Thai Ratings Raised By Fitch On Yingluck Stability

[khunken]

Quote by Bloomberg:

Yingluck has sought to avert political tensions since taking power in
2011 by shelving measures that would bring back Thaksin Shinawatra, her
brother who was ousted as prime minister in a coup seven years ago.

Two points about the above: Yingluck has never averted the amnesty-for-bro' push - she has only avoided it.

As already mentioned, Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup started & why no mention of his conviction?

In addition I wouldn't give the slightest credibility to Fitch & the other ratings agencies - their record is about equivalent to local polling agencies.

[chiangmaikelly]

Quote by Bloomberg:

Yingluck has sought to avert political tensions since taking power in

2011 by shelving measures that would bring back Thaksin Shinawatra, her

brother who was ousted as prime minister in a coup seven years ago.

Two points about the above: Yingluck has never averted the amnesty-for-bro' push - she has only avoided it.

As already mentioned, Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup started & why no mention of his conviction?

In addition I wouldn't give the slightest credibility to Fitch & the other ratings agencies - their record is about equivalent to local polling agencies.

What rating agencies do the banks and countries all over the world use?

[khunken]

Quote by Bloomberg:

Yingluck has sought to avert political tensions since taking power in

2011 by shelving measures that would bring back Thaksin Shinawatra, her

brother who was ousted as prime minister in a coup seven years ago.

Two points about the above: Yingluck has never averted the amnesty-for-bro' push - she has only avoided it.

As already mentioned, Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup started & why no mention of his conviction?

In addition I wouldn't give the slightest credibility to Fitch & the other ratings agencies - their record is about equivalent to local polling agencies.

What rating agencies do the banks and countries all over the world use?

Not every country or bank uses the agencies that got the sub-prime crisis horribly wrong. Most only pay lip service to them when they get an 'upgrade', which is what is happening here now.

[Suradit69]

Recently financial experts have slammed rating agencies for a series of blunders and although I'm no expert I would question how they could call say this country is stable. Political problems are bubbling away under the surface, politicians are too busy with school playground squabbles to co-operate and the spectre of a certain person looms large. I should also add that at anytime the various factions will hit the streets if they don't get their way and none worse than the red shirts. If this is what Fitch calls stable they should replace their analysists

By comparison with much of Europe, Thailand is stable. Italy, Greece have gone beyond being the subject of jokes. Even major economies like Japan are teetering on the brink of collapse under the weight of debt and conservative intransigence. The political divide in the US has led to one economic "cliff" after another. And of course Britain has been amongst the walking dead for some time.

Facing relegation: Why Britain's 'undeveloping' economy means the country could be about to join the Third World

Relegation, every football manager’s nightmare, now looms on a national scale. Countries, like football teams, can slide down the leagues, and for Britain the pending demotion is traumatic – from the ranks of the first world to those of the third.

Britain is an undeveloping economy, a submerging rather than emerging market. Not only will 2014 mark 100 years since the start of the First World War, it will also be a century since we were last an undisputed economic leader and superpower.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157055/Why-Britain-join-Third-World.html#ixzz2NDrIXYNB

Naturally the bar stool pundits from those countries will still feel qualified to pass judgment on Thailand on Thai Visa. TiTV.

[chiangmaikelly]

Quote by Bloomberg:

Yingluck has sought to avert political tensions since taking power in

2011 by shelving measures that would bring back Thaksin Shinawatra, her

brother who was ousted as prime minister in a coup seven years ago.

Two points about the above: Yingluck has never averted the amnesty-for-bro' push - she has only avoided it.

As already mentioned, Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup started & why no mention of his conviction?

In addition I wouldn't give the slightest credibility to Fitch & the other ratings agencies - their record is about equivalent to local polling agencies.

What rating agencies do the banks and countries all over the world use?

Not every country or bank uses the agencies that got the sub-prime crisis horribly wrong. Most only pay lip service to them when they get an 'upgrade', which is what is happening here now.

Not true. Every bank and country uses the big three to buy and sell bonds and currency.

[khunken]

Quote by Bloomberg:

Yingluck has sought to avert political tensions since taking power in

2011 by shelving measures that would bring back Thaksin Shinawatra, her

brother who was ousted as prime minister in a coup seven years ago.

Two points about the above: Yingluck has never averted the amnesty-for-bro' push - she has only avoided it.

As already mentioned, Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup started & why no mention of his conviction?

In addition I wouldn't give the slightest credibility to Fitch & the other ratings agencies - their record is about equivalent to local polling agencies.

