Business

5° London Hi 8°C / Lo 4°C

Pound under new attack as agency says it will cut UK's credit rating

Britain's sovereign status is most at risk, says Fitch

By Sean O'Grady, Economics Editor

The pound's value against the dollar tumbled yesterday when a leading credit ratings agency suggested that Britain might lose its cherished AAA status because it was the "potentially most at risk" of the major economies.

Fitch Ratings said the UK's sovereign credit rating was most at risk among the advanced economies because the country required "the largest budget adjustment". David Riley, the head of sovereign ratings at Fitch, added: "Our stable rating outlook reflected our expectation that the UK Government will articulate a stronger fiscal consolidation programme next year."

Following the announcement, sterling, which had been enjoying a positive run against an enfeebled dollar, fell by about a cent from a three-month high to $1.66. However, it rallied later after Gordon Brown reiterated the Government's commitment to repairing the public finances. The Prime Minister said: "We have assured people that, as a result of our deficit-reduction plan that we announced in our Budget in April, we are taking the necessary action to cut our deficit by half... probably ahead of other countries.

"I think the ratings agencies will take into account that these are world issues that have got to be dealt with, not just by one country, but many countries."

The pound also fell back against the euro, to €1.11.

"Many credit profiles of major AAA sovereigns have been significantly weakened by the financial crisis and the subsequent recession," Mr Riley added. "The already outsized budget deficits and the rise in government debt has reduced the 'fiscal space' for policymakers to respond to further adverse shocks."

In May, Fitch's rival Standard & Poor's decided to change its outlook for the UK economy from "stable" to "negative". S&P indicated then that it would wait to see what concrete steps were taken to bring down the deficit next year before reviewing the rating again.

Fitch's concerns, as with S&P and other global bodies – from the International Monetary Fund to the European Commission – centre on Britain's soaring budget deficit, which is set to approach £200bn this fiscal year, or about 13 per cent of GDP. The pre-Budget report, expected within a month, will offer the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, a showcase for any new plan to return to fiscal sustainability.

John Cridland, deputy leader of the Confederation of British Industry, said: "The UK's credit rating must be put beyond doubt and the budget returned to balance by 2015. We have called for any new administration to set out within 100 days of taking office a clear and credible path to achieve this aim.

"The emphasis must be on spending cuts and re-engineering public services rather than tax increases. Vague promises of efficiency savings will not be enough. However, capital spending must be protected."

Apart from the political embarrassment involved in any threat to the credit rating, such a move would have severe consequences for the cost of servicing the UK's debt, because investors would demand higher interest as a "risk premium" against the possibility of default. Inflation, rather than outright default, has been the traditional British method of defraying its debt burden.

The cost of hedging against losses on UK government bonds through credit-default swaps widened to 55 basis points, the most since 8 September, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. America's credit rating also might be at risk if its fiscal position did not stabilise within the next couple of years, Fitch added.

Around the world: The good, the bad and the ugly

* Standard and Poor's says only 17 nations or territories deserve AAA status. The elite are mostly larger, advanced economies, but there are exceptions. S&P's AAA list comprises Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, the UK and the US.

* Britain is the only AAA-rated nation that also has a negative outlook because its national debt is set to rise to 100 per cent of GDP, according to S&P.

* If the UK were downgraded, it would find itself with plenty of company. Ireland lost its AAA rating in March, as did Spain in January. Japan ceded top status in 2001, as did New Zealand in 1983. Canada has clambered back from a downgrade to AA+ in 1992. Others temporarily downgraded include Denmark (from 1983-2001), Finland ( 1992-2002) and Sweden (lost its AAA rating in 1993 but regained it in 2004).

* Less newsworthy than the UK, Kenya's B rating was reaffirmed by S&P yesterday, meaning that "the financial situation varies noticeably", and where political worries also remain.

* Ecuador and the Seychelles are graded SD, indicating that they have "selectively defaulted".

