Yesterday, as reported in Money News, Moody’s made me laugh, with the following pronouncements:
” . . . it could move a step closer to cutting the U.S. Aaa rating if President Barack Obama’s tax and unemployment benefit package becomes law. . . .
“The plan agreed to by Obama and Republican leaders last week could push up debt levels, increasing the likelihood of a negative outlook on the United States rating in the coming two years . . .
“A negative outlook, if adopted, would make a rating cut more likely over the following 12-to-18 months.
“For the United States, a loss of the top Aaa rating, reduce the appeal of U.S. Treasurys, which currently rank as among the world’s safest investments.
“From a credit perspective, the negative effects on government finance are likely to outweigh the positive effects of higher economic growth,” Moody’s analyst Steven Hess said in a report sent late on Sunday.”
Here Moody’s is referring to the increase in the debt, and the debt-to-GDP ratio caused by the tax deal, and also to the predicted lesser value of Treasuries which will presumably lead to the US paying higher interest rates and having greater interest costs on the national debt than it otherwise would have had. In addition, Moody’s believes that the likely $900 billion cost of the tax deal will make the US more likely to default on the national debt.
I found this a laughing matter for a number of reasons. First, as Jane Hamsher points, out only 5 days earlier Moody’s had said there was no prospect of a ratings cut if the tax deal passed. Their sudden change of opinion greatly undercuts their credibility.
Second, as is widely known, all the ratings agencies including Moody’s gave the CDOs and CDSs that led to the collapse of AIG their highest ratings. In addition they downgraded Japan’s credit ratings a long time ago, with no measurable impact on its bond interest rates or costs, even though Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio has continued to increase over time and is now in the neighborhood of 200%. So, one may be forgiven for wondering why anyone should listen to the ratings ravings of Moody’s and the other agencies at all. In fact, one may begin to suspect that their ratings have little influence on the bond markets, and also, given the Japanese case, that the bond markets don’t control the interest rates that Governments sovereign in their own currency must pay.
Third, since the United States is a nation with a fiat non-convertible currency system, with a floating exchange rate, and no debt denominated in any foreign currency, it is impossible for the United States to be forced into a default by any external party, simply because its ability to create the money it owes its obligations in is unlimited. Voluntary default could be caused by a Congress which acts stupidly, and in a manner contrary to the Constitution, to constrain the Treasury from paying its obligations when they come due, coupled with a Treasury that accepts Congress’s constraint in conflict with the clear admonition of the Constitution that the debts of the United State shall not be questioned.
The objective risk of default by the US Government is not increased by the increased size of the deficit, debt, or debt-to-GDP ratio. And Moody’s view that the risk of default is increased by such increases, only shows that Moody’s doesn’t understand the monetary operations of nations sovereign in their own currencies. Increases in these numbers don’t in any way lessen the constitutional authority of the Government (including the Congress) to spend or make money. It’s basic solvency, in other words is untouched by the tax deal, and if Congress allows the Executive to use its currency powers, then the risk of default as a result of the deal is exactly zero. Whatever additional risk exists as a result of the deal, comes only from the increased likelihood that Congress, mistakenly thinking that the Government is like a household, or, or ideological reasons, determined to “starve the beast” might constrain the Executive from meeting its obligations, and declare a US default of its obligations when there is no reason to do so.
Fourth, my biggest laugh came at the underlying assumption of Moody’s report, namely that its ratings and the bond market itself actually control the interest rates that Governments like the United States must pay. Sure, they will determine interest rates if the Government sits idly by and lets them drive the market. However, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, can target bond interest rates and set these for the bond markets by manipulating bank reserves. Specifically, one way to do this, is that the Treasury can cease issuing long-term bonds, and sell only three-month bonds. Three-month bond interest rates are generally controlled by overnight rates for bank reserves, and overnight rates can be driven down to near zero by flooding the banks with excess reserves. That’s basically how the Japanese keep their bond interest near zero, and that’s how we can do the same.