What rating agencies do the banks and countries all over the world use?

Not every country or bank uses the agencies that got the sub-prime crisis horribly wrong. Most only pay lip service to them when they get an 'upgrade', which is what is happening here now.

Not true. Every bank and country uses the big three to buy and sell bonds and currency.

No they don't. Not all banks use the ratings agencies & countries don't use them directly. Countries float their bonds on markets & investors (including banks) buy & sell them according to their market value, which is partly based on ratings.

Ratings have virtually nothing to do with currency valuations.

[chiangmaikelly]

What rating agencies do the banks and countries all over the world use?

Not every country or bank uses the agencies that got the sub-prime crisis horribly wrong. Most only pay lip service to them when they get an 'upgrade', which is what is happening here now.

Not true. Every bank and country uses the big three to buy and sell bonds and currency.

No they don't. Not all banks use the ratings agencies & countries don't use them directly. Countries float their bonds on markets & investors (including banks) buy & sell them according to their market value, which is partly based on ratings.

Ratings have virtually nothing to do with currency valuations.

The rating agencies in directly set the prices banks and countries pay for bonds. A country looks at their credit rating before deciding how much and in what quantity to buy or sell bonds as do banks. You are talking foolishness. Everyone uses the big three credit rating agencies except N Korea. UK rating down. What has happened to the pound?

[animatic]

And the previous Govt was considered unstable because of the actions of who??

Abhisit, the military, the entrenched elite, PAD, political opportunists, speculators and some others.

Would you not agree that the some others included Thaksin a man paying for a terrorist operation in down town Bangkok and culminating in an attempt to burn Bangkok down. Was a prime factor in the instability along with the Parliamentary system of having to please to many different parties do do a proper job.

I can only imagine the mess Thailand would be in if the PTP had to deal with that. The government would be going to Cambodia and Vietnam to buy rice direct for their storage bins if they had the kind of support Abhist had.

In fact due to the direct actions of one man the previous government was ham strung,

(clue his first initial is T)

Just a casually observation and I could be wrong but it seems to me Thaksin pays good money to have people make him look good. Unfortunately for Thaksin there are a lot of people still around who are not on his pay roll and when we look at him we see a pile of sh-t.

If there was a run off election, held if neither of the top two winners of a general election won more than 50.xx%

then there would be no need to buy off the little parties and create bloated rotating cabinets of yes men

or cyphers marking time for their party leader masters, then there might be real stability.

[khunken]

^^^

Post No 41

You don't know what you're talking about. Again, currencies are not linked to ratings.

Countries
go about selling bonds by first, determining their needs (e.g. expiry
of a previous tranche) and selling or attempting to sell their bonds on a
bond market. Investors, yes, paying attention to ratings but not
'gospel', bid for the bonds. When the Spanish, Italian & Greek bonds
went through the roof numerous times during the past few years, it was
not triggered by ratings but by investors' perception of the
creditworthiness of the bonds.

Here is an example of the credibility of one agency (from MS):

Ratings Agency Would Prefer Not to Be Sued, Won’t Cut U.S. Debt Rating

By Jon Shazar

Fitch Ratings does not want to find itself in S&P’s shoes.

While triggering the U.S. spending cuts known as the

sequester and a government shutdown won’t prompt a ratings downgrade,

those outcomes “erode confidence” of achieving deficit reduction needed

to sustain the nation’s top credit grade, according to Fitch Ratings.

In other words, don’t make these $1.3 trillion in budget cuts because
it makes you look like a banana republic. But do cut the deficit by
$1.6 trillion. Either way, we probably won’t downgrade you because we’d
rather not be sued for everything and more.

[ginjag]

And the previous Govt was considered unstable because of the actions of who??

Abhisit, the military, the entrenched elite, PAD, political opportunists, speculators and some others.

The gang of 5. Ha ha so this was your amunition was it ?? you managed to get these 5 to agree with your post, amazing your must be on a roll.

These ratings are in reality POOR. Borrowing 2 trillion and then there is the rice mountain, and the other tablets due now have been delayed until November (wait kids they are coming) these ratings could well change by the end of the year. This lot will finish hanging themselves. Stability with red held villages-absolutely stupid. (imagine this in Europe) like the looney party with gates at each end of Peterboro.