* At the start of 2008, there were about 20 nations and only 12 corporations that had a AAA rating. But more than 64,000 structured financial products, such as mortgage-backed securities enjoyed AAA status, though many became nearly worthless. This led to much criticism of the ratings agencies.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

So it begins
[info]bryanmcgrath wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 02:44 am (UTC)
The threat of a downgrading of UK gilts has been around since the credit crisis started. The fiscal and monetary stimuli were necessary to prevent recession turning into recession. However, the UK is fast running out of time. A faltering return to what the economists call "growth" is to be expected in this quarter (given the possibility that the VAT reduction is not extended into next next) should ensure some growth: if not the UK is in BIG trouble.

Will any government be able reduce the budget deficit from 12 % to 3% in just 4 years, as the European Commission proposes? I think not. A downgrading of UK gilts is a year or so away, followed by higher yields on those gilts, and thus lower prices, for currently issued stock.

I still believe a disproportionally large amount of the money "printed" by the Bank of England has enable foreign holders of gilts to make for the exit. They have a currency exposure as well as a yield exposure to consider.

Definitely no time to be in UK bonds, that party is over
Exagerrated language
[info]llanbedr1 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 04:10 am (UTC)
Since when can a drop of 1 cent from a three month high of $1.66 (with a subsequent"rally") be considered a
"tumble"? Can you ask your financial journalists to: a) Eschew words like "tumble", "crash" etc unless they are
truly deserved and b) Avoid them altogether when the body of the article appears to flatly contradict either
the headline or the opening section (or both).

There are enough genuine alarums and excursions in the economic and financial worlds without attempting
to create artificial ones.

Yours,

Micheal Thompson
Re: Exagerrated language
[info]dnmurphy wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 08:55 am (UTC)
well said. The one cent fall is a minor pull back. Also, sterling moves at 1-2 cents each day each way so this is just noise.
Re: Exagerrated language
[info]shangstar wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 08:56 am (UTC)
Totally agree. I watch the currencies like a hawk and there have been far bigger downward swings than this which went unreported. So if 1 cent fall is such a calamity worth reporting, then surely a 1 cent rise means the world cannot get enough of sterling? I don't think so. This is sensationalist journalism.
Re: Exagerrated language
[info]dogsolitude_v2 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 10:35 am (UTC)
+1

The same goes for the Housing Market too.
Re: Exagerrated language
[info]zugzwang41 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 05:28 pm (UTC)


Thanks for that, but will they take any notice. I know nothing of high finance, and stuff like this gives me the jim-jams.
Who are you kidding?
[info]49niner wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 05:23 am (UTC)
The CBI is p**sing in the wind. The present government have run out of ideas and the government in waiting haven't got a clear idea of what to do.

Panic cuts in public spending are never a good idea. And cutting backing on public spending too soon would likely threaten any recovery which may only be getting under way by the end of 2010.

We need to ask some searching questions and come up with answers. Why are we renewing Trident? Wny are we sending our troops to far corners of the world fighting hopeless wars? Why are so many people on benefit? Do we really need ID cards? Are we making sure that everyone pays their fair share of tax? These are just some of the questions the incoming chancellor must ask.

We've run a Mickey Mouse economy for too long. We need to promote industries of the future, not just pander to the City of London. Our economy is unbalanced and there are many areas of the country where our potential is under used because old industries have gone and not been replaced by enough new industry to make a difference.

There's a lack of realism at the top of business and industry. We've had a big wake up call in the past couple of years but old bad habits die hard. We need a new industrial revolution. We have great residual talent as a nation but we are not using it wisely. Until we do, we're in deep trouble.
ŁAgree ŁAgree ŁAgree
[info]over325one wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 07:49 am (UTC)
Practically he whole of the Western World is bankrupt. GM is bankrupt but it still keeps pretending it's not. The UK would be wound up if it was a company - so would the US. We'll all be back to bartering if the Labour loonies keep printing worthless pieces of paper. Half the pound coins are counterfeit but nobody cares as a pound is basically worthless.
Re: ŁAgree ŁAgree ŁAgree
[info]billdavy1949 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC)
Tories were just the same, and will be again.

It seems to be an Anglo-Saxon disease.

Perhaps it is because we are so unsure of oursleves that we cling to totems of our identity (like monarchs and flags) rather than having any real sense of identity. The aristos/wealthy have alwys looked down on us and are edging away (quickly in terms of monetary reward). So, put tax rate up to 50% (or more) and let those who do not want to be "in this together" leave. Also, no paper or media allowed which does not pay UK taxes.