Alternatively, another move we can make to remove the effects of the bond markets and the ratings agencies upon public finances, is for Congress to stop requiring new debt issuance in coordination with deficit spending, and for the Treasury to stop issuing debt. If we did this the credit rating agencies and the interest rates in the bond market would be irrelevant from that day forward.
In short, the bond markets and the ratings agencies aren’t in control of US public finances. They are not in a position to influence what our taxing or spending policies ought to be, or whether we will default on our obligations. In fact, at this point in our history, Congress is mandating that we have a national debt. It is forcing us to have one.
Congress mandates that we borrow our own previously created money from the Chinese, Japanese, and Middle Eastern nations and pay them interest on a commodity (our money), that we have an unlimited ability to create, while they also complain about the very same national debt they are always re-creating and increasing, and then tell us that we can’t afford unemployment insurance, enough Federal Spending to create full employment, Social Security, Medicare for All, good educations for our kids and grandkids, and emergency programs to create new energy foundations for our economy.
Forget about Moody’s! They’re part of the great distraction preventing us from focusing on our real problems. There’s nothing that Moody’s and the bond markets can do to hurt us, unless we let them. Let’s not let them. Tell them to bring it on! And, if they do, tell them to keep in mind Beowulf’s admonition:
”I don’t think we’ll see Moody’s or any other rating service based in the US ever downgrade US Treasuries. It would cause a tremendous amount of financial loss and would leave Moody’s and its executives exposed to criminal prosecution. If I were Moody’s general counsel, I’d tell the CEO in no uncertain terms, Do Not Tug On Superman’s Cape.
14th Amendment, Sect. 5
”. . . .the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned”
Criminal Mischief statute
18 US 1361. Government property or contracts
“Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:
If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.”
And Bill Michell’s Conclusion in his post on outlawing the credit rating agencies:
“The real question that I always ask is why governments allow these undemocratic criminal organisations to exist. They can just outlaw them. This would force the corporate players to create better ways of informing the markets about their risk characteristics and leave governments alone to do what they are democratically elected to do – advance public purpose.
Further. as part of my preferred financial market reforms I would render illegal a whole swag of derivative assets which would lessen the problem of pricing risk.
It is time to wean the private financial markets off these agencies. The best way would be to declare them illegal.
The last thing that a sovereign government should be doing right now is cutting back on its fiscal stimulus.”
Which, of course, is exactly what Moody’s wants us to do.
(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).



20 Comments

Moody’s got the Blues. The bond market is ready to explode across the globe I think. Good discussion lgid. I hope the US is not dumb enough to let the credit raters take over, but we do have Obama “running things.” Did you catch Dylan Ratigan’s interview with Lawrence McDonald on Radio Free Dylan? I’d be interested to hear what you think about it if you have.
Thanks cb, I’ll check it out. Generally, I like Dylan, but think he’s really into the Household Budget Analogy. He seems real worried about the deficit.
Completely agree with Bill Michell’s comments.
“why governments allow these undemocratic criminal organisations to exist. They can just outlaw them.”
A few things:
The first statement by Hess noted that it was unlikely the financial situation would deteriorate. The second notes that it’s possible. These aren’t inconsistent statements, but are different emphases.
Second: it’s true the US wouldn’t default; however, it could inflate its way out of debt, which is functionally identical from the perspective of a bondholder to a default and principal restructuring.
Third: it’s not clear we could ban ratings orgs (they just issue opinions; opinions are generally protected speech). What you’re missing entirely is that they only exist because of paternalistic government regulation. We require that pension funds et& only own bonds that have been well-rated by Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organzations (NRSOs, collectively the ratings agencies). The answer here is just to deregulate and the market won’t use them. (I don’t think that should happen, but if you wanted to get rid of them that’s what you’d support)
They wouldn’t exist but for government regulation that requires them.
