We typically encounter commentary that blows away the smoke that gives cowl for necessary myths on the earth of economics and finance. Whether or not that commentary is aware of the import of its message is questionable nevertheless it actually has the impact of casting apart a myriad of fictions and redefines the form of questions that one can ask. Such was the case final week following the choice by the rankings company Moody’s on Might 16, 2025 to ‘downgrade’ US authorities debt rankings from Aaa to Aa1. Whereas many commentators acted in Pavlovian style and crafted the rankings downgrade as signifying that the US authorities was “extra prone to default on their sovereign debt”, one influential opinion from the mainstream got here out with the conclusion that “there may be subsequent to zero likelihood the federal government gained’t be capable of pay its collectors”. Which actually sport the sport away and uncovered these rankings businesses as political assault canine representing sectional pursuits that need much less authorities cash going to welfare and extra to them – amongst different issues.
I’ve mentioned the difficulty of rankings businesses earlier than, for instance, amongst different posts:
1. Rankings businesses and better rates of interest (April 26, 2009).
2. Rankings downgrade on US authorities debt is as ridiculous as it’s meaningless (August 2, 2023).
3. Rankings agency performs the sucker card … once more (February 25, 2013).
4. The moronic exercise of the ranking businesses (October 1, 2012).
5. Time to outlaw the credit standing businesses (December 23, 2009).
We must always always remember the position they performed within the lead-up to the World Monetary Disaster after they had been paid to offer Aaa rankings on monetary merchandise by the issuers after which lied about it.
The revelations that got here out within the US Congress investigations through the GFC on the corruption amongst these businesses ought to have seen a conga line of executives marched off to jail and the businesses declared unlawful.
Anyway, none of that occurred and right here we’re … once more.
Of their assertion – Moody’s Rankings downgrades United States rankings to Aa1 from Aaa; modifications outlook to secure – Moody’s mentioned:
This one-notch downgrade on our 21-notch ranking scale displays the rise over greater than a decade in authorities debt and curiosity fee ratios to ranges which are considerably larger than equally rated sovereigns.
Successive US administrations and Congress have did not agree on measures to reverse the development of huge annual fiscal deficits and rising curiosity prices. We don’t imagine that materials multi-year reductions in obligatory spending and deficits will consequence from present fiscal proposals into account. Over the following decade, we count on bigger deficits as entitlement spending rises whereas authorities income stays broadly flat. In flip, persistent, giant fiscal deficits will drive the federal government’s debt and curiosity burden larger. The US’ fiscal efficiency is prone to deteriorate relative to its personal previous and in comparison with different highly-rated sovereigns.
Of their rationalization they mentioned:
1. “With out changes to taxation and spending, we count on funds flexibility to stay restricted …”
2. “We anticipate that the federal debt burden will rise to about 134% of GDP by 2035, in comparison with 98% in 2024.”
3. “Whereas we acknowledge the US’ important financial and monetary strengths, we imagine these now not totally counterbalance the decline in fiscal metrics.”
Which doesn’t actually reply the query, does it?
Which is, so what?
Moody’s was simply falling into line with the opposite rankings businesses which had beforehand downgraded the US authorities debt ranking.
Normal and Poors in August 2011.
Fitch Rankings in August 2023.
Did anybody blink after these selections had been made?
No-one that issues at any fee.
Did the US authorities fall off the proverbial fiscal cliff?
Not that I seen.
And so right here we’re … once more.
The commentariat largely interprets the downgrade as one way or the other reflecting a fiscal disaster.
The assorted tales cowl:
1. The rising curiosity funds imply that the federal government can spend much less on different issues, equivalent to protection spending.
A lot has been fabricated from that alleged ‘trade-off’, provided that in 2024, the curiosity funds rose to round 3 per cent of US GDP which exceeded the outlays on protection.
2. It’s all the time claimed that if a authorities is carrying ‘excessive’ (no matter excessive means) ranges of debt then it can’t simply pivot and enhance spending when some catastrophe or risk emerges.
3. Governments with excessive debt change into hostage to the flux in sentiment of international lenders.
4. After which there are these (many) who declare the rankings sign credit score danger – in spite of everything they’re known as ‘Credit score Rankings’.
For instance, reacting to the choice by Moody’s, CNBC quoted some character within the monetary markets as saying borrowing charges will rise as a result of when it’s downgraded:
… a rustic represents an even bigger credit score danger, the collectors will demand to be compensated with larger rates of interest
Even the BBC report – US loses final excellent credit standing amid rising debt (Might 17, 2025) – claimed that:
The US has misplaced its final excellent credit standing, as influential rankings agency Moody’s expressed concern over the federal government’s capacity to pay again its debt …
A decrease credit standing means nations usually tend to default on their sovereign debt, and customarily face larger borrowing prices.