Oh, and could David Cameron please come clean about Lord Ashcroft? Not weasle words, but the real McCoy.
[info]doug_piranha wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 08:47 am (UTC)
exactly one month ago the pound was $1.58 - yesterday it started at $1.68 -
it did "tumble" during the day to $1.65. This morning $1.67

I am only glad financial wheeler dealers don't read the Indie

From September 10th to October 10th the value dropped from $1.66 to to $1.58
That is a serous tumble - but it bounced back.

The other posts in this thread show that this is all smoke and mirrors -
anyone who studied economics knows that the first words you learn are " in theory ........."
The first post shows that is is actually another world - with it's own oblique and meaningless language.

The realisation that peoples' jobs rely on this casino - run by greedy pigs - is appalling.
I am angry because my small family busines is dependant on the exchange
(down from $2=Ł1 a little over 15 months ago ) that major changes bring severe diffciutlites.

Scaremongering headlines only help to put negative pressure on the economy.

Stupid headlines like this are not accurate, reasonable or fair.
Not for the first time - your understanding of exchange markets seems to be non-existent.

Selling newspapers is clealry the single most important matter in all this.
Enjoy the ride
[info]alan_honiton wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 09:12 am (UTC)
Sterling has just travelled past the latest high point on the Forex big dipper and is descending, slowly at first, but with the prospect of a white knuckle ride in about 12 month's time. Let's hope that this ride is not called Oblivion and that we do not face the prospect of entry into a black hole.
Do the ratings mean anything today
[info]andytd wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 02:51 pm (UTC)
Today in a recession caused by a credit crisis that we have not seen before these ratings mean very little. They are using old formulas and old ways to calculate these ratings that do not have any variable for the current situation. The bubble was created through leverage of highly inflated asset prices like property that these credit rating agencies rated as AAA as they could not see what was about to happen. They still have no idea what the future holds and fail to see that the majority of the worlds debt is interlinked and no one wants there currency to rise as it will damage there exports. if one major economy was to default then other major economies will follow or the failing economy will be lent more money. In the current climate a weak currency is found to be more appealing. If we were to default the pound would drop, then the world be looking for the next one and there will be a next one and so on the countries that did not would see ther currencies rise and exports fall and would start to fall back into recession. Why is China doing so well, why are they doing everything they can to keep their currency down.
The ratings are still nearly worthless just as they were on the mortgage backed securities.
Re: Do the ratings mean anything today
[info]gorazdi wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 04:59 pm (UTC)
While the basis and analys of the ratings may be erroneous thier consequences will be real.
Uk has to face up to a harsh new dawn.as will other bubble economies.

For may years half the population has been unproductive while many made more from leveraged homes than work.

Austerity will require not choices but all f the folowing to what extent will be decide here by sound governance or IMF and Moddys by default.

Taxation used to decrease debt and encourage exports.Higher taxes for all,so not merely income death duties,windfall,monarchy offshore accounts etc
Big cuts in public services that are non life threatening,Pension benefits and doles frozen,
Reduction/Abolition of child benefiit.Sibsidy for housing,Farmers MPs .End car scrap waste that sucks in imports.
Legaisation and tax on all drugs.abolish Trident return to peacetime forces sufficiet to defend Uk
End all overseas aid handouts to to foreign govermnments and overseas territories.
Larger than average tax on Alcohol Tobacco Gambling Large cars Junk Food and Net downloading.

Of course no party has the courage to adopt all this and next likely administration will pass the debt to future genrations robbing the unborn.
No more Nukes overseas wars immigration,paying asylum seekers or prisoners evryone must feel the pinch.
Profligate Bankers and Profligate Labour - a surefire disaster
[info]rozr wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 08:12 pm (UTC)
Combine profligate greedy gambling bankers and profligate Labour party Chancellor of Exchequer who not only ignored all the banking excesses whilst Chancellor but instead loved raking in the tax extras and spending the lot so we're hugely in debt even befor the banking crisis........ This is what you get - financial chaos. Just as in the past when Labour were in power. They never learn and it seems their core voters never learn either.