Sign up for PayPal and start accepting credit card payments instantly.

5 Most Predictable Currency Pairs


There are forex pairs which will slow down and bounce back as they get close to a distinct support ro resistance line. If they do have strong, determined momentum, they will break through without looking back. These pairs, that tend to obey the rules, are the more predictable ones. Not all of them are. Here is a ranked list of the top 5, with characteristics of every one of them.
The nature of currency pairs tends to shift over time. Some move up the list, while others lose their charm and move down and sometimes out of the list. This is due to many factors, that change. This is an updated list, made towards the beginning of Q3:
  1. USD/CHF: The Swiss franc moved to the top. Interventions by the SNB belong to the past, despite the recent strength. The pair tends to break to an all-time low, then range back to the previous low. The ranges are very distinct. A break to the upside will likely meet another previous low.
  2. AUD/USD: The Australian dollar still isn’t in its good old days, but the performance is definitely improving. Resistance lines tend to work in a smoother manner than support lines, but they also work well.
  3. EUR/GBP: The cross tends to move in ranges, with relatively clear barriers. The narrower ranges made it somewhat harder, but it seems to return to wider ranges.
  4. NZD/USD: The recent strength of the kiwi, a currency sometimes overlooked by traders, made its moves much more predictable. This applies to support and resistance lines alike.
  5. GBP/USD: While the ranges are wider (and so should stops be), the lines are rather distinctive, especially towards the borders of the long term wide range. This pair closes the list.
Are you trading any of these pairs? Do you find them predictable or rather unpredictable?
As you can see, two major pairs are missing from the list. USD/JPY was never a fun pair. It can move in very frustrating narrow ranges and break lines in very slow and annoying manners.
Also the most popular pair, EUR/USD, is missing. The Greek crisis, with the flood of news around it, make trading on this pair quite choppy. This pair had better days, that might return when things calm down.

CFTC SUES 14 FOREIGN CURRENCY FIRMS IN NATIONWIDE SWEEP

Action represents first use of new authority under the 2008 Farm Bill and Dodd-Frank Act to regulate foreign exchange dealers.

Washington, DC - The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it simultaneously filed 13 enforcement actions in Federal District Courts in Chicago, the District of Columbia, Kansas City and New York, alleging that 14 entities are illegally soliciting members of the public to engage in foreign currency (forex) transactions and that they are operating without being registered with the CFTC.
Today’s actions are the first taken by the CFTC to enforce new forex regulations that became effective in October 2010. These new regulations require entities that wish to participate in the forex market to register with the CFTC and abide by regulations intended to protect the public. These regulations require that forex dealers take steps to protect investors, including maintaining capital and records, which will reduce risk and increase transparency.
The following companies were sued by the CFTC as part of this sweep:
EuroForex Development LLC, a Delaware LLC;
FIG Solutions Limited, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
ForInvest, a Delaware corporation;
FXOpen Investments Inc., a foreign entity with various business operations located throughout the United States;
FXPRICE, a Delaware LLC;
GIGFX, L.L.C., a Delaware company;
InovaTrade, Inc., a company with purported offices in Florida;
InstaTrade Corporation d/b/a InstaForex, a British Virgin Islands company;
InvesttechFX Technologies, Inc., a Canadian corporation located in Toronto;
J&K Futures, Inc., a company with purported offices in California and New York;
Kingdom Forex Trading and Futures, Ltd., a Nevada company;
Prime Forex, LLC, a Delaware LLC;
Wall Street Brokers, LLC, a Delaware LLC; and
ZtradeFX LLC, a Connecticut LLC.
In the forex market, entities known as Retail Foreign Exchange Dealers (RFED) or Futures Commission Merchants (FCM) may buy foreign currency contracts from or sell foreign currency contracts to individual investors. Under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC Regulations, an entity acting as an RFED or FCM must register with the Commission and abide by rules and regulations designed for investor protection, including those relating to minimum capital requirements, recordkeeping and compliance. Further, with a few exceptions, such an entity also must be registered with the Commission if it solicits or accepts orders from US investors in connection with forex transactions conducted at an RFED or FCM.
In all but two of the complaints, the CFTC alleges that a defendant acted as an RFED; that is, it offered to take or took the opposite side of a customer’s forex transaction without being registered. In the remaining two complaints, ZtradeFX LLC and FXPRICE, the CFTC alleges that the defendant solicited customers to place forex trades at an RFED without being registered as an Introducing Broker. In every complaint, the CFTC alleges that the defendant solicited or accepted orders from US investors to enter into forex transactions in violation of the Act. The CFTC has moved for preliminary injunctions preventing these defendants from operating unless and until they comply with the CEA and Commission Regulations. The CFTC’s complaints also seek civil monetary penalties, trading and registration bans, disgorgement and rescission.
The CFTC strongly urges the public to check whether a company is registered before investing funds. If a company is not registered, an investor should be wary of providing funds to that company.
A company’s registration status can be found at: www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet
The CFTC also strongly urges members of the public to visit the below websites before investing money in the forex market:
CFTC Consumer Advisory: Forex Fraud: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!
Fraud Advisory from the CFTC: Foreign Currency Trading (Forex) Fraud
Foreign Exchange Currency Fraud: CFTC/NASAA Investor Alert
The CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for these cases are: Margaret Aisenbrey, Kathleen Banar, Barry Blankfield, Kim Bruno, Jennifer Chapin, Elizabeth Davis, James Deacon, Jennifer Diamantis, Rick Glaser, Patricia Gomersall, Amanda Harding, Jessica Harris, Paul Hayeck, Lenel Hickson, Rosemary Hollinger, William Janulis, Joseph Konizeski, Jeffrey Le Riche, Charles Marvine, Judith McCorkle, Joy McCormack, Vincent McGonagle, Kenneth McCracken, Stephen Obie, Nathan Ploener, Eliud Ramirez, Stephanie Reinhart, Xavier Romeu-Matta, Christine Ryall, Veronica Spicer, Elizabeth Streit, Manal Sultan, Lara Turcik, Stephen Turley, Richard Wagner and Scott Williamson.
The CFTC thanks the National Futures Association for its assistance in this matter.
Media Contacts
Dennis Holden
202-418-5088

