Algumas Notas Sobre as Agências de Rating (para quem não tenha visto o "Inside job")

Anda meio País perplexo perante o mais que esperado corte brutal do «rating» de Portugal pelas ditas «agências de rating», «inexplicável», «injusto», «murro no estômago», «logo agora que estávamos a fazer tudo o que eles nos diziam para fazermos», são alguns dos comentários mais ouvidos. Mas estes economistas são ingénuos? Não têm cultura histórica? Acreditam cegamente no que certos sectores lhes dizem, não questionando a boa ou má fé desses mesmos sectores? Parece que assim é.

 Desde há muito que se previa isto. Aliás, tudo apontava para tal. Desde a delapidação do erário público pelo poder político da última legislatura, à sabotagem planeada da imagem empresarial e turística do País (crimes contra cidadãos ingleses no Algarve, por ex.), às «medidas de austeridade» impostas à presente legislatura por uma «troika» que, tal como as agências, apenas são agentes de quem está por detrás disto tudo.

 E quem é?

 Simples: certos grupos bancários mundiais (Goldman & Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Loeb & Khün, Frères Lazare, Banco Rothshild e até o já «comido» Lehman Brothers), representando outras tantas dinastias bancárias e o célebre «Comité dos 300», grupo que reúne as cerca de 300 maiores fortunas do mundo, ao pé das quais Bill Gates faz figura de moço de recados.

 A coisa já vem de longe (pelo menos da segunda metade do Séc. XIX) e já Fernando Pessoa falava neles («Os 300 e outros ensaios», edição póstuma).

 Quais os objectivos?

 Também é simples. Após um processo de fusão e aquisição de empresas em cadeia, formando grandes corporações globais, passaram à fusão e aquisição de estados soberanos - ou seja, países.

 Os métodos são precisamente os mesmos: provocar dificuldades financeiras, mercê de infiltrados (os políticos «eleitos»), destruir economias familiares, locais, regionais e depois, usando as mesmas agências de rating empregues para as fusões e aquisições de empresas pelas grandes «corporations», num esquema extorsionário que faria empalidecer Al Capone.

 E o mais grave é que a maior parte de políticos (não os infiltrados), economistas e juristas são completamente iludidos ao ponto de não verem - ou não quererem ver - o que lhes está à frente dos olhos. Daí o espanto.

 Começa um ou outro responsável a acordar, como o director da Agência das Nações Unidas para o Comércio Mundial e o Desenvolvimento (UNCTAD), Heiner Flassbeck, que hoje pediu a extinção das ditas agências de rating.

 Estas já têm um rol de crimes que lhes são imputados, desde chantagem, extorsão, intrusão nos assuntos internos de estados soberanos, etc. Mas parece que ninguém lhes toca, por causa dos interesses instalados.

 E isto nada tem a ver com os EUA ou com a UE, com o dólar ou com o euro, pois estas agências - independentemente de onde estão sediadas - há muito que são apátridas, tal como os bancos que nelas mandam.

 De momento mantêm um rating Aaa aos E.U.A. apesar do estado calamitoso da sua economia (pior do que o da Grécia) para que estes não desencadeiem uma investigação às suas actividades.

 Logo que os ditos bancos ganhem o suficiente com a especulação proporcionada com a subida do dólar e a queda do euro, inverterão o jogo para que a especulação continue.

 Tudo isto nada tem a ver com política (esta tornou-se «acessória», mero instrumento dos interesses económicos desses grupos).

 Se isto não é «conspiração», não sei o que será!

 Tem de se compreender a jogada global destes profissionais do racketeering para se compreender o que se passa.

