2014
08/28

Category:
Credit Ratings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Why credit ratings agencies don’t make the grade

Lowy Interpreter

Foreign investors learn about the Australian economy from a variety of sources, but the credit rating agencies have a special place, as many investment managers are committed to following the rating agencies assessments. Credit agency ratings are also used in prudential supervision. This gives special importance to Standard and Poors latest pronouncements, reaffirming Australias AAA rating.

The Samp;P press release begins by noting the countrys strong public policy settings, economic resilience, and significant fiscal and monetary policy flexibility as well as its strong ability to absorb large economic and financial shocks, as was demonstrated during the global recession in 2009.

So far, so good. Then come the caveats:

Australias high external imbalances, dependence on commodity exports, and high household debt moderate these strengths…In our opinion, while Australia benefits from many fundamental strengths, its key credit weakness is the economys high level of external liabilities. The banking system in particular has a high degree of external indebtedness and remains highly reliant on the ongoing backing of foreign investors…Meanwhile, Australia continues to run significant current account deficits…

Pressing the panic button? Not really. This is just having two bob each way, as Samp;P goes on to say:

In our opinion, however, the risks associated with Australias highprivate-sector external debt are manageable because of the strength of the countrys financial system, the high degree of foreign currency debt hedging, and an actively traded currency that historically has allowed external imbalances to adjust. Additionally, Australias highly credible monetary policy framework remains able to help counter the impact of any economic shocks.

So were OK after all? Not so fast.

Just in case youre getting lulled into complacency, Samp;P concludes with some warnings and a line-in-the-sand threat:

We could lower the ratings if external imbalances were to grow significantly more than we currently expect, either because the terms of trade deteriorates quickly and markedly, or the banking sectors cost of external funding increases sharply. Such an external shock could lead to a protracted deterioration in the fiscal balance and the public debt burden. It could also lead us to reassess Australias contingent fiscal risks from its financial sector. We could also lower the ratings if significantly weaker than expected budget performance leads to net general government debt rising above 30 per cent of GDP.

What would a country have to do to get a clean bill of health? Australias banks are no longer obtaining new funding flows from overseas, andtheir outstanding balances are smaller than in 2008(see graph below). Sure, the AAA government guarantee helped them to come through the crisis smoothly but the same thing could be provided again, if needed. The financial system was given the ultimate stress test in 2008 and came though well, unlike many countries. As for the warning on external imbalances, since 2008 the current account deficit is significantly smaller, as is theexternal income deficit.

Source:Reserve Bank of Australia.

What about the line in the sand on net government debt?

With the current level at just over 20 per cent of GDP, it would indeed be a major slippage if we were to find ourselves over 30 per cent, so for Samp;P to finish its press release with this hypothetical outlier is drawing a long bow. Its drama-queen stuff, but it has been picked upby the press, always happy to spotlight an impending disaster, no matter how unlikely.

Lets also put the current level (and even the 30 per cent line in the sand) in perspective. Here are the equivalent IMF figures for the G7 countries:

Source:IMF Global Stability Report, Table 1.1.1.1.

Remarkably, some of the key actors responsible for the 2008 financial debacle have managed to restore their reputations, and no rehabilitation is more remarkable than that of the Teflon-coated credit rating agencies. Leading up to 2008, they handed out AAA ratings toworthless mortgage securitisations(but of course these were a different sort of AAA rating: the debt issuers simply paid for it).

Nor were the country ratings much better: Samp;Ps investment-grade endorsements of bankrupt Greecesurvived well into 2010. The role of the credit rating agencies was undercritical reviewwell before the 2008 crisis but no satisfactory answer has yet been found for theirundue influenceand they arestill accorded a rolein the Basel prudential supervision arrangements.

Could it be that Samp;P is peeved because it recentlylost its reputation-damningcourt case in Australia? Its little wonder that analysis of the sort produced by Samp;P for Australiaevokes a derisive response. Cant they do better?

This piece was originally published at the Lowy Interpreter. Reproduced with permission.

Comments are closed.