标准普尔：我们为何下调美国前景评级？

    尼古拉•斯万知道他将不得不卷入发生在华盛顿的、围绕美国负债攀升的辩论激流。

    作为标准普尔(Standard & Poor's)的分析师，斯万一直留意可能危及美国作为一级借款人地位的事件。他注意到了美国向美国国际集团(AIG)、美国最大的几家银行以及按揭公司房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)注资数十亿美元，研究了零利率和量化宽松政策对美国的影响。

    但直到今春的政治僵局令经济建设性对话的希望成为泡影，斯万才感到有一天美国可能会遇到还债问题。预算案导致美国联邦政府差一点关门。不清楚美国国会是否会调高负债上限，以准确反映今年美国将支出多少。美国共和党和民主党提出的解决赤字方案迥异，双方都不愿妥协。

    正如我们所知，周一斯万发布了一份报告，称标准普尔现给予美国前景负面，如果政客们不能找到协作方式，还可能下调美国的AAA信用评级(这是最高等信用评级)。报告立刻引发了热议：美国能偿还日益攀升的债务吗？

    美国白宫和财政部都试图淡化该评级，理由是评级过于关注政治因素，太主观，意义不大。

    但政治完全有理由是主权评级中最重要的因素之一。国家不同于企业，国家可以制定影响其偿债能力的法律法规。比如，通用汽车(GM)的债务和养老金负担膨胀到公司靠卖车已无力偿还时，公司只能申请破产。而美国能以偿债的名义，增加税赋，多印美元，改革福利计划和权利。

    “标准普尔并不打算影响任何主权信用政策，但政治确实影响信用可靠度，”标准普尔主权信用分析师兼准则委员会成员玛丽•卡瓦诺表示。

标准普尔如何进行主权评级

    像斯万这样的分析师通常研究五大领域，包括政治机构和趋势、经济和增长前景、政府收入状况(包括一个国家如何获得收入，用于何处以及有多少负债)、货币灵活性以及该国债券的市场流动性如何。

    和许多主权债务分析师一样，斯万是经济学家出身。他曾就职于加拿大央行(Bank of Canada)以及加拿大联邦政府财政部（Canadian Federal Government Department of Finance），并是百慕大和加拿大多个政府机构的主分析师。

    分析师们不仅尽可能地搜集各类信息，还与政府及央行官员进行至少每年一次的会面，卡瓦诺表示。这些所谓的管理层会面也可能包括公司主管——如果一国经济倚重某个行业，如矿业或旅游业——和重要的经济学家。

    本月斯万与美国财政部和白宫经济团队成员进行了大量的交流，解释为何他如此担心华盛顿的政治僵局。斯万认为解决赤字的方案要可信，必须要得到美国共和党和民主党的一致认同，他的担忧是眼下政客们可能不合作。

    根据与官员的对话和研究结果，斯万撰写了一份报告，建议标准普尔给予美国负面前景。这意味着如果政客们无法就解决赤字达成一致，两年内美国信用评级可能被调低。这不是最严重的下调警告(最严重的是负面关注，即60-90天内可能下调评级)，但对于一个自1941年标准统计公司（Standard Statistics）与普尔出版公司（Poor's Publishing）合并以来信用评级持续为最高AAA级的国家而言，这无疑是一个大举动。

    在宣布下调前景前的一周，斯万的报告被提交至一个约由六位信用分析师组成的委员会，经过了数小时的讨论。“评级决定由来自不同大陆主权债务分析师组成的一个委员会做出，”卡瓦诺表示，“在主分析师做出简短的口头报告后，我们对五大领域进行了逐一审议。”标准普尔和穆迪(Moody's, 穆迪有类似的流程)的前分析师们将这个过程相比于学术辩论和交叉验证。

    该委员会对斯万的报告进行了投票，最终同意下调标准普尔的美国前景评级。视国家规则而定，标准普尔通常会在投票后数天内公布信用委员会的审议结果。据称在标准普尔公布下调美国前景评级前，白宫曾试图让其改变主意，但太晚了。

    希望美国的政客们能利用标准普尔的报告契机，搁置两党斗争，提出双方都能认同的赤字削减方案。斯万至少给了美国政府合理的警告。市场往往不会如此宽容。

    Nikola Swann knew that he would be thrust into the firestorm raging in Washington D.C. over America's growing debt burden.