Offshore company

The term offshore company is ambiguous. It may refer to either:
  1. A company which is incorporated outside the jurisdiction of its primary operations regardless of whether that jurisdiction is an offshore financial centre (sometimes known as a non-resident company) i.e. a Canadian company may be 'offshore' for the purposes of a USA citizen ; or,
  2. Any company (resident or otherwise) incorporated in an offshore financial centre, i.e. offshore jurisdictions
Typically the requirements for company registration under the relevant provision for non-resident status (as in the former of the two options above) will be pursuant to some or all of the following criteria in a strict legal sense according to Offshore Company Law:Theory, Regulations& Operation(By Zhang Shiwei, China Law Press, 2004):
  • Must be incorporated under Offshore Company Laws and regulations of offshore jurisdictions
  • Must be incorporated by non-residents of offshore jurisdictions
  • Must not trade within the offshore jurisdictions; and/or,
  • Must meet nominal tax expenses levied by the offshore jurisdictions.

Management and control

It is worth mentioning at this juncture that taxation of a company somewhere other than its place of incorporation is not by any means an exclusively offshore concept. By way of example consider a UK incorporated company which traded exclusively in France. If the board of directors of this company were based in France there would be no doubt that the company would be subject to French tax.
Consider also a US citizen running a Bahamas company from the US, there is no doubt that the activities of that company are subject to taxation in the US.
The same principle extends to regulations also.

Benefits

Offshore companies have the following features which may be beneficial:
  • Taxation - In most jurisdictions authorities will not seek to tax companies which they treat as non-resident, save perhaps for a nominal fee -$350 BVI, £320 Isle of Man etc.
  • Simplicity and Reporting - except for regulated businesses, such as banks or other financial institutions, some jurisdictions make it relatively simple to set up and maintain companies especially with reference to lesser reporting requirements than so-called onshore jurisdictions - the level of information required by the registrar of companies varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
  • Legal and asset protection - some jurisdictions have stricter provisions for allowing a court to pierce the corporate veil, and in many cases corporate governance rules require the laws of the jurisdiction where the corporation is chartered - rather than where it is sued - to apply. For example Gibraltar makes it illegal for the trustee of an Asset Protection Trust to surrender its assets to a creditor of the settlor and in Switzerland it is illegal to disclose banking information.
  • Fees - some jurisdictions impose much higher fees to incorporate than other jurisdictions. They may also impose much higher maintenance fees on a corporation's yearly renewal of its charter. This will vary from service provider to service provider and will be significantly based on the cost of local disbursements.
  • Anonymity - by carrying out transactions in the name of a private company, the name of the underlying principal may be kept out of documentation, since the company is a separate legal entity. Having said that, current anti-money-laundering regulations often require banks and other professionals to look through structures. This will always be the case for any reputable bank but it does not render ineffective the use of corporate structures, rather it ensures they remain legally compliant.
  • Financial assistance - offshore companies are usually not prohibited from providing "financial assistance" for the acquisition of their own shares, which avoids the needs for "whitewash" procedures in certain financial transactions.
  • Cost of operation - In many cases, i.e. where a self employed consultant provides services to a number of jurisdictions and travels frequently, it is a matter of choice where he chooses to incorporate. In this case the fact that companies in an offshore financial centre are considerably cheaper than buying or renting premises, arranging to engage accountants, receptionists, IT providers etc. would be.