Edited March 11, 2013 by ginjag

[hellodolly]

Recently financial experts have slammed rating agencies for a series of blunders and although I'm no expert I would question how they could call say this country is stable. Political problems are bubbling away under the surface, politicians are too busy with school playground squabbles to co-operate and the spectre of a certain person looms large. I should also add that at anytime the various factions will hit the streets if they don't get their way and none worse than the red shirts. If this is what Fitch calls stable they should replace their analysists

Thailand has been pretty stable over the last few years. It's nowhere near perfect (is anywhere?), and things may be bubbling under the service, but it's been pretty stable. In fact, much more stable than most were predicting. You can't expect it to jump straight from rioting in the streets to perfect stability. These things take time, but they are off to a good start. This ratings rise just puts it where other ratings companies already have it. And don't forget that it's three above junk status, so this isn't really saying much at all. I think they've risen from 11 to 10 in the ratings. No big deal.

Just out of curiosity.

I was wondering if the fact that the stability has any thing to do with the fact that the man behind all the instability is now in fact if not name the Prime Minister of the country.

It escapes me how a farong can not understand that. The Thais with their red shirt school diplomas on freedom by use of force is Democracy. Them I understand.

You might be right, but the fact is that the current government won a landslide victory, and there is some sort of political stability. The ratings increase isn't claim things are great, just that they are slightly better than before. Surely everyone can see that what we have now is better than what was going on in 2010. Fitch, and others are still sating that Thailand credit rating is just above junk status. Some are reading too much into what they have said.

Landslide Victory

A typical Thaksin lie.

48% is not a landslide victory.

[chiangmaikelly]

^^^

Post No 41

You don't know what you're talking about. Again, currencies are not linked to ratings.

Countries

go about selling bonds by first, determining their needs (e.g. expiry

of a previous tranche) and selling or attempting to sell their bonds on a

bond market. Investors, yes, paying attention to ratings but not

'gospel', bid for the bonds. When the Spanish, Italian & Greek bonds

went through the roof numerous times during the past few years, it was

not triggered by ratings but by investors' perception of the

creditworthiness of the bonds.

The big three credit rating agencies are an integral part of the financial world believed and trusted all over the world. The topic of this thread is the Thai rating raised because of the stability of the Yinluck's government.

You can call into the question the credibility of the rating agencies but only crackpots do. And anyway that is not the topic. I will not be drawn further into troll tin hat posts. Open a thread about the rating agencies but for the purposes of this thread I assume as does 99% of the world's banks that they are to be used and trusted.

Edited March 11, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[hellodolly]

Quote by Bloomberg:

Yingluck has sought to avert political tensions since taking power in

2011 by shelving measures that would bring back Thaksin Shinawatra, her

brother who was ousted as prime minister in a coup seven years ago.

Two points about the above: Yingluck has never averted the amnesty-for-bro' push - she has only avoided it.

As already mentioned, Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup started & why no mention of his conviction?

In addition I wouldn't give the slightest credibility to Fitch & the other ratings agencies - their record is about equivalent to local polling agencies.

Correct she has avoided it by using helicopters not equipt to do the job and I don't feel good excuses and leaving it up to the cabinet to handle under the call in phone direction of Thaksin.

[chiangmaikelly]

Quote by Bloomberg:

Yingluck has sought to avert political tensions since taking power in

2011 by shelving measures that would bring back Thaksin Shinawatra, her

brother who was ousted as prime minister in a coup seven years ago.

Two points about the above: Yingluck has never averted the amnesty-for-bro' push - she has only avoided it.

As already mentioned, Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup started & why no mention of his conviction?

In addition I wouldn't give the slightest credibility to Fitch & the other ratings agencies - their record is about equivalent to local polling agencies.

Correct she has avoided it by using helicopters not equipt to do the job and I don't feel good excuses and leaving it up to the cabinet to handle under the call in phone direction of Thaksin.

Since that rating means a lot of cash to Thailand apparently whatever she has done has worked. Good on her.

[ginjag]

Quote by Bloomberg:

Yingluck has sought to avert political tensions since taking power in

2011 by shelving measures that would bring back Thaksin Shinawatra, her

brother who was ousted as prime minister in a coup seven years ago.

Two points about the above: Yingluck has never averted the amnesty-for-bro' push - she has only avoided it.

As already mentioned, Thaksin wasn't PM when the coup started & why no mention of his conviction?

In addition I wouldn't give the slightest credibility to Fitch & the other ratings agencies - their record is about equivalent to local polling agencies.

Correct she has avoided it by using helicopters not equipt to do the job and I don't feel good excuses and leaving it up to the cabinet to handle under the call in phone direction of Thaksin.

Since that rating means a lot of cash to Thailand apparently whatever she has done has worked. Good on her.

