Thai Ratings Raised By Fitch On Yingluck Stability

[chiangmaikelly]

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.

In other words anything positive about the Yingluck government must be in error. GDP is way up. Stock market is way up. Auto production is way up. Foreign investment is way up. All of these must be wrong. Ya ya ya.

If you know something post if. If there are any facts to support your position post them. Rumour is useless.

It would not surprise me if the sky fell in the morning. Ya ya ya.

Edited March 11, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[ginjag]

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?

How bad was that ??? he was chosen to stand in after a shambles-corruption thats all, then had to face the backed reds, and look what they did, he was calling for early election but that was washed away with the destuction of part of BKK, he sounded so bad didn;t he, you cannot have been here or you wouldn;t be so twisted and brainwashed

[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?

How bad was that ??? he was chosen to stand in after a shambles-corruption thats all, then had to face the backed reds, and look what they did, he was calling for early election but that was washed away with the destuction of part of BKK, he sounded so bad didn;t he, you cannot have been here or you wouldn;t be so twisted and brainwashed

Ya I was here. When a country has an election they have to be prepared for the side that they don't like to win if they are the majority. In this case part of the spoils was a financial rating increase. I don't think Abhisit created the problems but he could have reacted differently and he didn't. He could have won the next election but he defeated himself by his actions during his term in office.

So Yingluck got the benefit of the inaction of the previous government; so what.

Edited March 11, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[hellodolly]

... 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?

I see you graduated from red shirt school on democracy with honors.

Congratulations.

[hellodolly]

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?

OK you have been holding your own here so far then all of a sudden you decide to go goofy what happened.

Economics seems to be your strong point.

What happens when all this money coming into Thailand wakes up and finds out it is to buy rice and other agricultural products at a price much higher than it can be sold at?

[rubl]

Fitch dupgrades Thailands rating. All happy. Obviously it must be PM Yingluck because she doesn't interfere with her cabinet's ministers who normally call her brother anyway.

So, no prolonged UDD protests, no arson, previous PM handling new elections correctly and handing over to the new PM. Thailands economy booming.

Personally I would say we're waiting for the next 1997 because the capital influx doesn't translate in productivity and wealth for all and many multi billion Baht projects seem to loose money as water flowing through the Chao Praya. Of course I'm no financial and/or economical wizard like lots of posters here, so I might be wrong

[hellodolly]

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?

How bad was that ??? he was chosen to stand in after a shambles-corruption thats all, then had to face the backed reds, and look what they did, he was calling for early election but that was washed away with the destuction of part of BKK, he sounded so bad didn;t he, you cannot have been here or you wouldn;t be so twisted and brainwashed

Ya I was here. When a country has an election they have to be prepared for the side that they don't like to win if they are the majority. In this case part of the spoils was a financial rating increase. I don't think Abhisit created the problems but he could have reacted differently and he didn't. He could have won the next election but he defeated himself by his actions during his term in office.

So Yingluck got the benefit of the inaction of the previous government; so what.

Now you are falling down on simple arithmetic.

48% is not even in the same ball park as majority.

On the other hand 52% is hands down no doubt about it majority.

You might want to wait until tomorrow to post.

[chiangmaikelly]

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

How bad was that ??? he was chosen to stand in after a shambles-corruption thats all, then had to face the backed reds, and look what they did, he was calling for early election but that was washed away with the destuction of part of BKK, he sounded so bad didn;t he, you cannot have been here or you wouldn;t be so twisted and brainwashed

Ya I was here. When a country has an election they have to be prepared for the side that they don't like to win if they are the majority. In this case part of the spoils was a financial rating increase. I don't think Abhisit created the problems but he could have reacted differently and he didn't. He could have won the next election but he defeated himself by his actions during his term in office.

So Yingluck got the benefit of the inaction of the previous government; so what.

Now you are falling down on simple arithmetic.

48% is not even in the same ball park as majority.

