Ratings agency Moody’s downgraded 15 of the world’s biggest banks on Thursday, lowering credit ratings by one to three notches to reflect the risk of losses they face from volatile capital markets activities, but banks criticized the move as backward looking.
Morgan Stanley, one of the most closely watched firms in the much anticipated review, had its long-term debt rating lowered by just two notches, one level less than had been expected, sending its stock up sharply in after-hours trading.
The downgrade left Morgan Stanley more highly rated than Bank of America Corp and Citigroup, but a step below Goldman Sachs Group.
Credit Suisse, which last week was warned about weak capital levels by Switzerland’s central bank, was the only bank in the group to suffer a three-notch downgrade. But its new A1 deposit and senior debt ratings still rank higher than many of its peers.
“All of the banks affected by today’s actions have significant exposure to the volatility and risk of outsized losses inherent to capital markets activities,” Moody’s Global Banking Managing Director Greg Bauer said in the announcement.
What I'm seeing now is loan aversity --- with lots of funds being plowed into federal instruments.
The federal government has quite a corner on the borrowing market --- crowding out people like me (superior credit for 30+ years).
Here's what I don't understand - the government is way more indebt than I am --- has absolutely lousy ratios --- and still gets to borrow money for next to nothing, while I can't even talk a bank into lending me 80 percent LTV at a premium.
(if there ever were a case for anti-trust - I'd say I've got it)
bailey bud wrote: What I'm seeing now is loan aversity --- with lots of funds being plowed into federal instruments.
The federal government has quite a corner on the borrowing market --- crowding out people like me (superior credit for 30+ years).
Here's what I don't understand - the government is way more indebt than I am --- has absolutely lousy ratios --- and still gets to borrow money for next to nothing, while I can't even talk a bank into lending me 80 percent LTV at a premium.
(if there ever were a case for anti-trust - I'd say I've got it)
If the US government was a citizen, it wouldn't be able to borrow the steam off a hotdog.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
bailey bud wrote: What I'm seeing now is loan aversity --- with lots of funds being plowed into federal instruments.
The federal government has quite a corner on the borrowing market --- crowding out people like me (superior credit for 30+ years).
Here's what I don't understand - the government is way more indebt than I am --- has absolutely lousy ratios --- and still gets to borrow money for next to nothing, while I can't even talk a bank into lending me 80 percent LTV at a premium.
(if there ever were a case for anti-trust - I'd say I've got it)
If the US government was a citizen, it wouldn't be able to borrow the steam off a hotdog.
Assets and ability to pay is all a borrower wants and the Gov. or any citizen could do both. balance sheet matters.
Those homeowners and private borrowers who had their credit score hurt in the bad economy since 2008 need to be able to borrow in order to help the economy recover. This means that the banks needed to loosen their lending qualifications. This did not happen and the downgrading of the credit rating of the lending banks will only cause credit to become much more scarce for large portions of the private sector. This will deepen the recession.
Aren't loose lending practices part of what got us into trouble in the first place? Now you're suggesting we loosen the qualifications again? I don't disagree with you, just surprised the suggestion is coming from you.
rofllol 