Practical uses of offshore companies

Offshore companies are beneficial for many purposes including at least some of the following:
  • Consultancy, Professional Services, Agency
Professionals, consultants, artists and many self-employed individuals decide to incorporate a business representing their services to gain substantial advantages by working as employees or external consultants of offshore companies of which they may be the sole shareholders and, if they want to, the sole directors.
  • Employment of Expatriate Staff
Expatriates working overseas frequently benefit from being employed through an offshore employment/consultancy company. By not remitting the full salary it can minimise tax and avoid exchange control difficulties in the country of temporary residence. This arrangement is sometimes attractive for expatriates working in politically unstable countries.
  • Property Owning Companies
There are often significant advantages in using an offshore holding company for the purpose of holding property. The advantages of such an arrangement include the avoidance of inheritance tax, capital gains tax and the ease of sale which can be achieved by transferring the property owned by the company and reduction of property purchase costs to the onward purchasers.
  • Investment Companies
Funds accumulated through investment companies set up in offshore areas can be invested or deposited throughout the world. Whilst generally returns or interest payable in respect of these funds will be subject to local taxation, there are a number of offshore areas in which funds may be placed as bank deposits where the interest and/or the capital gains are paid and kept gross. To invest in global securities including mutual funds not available to "local" citizens. Offshore jurisdictions are typically less invasive allowing for aggressive and unrestrained Free Enterprise.
  • Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks
Offshore companies can purchase or be assigned the right to use copyright, patent or trademark. Royalties can then be accumulated offshore although often royalties may suffer withholding taxes at source. An interposing holding company in some cases may allow a reduction in the rate of tax withheld at source.
  • Privacy
A high net-worth individual can save professional fees and unwanted publicity by owning property or other assets through an offshore company. Many jurisdictions require company accounting records to be published, but jurisdictions can offer privacy if they do not require offshore companies to publish accounting records, and the name and details of their shareholders.
  • Protection
To file first position liens against assets and property closing the door to predatory litigation before it begins. To segregate high-risk investments from other more secure holdings. To protect retirement funds from possible bankruptcy. To provide for the transfer of assets for the next generation in an efficient and discreet fashion. Nominee directors and officers can allow you to conduct business transactions for your benefit while you remain anonymous. To access your funds with corporate debit or credit cards thereby maintaining absolute confidentiality.

Disadvantages

  • Offshore companies are usually prohibited from conducting business or retaining employees in their jurisdiction of incorporation though this very much depends on the jurisdiction in question and type of company.
  • For regulatory reasons, there are often certain restrictions on the type of business which an offshore company can engage in without the need for a licence. In practice this is no different from trading 'onshore' since the majority of banks have offshore operations and the majority of the world's insurance companies are offshore captive insurance companies.
  • Due diligence in reputable offshore centres tends to be more strict than most onshore areas.[4] For example, to open a bank account in the name of an offshore company, to comply with relevant anti-money laundering regulations, the bank will normally require documents verifying the identity of the signers on the account to be notarised and may require one or more professional reference letters from an attorney, accountant and/or banker who has known you.
  • Certain countries have "anti-tax haven" legislation which makes it difficult to conduct business in those countries using an offshore company. For example, capital markets regulations in France prohibit using offshore companies as bond issuing vehicles.
  • Where a shareholder of an offshore company dies, it is usually necessary to have the will admitted to probate in the offshore jurisdiction as well (or, if intestate, to have the letters of administration re-sealed in that jurisdiction), which can add to cost, delay and inconvenience in administering the deceased's estate.

Legitimate uses of offshore companies

  • International trading, especially where the owner has no fixed residence
  • Asset protection
  • Captive insurance
  • Yacht registration
  • Tax avoidance
  • Protection of intellectual property
  • Succession planning
  • Confidentiality (non-criminal)

Illegitimate uses

Historically the activities of offshore companies have included activities that were or have become illegal. These include
  • The finance of terrorism
  • Money laundering
  • Tax evasion
  • Fraud (including investor fraud)
  • Protection from current or future creditors (including taxation authorities and spouses)
  • Irregular trading practices (such as increasing margins on deals by interposing clandestinely controlled offshore companies as apparent third parties)
The situation has much improved since the 1970s and 1980s largely due to increased regulation and general changes in commercial practice. The leading offshore financial centres are now more compliant with the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering's '40+9' recommendations than many onshore financial centres. However some traces of these abuses persist today both in offshore and onshore jurisdictions.

Importance of choosing a legitimate jurisdiction

Many offshore jurisdictions are regarded by banks, the OECD and other bodies in the finance industry as being regulated either as effectively as or better than their onshore counterparts whilst others are known to be areas of dubious legitimacy.
Unfortunately gone are the days (if ever they existed) where the distinction between onshore and offshore equated to legitimate or illegitimate. The current position is that there is no correlation between legitimacy of jurisdiction and tax status. For example Nigeria would not be regarded as offshore but perpetrates much of the world's advance fee fraud whereas Switzerland would be regarded as a highly respectable jurisdiction.
It is no longer possible for illegitimate jurisdiction to operate in light of the OEDC and the FATF as well as current and pending US legislation (13/06/09). It is very much in the interest of most offshore jurisdictions to ensure their house is in good order as this failure to comply and subsequent sanctions could lead to the total economic collapse of a country dependent upon its international reputation.