Lets just see where the 2 trillion bht goes on the infrastructure -transport projects. Do you really believe it's ALL going for the work ???? Since that means a lot of cash they will need more than that when they run bankrupt, Rice -Pads - first time car buyers- farm subsidies- a wall around the gulf of Thailand- and more boats needed to push the next water out to sea--- stupidity ?? Yes so they up your ratings.

[A_Traveller]

Oddly no one seems to note that Fitch is the smallest of "the big three" and is concomitantly less influential. It is, of course, a NRSRO [Nationally Recognised Statistical Rating Agency] with some 15% of the US market S&P and Moody's both hold about 40% with the remaining sector managed by internal [institutional] and external "unrecognised" agencies.

By the by Fitch's makes up for its lack of size by the frequency of changing its rating positioning, make of that what you will.

As to creditability it's rather like Black Scholes we all know it's not right but it's functionally valuable so we all ignore the concerns and continue to use it. There is after all no Nobel prize in economics, only the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Nobel's memory.

/edit typo//

Edited March 11, 2013 by A_Traveller

[khunken]

^^^

Post No 41

You don't know what you're talking about. Again, currencies are not linked to ratings.

Countries

go about selling bonds by first, determining their needs (e.g. expiry

of a previous tranche) and selling or attempting to sell their bonds on a

bond market. Investors, yes, paying attention to ratings but not

'gospel', bid for the bonds. When the Spanish, Italian & Greek bonds

went through the roof numerous times during the past few years, it was

not triggered by ratings but by investors' perception of the

creditworthiness of the bonds.

The big three credit rating agencies are an integral part of the financial world believed and trusted all over the world. The topic of this thread is the Thai rating raised because of the stability of the Yinluck's government.

You can call into the question the credibility of the rating agencies but only crackpots do. And anyway that is not the topic. I will not be drawn further into troll tin hat posts. Open a thread about the rating agencies but for the purposes of this thread I assume as does 99% of the world's banks that they are to be used and trusted.

The point is that the rating agencies are distrusted all over the world. My previous post (which you obviously didn't bother to read to the end) showed a recent excerpt from a Morgan Stanley website rather pointing out how they viewed Fitch with scorn.

A very large mutual fund in the US (PIMCO) have stopped using rating agencies & make their own judgements. Go and Google ratings agencies & you will see that there is a large body of influential opinion that they are to be 'handled with care'.

S & P are currently being sued by the US government - another rather large nail in their coffin.

A ratings improvement on account of 'stability' is an oxymoron. Crackpots are those who ignore reality which those following the party line are in danger of becoming.

[chiangmaikelly]

You can mock me and submit foolish kindergarten off topic posts about the physical appearance of the PM of Thailand and another poster even called into question the validity of the rating agency but the fact still stands that Yingluck's government is stable and the credit rating went up because of that fact.

[waza]

You can mock me and submit foolish kindergarten off topic posts about the physical appearance of the PM of Thailand and another poster even called into question the validity of the rating agency but the fact still stands that Yingluck's government is stable and the credit rating went up because of that fact.

Great and she achieved this by not having an economist in her cabinet and by never turning up to parliment. In fact parlliment has been cancelled because not enough ministers turned up to form a quorum and the only bills they have passed were populist promises that are chewing through the GDP at an alarming rate. If she keeps up the good work and stays away for the rest of her tenure Thailand will be an economic superpower.

I am an economic guru

Edited March 11, 2013 by waza

[metisdead]

Off topic and derogatory posts and replies have been removed.

[Robby nz]

The big three credit rating agencies are an integral part of the financial world believed and trusted all over the world

If the rating agencies are so trusted then why is the US sueing one of them?

Oh yes they were downgraded and the mighty US wont stand for that.

Then there was the sub prime thing which has effected the whole world.

That could be what you get for trusting them.

[NanLaew]

... a terrorist operation in down town Bangkok and culminating in an attempt to burn Bangkok down. .

Were you also in Canada when the above happened you made this up?

[chiangmaikelly]

The big three credit rating agencies are an integral part of the financial world believed and trusted all over the world

If the rating agencies are so trusted then why is the US sueing one of them?

Oh yes they were downgraded and the mighty US wont stand for that.

Then there was the sub prime thing which has effected the whole world.

That could be what you get for trusting them.

So is Fitch credit rating agency a topic of this thread? If so it brings into question Thailand's rating is high enough. Perhaps it should be AAA?

[Pimay1]

... a terrorist operation in down town Bangkok and culminating in an attempt to burn Bangkok down. .

Were you also in Canada when the above happened you made this up?

