Rating agencies tighten the screw

Moody’s has joined other credit rating agencies in downgrading its assessments for France and Spain when it comes to repaying loans. What logic is unfolding here?

The full name of the credit rating agency – Moody’s Investors Service – says it all. The analysis these agencies make and the actions they take are intended to assist those with money to magnify the value of their investments.

Over the last few months, as the crisis has deepened, the significance of Moody’s and the small number of other similar agencies has grown and grown.

In many ways they provide the information needed to allow the operation of the free market, advising investors on the credit-worthiness of borrowers, and helping borrowers to improve their attractiveness to lenders.

Informed investors profit from crisis, as they speculate against future market prices for shares and bonds.

Moody’s cut in Spain’s rating and its warning to France measures the deterioration in conditions in those countries as the recession exposes the weakness of the banks.

The downgraded ratings don’t just measure, however. They have a dual role. They are intended as a direct intimidation to those countries’ governments (and to all the others who are next in firing line).

Unless you take action to ensure that you overcome your difficulties in making these payments, the increased cost of borrowing more will make life impossibly difficult. It’s the classic money lenders’ threat.

The objective conditions that provide evidence for the downgrade are slowing growth, and accelerating recession leading to falling tax revenues which, in turn, make it more and more difficult for governments to make the interest payments due on the money they’ve borrowed.

So the rating cut also translates into a more severe assault on the lives of the people who live in the countries affected. The news about Spain and France came just as trades unions in Greece prepared for a 48 hour strike supported by the burgeoning network of new organisations that have formed to fight the impact of the mounting attacks on living standards.

For governments subservient to the capitalist economy, like the ‘socialist’ Pasok in Greece, cuts are not optional.

For the millions of people whose wages and pensions are melting away, whose jobs are being destroyed, health, education and social support systems being swept from under their feet, fighting the cuts is not optional either.

What resolution can there be to these opposite interests?

Strikes, protests, demonstrations, occupations are all now everyday events. Last Saturday’s occupation of towns and cities throughout the world is an important part of the answer to Moody’s symbolic measure of the power of capital.

But only a part. The regulation of finance demanded by many protestors is not an option for capital either.

This is an epochal moment providing both the necessity and opportunity to replace the rule of capital.

Those who claim to the know, like Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, are warning that “time is running out” for the global capitalist economy and that even dealing with Greece and the eurozone crisis will not provide the “solution”.

He is right there. The capitalist system has plunged into an irreversible crisis in which the only answer for the ruling classes is to punish the overwhelming majority through an unprecedented assault on living standards, services, job and right.

In all the temporary and permanent occupations of towns and cities, the question to be raised is not how to better manage capitalist society but how to achieve the democratic ownership and control of the banks, the factories, the mines and the supermarkets.

Gerry Gold

Economics editor

Bond markets have the United States in their sights

Assessing the significance of credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s historic decision to downgrade the debt outlook for the USA is complex. But significant it definitely is.

S&P and Moody’s, which between them control 80% of the market, act as intelligence gatherers and forecasters on behalf of capitalist investors. They examine relevant aspects of an institutional issuer of debt – usually a corporate entity or a state body – and assess the risk to an investor of placing their money with that institution.

The higher the risk, the more the issuer of debt has to pay to the investor in interest or “yield”, and consequently, the more the corporation has to make from its operations, or in the case of a state, the more it has to extract from its citizens in taxes.

So, you might say, the increasing burden being placed on the populations of effectively bankrupt countries like Ireland and Greece is largely on the say-so of these agencies.

Like all these agencies, S&P is a competitive, for-profit operation. In order to keep its customers paying their fees – and that is mostly the corporations whose performance is being assessed – it needs to show that it is getting its assessments right, more than it gets them wrong.

In the run-up to the 2007-8 global crash, S&P was itself mesmerised by the hysterical expansion of fantasy finance in which products derived from the issue of traditional forms of credit and debt based on real value multiplied the amount in circulation many times over. The big players issued monumental quantities of derivatives and they paid the ratings agencies huge fees to provide the market with favourable assessments.

Money talks.

So the agencies failed to provide any warning about the impossible state of Lehman Brothers which crashed out of existence in 2008.

Governments, on the other hand, don’t pay the agencies to assess the health of their economies, or to assess the risk that they might default on interest payments to the investors who lend them money through the bonds they purchase.

The rating agencies make their assessments as part of the fees paid by corporations who want to know whether the state’s debt is more or less risky. The big, or even only question at stake is: will the government act sufficiently strongly to provide the conditions for the corporations to intensify the extraction of profit from their population?

So when S&P decides to downgrade the outlook for US debt, it is taking into account many factors. These days the judgement is more political than it is economic.

The on-going Punch & Judy style shadow-play between Obama and the Republicans over the $4-5 trillion programme of cuts to be visited upon the American people is one aspect of the analysis.

As one economist observed: "The key question is whether the gridlocked US political system can respond in time to avert a bond market revolt."

Some commentators say that S&P’s action is a warning to Obama from the world of finance. If they don’t crack down hard enough, investment money will go elsewhere and interest rates will rise.

But they’ll also be assessing the likely contagion effect of the wildfire of revolt spreading outwards from Tahrir Square throughout the Middle East, North Africa and taking in Gabon in Central Africa.

They’ll be weighing up the likely outcome of the political struggle against the regimes that have ensured the supply of cheap oil to fuel growth over the last forty years.

They’ll be closely examining the protest movement in Europe for signs that it is moving beyond resistance. And they’ll be studying developments like the People’s Assembly arising from the occupation of the State Capitol in Wisconsin.

It’s no wonder S&P has downgraded the US government’s prospects for paying back its loans while continuing to borrow at relatively low interest rates.

Gerry Gold
Economics editor