Features of offshore companies

  • Memorandum and articles of association or bylaws - these documents are fundamental to the existence of the company. The Articles detail the rights of the members, the objectives of the company and the internal processes of the company and the Memorandum states the type of Company and its capital.
  • Certificate of Incorporation - this is issued by the Registrar of Companies or their equivalent, and is serves as proof that the company has been brought into existence. Other information may be necessary to prove that the company has not been liquidated or struck off such as a certified of incumbency or good standing.
  • Registered Agent - it is often the case that an agent must be appointed in the jurisdiction in which the company is incorporated for the purpose of dealing with official communications with the registrar. The Agent will have to be licensed and will assume some level of responsibility for the company's activities.
  • Registered Office - this is the official address of a company, to which official documents are sent and legal notices received. It is normal for the registration agent to provide a registered office. A company may have other business and correspondence addresses.
  • Shareholders or other members - these are the legal owners of the company. For administrative simplicity, or for anonymity, a corporate service provider may supply nominees who will hold shares on behalf of a beneficial owner, and act on his instructions.
  • Directors, Managers or their delegates - the individuals who manage the day-to-day affairs of company. In many jurisdictions it is possible for companies to be directors of other companies. Corporate service providers in offshore jurisdictions will often provide directors, provided they are able to control, and be satisfied with, the activities of the company. The company is generally considered to be resident for tax purposes at the place where the decisions are made. In many cases if a person is acting as a director they will be considered de facto to be a director in spite of not having recorded this with the relevant body.
  • Shadow directors - in some cases, it has been shown that the formally appointed directors merely act as the alter ego of others, blindly following their instructions. In these cases, the courts have considered that those instructing the named directors really control the company, and that the named directors merely rubberstamp decisions. Companies managed in this way will be tax resident in the jurisdiction where the shadow director is resident.
  • Company Secretary - this is the person or body corporate who is responsible for ensuring that the company meets its statutory obligations. Corporate service providers usually provide this service.
  • Statutory Records - a company is obliged to maintain registers setting out certain information about the company. The mandatory records vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as does the level of public access to the information contained in the records. Many jurisdictions require that the records are kept within the jurisdiction in which the company is incorporated. The records required may include minutes of meetings, registers members, directors, officers and charges.
  • Bookkeeping - directors are generally required to keep proper records. They may be required to prepare audited accounts. Specific requirements vary between jurisdictions and may depend on the nature of the company's activity. For example all banks will need to prepare audited accounts, whereas a private investment.

Types of companies

Examples of offshore companies include the International Business Company (IBC). More recently new legislation has been enacted in a number of Jurisdictions, such as the British Virgin Islands, to replace the IBC type of company with the Business Company (BC).
The following types of company are common in both onshore and offshore jurisdictions:
  • Company having a share capital - these companies issue shares. Once the initial cost of a share (capital and premium) has been paid, the shareholders have no further obligation to the company. The shares may, subject to the rules of the company, be sold or transferred, and the shareholders have the right to enjoy the profits of the company or any proceeds of a liquidation. The liability of the shareholder is therefore limited to the amount invested. Shares are assets.
  • Company limited by guarantee - the members of the company agree to pay up to a maximum limit in the event that the company becomes insolvent. They may acquire certain rights against the company, such as the rights to a dividend and the specific rights will be set out in the rules of the company. Membership may terminate on death, and guarantee companies have been used for not for profit organizations. There are also sophisticated estate planning schemes which make use of guarantee companies. Membership is a liability.
  • Hybrid - a combination of the above two classes - i.e. a company have bother liability class shares and asset class shares.
  • Protected cell companies - some jurisdictions permit cellular companies, where particular assets and liabilities are segregated into "cells", in such a way that the assets of one cell cannot be used to satisfy the liabilities of another. Cell companies are particularly used for umbrella mutual funds or unit linked insurance bonds. In this instance the separate cells are effectively distinct legal entities.
It is important to note though that the above is a gross oversimplification of the near infinite variety of types of company most sophisticated jurisdictions permit. Shares themselves come in many different types with the rights in respect of dividend, preference, voting etc. being determined by the constitution of the company to which they relate. Also, it is by no means uncommon for companies to utilise many different classes in particular when they are soliciting for investment from third-parties.
However, many offshore jurisdictions offer increasingly specialised forms of companies (as well as specialised trusts and partnerships) seeking to increase their share of the market. Examples include limited duration companies, unlimited liability companies, companies limited by guarantee and with a share capital, restricted purpose companies and hybrid entities such as limited liability partnerships, which are more akin to companies to actual partnerships, and foundations, which are nominally trusts but are more akin to companies than trusts.

Merger

The traditional method of merging companies is for one company to acquire the assets of a subsidiary on its liquidation. This sometimes creates contractual difficulties, and requires third parties to accede to the transfer of obligations from the liquidated company. Some jurisdictions have tackled this issue by permitting companies to merge, forming a new combined entity, which represents a continuation of the businesses of each former company.

Relocation of companies

Some jurisdictions permit companies to redomicile. They may do this to take advantage of particular features of the new jurisdiction, such as merger legislation, or tax treaties with other countries. The law in both the old and new jurisdictions must permit redomiciliation. The business of the company is deemed to continue without interruption on redomiciliation.
This is usually not a complicated process, but it might be slow and involve some paperwork; it can be used when the cost of the transfer of domicile is less than the tax consequences of transferring the assets of the company in question to a company newly incorporated in the desired new jurisdiction.

Offshore jurisdictions

It is possible to incorporate offshore companies in many jurisdictions. In some onshore jurisdictions, such as the UK and New Zealand, there are particular types of companies which offer many of the advantages of typical offshore structures. The following list is not exhaustive.
 

Fitch Ratings

Fitch Ratings, Ltd. adalah merupakan suatu lembaga pemeringkat kredit internasional credit rating agency yang memiliki dua kantor pusat yaitu di New York dan di London, yang merupakan salah satu dari 3 organisasi pemeringkat statistik nasional (Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations ) (NRSROs) yang ditunjuk oleh Securities and Exchange Commission ( badan pengawas pasar modal Amerika} bersama-sama dengan Moody's dan Standard & Poor's serta A.M. Best dan Dominion Bond Rating Service yang barusan bergabung dalam NRSROs.
Perusahaan ini didirikan oleh John Knowles Fitch pada tanggal 24 Desember 1913 di New York dengan nama Fitch Publishing Company. Dilakukan penggabungan usaha dengan pada bulan Desember 1997 dengan sebuah perusahaan dari London yaitu IBCA Limited yang mayoritas sahamnya dimiliki oleh sebuah perusahaan Perancis yang benama Fimalac pada bulan April tahun 2000 Fitch mengambil alih Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co. sebuah perusahaan pemeringkat kredit dari Chicago (April) dan pada bulan Desember tahun yang sama kembali mengambil alih Thomson BankWatch. Fitch adalah lembaga pemeringkat kredit yang memiliki kontribusi pasar terkecil dibandingkan S&P dan Moodys namun merupakan 3 besar NRSROs.

