DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Monday, November 15, 2010
The State of the Union, in credit terms
CMA DataVision's third-quarter report gives the latest assessments of sovereign debt default risk, as measured by the price of credit default insurance. This edition also includes ratings for selected individual States of the USA. I have combined the latter with the former in a ranking below, so that you can see the ratings of States in some sort of context. Please click on the picture to enlarge.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Sovereign debt default risk
On October 7, CMA DataVision released their third-quarter report on the credit ratings of sovereign countries. CMA's ratings are worked out by looking at what the credit market charges for insuring against default. This market-based marking is different from the assessments of Standard and Poor's, Moody's, Fitch etc, who are paid by the organisations they rate and whose reputation has been brought into question after the events of 2008.
On page 4, CMA says that four of the 10 most risky nations are in the EU (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Romania). It's worth remembering that a fifth on that list, Ukraine, is eager to join the EU. (For those who want to know about all the "PIGS", Spain is 21st most risky.) How is the currency and banking of the European Union meant to contain these problems?
The UK is rated 59th most risky (or 13th safest), with an implied credit rating of aa+ (as opposed to the official AAA rating that has helped to keep down the cost of our credit).
Four Nordic countries lead the list of securest debt: Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Only four other countries share their "implied AAA" rating: Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Australia.
The United States has been downgraded this quarter, from "aaa" to "aa+" - the same as for the United Kingdom.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
On page 4, CMA says that four of the 10 most risky nations are in the EU (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Romania). It's worth remembering that a fifth on that list, Ukraine, is eager to join the EU. (For those who want to know about all the "PIGS", Spain is 21st most risky.) How is the currency and banking of the European Union meant to contain these problems?
The UK is rated 59th most risky (or 13th safest), with an implied credit rating of aa+ (as opposed to the official AAA rating that has helped to keep down the cost of our credit).
Four Nordic countries lead the list of securest debt: Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Only four other countries share their "implied AAA" rating: Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Australia.
The United States has been downgraded this quarter, from "aaa" to "aa+" - the same as for the United Kingdom.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Shares as a safeguard against inflation
Previously published on the Broad Oak Blog (Nov. 14, 2010):
_________________________________________________
It is well-known that German money became worthless in 1923, thanks to hyperinflation. The value of cash savings was wiped out; fixed rents also became worthless, which benefitted the ordinary person; but practically all one's income was spent on food, instead (see Table 6 at the bottom of this page).
What is less well known is how investors who didn't have to sell their shares actually gained, after a market pullback.
_________________________________________________
It is well-known that German money became worthless in 1923, thanks to hyperinflation. The value of cash savings was wiped out; fixed rents also became worthless, which benefitted the ordinary person; but practically all one's income was spent on food, instead (see Table 6 at the bottom of this page).
What is less well known is how investors who didn't have to sell their shares actually gained, after a market pullback.
UPDATE: As Michael Panzer points out, what I called a "pullback" should more properly be termed a horrendous crash! Unless you have the titanium nerve to hold on through such an event, there is a grave danger that you could buy in now and sell in a panic later and lose most of your wealth.
CLARIFICATION / CORRECTION:(I should have made it clearer that the graph above is not mine - it comes from the site I linked to in the text, i.e. Now and Futures. Apologies for any misunderstanding, which I didn't intend.)
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Could shares protect against inflation?
It is well-known that German money became worthless in 1923, thanks to hyperinflation. The value of cash savings was wiped out; fixed rents also became worthless, which benefitted the ordinary person; but practically all one's income was spent on food, instead (see Table 6 at the bottom of this page).
What is less well known is how investors who didn't have to sell their shares actually gained, after a market pullback.
What is less well known is how investors who didn't have to sell their shares actually gained, after a market pullback.
UPDATE: As Michael Panzer points out, what I called a "pullback" should more properly be termed a horrendous crash! Unless you have the titanium nerve to hold on through such an event, there is a grave danger that you could buy in now and sell in a panic later and lose most of your wealth.
CLARIFICATION / CORRECTION:(I should have made it clearer that the graph above is not mine - it comes from the site I linked to in the text, i.e. Now and Futures. Apologies for any misunderstanding, which I didn't intend.)