On the other hand 52% is hands down no doubt about it majority.

You might want to wait until tomorrow to post.

Don't you think it is about time for you fellows to get over it. Does every thread in Thai News have to be a re hash of the last election. The guys you like lost. Get over it and start posting on topic. Everyone knows how a coalition government is formed, Give it a rest. Yinglucks government is doing a good job according to Fitch. If we ignore some posters on Thai Visa the majority of Thais seem happy and stable.

Edited March 11, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[chiangmaikelly]

Fitch dupgrades Thailands rating. All happy. Obviously it must be PM Yingluck because she doesn't interfere with her cabinet's ministers who normally call her brother anyway.

So, no prolonged UDD protests, no arson, previous PM handling new elections correctly and handing over to the new PM. Thailands economy booming.

Personally I would say we're waiting for the next 1997 because the capital influx doesn't translate in productivity and wealth for all and many multi billion Baht projects seem to loose money as water flowing through the Chao Praya. Of course I'm no financial and/or economical wizard like lots of posters here, so I might be wrong

What is a dupgrade? And did you tell Fitch they were wrong? And Moody's and S and P's?

[rubl]

It's always nice to hear from fellow posters, especially when they ignore each others and proclaim that the majority of Thais are happy. They know because all around them they only see happy people and even Fitch says so (eeven though as none-Thai their opinion is a wee bit suspect of course. I mean, imagine anyone being happy with a rating upgrade to the level of Italy, an upgrade because we didn't have many violent riots organized by the previous government of PM 'kill me some' Abhisit.

The wonderful work of our ever smiling PM Yingluck, obviously. And now back to explaining why 'loosing' THB 250 billion in two years rice price pledging is so helpful to the economy

[rubl]

Fitch dupgrades Thailands rating. All happy. Obviously it must be PM Yingluck because she doesn't interfere with her cabinet's ministers who normally call her brother anyway.

So, no prolonged UDD protests, no arson, previous PM handling new elections correctly and handing over to the new PM. Thailands economy booming.

Personally I would say we're waiting for the next 1997 because the capital influx doesn't translate in productivity and wealth for all and many multi billion Baht projects seem to loose money as water flowing through the Chao Praya. Of course I'm no financial and/or economical wizard like lots of posters here, so I might be wrong

What is a dupgrade? And did you tell Fitch they were wrong? And Moody's and S and P's?

Kelly old chap, following your lead let's tackle the important things first. The 'dupgrade' is a hastily typed 'upgrade' with a misplaced and superfluous 'd', while at the same time finally eating my dinner and trying not to make a mess of/on my keyboard. As for telling Fitch, Moody's, S&P about this, I doubt they'd be interesting in my daring typing adventures

BTW did you notice past the important typo that I also vaguely indicated that I might not be such an expert on these matters, finance/economy not the typo, as you and a few others here?

[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.

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?

I cant believe you played the, "What about Ahibist card".

Psssss if you get stuck on a question, just say" What about Abihist?" and get your hand off your nom.

Edited March 11, 2013 by waza

[yoshiwara]

Rating agency grades are used for bond credit rating.

According to the commentary provided on wikipedia re creditworthiness BBB+ = 'An obligor has ADEQUATE capacity to meet its financial commitments. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitments.'

This seems not an unreasonable assessment of Thailand's financial position.

Since the outlook has been set at positive, then the next step up (A-) would change ADEQUATE capacity to that of STRONG capacity. It would appear then that issues such as the rice pledge situation are cans which have been kicked down the road and await resolution.

Edited March 11, 2013 by yoshiwara

[Robby nz]

Robby nz, on 11 Mar 2013 - 18:39, said:

Quote

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?

It was you who brought up the "Top three" not me

[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?

I cant believe you played the, "What about Ahibist card".

Yingluck+Shinawatra+Thai+Prime+Minister+Shinawatra+kNRqV9y5pvXl.jpg Psssss if you get stuck on a question, just say" What about Abihist?" and get your hand off your nom.