 Vejamos então um pouco do historial das três maiores agências de rating:

 Moody's

Comecemos pela Moody's. Em português, quer dizer «caprichosa», «instável», «temperamental», nome do fundador, mas bastante sugestivo (negativamente), ligado aos «Robber Barons» que fizeram fortuna com os caminhos de ferro nos EUA. Vejamos o que diz a Wikipedia:
 


History


Moody's was founded in 1909 by John Moody, beginning with Analyses of Railroad Investments, "a book about railroad securities, using letter grades to assess their risk."[1] Moody's Investors Service was incorporated on July 1, 1914, and soon extended coverage to US municipal bonds. By 1924, Moody's ratings covered nearly 100 percent of the US bond market.[3]


In the 1970s, Moody's expanded into commercial debt, and also began the practice, along with other ratings agencies, of charging bond issuers for ratings as well as charging investors.[3]

 The number of countries covered by Moody's has risen from 3 in 1975, to 33 in 1990, to over 100 by 2000.[4] Announcements by Moody's of possible or actual downgrades of a country's bond rating can have a major political and economic impact, as for example in Canada in 1995.[4]
 


Criticism


Credit rating agencies such as Moody's have been subject to criticism in the wake of large losses in the asset-backed security collateralized debt obligation (ABS CDO) market that occurred despite being assigned top ratings by the credit rating agencies.

 For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of ABS collateralized debt obligations (CDO) issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million, despite being rated Aaa by Moody's.[5]


See also: Credit rating agency#Criticism
 
[edit]

Power and influence


Moody's has been accused of "blackmail". In one example the German insurer Hannover Re was offered a "free rating" by Moody's. The insurer refused. Moody's continued with the "free ratings", but over time lowered its rating of the company. Still refusing Moody's services, Moody's lowered Hannover's debt to junk, and the company in a few hours lost $175 million in market value.[6]
 
"As the housing market collapsed in late 2007, Moody's Investors Service, whose investment ratings were widely trusted, responded by purging analysts and executives who warned of trouble and promoting those who helped Wall Street plunge the country into its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. A McClatchy investigation has found that Moody's punished executives who questioned why the company was risking its reputation by putting its profits ahead of providing trustworthy ratings for investment offerings."[7]
 
Só pergunto porque é que ainda dão crédito a estes escroques...
 


Standard & Poor's (S&P)

 Passemos à Standard & Poor. Outro nome significativo, que dá a ideia de «Padrão de Pobreza», e não o contrário. É claro que o nome deriva de um dos fundadores da companhia, Henry Varnum Poor, ligado aos Robber Barons dos caminhos de ferro, no rescaldo da Guerra da Secessão, e do Standard Statistics Bureau, mas não deixa de ser curioso. A sua história e actuação (Wikipedia) é semelhante à da Moody's:
 


Standard & Poor's (S&P) is a United States-based financial services company. It is a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies that publishes financial research and analysis on stocks and bonds. It is well known for the stock market indices, the US-based S&P 500, the Australian S&P/ASX 200, the Canadian S&P/TSX, the Italian S&P/MIB and India's S&P CNX Nifty. It is one of the Big Three (credit rating agencies) (Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Ratings).[2]
 


Corporate history


Standard & Poor's traces its history back to 1860, with the publication by Henry Varnum Poor of History of Railroads and Canals in the United States. This book was an attempt to compile comprehensive information about the financial and operational state of U.S. railroad companies. Henry Varnum went on to establish H.V. and H.W. Poor Co with his son, Henry William, and published updated versions of this book on an annual basis.[citation needed]


In 1906 Luther Lee Blake founded the Standard Statistics Bureau, with the view to providing financial information on non-railroad companies. Instead of an annually published book Standard Statistics would use 5" x 7" cards, allowing for more frequent updates.[citation needed]


In 1941, Poor and Standard Statistics merged to become Standard & Poor's Corp. Then in 1966 S&P was acquired by The McGraw-Hill Companies, and now encompasses the Financial Services division.[3]
 


Criticism


See also: Credit rating agency#Criticism

 Credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poor's have been subject to criticism in the wake of large losses beginning in 2007 in the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market that occurred despite being assigned top ratings by the CRAs.
Credit ratings of AAA (the highest rating available) were given to large portions of even the riskiest pools of loans. Investors, trusting the low risk profile that AAA implies, loaded up on these CDOs that later became unsellable. Those that could be sold often took staggering losses. For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of CDOs issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million, despite being rated AAA by Standard & Poor's.[6]


Despite common perception, Standard & Poor's didn't rate the two major Icelandic banks, Kaupthing and Landsbanki.[citation needed]


Companies pay Standard & Poor's to rate their debt issues. As a result, some critics have contended that Standard & Poor's is beholden to these issuers and that its ratings are not as objective as they should be.