Don't know where hellodolly was at the time but I was here in Thailand and witnessed it on the tele.

[waza]

The big three credit rating agencies are an integral part of the financial world believed and trusted all over the world

If the rating agencies are so trusted then why is the US sueing one of them?

Oh yes they were downgraded and the mighty US wont stand for that.

Then there was the sub prime thing which has effected the whole world.

That could be what you get for trusting them.

So is Fitch credit rating agency a topic of this thread? If so it brings into question Thailand's rating is high enough. Perhaps it should be AAA?

Heres my answer.........

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/625051-thai-ratings-raised-by-fitch-on-yingluck-stability/?p=6194035

[chiangmaikelly]

You can mock me and submit foolish kindergarten off topic posts about the physical appearance of the PM of Thailand and another poster even called into question the validity of the rating agency but the fact still stands that Yingluck's government is stable and the credit rating went up because of that fact.

Great and she achieved this by not having an economist in her cabinet and by never turning up to parliment. In fact parlliment has been cancelled because not enough ministers turned up to form a quorum and the only bills they have passed were populist promises that are chewing through the GDP at an alarming rate. If she keeps up the good work and stays away for the rest of her tenure Thailand will be an economic superpower.

images.jpg I am an economic guru

The previous PM was so bad that nothing was better. That's not so hard to understand is it?

[waza]

... a terrorist operation in down town Bangkok and culminating in an attempt to burn Bangkok down. .

Were you also in Canada when the above happened you made this up?

Don't know where hellodolly was at the time but I was here in Thailand and witnessed it on the tele.

me too

[chiangmaikelly]

^^^

Post No 41

You don't know what you're talking about. Again, currencies are not linked to ratings.

Countries

go about selling bonds by first, determining their needs (e.g. expiry

of a previous tranche) and selling or attempting to sell their bonds on a

bond market. Investors, yes, paying attention to ratings but not

'gospel', bid for the bonds. When the Spanish, Italian & Greek bonds

went through the roof numerous times during the past few years, it was

not triggered by ratings but by investors' perception of the

creditworthiness of the bonds.

The big three credit rating agencies are an integral part of the financial world believed and trusted all over the world. The topic of this thread is the Thai rating raised because of the stability of the Yinluck's government.

You can call into the question the credibility of the rating agencies but only crackpots do. And anyway that is not the topic. I will not be drawn further into troll tin hat posts. Open a thread about the rating agencies but for the purposes of this thread I assume as does 99% of the world's banks that they are to be used and trusted.

The point is that the rating agencies are distrusted all over the world. My previous post (which you obviously didn't bother to read to the end) showed a recent excerpt from a Morgan Stanley website rather pointing out how they viewed Fitch with scorn.

A very large mutual fund in the US (PIMCO) have stopped using rating agencies & make their own judgements. Go and Google ratings agencies & you will see that there is a large body of influential opinion that they are to be 'handled with care'.

S & P are currently being sued by the US government - another rather large nail in their coffin.

A ratings improvement on account of 'stability' is an oxymoron. Crackpots are those who ignore reality which those following the party line are in danger of becoming.

I think it is a good topic but if we debate the credit agencies every time a rating is brought up the threads will be long and always unproductive. I think Thailand should have a AAA rating because Fitch is conservative and you think Thailand has too high a rating. Who is right? Start a new thread if you want but to call into the length of the ruler everytime a measurement is taken is unproductive.

[bigbamboo]

Oddly no one seems to note that Fitch is the smallest of "the big three" and is concomitantly less influential. It is, of course, a NRSRO [Nationally Recognised Statistical Rating Agency] with some 15% of the US market S&P and Moody's both hold about 40% with the remaining sector managed by internal [institutional] and external "unrecognised" agencies.

By the by Fitch's makes up for its lack of size by the frequency of changing its rating positioning, make of that what you will.

As to creditability it's rather like Black Scholes we all know it's not right but it's functionally valuable so we all ignore the concerns and continue to use it. There is after all no Nobel prize in economics, only the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Nobel's memory.

/edit typo//

Yep, but to be absolutely fair (as I always am... ! ) all Fitch have done is to bring their rating in line with the other two.

Yingluck must take some credit for the improved outlook taking place on her watch although whether it is sustainable is questionable to say the least. The opposition should also be congratulated for giving her a much easier ride than her party gave them during in the previous administration, which also performed well on the economic front.

[Locationthailand]

Fitch has no idea. Would not surprise me if somehow somewhere there is interference from an outside source, perhaps a promise from recent diplomatic visits to get this rating.