Peringkat kredit jangka panjang

Fitch's memberikan peringkat kepada perusahaan berdasarkan skala mulai dari "AAA" hingga "D", skala ini pertama kalinya dipergunakan pada tahun 1924 yang kemudian digunakan pula oleh S&P. Moody's also uses a similar scale, but names the categories differently. Like S&P, Fitch also uses intermediate modifiers for each category between AA and CCC (i.e., AA+, AA, AA-, A+, A, A-, BBB+, BBB, BBB- etc.).
  • AAA : perusahaan berkwalitas terbaik, layak dan stabil
  • AA : perusahaan berkwalitas,sedikit lebih beresiko dibanding AAA
  • A : situasi ekonomi dapat berpengaruh pada kondisi keuangan perusahaan
  • BBB : Perusahaan kelas menengah, dimana saat ini dalam kondisi memuaskan
Peringkat Non-Investasi (dikenal juga sebagai junk bonds)
  • BB : kecenderungan mengalami perubahan dalam situasi ekonomi
  • B : diperhatikan adanya variasi situasi keuangan
  • CCC : saat ini goyah dan tergantung pada kondisi ekonomi yang menguntungkan agar dapat memenuhi kewajibannya
  • CC : sangat goyah, obligasi yang sangat spekulatif
  • C : sangat goyah sekali, kemungkinan pailit atau menunggak pembayaran tetapi tetap melanjutkan pembayaran obligasinya
  • D : gagal bayar dalam kewajibannya dan S&P meyakini bahwa akan terjadi gagal bayar atas sebagian besar atau seluruh kewajibannya
  • NR : tidak diberikan peringkat

Peringkat hutang jangka pendek

Peringkat hutang jangka pendek yang diberikan oleh Fitch'mengindikasikan tingkat kemungkinan potensial atas terjadinya gagal bayar dalam periode 12 bulan kedepan.
  • F1+ : peringkat terbaik , menunjukkan bahwa debitur memiliki kapasitas yang sangat besar guna memenuhi kewajibannya.
  • F1  : peringkat terbaik , menunjukkan bahwa debitur memiliki kapasitas yang besar guna memenuhi kewajibannya.
  • F2  : peringkat baik dengan kapasitas yang memuaskan dari debitur guna memenuhi kewajibannya.
  • F3  : peringkat cukup dengan kapasitas yang memadai dari debitur guna memenuhi kewajibannya namun kemunduran ekonomi yang terjadi dalam waktu dekat dapat berpengaruh pada komitmen debitur.
  • B  : kondisi spekulatif dan debitur hanya memiliki kapasitas yang minimal guna memenuhi kewajibannya dan rentan terhadap penurunan kondisi keuangan dan ekonomi.
  • C  : kemungkinan gagal bayar amat tinggi dan komitmen keuangan dari debitur adalah amat tergantung pada situasi yang menguntungkan baik dalam dunia usaha maupun dalam kondisi ekonomi.
  • D  : telah gagal bayar sebagaimana.

Criticism

Lembaga pemeringkat kredit seperti halnya Fitch Ratings ini telah menjadi sasaran kecaman sebagai penyebab kerugian besar pada pasar obligasi beragun aset (collateralized debt obligation-CDO) yang terjadi walaupun diberikan peringkat tinggi oleh lembaga pemeringkat kredit. Sebagai contohnya, kerugian atas obligasi beragun aset sebesar 340,7 juta USD yang diterbitkan oleh kelompok usaha Credit Suisse yang masih bertambah lagi dengan 125 juta USD, dimana peringkat yang diberikan oleh Moody's adalah Aaa.

Standard and Poor's

Standard & Poor's atau juga dikenal dengan sebutan (S&P) adalah salah satu anak perusahaan dari McGraw-Hill yang merupakan perusahaan pemeringkat atas saham dan obligasi, yang merupakan salah satu dari 3 perusahaan besar dalam industri pemeringkatan efek bersama Moody's dan Fitch Ratings.
Salah satu produknya yang dikenal secara luas adalah pemeringkatan atas 500 saham di Amerika yang dikenal dengan nama S&P 500, dan pemeringkatan 200 saham di Australia yang dikenal dengan nama indeks harga saham gabungan S&P/ASX 200 dan pemeringkatan di Kanada yang dikenal dengan nama S&P/TSX.