Adolescent off color humor with photos that have nothing to do with the topic has ceased to entertain me.

[chiangmaikelly]

It's always nice to hear from fellow posters, especially when they ignore each others and proclaim that the majority of Thais are happy. They know because all around them they only see happy people and even Fitch says so (eeven though as none-Thai their opinion is a wee bit suspect of course. I mean, imagine anyone being happy with a rating upgrade to the level of Italy, an upgrade because we didn't have many violent riots organized by the previous government of PM 'kill me some' Abhisit.

The wonderful work of our ever smiling PM Yingluck, obviously. And now back to explaining why 'loosing' THB 250 billion in two years rice price pledging is so helpful to the economy

I think you have to understand the rating system and understand why the direction of a countries rating makes news. Try looking for other countries recently that have gone down in the rating for examples and education. Although you might want to talk to Waza in another thread he said the rice price pledge was a trillion dollars.

Edited March 12, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[waza]

It's always nice to hear from fellow posters, especially when they ignore each others and proclaim that the majority of Thais are happy. They know because all around them they only see happy people and even Fitch says so (eeven though as none-Thai their opinion is a wee bit suspect of course. I mean, imagine anyone being happy with a rating upgrade to the level of Italy, an upgrade because we didn't have many violent riots organized by the previous government of PM 'kill me some' Abhisit.

The wonderful work of our ever smiling PM Yingluck, obviously. And now back to explaining why 'loosing' THB 250 billion in two years rice price pledging is so helpful to the economy

I think you have to understand the rating system and understand why the direction of a countries rating makes news. Try looking for other countries recently that have gone down in the rating for examples and education. Although you might want to talk to Waza in another thread he said the rice price pledge was a trillion dollars.

Based upon the numbers quoted the rice scam has cost the Thai tax payer around 700 billion so far in purchase and storage and will be around 1 trillion by the end of 2014. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/623866-yingluck-calls-thailand-a-haven-for-foreign-investment/?p=6182298

However, if they manage to sell some of the stockpile they will recoup some of the money.

A hell of a lot more than the couple of million you claim.

Edited March 12, 2013 by waza

[chiangmaikelly]

It's always nice to hear from fellow posters, especially when they ignore each others and proclaim that the majority of Thais are happy. They know because all around them they only see happy people and even Fitch says so (eeven though as none-Thai their opinion is a wee bit suspect of course. I mean, imagine anyone being happy with a rating upgrade to the level of Italy, an upgrade because we didn't have many violent riots organized by the previous government of PM 'kill me some' Abhisit.

The wonderful work of our ever smiling PM Yingluck, obviously. And now back to explaining why 'loosing' THB 250 billion in two years rice price pledging is so helpful to the economy

I think you have to understand the rating system and understand why the direction of a countries rating makes news. Try looking for other countries recently that have gone down in the rating for examples and education. Although you might want to talk to Waza in another thread he said the rice price pledge was a trillion dollars.

The rice scam has cost the Thai tax payer around 700 billion so far and will be around 1 trillion by the end of 2014. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/623866-yingluck-calls-thailand-a-haven-for-foreign-investment/?p=6182298

A hell of a lot more than the couple of million you claim.

Not me, I said I didn't know for sure. Rubi said 250 billion. I think it makes a difference to the credit rating if it's 250 billion or a trillion don't you? You and Rubi might want to hash it out. I don't have a view one way or the other except I would like to see some link to a accurate number as I am sure Fitch would.

[waza]

It's always nice to hear from fellow posters, especially when they ignore each others and proclaim that the majority of Thais are happy. They know because all around them they only see happy people and even Fitch says so (eeven though as none-Thai their opinion is a wee bit suspect of course. I mean, imagine anyone being happy with a rating upgrade to the level of Italy, an upgrade because we didn't have many violent riots organized by the previous government of PM 'kill me some' Abhisit.