None of those observations have any specific advantage.
On the query of a monetary trade-off between say curiosity funds and, say, protection spending.
Each sources of presidency outlay add to non-government revenue.
It’s attainable that if the US financial system was at full capability and couldn’t take up elevated nominal demand (spending) with out triggering a demand-pull inflation that the federal government must make selections in regards to the measurement of presidency relative to the non-government sector and/or about its spending priorities.
Within the first case, it might merely introduce insurance policies to extend the dimensions of the federal government sector relative to the non-government sector – for instance, enhance taxes.
Within the second, the federal government is all the time being compelled to make selections between spending priorities, not due to monetary constraints, however as a result of there are solely so many obtainable actual productive sources obtainable at any cut-off date.
Is the US financial system at that time within the financial cycle?
The info tells me that there’s extra capability within the US financial system and so no spending trade-off is being reached but.
On the query of much less flexibility to fulfill a disaster – the US authorities can all the time meet any disaster that requires elevated public spending with out query.
It’s a pure fiction to counsel in any other case.
When it comes to claims that the rankings downgrade signifies elevated default danger, which is the form of headline fiction that’s paraded within the media, I learn an attention-grabbing evaluation revealed within the Japan Instances (syndicated from Bloomberg) – Moody’s tells us what we already learn about U.S. debt (Might 19, 2025) – which actually blows away the smokescreen (subscription to Japan Instances wanted for entry).
The sub-heading of the article was:
Take the agency’s choice to strip the nation of its high AAA credit standing severely, not actually
Hmm, what does that imply?
The creator, the chief editor of Bloomberg Opinion, wrote:
To be clear, there may be subsequent to zero likelihood the federal government gained’t be capable of pay its collectors, and as was demonstrated after the actions by S&P and Fitch, the Treasury Division’s entry to funding is decided by forces past some letters in a rankings report. Certainly, international holders about doubled their holdings of Treasuries since 2011 to greater than $9 trillion and have added about $1.5 trillion to their holdings since 2023, in response to the Treasury Division …
So though Moody’s motion says subsequent to nothing about America’s creditworthiness, it does underscore the nation’s more and more complacent perspective towards rising debt and trillion-dollar funds deficits.
Get the drift?
These rankings businesses are political weapons utilized by those that need much less authorities spending until it’s for procurement that advantages their very own self curiosity.
They inform us nothing about whether or not a authorities is about to default on its liabilities.
Because the Bloomberg man notes – there may be subsequent to zero – which means zero likelihood of such a default.
So why name them ‘Credit score Rankings’?
As a result of it’s a sport these neoliberals play to make income for the rankings businesses and people who speculate in authorities debt.
The Bloomberg article nevertheless struggles to maintain its path and resorts to the fiction:
Historical past gives many cautionary examples of nice empires and nations which are no extra due to their propensity for fiscal profligacy. And when the cash spigots are turned off, the populace revolts.
Nicely, if I used to be a US citizen I might be revolting over the best way US cities have degraded – just like the Kensington district in Philadelphia which belies the declare that the US is a classy world-leading nation.
However precisely how would possibly the ‘spigots’ get turned off?
The US authorities points the forex not the monetary markets, which implies the debt state of affairs, no matter it could be, is irrelevant for assessing the capability of the federal government to spend.
And the actual fact is that the monetary markets don’t appear to have received the message that the US is about to default.
The next graph exhibits the Bid-to-Cowl Ratio for the US 10-year treasury notice as much as Might 15, 2025.
I defined bid-to-cover ratios on this weblog publish – D for debt bomb; D for drivel (July 13, 2009).
The bid-to-cover ratio is simply the $ quantity of the bids obtained to the overall $ volumes desired. So if the federal government needed to position $20 million of debt and there have been bids of $40 million within the markets then the bid-to-cover ratio could be 2.
Over the past 25 years, the bid-to-cover ratio on 10-year treasuries has common 2.4 – signifying no scarcity of traders making an attempt to get their fingers on the risk-free belongings.
First, the usage of the ratio assumes it issues. It doesn’t matter in any respect the place the federal government points its personal forex and is thus not revenue-constrained.
Second, such governments select the best way wherein the debt devices are issued.