Bidang usaha

Standard & Poor's menjalankan kegiatan usahanya dibidang jasa keuangan dimana produk yang dihasilkannya adalah berupa peringkat kredit, penelitian saham(ekuitas), indeks S&P, keuangan, solusi risiko, jasa kepatuhan, evaluasi, layanan data. Anak perusahaannya yang bernama Capital IQ, menyediakan informasi dan solusi arus kerja kepada lembaga keuangan, lembaga penasehat keuangan, dan perusahaan dengan cara menyediakan informasi keuangan secara terintegrasi dan solusi tehnis termasuk laparan keuangan teraudit dari perusahaan, menampilkan analisa berdasarkan gabungan data keuangan dan non keuangan, kumpulan data (database) terintegrasi dari pasar modal, dan berbagai sarana pengembangan yang berhubungan. Perusahaan ini melayani berbagai lembaga profesional, lembaga keuangan, perusahaan, penasehat keuangan, dan investor perorangan diberbagai belahan dunia.

Sejarah perusahaan

Diawali pada tahun 1860 dengan penerbitan sebuah buku berjudul History of Railroads and Canals in the United States ( sejarah perkereta apian dan kanal di Amerika ) oleh Henry Varnum Poor. Buku ini berupaya untuk menghimpun informasi komperhensif tentang keuangan dan operasional dari perusahaan kereta api di Amerika. Henry Varnum mendirikan H.V. and H.W. Poor Co bersama anaknya yang bernama Henry William dan menerbitkan versi terbaru dari buku ini secara tahunan.
Pada tahun 1906 Luther Lee Blake mendirikan Standard Statistics Bureau, dengan tujuan untuk menyediakan informasi keuangan atas perusahaan yang bergerak dibidang usaha non perkereta apian. Selain menerbitkan "Standard Statistics" secara tahunan, juga diterbitkan semacam kartu berukuran 5 x 7 inci sehingga memungkinkan untuk lebih seringnya dilakukan pembaruan data
Perusahan S&P ini adalah dibentuk berdasarkan penggabungan usaha dari Poor's Publishing (perusahaan penerus dari H.V and H.W Poor Co) dan Standard Statistics.
pada tahun 1966 S&P diakuisisi oleh The McGraw-Hill Companies, sebuah perusahaan penerbitan besar di Amerika dan kini S&P menjadi perusahaan jasa layanan keuangan.[1]

Pemeringkat kredit

Selaku lembaga pemeringkat kredit, Standard & Poor's menerbitkan peringkat kredit atas hutang dari perusahaan. Dan saat ini S&P diakui sebagai organisasi pemeringkat statistik nasional Amerika oleh U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (lembaga pengawas pasar modal di Amerika).
S&P menerbitkan peringkat atahutang jangka pendek dan jangka panjang.

Peringkat kredit jangka panjang

S&P memberikan peringkat kepada perusahaan berdasarkan skala dari AAA hingga D. Peringkat tengah terdapat pada setiap tingkat di antara AA dan CCC (misalnya :BBB+, BBB and BBB-). Untuk beberapa perusahaan, S&P dapat juga mengeluarkan petunjuk yang disebut "credit watch" (kredit yang harus diawasi) yaitu kredit yang dapat saja berubah peringkatnya menjadi naik (positif) ataupun turun (negatif) ataupun tetap (netral).
  • AAA : perusahaan berkwalitas terbaik, layak dan stabil
  • AA : perusahaan berkwalitas,sedikit lebih berisiko dibanding AAA
  • A : situasi ekonomi dapat berpengaruh pada kondisi keuangan perusahaan
  • BBB : Perusahaan kelas menengah, dimana saat ini dalam kondisi memuaskan.
Peringkat Non-Investasi (dikenal juga sebagai junk bonds)
  • BB : kecenderungan mengalami perubahan dalam situasi ekonomi
  • B : diperhatikan adanya variasi situasi keuangan
  • CCC : saat ini goyah dan tergantung pada kondisi ekonomi yang menguntungkan agar dapat memenuhi kewajibannya.
  • CC : sangat goyah, obligasi yang sangat spekulatif
  • C : sangat goyah sekali, kemungkinan pailit atau menunggak pembayaran tetapi tetap melanjutkan pembayaran obligasinya
  • CI : gagal bayar pada kewajiban pembayaran bunga yang lalu
  • R : berada dibawah pengawasan yang berwenang sehubunhgan dengan kondisi keuangannya.
  • SD : beberapa kewajibannya mengalami gagal bayar.
  • D : gagal bayar dalam kewajibannya dan S&P meyakini bahwa akan terjadi gagal bayar atas sebagian besar atau seluruh kewajibannya
  • NR : tidak diberikan peringkat

Peringkat hutang jangka pendek

S&P memberikan peringkat atas hutang jangka pendek ini berdasarkan skala dari A-1 hingga D. Di antara kategori A-1 dapat ditambahkan tanda (+) yang mengindikasikan bahwa penerbit memiliki suatu komitmen yang amat kuat untuk memenuhi kewajibannya. Resiko negara dan nilai tukar dari pembayaran kembali kewajiban debitur merupakan faktor yang telah diperhitungkan dalam analisa kredit dalam pemberian peringkat
  • A-1 : debitur memiliki kapasitas yang sangat besar guna memenuhi kewajibannya.
  • A-2 : rentan terhadap menurunnya kondisi ekonomi namun kapasitas debitur untuk memenuhi kewajibannya adalah memuaskan.
  • A-3 : kondisi kemunduran ekonomi dapat berpengaruh terhadap melemahnya kapasitas debitur guna memenuhi kewajibannya.
  • B  : memiliki karakteristik spekulatif yang signifikan, debitur saat ini memiliki kapasitas guna memenuhi kewajibannya namun dalam menghadapi masalah ketidakpastian yang terjadi saat ini dapat berpengaruh bagi komitmen keuangannya dalam pembayaran kewajibannya.
  • C  : saat ini sangat rentan untuk gagal bayar dan guna memenuhi kewajiban pembayaran kewajibannya debitur amat tergantung pada situasi yang menguntungkan baik dalam dunia usaha maupun dalam kondisi ekonomi.
  • D  : berada dalam keadaan gagal bayar. Kewajiban tidak dipenuhi pada saat jatuh tempo dan tenggang waktu penundaan belum jatuh tempo. Peringkat ini juga digunakan pada saat debitur menghadapi suatu gugatan kepailitan.