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
"A liar and a cheat"
ONE
Black Dog, in the Mail on Sunday:
A new twist in the resignation from London’s Garrick Club of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger after he unsuccessfully proposed ex-Labour City Minister Lord Myners as a member.
Now Dog hears of a contretemps over an unpaid dinner bill. When chased by the club some months later, Rusbridger sent a photocopy of the cheque he paid with.
The Garrick could still find no record of receiving the original cheque, so he sent a second one bearing a serial number consecutive to the first. Times are hard at The Guardian.
TWO
Mr Rusbridger himself (editor of The Guardian newspaper) about the collapse of Jeffrey Archer's libel case against that newspaper, in an article titled "A liar and a cheat" (highlights mine):
"The Guardian has never doubted the truth of its original story. We would have produced damning evidence of Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer's lack of integrity if the case had proceeded. No doubt that is why they dropped the action."
This ultimately led to a trial of Lord Archer for perjury. He was found guilty and sentenced to four years in jail.
THREE
Wikipedia, on the philosopher and media personage C.E.M. Joad:
In April 1948, Joad was convicted of travelling on a Waterloo-Exeter train without a valid ticket. Although he was a frequent fare dodger, he failed to give a satisfactory excuse. This made front-page headlines in the national newspapers, and the fine of £2 (£54 as of 2010) destroyed all hopes of a peerage and resulted in his dismissal from the BBC. The humiliation of this had a severe effect on his health, and he soon became bed-confined at his home in Hampstead.
Joad died a few years later, a broken man.
_________________________________________
Why were Mr Rusbridger's two cheques to the Garrick Club sequentially numbered? Is it really the case that he wrote no cheques at all on that account for the intervening months? This could easily be proved by revealing the dates of cheques written immediately before the first cheque to the Garrick.
One would think that the implications of Black Dog's article are potentially quite damaging for the editor of a national newspaper that, whatever its political inclinations, has built a reputation for truthfulness and integrity, qualities it seems to have found lacking in Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer.
I wonder what Mr Rusbridger may be prepared to do to combat the seeming innuendo of Black Dog's article?
Black Dog, in the Mail on Sunday:
A new twist in the resignation from London’s Garrick Club of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger after he unsuccessfully proposed ex-Labour City Minister Lord Myners as a member.
Now Dog hears of a contretemps over an unpaid dinner bill. When chased by the club some months later, Rusbridger sent a photocopy of the cheque he paid with.
The Garrick could still find no record of receiving the original cheque, so he sent a second one bearing a serial number consecutive to the first. Times are hard at The Guardian.
TWO
Mr Rusbridger himself (editor of The Guardian newspaper) about the collapse of Jeffrey Archer's libel case against that newspaper, in an article titled "A liar and a cheat" (highlights mine):
"The Guardian has never doubted the truth of its original story. We would have produced damning evidence of Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer's lack of integrity if the case had proceeded. No doubt that is why they dropped the action."
This ultimately led to a trial of Lord Archer for perjury. He was found guilty and sentenced to four years in jail.
THREE
Wikipedia, on the philosopher and media personage C.E.M. Joad:
In April 1948, Joad was convicted of travelling on a Waterloo-Exeter train without a valid ticket. Although he was a frequent fare dodger, he failed to give a satisfactory excuse. This made front-page headlines in the national newspapers, and the fine of £2 (£54 as of 2010) destroyed all hopes of a peerage and resulted in his dismissal from the BBC. The humiliation of this had a severe effect on his health, and he soon became bed-confined at his home in Hampstead.
Joad died a few years later, a broken man.
_________________________________________
Why were Mr Rusbridger's two cheques to the Garrick Club sequentially numbered? Is it really the case that he wrote no cheques at all on that account for the intervening months? This could easily be proved by revealing the dates of cheques written immediately before the first cheque to the Garrick.
One would think that the implications of Black Dog's article are potentially quite damaging for the editor of a national newspaper that, whatever its political inclinations, has built a reputation for truthfulness and integrity, qualities it seems to have found lacking in Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer.
I wonder what Mr Rusbridger may be prepared to do to combat the seeming innuendo of Black Dog's article?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
In praise of "First Life"
How wonderful, to learn of creatures with rock bodies and crystal eyes, roaming shallow seas in endless variety, an infinite case of intricate, animated jewels.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)