See also: 2010 European sovereign debt crisis


In April 2009 Standard & Poor's called for "new faces" in the Irish Government, which was seen as interfering in the democratic process. In a subsequent statement they said they were "misunderstood".[7]
 
[edit]

Antitrust Review


In November 2009, ten months after launching an investigation, the European Commission formally charged Standard & Poor’s with abusing its position as the sole provider of international securities identification codes for U.S. securities by requiring European financial firms and data vendors to pay licensing fees for their use.

 “This behavior amounts to unfair pricing,” the European Commission said in its statement of objections which lays the groundwork for an adverse finding against S&P. “The (numbers) are indispensable for a number of operations that financial institutions carry out – for instance, reporting to authorities or clearing and settlement – and cannot be substituted.”[8]


S&P has run the CUSIP Service Bureau, the only ISIN issuer in the US, on behalf of the American Bankers Association. In its formal statement of objections, the European Commission alleges "that S&P is abusing this monopoly position by enforcing the payment of licence fees for the use of US Isins by (a) banks and other financial services providers in the EEA and (b) information service providers in the EEA." It claims that comparable agencies elsewhere in the world either do not charge fees at all, or do so on the basis of distribution cost, rather than usage.[9]
 


Fitch Group


Vejamos agora a Fitch. Tal como as precedentes, tem um nome curioso, no mínimo, já que «fitch» é um furão, uma espécie de doninha...

 Fundada no início do Séc. XX, destaca-se um pouco das suas outras congéneres, e tem fortes ligações europeias, especialmente a Paris e Londres. Mas a sua actuação recente é muito semelhante, servindo também de alavanca da banca globalista para o «takeover» das nações, como se estas fossem empresas. Vejamos o que diz a Wikipedia:
 


The Fitch Group is a majority-owned subsidiary of Fimalac, S.A., headquartered in Paris, France. Fitch Ratings, Fitch Solutions and Algorithmics, are part of the Fitch Group.


Dual-headquartered in New York and London with 50 offices worldwide, Fitch Ratings positions itself as a global rating agency dedicated to providing value beyond the rating through independent and prospective credit opinions, research and data.

 Fitch Ratings was one of the three Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSRO) designated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 1975, together with Moody's and Standard & Poor's. It is one of the "Big Three credit rating agencies"(Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Ratings). [1]


The firm was founded by John Knowles Fitch on December 24, 1913 in New York City as the Fitch Publishing Company.

 It merged with London-based IBCA Limited in December 1997.

 In 2000 Fitch acquired both Chicago-based Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co. (April) and Thomson Financial BankWatch (December).

 Fitch Ratings is the smallest of the "big three" NRSROs, covering a more limited share of the market than S&P and Moody's, though it has grown with acquisitions and frequently positions itself as a "tie-breaker" when the other two agencies have ratings similar, but not equal, in scale.


Stephen W. Joynt is chief executive officer.
 


Criticism


See also: Credit rating agency#Criticism


Credit rating agencies such as Fitch Ratings have been subject to criticism in the wake of large losses in the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market that occurred despite being assigned top ratings by the CRAs.

 For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of collateralized debt obligations (CDO) issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million, despite being rated AAA by Fitch.[2]

 However, differently from the other agencies, Fitch has been warning the market on the constant proportion debt obligations (CPDO) with an early and pre-crisis report highlighting the dangers of CPDO's.[3]