SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Sorry S&P, America Still Beats the Isle of Man

JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 10, 2011

Sorry S&P, America Still Beats the Isle of Man

[Guest post by Alex Klein.]

In the past week, the media and government have justifiably exhausted all possible ways of beating up on S&P. Although juicy, as I’ve argued before, these criticisms are coming a year too late. But for what it’s worth, here’s a list of other investments that S&P consider safer than American debt, and rate AAA:

Finland, The Isle of Man, The Islamic Development Bank, Johnson and Johnson, Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, ADP, and finally… The City Center Trust, a portfolio of 13 full-service hotels.

Even though S&P is getting savaged, the agency has a few unlikely defenders. Ezra KleinFelix Salmon, and Jonathan Chait claim that, in downgrading US credit, S&P came to the right decision for the wrong reasons — that they stumbled upon an uncomfortable truth, and thus, we shouldn’t shoot the messenger. I disagree. The recent debt ceiling circus does not imply that the US could ever go into default for an extended period of time. The President is right. Warren Buffet is right. And most importantly, even after the downgrade, the market has staked hundreds of billions of dollars on the creditworthiness of the US government. Even on Monday, the Treasury was able to sell $32 billion worth of bonds at a record low interest-rate.

Amid macroeconomic turmoil, we’re seeing a flight to quality to US debt, historically and currently considered the safest and most boring place to invest. And it’s not just the three-year notes. Short-term loans are at bargain-basement interest rates of 0.03 percent, while onefiveten, and even thirty-year treasury bonds are close to their lowest yields in seven months.  If S&P’s downgrade reflected some kind of inconvenient truth about the riskiness of American debt, investors would have picked up on it a long time ago and fled for safer shores. But today, American debt is the safer shore. Even failure to raise the debt ceiling in the future doesn’t mean default. The treasury would cut back on government expenditures, but the bondholders would be fine. If S&P’s downgrade were legitimate, treasury bonds wouldn’t be seeing record high demand.

S&P, Chait/Salmon/Klein, and myself are actually all in agreement on one thing: A radical wing of the Republican party has created and exploited a hostage situation, one that has likely decreased market confidence in the ability of government to stimulate the economy. Here’s where I differ: I don’t think that this political analysis, albeit correct, implies that a hypothetical, extended American insolvency is even a remote possibility. The gridlock could result in some very ugly things, but a bond market default is not one of them.

In fact, a couple weeks ago, S&P itself was on my side. In the midst of the debt crisis, two weeks before the August 2nd deadline, I spoke to both S&P and Moody’s about the threat of default. Nikola Swann, chief S&P sovereign debt analyst, was testy. “It's basically the difficulty the US has, as a country, in making up its mind which is the driver here,” he told me. But he was still adamant that default was a remote possibility. “The likelihood of an actual of default — a nonpayment of market debt — is quite low. Remember that the rating is still AAA.” Back then, CDS spreads — insurance against American default — were implying a 6-in-10,000 chance of American default within the year. I floated Swann this number, and got this response: “That seems within the right ballpark.” S&P was telling me the chances of American default were 0.06% even during the debt crisis. After having heard this from the horse’s mouth, their post-deal downgrade struck me as even more absurd and opportunistic.

We’re all guilty here of using armchair political psychology to entertain hypotheticals: thankfully, when S&P did it, the bond market didn’t listen. But while Salmon, Klein, and Chait are right to point out the shreds of accuracy in S&P’s cobbled-together justification, the agency’s downgrade doesn’t reflect market reality, and doesn’t deserve an endorsement.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 6 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

6 comments

This is a very-well argued post, Alex. It changed my thinking on the downgrade. I agreed with Jonathan Chait on this matter initially.

- liberalref

August 10, 2011 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" Even on Monday, the Treasury was able to sell $32 billion worth of bonds at a record low interest-rate" And that's the proof in the pudding. All else is just balloon-juice, even the thoughtful and hyperintelligent commentary on this site. And treasuries CONTINUE to fall.

- Tristan

August 10, 2011 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well done. Begs the the question: would any employee of S&P jump out of Treasuries for the "enhanced" security of an investment in a portfolio of 13 full-service hotels located across 10 states, the District of Columbia and Canada.

- Zachsteph

August 10, 2011 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok, I'll be argumentative. The downgrade reflected the idea that US debt was somewhat more risky (not hugely more risky, just somewhat more risky). It wasn't a reflection that "the US could ever go into default for an extended period of time." That's a straw man. No one's claiming the US is likely to default or will default, just that it's not as rock-solid clear that they won't. If one party is willing to threaten a government meltdown and financial instability for political theater, I'd say that raises the risk of default. And that's what S&P said too.

- polcereal

August 10, 2011 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm still bullish on the Isle of Man. As Southern European governments feel pressure to crack down on their tax cheats (i.e., their entire upper middle and upper classes), they will need to park their cash somewhere that is free of pesky taxes or disclosure regulations. That kind of thing is the Isle of Man's principal industry these days. Now, if only I could get my hands on some Channel Islands sovereign debt ...

- wildboy

August 10, 2011 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- If only traders relied upon any third-party forecasts, analysts or rankings instead of the more persuasive motivation of being responsible for their actions. I wouldn't say they're insulted by these verdicts but when your job is moving billions of dollars around you aren't checking to see if your decisions are getting five stars. Does Bill Belichick care what ESPN thinks?

- michaelg

August 10, 2011 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close