April 20, 2024

Ratings Firms Misread Signs of Greek Woes

When it comes to Greece, critics say Moody’s should have been tougher a lot earlier.

Until two years ago, the ratings agency took a relatively lax approach to growing signs of troubles in Greece, epicenter of the current crisis, even as the country plowed ahead with a borrowing binge that jeopardized its fiscal condition.

Moody’s held off dropping its strong A rating of Greece’s bonds despite growing political turmoil and economic woes through 2009. Investor fears over Greece’s short-term financing needs were “misplaced,” Moody’s said in a report in early December 2009. Twenty days later, after a review, the agency downgraded the nation’s debt, the last of the major ratings agencies to do so.

After that, the ratings of the debt-ridden country went into a virtual free fall, and within six months Moody’s assessed its debt as much riskier for investors, giving it junk status.

“If you look at the fact that this is going to be a country that is going to default on its debt, and two years before it was still single A, that is a very, very precipitous fall,” conceded Pierre Cailleteau, Moody’s head of sovereign debt ratings until he left in spring 2010. He rated Moody’s performance as mediocre, but added that it could have been worse.

That rapid deterioration underscores how, critics say, the credit ratings agencies that judged Greece’s debt as investment grade for most of the last decade missed or badly misread signs of trouble. Moody’s held its rating steady even after Greece in 2004 admitted lying about its deficits to join the countries using the euro in 2001. Now, the ratings agencies are under fire from European regulators about whether their recent downgrades of Italy and Spain worsened an already tenuous situation.

Moody’s offers a rare look inside the sometimes fierce debates over Greece’s deep problems, at how the prevailing belief that Europe would not let Greece default on its obligations drowned out opponents, and how in hindsight the agency could get it so wrong.

Moody’s lapses before last year helped embolden Greece to heap on billions in sovereign debt and encouraged investors to invest more heavily in its debt. Now some of those buyers face 50 percent losses on the bonds — loans that carried the agencies’ stamp of approval but that Greece can no longer afford to pay off. Had the rating agencies been more skeptical of euro zone countries’ borrowing beyond their means, critics say, that might have slowed the debt carousel for Greece and others.

The higher credit ratings made it “easier to raise debt” than to raise taxes or make other unpopular and painful economic adjustments, said Barbara Ridpath, head of Standard Poor’s ratings activities in Europe between 2004 and 2008.

“The credit rating agencies failed in their job,” said Wolf Klinz, a European Parliament member from Germany and author of a critical 2010 report on ratings agencies. “They held on artificially too long to their original rating. They should have started earlier.”

The agencies have defended their performance, noting that investors were much more optimistic than the agencies were, with bond markets assigning interest rates to Greek debt at levels that were just slightly above what Germany was paying.

“The market was scarcely differentiating between any of the 16 sovereign members of the euro zone,” said David Beers, the head of Standard Poor’s global ratings business, during a British parliamentary hearing last summer. “We differentiated these opinions from the outset. The market ignored those opinions for many years.”

In an e-mailed statement, a spokesman for Moody’s agreed, saying the market’s perception of the safety of Greek bonds was equivalent to an AAA rating, “while Moody’s rating was considerably lower.”

The current crisis was years in the making. It was born of Greek leaders who misled the European Union with false economic statistics to gain entry to the euro; of European policy makers who turned a blind eye to Greece’s deceptions; of banking regulators who deemed sovereign debt virtually risk-free; and of banks and other investors who, hungering for profits, joined in the groupthink that the euro zone would never let a member default.

Niki Kitsantonis contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=0d5f0ff71076155f2114024f6761f58f

Large Banks in Europe Struggle With Weak Bonds

Now, another type of contagion is causing concern: the risk of problems spreading to big banks, especially in Italy and Spain.

The growing vulnerability of the giant banks in these two countries is spurring investor fears that Europe’s latest bid to get a handle on its festering debt crisis, adopted just a few weeks ago, has come up short.

The banks own so many bonds issued by their home countries that they are being weakened as the value of those bonds falls, amid concerns that the cost of government borrowing could become too expensive for Italy and Spain to bear.

Now there are signs that these concerns are, in turn, starting to making it harder and costlier for the banks to borrow money to finance their day-to-day operations, a troubling trend that, at the worst, could lead to liquidity problems.

Since Europe’s second major rescue package was announced last month — aimed as much at calming fears over Spain and Italy as providing funds to Greece — the yields on Spanish and Italian bonds have hit more than 6 percent, sharply higher than they were paying on new borrowings just a couple of months ago.

In doing so they have entered what analysts refer to as the “danger zone” for 10-year bond yields, with the cost of government borrowing so high that investors become unnerved, as was the case with bailed-out Greece, Portugal and Ireland.

Bearing the immediate brunt of this development are regional banking heavyweights such as UniCredit in Italy and Santander and BBVA in Spain, which traditionally have been reliable financing machines to their home governments and as a result are now saddled with large bond holdings that are losing value by the day.

Many of these banks hold domestic bond portfolios that exceed their capital levels.

According to a report issued on Wednesday by Sanford Bernstein, a research firm, UniCredit’s exposure to mostly Italian bonds is 121 percent of its core capital ratio. For Intesa, a less-diversified competitor, that figure rises to 175 percent. For Spain, the ratios are no less daunting: a startling 193 percent for BBVA, Spain’s second-largest bank, and a less alarming 76 percent for the global banking giant Santander.

As a result, the markets have begun to focus on a number of warning signs that some European banks are finding it harder to meet their funding needs, especially in dollars.

They are borrowing larger amounts directly from the European Central Bank in its weekly lending operations, suggesting they can’t find all the money they need from the private sector to keep themselves going.

Some analysts said perhaps most worrying was that the rate it costs European banks to borrow dollars in the open foreign exchange market, by swapping their holdings of euros, has shot up twofold in the past few days — still far below the levels seen in 2008 when the market virtually froze but the highest since May 2010 when the European debt crisis first started to intensify.

Recent write-offs by French banks over their own Greek bond holdings have compounded fears over the health of Europe’s banks.

“I don’t think anyone wants to be long European banks right now,” said Simon White, an analyst and partner at Variant Perception, a London-based research firm.

UniCredit, Italy’s largest lender, reported better-than-expected second-quarter earnings on Wednesday and in a conference call, the bank’s chief executive said it had completed 83 percent of its borrowing needs for the year.

Nevertheless, that profit snapshot does not fully take into account the steep rise in Italian government bonds, from about 4.6 percent in early June to just over 6 percent now, which means that the value of those bonds has fallen.

Even more worrying is the fact that the European Financial Stability Fund, Europe’s so-called bazooka rescue fund that it endowed last month with the powers to recapitalize weak banks, will not be able to offer any such aid for at least two months.

According to a stability fund official, staff members there are working night and day to recast the entity, but do not expect to be finished until the end of August. At that point, it must be approved by the parliaments of the 17 countries that use the euro currency.

Only then could it go to the market and raise funds to help a bank in need.

That may well be too late.

As investors flee Spanish and Italian government bonds, these huge bond holdings have become a significant millstone on their countries’ banks — curbing their ability to lend and, consequently, heightening the prospect of a double-dip recession in Italy and Spain, two of the euro zone’s slowest-growing economies.

Graham Bowley contributed reporting from New York.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=65b9053950a6055945f01f22b8875e4b