Indeks pasar modal

Standard & Poor's menerbitkan banyak sekali indeks pasar modal, meliputi setiap wilayah di dunia ini maupun pada setiap jenjang kapitalisasi pasar dan jenis investasi ( misalnya : indeks untuk REIT dan saham preferen)

Penerbitan

Standard & Poor's menerbitkan laporan peringkat ini secara mingguan (48 kali dalam setahun) dalam bentuk buletin analisa pasar modal yang disebut The Outlook yang diterbitkan baik dalam bentuk cetak maupun secara online kepada pelanggannya.

Kecaman

Lembaga pemeringkat kredit seperti halnya S&P ini telah menjadi sasaran kecaman sebagai penyebab kerugian besar pada pasar obligasi beragun aset (collateralized debt obligation-CDO) [2] yang terjadi walaupun diberikan peringkat tinggi oleh lembaga pemeringkat kredit. Sebagai contohnya, kerugian atas obligasi beragun aset sebesar 340,7 juta USD yang diterbitkan oleh kelompok usaha Credit Suisse yang masih bertambah lagi dengan 125 juta USD, dimana peringkat yang diberikan oleh Moody's adalah Aaa.

What's in an AAA? Use Your Judgment, Investors Say

In a world where the United States no longer has a AAA and big economies like France and Germany risk losing theirs, investors are increasingly relying as much on their own judgment of top-bracket creditworthiness as on the opinions of ratings agencies. 
While two of the largest agencies, Moody's and Standard & Poor's, have been criticized by governments and banks for recent downgrades and threats of ratings cuts, investors say loss of the cherished AAA no longer means an instant "sell".
Critics fear the credit ratings industry is at risk of making rash calls as it fights to restore its credibility after grave mistakes in evaluating billions of dollars of subprime mortgage debt in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.
Once the first port of call for funds assembling new portfolios, managers are increasingly sidelining agencies in favor of their own research and are consulting clients to decide if they remain comfortable holding an investment, whether it comes with the top rating or not.
"More and more we are having conversations with clients, as opposed to selling something instantly that falls below that criteria," said Jennifer Gillespie, head of money market funds at Legal & General Investment Management, which runs around 15 around billion pounds ($23.4 billion) of assets in cash and liquidity strategies.
"You cannot be so black and white because the average credit rating of money-market instruments is not AA or AA-plus, it is getting closer to A," she said.
Speculation that France faces an imminent downgrade of its AAA rating reached fever-pitch on Wednesday, prompting a sharp late-day drop in the share price of French banks including Societe Generale [SOGN.PA  16.545    0.24  (+1.47%)   ]and Credit Agricole [CAGR.PA  4.043    0.003  (+0.07%)   ].
Policymakers have also stepped up efforts to lessen the impact of the ratings agencies, with Bank of France head Christian Noyer saying on Thursday that their arguments were more "political" than "economic" and a French downgrade would not be justified.
Last week, Standard & Poor's put the euro zone's remaining six AAA-rated governments on watch for a possible downgrade and said the AAA rating of the 27-nation European Union was also under review.
Perceived Irrelevance
In Europe's financial sector, where bank ratings are on a downward slide as credit markets shun eurozone risk, the label awarded to each bank has become even less influential thanks to pledges of financial support from the European Central Bank.
With banks of all stripes now expected to tap the ECB's unprecedented three-year funding facility, investors say credit-rating downgrades have even less relevance because banks can now bypass the bond market entirely, in stark contrast to times where their credit label was crucial to their access to capital.
"If banks are no longer planning to issue bonds on the market for a long period of time, credit-rating downgrades have no impact," said Yannick Naud, portfolio manager at Glendevon King Asset Management.
While a strong rating still carries weight when it comes to attracting corporate clients or signing a derivatives contract, the fact is that even large and strongly rated European banks like BNP Paribas [BNPP.PA  27.745    -0.18  (-0.64%)   ] have already had to turn to the ECB for some funding and are expected to continue to do so in 2012.
"Banks are being offered 'open bar' for periods of up to 36 months," said Francois Chaulet, fund manager at Montsegur Finance. "Clearly the banks are going to fall over themselves to get as much as possible."
This helps explain why some French bank shares actually ended the day higher on Friday, up by almost 3 percent, after Moody's downgraded BNP Paribas, Societe Generale and Credit Agricole, citing the eurozone debt crisis' impact on bank funding markets.
"There's extreme support from the ECB," said a London-based analyst. "These downgrades are much less relevant than before."
The perceived irrelevance of credit ratings also comes at a time of volatility and uncertainty for sovereign capital markets.
Some sovereigns like France seem to have accepted the imminent loss of their AAA rating, while others like the Netherlands have promised to take extra austerity measures to preserve it, Glendevon King's Naud said, pointing to a lack of co-ordination in restoring investor confidence in Europe.
But for some investors, confidence in their own abilities to pick worthwhile investments is far greater than the influence the agencies now exert on their strategies.
"Generally, we don't look at what they say they are just irrelevant to how we invest," Tamara Burnell, head of Financial Institutions and Sovereign Research at 194 billion pound fund firm M&G.
"We have invested the resources to ensure that we do not need to rely on anyone's external analysis. That is what our clients pay us for...it would be completely wrong of us to abdicate that responsibility," she said.
Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters.