The wonderful work of our ever smiling PM Yingluck, obviously. And now back to explaining why 'loosing' THB 250 billion in two years rice price pledging is so helpful to the economy

I think you have to understand the rating system and understand why the direction of a countries rating makes news. Try looking for other countries recently that have gone down in the rating for examples and education. Although you might want to talk to Waza in another thread he said the rice price pledge was a trillion dollars.

The rice scam has cost the Thai tax payer around 700 billion so far and will be around 1 trillion by the end of 2014. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/623866-yingluck-calls-thailand-a-haven-for-foreign-investment/?p=6182298

A hell of a lot more than the couple of million you claim.

Not me, I said I didn't know for sure. Rubi said 250 billion. I think it makes a difference to the credit rating if it's 250 billion or a trillion don't you? You and Rubi might want to hash it out. I don't have a view one way or the other except I would like to see some link to a accurate number as I am sure Fitch would.

We dont need to hash it out, your the one confusing cost with loss

Edited March 12, 2013 by waza

[chiangmaikelly]

I think you have to understand the rating system and understand why the direction of a countries rating makes news. Try looking for other countries recently that have gone down in the rating for examples and education. Although you might want to talk to Waza in another thread he said the rice price pledge was a trillion dollars.

The rice scam has cost the Thai tax payer around 700 billion so far and will be around 1 trillion by the end of 2014. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/623866-yingluck-calls-thailand-a-haven-for-foreign-investment/?p=6182298

A hell of a lot more than the couple of million you claim.

Not me, I said I didn't know for sure. Rubi said 250 billion. I think it makes a difference to the credit rating if it's 250 billion or a trillion don't you? You and Rubi might want to hash it out. I don't have a view one way or the other except I would like to see some link to a accurate number as I am sure Fitch would.

We dont need to hash it out, your the one confusing cost with loss

Rubi said the rice pledging cost 250 billion. You said one trillion. Which is it and where is the link? Because if it is the larger number surly it might effect the credit rating.

[waza]

The rice scam has cost the Thai tax payer around 700 billion so far and will be around 1 trillion by the end of 2014. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/623866-yingluck-calls-thailand-a-haven-for-foreign-investment/?p=6182298

A hell of a lot more than the couple of million you claim.

Not me, I said I didn't know for sure. Rubi said 250 billion. I think it makes a difference to the credit rating if it's 250 billion or a trillion don't you? You and Rubi might want to hash it out. I don't have a view one way or the other except I would like to see some link to a accurate number as I am sure Fitch would.

We dont need to hash it out, your the one confusing cost with loss

Rubi said the rice pledging cost 250 billion. You said one trillion. Which is it and where is the link? Because if it is the larger number surly it might effect the credit rating.

No I said the costs would be around 1 trillion, Rubl said the losses would be around 250 billion its easy for the two terms to be confused, same as turnover and profits by someone with a poor grasp of economic

[chiangmaikelly]

Not me, I said I didn't know for sure. Rubi said 250 billion. I think it makes a difference to the credit rating if it's 250 billion or a trillion don't you? You and Rubi might want to hash it out. I don't have a view one way or the other except I would like to see some link to a accurate number as I am sure Fitch would.

We dont need to hash it out, your the one confusing cost with loss

Rubi said the rice pledging cost 250 billion. You said one trillion. Which is it and where is the link? Because if it is the larger number surly it might effect the credit rating.

No I said the costs would be around 1 trillion, Rubl said the losses would be around 250 billion its easy for the two terms to be confused, same as turnover and profits by someone with a poor grasp of economic

So why discuss cost if it is not a loss? You sell rice and have a profit or loss. What do you think the loss will be as a percent of the GDP? Because just a number is meaningless unless related to the GDP.

[waza]

We dont need to hash it out, your the one confusing cost with loss

Rubi said the rice pledging cost 250 billion. You said one trillion. Which is it and where is the link? Because if it is the larger number surly it might effect the credit rating.