It is also possible for the ROW to more or less force and equivalent of a default. If for instance oil producers refused to accept dollars for their oil, this would have an identical effect. The US would be forced to go cap in hand and beg for any acceptable currency to pay its oil bills in. It would do so under pretty much whatever terms the lender cared to dictate. Might this happen one day? Well, in my opinion it is merely a question of when the ROW economy has sufficient pent up demand to simply replace the US entirely as an oil and gas market. With China’s growth rates positive, and in all likelihood, accounting for ludicrous US government propaganda statistics, US growth firmly negative, this point could be reached relatively quickly.
Yes, and at one time they had a useful purpose. But they stopped fulfilling any useful purpose before the end of the 1990′s. Today they are little more than a criminal enterprise.
Why do you feel that the perspective of the bondholders matters?
Regarding the ratings agencies, there’s a difference between banning the concept of the ratings agency and banning these particular ratings agencies. The two biggest US rating agencies have been acting as part of a criminal enterprise. Of course they can and should be shut down.
People and institutions ranging from Bernie Madoff to Enron all have a right to free speech. But if they’ve broken the law then they can have thier enterprises shut down.
I think the answer is to make them illegal and let the market think up another way to assess risk. The bottom line here is that their risk assessments are arbitrary or outright corrupt. There’s much evidence that people have been buying their ratings, The Justice Department won’t prosecute however, because we’re looking forward and not backward and also, I think, because Warren Buffet is currently beyond the law for obvious reasons.
This is a real danger. However, I’d start responding to this problem now, by prohibiting imports from most nations, rationing oil and implementing an emergency alternative energy foundations program. We have enough of our own oil, with perhaps a little help from Canada to make this transition.
Hi cap, Can and should!
I’m not suggesting the US inflate its way out of debt; and I disagree with any suggestion that Government deficit spending to end unemployment will cause demand-pull inflation. That view is not supported by empirical evidence and is derivative of the refuted quantity theory of money, which is inapplicable in less than full employment economies.
I’ve discussed the issue at length in the context of a critique of Paul Krugman’s views, here:
http://www.correntewire.com/paul_debates_jamie_and_mmt#more
Excellent expansion of the arguments, lets. Thanks.
You’re welcome, John. But where do we go from here? I’d like to remove the Congressional mandate for debt issuance whenever Government deficit spends so that the national debt is eventually paid off without having to run a surplus? What about you?
I wasn’t saying you were suggesting that. What I was saying is that sovereigns *can* inflate their way to less debt, and that’s no less of interest to a bondholder than a default is.
Ya don’t have to make it illegal. There wouldn’t be ratings orgs if there weren’t laws in place requiring them. It’d be like if we compelled taxi drivers to carry buggywhips. If you want to get rid of the whips, you don’t ban them, you just get rid of the requirement.
I don’t care about the bondholders, but Moody’s does. That’s why they do what they do. So the interests of the bondholders will necessarily drive Moody’s analyses.
What evidence do you have that Moody’s cares about the bondholder?
Moody’s and S&P screwed over bondholders by giving AAA ratings to subprime junk.
The US certainly SHOULD have the potential to power itself entirely with its own renewable resources. It could even be a very profitable industry. Quite why even the plutocrats don’t see this as their own self-interest eludes me. Unless they reckon that as they don’t control renewable energy from the outset, it might be dangerous to allow it to get loose, lest their oil and gas fortunes become worthless overnight?
I think a lot of this is sheer inertia. Nothing seems to get done in the political system unless it’s driven by some kind of crisis. Our problems with oil have been apparent since the 1970s. The only President who tried to anything about it was Jimmy Carter. All Reagan had to do was to continue his energy policies and we would have no problems today. All Clinton had to do was to go back to Carter’s policies.
This isn’t a case where hindsight is 20-20, any fool can see that oil is going to become increasingly scarce. It’s a case of the people who have been running our country not caring enough about it. Another failure of leadership.