

It's no surprise that S&P commented that increased taxes is the only way forwards.

You can't get your way out of the deficit with private spending and investments. It's what happens after you increase the taxes and new businesses can take root in a recovering and healthy economy.

The political right's warped sense of what constitutes socialism and modern state building is what got you into this mess, and more of that certainly is not going to get you out of it.
 
The S&P doesn't think a meaningful long-term budget plan will be agreed upon by 2013?

I'm going to have to side with the administration on this one, if this is truly their reasoning.

Odd timing, considering both political parties are proposes large spending cuts over the next decade.
Yeah, I agree with this. S&P look at bit silly to me.
 
Don't forget, S&P are the same people who gave top ratings to subprime mortgage derivatives. So yeah, take it with a bag of salt.

But the rationality behind the outlook is there.

S&P said:
On April 13, President Barack Obama laid out his Administration's
medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed at reducing the cumulative
unified federal deficit by US$4 trillion in 12 years or less. A key component
of the Administration's strategy is to work with Congressional leaders over
the next two months to develop a commonly agreed upon program to reach this
target. The President's proposals envision reducing the deficit via both
spending cuts and revenue increases.
Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also advocated
fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 trillion, during the coming
10 years, but via different methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul
Ryan's plan seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by cutting
non-defense spending. The plan also includes significantly reducing the scope
of Medicare and Medicaid, while bringing top individual and corporate tax
rates lower than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
We view President Obama's and Congressman Ryan's proposals as the
starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in
substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we
see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties
remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional
negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy
until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the
first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014
(for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond
that time is possible.
Source
That's where we're at now. Do any of you actually believe the republicans will bend over being that far from Obama's suggestions? I predict that the election being this close will lead to a nervous dance catering to the electorate and not to logic. So, we'll have a month-by-month budget to stay afloat with no meaningful policy implemented that both sides can stand behind.
 
Neither Ryan's nor Obama's budget proposals are in any way acceptable to the other side. But that's the point: they are the starting point for negotiations, not the end point. The crucial thing is that both sides have set limits on how much to tighten, and how quickly. This is important because in the horse-trading that will follow, it would be politically unacceptable for either side to go past these limits: the Democrats would never agree to tighten by more than $4.4tn, the Reps by less than $4tn, and similarly for the 10 vs 12 year time scales.

Usually in the horse-trading, the Democrats agree to some Republican tax cuts in exchange for more spending on some Democrat projects: both of these things, however, increase the deficit. This time, because of the political impossibility of increasing the deficit, the horse-trading will hopefully be a bit more fruitful. Reps will exchange tax rises for spending cuts on Dem projects. That's reason to be hopeful, and it's disappointing that S&P have taken such a blunt view.
 
Neither Paul's nor Obama's budget proposals are in any way acceptable to the other side. But that's the point: they are the starting point for negotiations, not the end point. The crucial thing is that both sides have set limits on how much to tighten, and how quickly. This is important because in the horse-trading that will follow, it would be politically unacceptable for either side to go past these limits: the Democrats would never agree to tighten by more than $4.4tn, the Reps by less than $4tn, and similarly for the 10 vs 12 year time scales.

Usually in the horse-trading, the Democrats agree to some Republican tax cuts in exchange for more spending on some Democrat projects: both of these things, however, increase the deficit. This time, because of the political impossibility of increasing the deficit, the horse-trading will hopefully be a bit more fruitful. Reps will exchange tax rises for spending cuts on Dem projects. That's reason to be hopeful, and it's disappointing that S&P have taken such a blunt view.
No, it's not disappointing because, apart from the politics, S&P is now nearing a sane judgment of the US economic and financial situation. The US as it is now is by no means a AAA country. The underlying economic and financial data coming from the US are downright awful and, to be honest, the political will and capacity to challenge the underlying problems seem very limited.
 
I don't see how the US isn't a AAA country. The markets don't see it that way either. And neither do S&P for that matter! When the UK was being threatened with a downgrade, the markets had already priced one in. They're conspicuously not doing that for the US.

In any case, the point that I was making was that the situation now is, at worst, no different than it was last month. Or the month before that. Or the month before that. Or at any point in the past year or so. In fact, it's just this month that both parties are coming up with plans to reduce the deficit. On that basis, things are looking much better now than they have done at any point in the past year. So why is S&P doing this now? It just looks silly.
 
No, it's not disappointing because, apart from the politics, S&P is now nearing a sane judgment of the US economic and financial situation. The US as it is now is by no means a AAA country. The underlying economic and financial data coming from the US are downright awful and, to be honest, the political will and capacity to challenge the underlying problems seem very limited.

Yeah, terms like 'too big to fail' and 'emperors new clothes' comes to mind. The GOP is streaking all the way from Capitol Hill to Wall Street in the nude while they yell "US #1!"
 
I don't see how the US isn't a AAA country. The markets don't see it that way either. And neither do S&P for that matter! When the UK was being threatened with a downgrade, the markets had already priced one in. They're conspicuously not doing that for the US.

In any case, the point that I was making was that the situation now is, at worst, no different than it was last month. Or the month before that. Or the month before that. Or at any point in the past year or so. In fact, it's just this month that both parties are coming up with plans to reduce the deficit. On that basis, things are looking much better now than they have done at any point in the past year. So why is S&P doing this now? It just looks silly.

There's a difference between not wanting to see and actually seeing though. Rating them down will hurt everyone. Even the Chinese. You don't want to do that before you really have to do it. I think delaying it is stupid though, because that means GOP will go on living in their make-belief world of propaganda instead of real politics.

Of course I might be wrong and we'll all be breathing a huge sigh of relief come June/July. But I don't even see the beginning of such a political miracle.
 
If you need the S&P to tell you what to think about the credit-risk of treasuries, then maybe you shouldn't be investing.
 
Back
Top Bottom