No I said the costs would be around 1 trillion, Rubl said the losses would be around 250 billion its easy for the two terms to be confused, same as turnover and profits by someone with a poor grasp of economic

So why discuss cost if it is not a loss? You sell rice and have a profit or loss. What do you think the loss will be as a percent of the GDP? Because just a number is meaningless unless related to the GDP.

I am no economic guru but Thailands GDP is around $350 billion US or Bt1 trillion per years, losses of Bt250 billion over 2 years is around 12.5% of GDP per year, the costs would be around 50% of GDP but are funded through debt in the hope that it will be recouped.

However, back on topic Fitch's decision to upgrade the Thai credit rating wasnt based on economic but was a political one.

[chiangmaikelly]

Rubi said the rice pledging cost 250 billion. You said one trillion. Which is it and where is the link? Because if it is the larger number surly it might effect the credit rating.

No I said the costs would be around 1 trillion, Rubl said the losses would be around 250 billion its easy for the two terms to be confused, same as turnover and profits by someone with a poor grasp of economic

So why discuss cost if it is not a loss? You sell rice and have a profit or loss. What do you think the loss will be as a percent of the GDP? Because just a number is meaningless unless related to the GDP.

I am no economic guru but Thailands GDP is around $350 billion US or Bt1 trillion per years, losses of Bt250 billion over 2 years is around 12.5% of GDP per year, the costs would be around 50% of GDP but are funded through debt in the hope that it will be recouped.

However, back on topic Fitch's decision to upgrade the Thai credit rating wasnt based on economic but was a political one.

250 billion baht for two years so 125 billion baht one year. 4,224,400,000.00 USD Check your math. Isn't that more like 1% of the GDP? Lot of numbers and I'm working outside today and could have made an error.

Edited March 12, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[Robby nz]

once again a red has twisted away from the topic.

[samran]

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

The question has already been succinctly answered by geriatrickid why the previous government was unstable.A related issue is that while technically legitimate the previous government rode to power on the back of a military coup, judicial activism, and the backing of the unelected elite.To this must be added the sheer incompetence of Abhisit as a politician.Whatever its shortcomings the current government benefits from having fairly won power in a general election, and its unquestioned legitimacy is reflected in the credit ratings.

Agree that this reduces what could probably be called a 'political risk premium' in the rating. What it allows people to now focus on is the economic competence of the government (or lack of, depending on one's view on such matters).

[chiangmaikelly]

once again a red has twisted away from the topic.

Who is a red? Who brought up rice pledging? Rubi. But I think if Waza is correct and it is 12.5% of the GDP it certainly would effect the Fitch rating. Don't you?

[waza]

once again a red has twisted away from the topic.

Who is a red? Who brought up rice pledging? Rubi. But I think if Waza is correct and it is 12.5% of the GDP it certainly would effect the Fitch rating. Don't you?

yeah 1.2 next

Edited March 12, 2013 by waza

[chiangmaikelly]

once again a red has twisted away from the topic.

Who is a red? Who brought up rice pledging? Rubi. But I think if Waza is correct and it is 12.5% of the GDP it certainly would effect the Fitch rating. Don't you?

yeah 1.2 next

There is a big difference between one percent and twelve percent. One percent is almost meaningless. So if one percent of the GDP keeps the economy stable then Yingluck has done an excellent job and Fitch is correct.

[waza]

once again a red has twisted away from the topic.

Who is a red? Who brought up rice pledging? Rubi. But I think if Waza is correct and it is 12.5% of the GDP it certainly would effect the Fitch rating. Don't you?

yeah 1.2 next

There is a big difference between one percent and twelve percent. One percent is almost meaningless. So if one percent of the GDP keeps the economy stable then Yingluck has done an excellent job and Fitch is correct.

I have no idea what your blathering on about now.

Edited March 12, 2013 by waza