America hinted at a rating

April 18 the rating agency S & P revised its rating outlook U.S. to negative from stable, justifying her decision "very large compared to the other holders of AAA-rated budget deficits and rising public debt," "substantial risk that American politicians do not reach agreement on Budgetary Questions to the 2013th, "as well as long-term unsecured obligations of the state on various social programs, primarily Medicare and Medicaid. Is this event a sensation? Well, yes and no. The fact that U.S. fiscal policy in the long term is unstable, the national debt is growing, and meaningful efforts to bring state finances in order not long ago was known to the market. In fact, the neo-Keynesian measures to support the economy through fiscal stimulus undertaken in 2008-2009 in response to the power of the financial crisis began in exceptional permanent. Post-crisis recovery in 2010 was so weak that if you remove the economic crutch in the form of super soft monetary policy and the huge budget deficit, the patient has every chance of falling again into the pit of recession. Of course, all professionals are well aware that the budget deficit, a year from the year surpasses 10% of GDP, high unemployment (especially hidden - part-time employment, etc.), booming national debt, feeble economic growth - all symptoms, does not corresponding to the highest AAA credit rating. Nothing new. S & P did not reveal any new problems the U.S. economy, which were not previously known to a very wide range of analysts and economists. Credit rating agencies, whether S & P, Fitch or Moody's, in general, poorly reflect the economic changes, their reaction often comes too late, just stating some facts, long known to the market without them. Rating agencies is difficult to catch in a particular market insight. For example, all three agencies together held a high credit rating of U.S. energy giant Enron in a few days before the actual bankruptcy in late 2001, despite the awareness of the problems the company for many months before the collapse. In response to claims in the case of Enron agencies successfully referred to the fact that their rating is only an "opinion" protected by the sacred constitutional principle of "freedom of speech." During the crisis of 2007-2008 with the agency romping prowess reduced to levels 05/08/10 multibillion issues CDO, which previously they themselves appropriated unduly high credit ratings. Once the same S & P downgraded once one of the classes of CDO managed by State Street immediately for 18 levels - from the highest investment rating of AAA to CCC credit default close-! Well, wrong on just 18 levels, nevermind! With sovereign borrowers had to be careful - here to bring their overestimated in conformity with the reality of a stroke could not be! Highly respected agencies otreytingovannaya Greece was not so creditworthy. Surprise, surprise! When the spring of last year, S & P downgrades the same rating of Spain, over the agencies made fun always ironic manager trillion-dollar bond funds Pimco Bill Gross: «S & P downgraded Spain one step - from AA + to AA, warning the country that may have a reduction if it will not careful. Oh-oh-oh, so much! Believe it or not, Moody's and Fitch Ratings still hold the highest level of AAA. Country with a 20 percent unemployment, the budget deficit in 10% of GDP, defaults 13 times over the past two centuries, the bonds which are traded in the moment at Baa, and at the same time more and more dependent on the ability of the EU and the IMF to help her out. Some AAA! * ». In general, the bond guru advises investors to stay away from rating agencies, calling them "idiots with a mass of brilliant mathematical tools and not knowing how to apply" **. Prognosis, but no rating. So what's the news? In other news - S & P still dare to recognize these problems and even a bit intimidated hegemon. Can the agency does not reduce the rating outlook, and the rating of the U.S.? It is unlikely, because the consequences would be far more significant and slabopredskazuemymi. United States - the world's benchmark and review ranking U.S. lead to a revision of almost all the ratings other borrowers and to major changes in investment strategies in the financial world. In addition, almost all the major investment funds, one way or another, rely on the ratings of the ubiquitous trio, exclusion from the U.S. list of coveted AAA would have led to the fact that many U.S. securities (both public and corporate, after following the downgrade of the sovereign under knife and go corporate ratings) would have to sell not only because of the inevitable in this case, the fall of their value, but at least because of the investment rules of a fund. So the U.S. can not reduce the rating, but the outlook for the rating, in general, it can be. The practice of such clues are already there. In May 2009, S & P downgraded the rating outlook of Great Britain (AAA), a possible decrease in pripugnuv, also pointing to London, that fiscal policy is unsustainable. Later, in October of 2010, after the new government cut the budget a little Cameron, S & P has awarded him the stick and again revised its outlook from negative to stable (all conceivable perfection in the fiscal affairs of Great Britain was achieved in the IMF projected a budget deficit of 