The organisation of debt issuance just isn’t dictated by the ‘market’ however a matter of presidency prerogative.
For instance, in Australia, the Federal authorities modified the best way authorities bond markets operated within the Nineteen Eighties.
The modifications to the ‘operations’ of the bond markets was a voluntary selection by the Authorities on the time primarily based on a rising acceptance of neoliberal ideology.
They had been additionally the results of particular pleading by the non-public bond sellers who needed to refine their dose of company welfare (the power to buy risk-free belongings).
There was nothing important in regards to the modifications. Additional, they had been largely beauty.
The Authorities changed the previous ‘faucet system’ of bond gross sales with an ‘public sale mannequin’ to get rid of the alleged chance of a ‘funding shortfall’.
Beforehand, governments (equivalent to in Australia) ran what had been known as ‘faucet techniques’ of bond issuance.
Accordingly, the federal government would decide the maturity of the bond (how lengthy the bond would exist for), the coupon fee (the curiosity return on the bond) and the quantity (what number of bonds) that was being sought.
If the non-public bond merchants decided that the coupon fee being supplied was not engaging relative to different funding alternatives, then they might not buy the bonds.
The central financial institution, usually, would then step in and purchase up the undesirable problem.
This method, which was very efficient and allowed the federal government to fully management the yield (it set the coupon), was anathema to the neo-liberals, who thought of it gave the central financial institution carte blanche to fund fiscal deficits.
Faucet techniques had been changed by aggressive public sale (tender) techniques, the place the difficulty is put out for tender and the non-public bond market decide the ultimate yield of the bonds issued in response to demand.
Bonds are issued by authorities within the so-called ‘main market’, which is solely the institutional equipment through which the federal government sells debt to the authorised non-government bond sellers (some banks and so on).
In a contemporary financial system with versatile alternate charges it’s clear the federal government doesn’t need to finance its spending so this institutional equipment is voluntary and displays the prevailing neo-liberal ideology – which emphasises a worry of fiscal excesses fairly than any intrinsic want for funds (of which the currency-issuing authorities has an infinite capability).
As soon as bonds are issued within the ‘main market’ they’re traded within the ‘secondary market’ between events (traders) on the premise of demand and provide.
The bid-to-cover ratio refers back to the demand within the main market by the non-public sellers for the federal government debt on supply.
Clearly secondary market buying and selling has no affect on the quantity of monetary belongings within the system – it simply shuffles the wealth between wealth-holders.
Below public sale techniques, the method actually ensures that that every one internet authorities spending is matched $-for-$ by borrowing from the first bond market sellers.
So internet spending seems to be ‘totally funded’ (within the misguided neo-liberal terminology) by the market.
However the truth is, all that was occurring was that the Authorities is coincidentally draining the identical quantity from reserves as it’s including to the banks every day and swapping money in reserves for presidency paper.
Third, it’s extremely interpretative as to what the bid-to-cover ratio alerts.
It actually alerts energy of demand however how robust turns into an emotional/ideological/political matter.
Even if you happen to believed that the federal government was financing its internet spending by borrowing, then a bid-to-cover ratio of 1 could be advantageous – sufficient lenders to cowl the difficulty.
Some commentators suppose that 2 is a magic line under which catastrophe is imminent. There is no such thing as a foundation in any respect for that.
There may be additionally no foundation within the assertion {that a} ratio above 3 is profitable and by implication a ratio under 3 is unsuccessful.
In any case, something above 1 tells you that some traders don’t get their desired portfolio. That feels like a failure to me.
A declining bid-to-cover ratio would possibly sign that traders are diversifying their portfolios in a rising financial system the place non-public asset danger is declining for a time.
Fourth, for sovereign governments the bid-to-cover ratio is considerably irrelevant as a result of such a authorities might simply abandon the public sale system each time it needed to if the ratio fell to say, 0.00001.
If the Bid-to-Cowl ratios at bond auctions fell to zero – that’s, non-public bond sellers supplied no bids for an public sale – then the federal government might merely instruct the central financial institution to purchase the difficulty.
They could have to vary some laws to permit that however simply as nations shifted away from ‘faucet techniques’ to ‘public sale techniques’, they will shift again once more simply (typically).
However because the graph exhibits, there’s a conga line of traders within the main market eager to get their fingers on authorities debt and so they exceed the quantity obtainable by some margin – common since 2000 = 2.4.
Conclusion
As they are saying – ‘nothing to see right here’.
That’s sufficient for at present!
(c) Copyright 2025 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.