    Swann is the analyst at Standard & Poor's who monitors the United States for events that could threaten the country's status as a top-tier borrower. From his perch in Toronto, Swann has watched the US inject billions of dollars into AIG (AIG), the nation's largest banks, and the mortgage companies Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC). He has studied the effect that zero percent interest rates and quantitative easing have had on the country.

    But it wasn't until this spring's political gridlock destroyed any hope for productive conversations about the economy that Swann felt that US might someday struggle to pay its debts. The government had come close to shutting down over the budget. It was unclear whether Congress would raise the debt ceiling to accurately reflect what the country will spend this year. And Republicans and Democrats were unwilling to reconcile their vastly different plans to tackle the deficit.

    As we all know, Swann issued a report last Monday saying that S&P now has a negative outlook for the US, and could downgrade the country's top triple-A credit rating if politicians can't find a way to work together. The report sparked debate over whether America would be able to service its growing debt load.

    The White House and Treasury attempted to dismiss the outlook as too focused on politics, and therefore too subjective to have any meaning.

    But with good reason, politics is among the most important factors in sovereign ratings. Countries, unlike companies, can set the very laws that affect their ability to pay creditors. For example, GM's (GM) debts and pension obligations grew so large that the company simply could not sell enough cars to pay the tab. The company had to file for bankruptcy. The United States, on the other hand, can raise taxes, print money, and reform welfare programs and entitlements, all in the name of servicing debt.

    "S&P does not try to influence policy for any sovereign credit, but politics does influence creditworthiness," says Marie Cavanaugh, an S&P sovereign credit analyst and member of the company's criteria committee.

How S&P makes sovereign ratings

    Analysts like Swann study five broad areas, including political institutions and trends; the economy and its growth prospects; the revenue picture (including how a country can raise money, what it spends on, and how much debt it has); monetary flexibility; and how liquid the market is for that country's debt.

    Like many sovereign analysts, Swann is an economist by training. He has also worked at the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Federal Government Department of Finance, and he is the primary analyst for several government entities Bermuda and Canada.

    Analysts not only read all they can, they meet with government officials and central bankers at least once a year, says Cavanaugh. These so-called management meetings might also include heads of companies if the country is economically dependent on a single industry, like mining or tourism, as well as important economists.

    Swann spent much of this month talking to Treasury and members of the White House economics team to explain why he was so worried about DC's political gridlock. The only credible plan to deal with the deficit will be one that Democrats and Republicans can agree on, Swann believed, and he was worried that politicians right now aren't inclined to work together.

    Based on conversations and studies, Swann wrote a report recommending that S&P put the US on negative outlook, meaning that it could be downgraded in the next two years if politicians can't agree on a way to deal with the deficit. It wasn't the most severe downgrade warning (that would be negative watch, which means a downgrade within 60 to 90 days), but it was a big move for country that has been rated triple-A since 1941, when Standard Statistics merged with Poor's Publishing.

    In the week leading up to the downgrade, Swann's report was distributed to a team of about half a dozen other credit analysts, and then debated for hours. "Rating decisions are made by a committee that consists of sovereign analysts from different continents," says Cavanaugh. "After the primary analyst gives a short oral report, we go through the five categories." Former analysts at S&P and Moody's (MCO), which has a similar process, liken the procedure to a cross between and academic debate and a cross examination.

    The committee voted on Swann's report, and ultimately agreed to downgrade S&P's US outlook. Depending on country-specific rules, S&P generally announces credit committee results within days of the vote. The White House reportedly tried to get S&P to change its mind about downgrading the outlook for the US before it announced the downgrade, but it was just too late.

    Hopefully our politicians will use the S&P's report as cover to put aside bi-partisan fighting and come up with a deficit reduction plan they can agree on. Swann at least gave the government fair warning. Markets tend not to be so generous.