8.6 % of GDP in 2011 and 6.9% of GDP in 2012-the first!). Now, in fact, S & P did the same thing with the U.S. - the same warning about the possibility of downgrading with the same probability decrease (1 to 3), even if that reduction is hardly implemented before the elections in 2012. Minimum of decency. The threat of S & P (more like a super soft reminder of financial propriety) on the rising public deficit U.S. $ 178 million per hour, of course, as always, the late, but better late than never. More recently, the IMF raised its forecast for the U.S. budget deficit in 2011 and 2012 to 10.8% of GDP and 7.5% respectively (compared with 9.7 and 6.6% previously). These projections indicate that in 2011 the U.S. will have the highest deficit among OECD countries. At the same time by both Democrats and Republicans in the United States understands that, in an amicable way, such a high budget deficit, rather typical for banana republics, the public than for the global hegemon, it is time to cut. Realize a very long time, and things are there. The problem is that, as stated in a press release S & P, Democrats and Republicans see the process of fiscal consolidation in many ways, and the agreement in the near future can not be achieved. On 13 April, President Barack Obama presented his plan aimed at reducing the cumulative deficit to $ 4 trillion in 12 years or less. If you count how many times Obama was about to save, it is likely that in this he can beat all of the presidents. Given the current polutoratrillionnye volume deficits in the year, as well as excessive optimism in the calculations, typical of almost all plans to reduce deficits, 4 trillion in 12 years - it's not so much. Presidential proposals include a reduction of the deficit by cutting spending and by raising revenues. Cost reduction must occur at the expense of non-national security (the Pentagon - is sacred!) Discretionary spending in line with the levels proposed by the fiscal committee in December of 2010, keeping the cost of security (except for direct military costs) below the level of inflation and other cost-containment measures in the health programs. Revenue is part of the budget should be increased both by the tax reform, and by the expiration of temporary tax cuts have taken under President Bush, in 2001 and 2003 as a temporary anti-crisis measure and has since been extended by continuously - at the time prior to 2012. Encroached on a "temporary measure" in the entire volume of Obama, however, is not even going, Bush breaks the Democrats propose to remove only for households with high incomes. Republican congressman from the House of Representatives, headed by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan to offer similar amounts ($ 4.4 trillion) fiscal consolidation, but through other methods that do not affect the wallets of wealthy Americans. It is planned to reach a balanced budget as long ago as 2040 m (hurry, as we see no particular), mainly by reducing costs and neoboronnyh narrowing the scope of the programs Medicare and Medicaid, with the top bracket of income tax and corporation tax should be reduced as a result on the levels of the Bush cuts in 2001 and 2003. S & P indicates that the cross-party divide on these already weak attempts to reduce the budget deficit "remains wide." Wow! Who would have thought? "We believe that there is a serious risk that the negotiations in Congress over the medium-term fiscal strategy does end up to the parliamentary and presidential elections in 2012. If this happens, the first budget included measures to reduce the deficit, the budget will be 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2013-go), as well as possible and longer delay. " By S & P added a day later and IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard, who in an interview with Le Monde newspaper also said that the U.S. has no plan to reduce the deficit. Prior to the IMF is also beginning to reach. From all this it is evident that the reason for the decline forecast by rating - mild political allusion. The main issue here is the following: Can the S & P also affect Obama and Congress, as to this effect on Cameron (outside the brackets leaving dubious success of fiscal consolidation in the UK)? Perhaps, but unlikely. Of game theory, used in the economic and political simulation, it is well known that in order to be effective, the threat must be real. The probability that the rating agencies will lead to their ratings more in line with reality, in the case of the USA is not too high, given that the change of America's credit rating will have enormous consequences for the entire global financial system. While the U.S. response to all these soft tingling is reduced to the phrase "all is well, beautiful marquise." "I believe that the issue of improving the prospects for long-term fiscal position now things are better than ever - said in an interview with several news agencies of the U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. - If you really look closely at what is happening in Washington, we can see that from both the Democratic and Republican parties agree with the President that there is a need for reforms to reduce fiscal deficits. " Well, yes, yes. * Pimco.com / EN / Insights / Pages / Lovin% 20Spoonful% 20 -% 20May% 202 010% 20IO.aspx ** Ibid.