Credit rating agencies still not very good at rating credit

The University of Cambridge is apparently a safer investment than the UK.

More ratings-agency craziness. Cambridge University is entering the bond market for the first time, and Moody's has rated its debt as safer than Britain's. The Financial Times' Michael Stothard and Chris Cook report (£):

Britain’s richest and second-oldest university issued a 40-year, £350m bond, taking advantage of low yields to fund a new laboratory for stem-cell research and accommodation for postgraduates.

The bond, priced at 60 points over gilts, was well received. Last week, the university was awarded a triple A rating by Moody’s. The agency said the rating reflected Cambridge’s “outstanding market position, significant amount of liquid assets and strong governance structure”.

Yet more evidence that ratings agencies "quite simply don't understand what they themselves are saying", in the word of NIESR's Jonathan Portes. As Matt Yglesias writes, there is no possible situation in which Cambridge bonds, denominated in British pounds could be safer than UK sovereign debt:

When the UK government borrows money, it borrows pounds sterling. The UK government also has the capacity to create infinite quantities of pounds sterling instantaneously. Therefore, the UK government can never be forced by economic circumstances into defaulting on its debt obligations. At worst it could be forced into inflationary policies that erode the value of its pound-denominated debt. If you're an investor, that's a real thing to worry about when buying British debt. But any such inflation would equally impact any pound-denominated debt no matter what the circumstances of the issuer. University of Cambridge debt can't be safer than UK sovereign debt in inflation terms.

The bizarre decisions made by the ratings agencies have always been there – back in 2002, for instance, Moody's downgraded Japan below Botswana – but finally, awareness is starting to become more widespread. If that awareness can penetrate the world of finance, then the end of their influence may be nearer than it looks.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496