Speech by Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, Ludwig Erhard Lecture, Berlin, 15 December 2011

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am honoured to have received the invitation from Professor Hans Tietmeyer to deliver this year’s Ludwig Erhard lecture.
When I was working at the Italian Treasury in the 1990s, Professor Tietmeyer and I had many opportunities to work together. I vividly remember many of our exchanges over the course of the two decades since the Maastricht Treaty. And I am very grateful that he remains in close contact with the European Central Bank (ECB) as adviser to our audit committee.
Let me also express my gratitude to the Ludwig-Erhard-Foundation whose activities in support of the principles of “Soziale Marktwirtschaft” are renowned across Europe.
Ludwig Erhard’s legacy in shaping Germany’s post-war recovery stretches far beyond his own country and far beyond his own times. His conception of the social market economy was visionary. And he even held cherished views about central bankers, stressing the importance of price stability: “Die soziale Marktwirtschaft ist ohne eine konsequente Politik der Preisstabilität nicht denkbar.” I think we cannot formulate this idea any better today.
Ludwig Erhard also helped to enshrine the principle of central bank independence. When in the early 1950s the independence of the German central bank system was not yet settled, he as minister of the economy argued that the government should not issue instructions to the central bank. You all know that the statutes of the ECB inherited this important principle and that central bank independence and the credible pursuit of price stability go hand in hand.
Current circumstances remain demanding, with economic, financial and fiscal issues deeply intertwined with challenges at the political level in many countries and in the supra-national European sphere.
Last week two sets of important decisions have been taken, which are going to be the focus of my remarks today. First, I will elaborate on the motivation for the monetary policy measures that the ECB announced last Thursday and what we expect from them. Second, I would also like to share with you some views on last week’s European Council summit’s decisions, which brought some very important new elements to our economic and monetary union.

Monetary policy decisions for the euro area

To explain our recent monetary policy measures, let me recall the particular role of banks in the euro area economy. The flow of credit to firms and households in the euro area works largely through banks. During recent years, about three quarters of firms’ external financing have come from that source.
This means that any impairment in the bank lending channel will have stronger consequences in the euro area than in other economies where firms’ external financing comes largely from corporate bond markets.
Banks in the euro area have recently come under pressure both as regards their capital bases and their funding conditions.
The plan to strengthen their capital bases is an attempt to reinforce their standing in financial markets, but this is not an easy process. There are essentially three options for banks to pursue to raise their capital ratios as demanded by the European Banking Authority: they can raise their capital levels, sell assets or reduce their provision of credit to the real economy.
The first option is much better than the second, and the second option is much better than the third. But raising capital levels is expensive in a depressed market and faces resistance from shareholders. Selling assets is less preferable and curtailing credit to the real economy is even worse. Therefore, public authorities ought to cushion the impact on the real economy and banks should consider restraining dividends and ad hoc compensation to strengthen buffers.
Banks are also facing problems in raising longer-term funding in financial markets. The resulting shortening of their funding leads in turn to maturity mismatches on balance sheets of the kind that caused the financial crisis. At the same time, shortages of collateral are beginning to emerge in some segments of the financial system especially for the small and medium sized banks.
In addition to identifying these particular strains in the banking sector, our regular economic and monetary analysis has indicated that the intensified financial market tensions continue to dampen economic activity in the euro area and the outlook remains subject to high uncertainty and substantial downside risks. In such an environment, cost, wage and price pressures in the euro area should remain modest over the policy-relevant horizon. At the same time, the underlying pace of monetary expansion remains subdued.
In these conditions, and faithful to our mandate to maintain price stability over the medium term, the ECB’s Governing Council has taken a number of far-reaching decisions.
The Council decided to reduce its key interest rates by another 25 basis points to 1%. In normal financial market conditions, a policy rate reduction is a potent instrument of inflation control and demand support. The rate cut works its way through a long chain of downward adjustments in financial returns. At the end of the process, the yield on large spectrum of securities declines and promotes broad-based policy accommodation.
In the present conditions, this process turns out to be hampered, so that the impact of a rate cut by itself is weakened. Banks limit their lending to other banks and potentially to the broader economy, and they hold on to precautionary balances of cash as self-insurance.
Therefore, the Governing Council last week decided on three other measures, each of which provides additional support in order to bring the necessary monetary policy impulse to the real economy.
The current package should be felt tangibly in the financial sector and the real economy over the coming weeks and months. Of course, it comes against strong headwinds generated by deleveraging.
We established very long-term refinancing operations with a maturity of three years. This duration is a novelty in ECB monetary policy operations.
The extension of central bank credit provision to very long maturities is meant to give banks a longer horizon in their liquidity planning. It helps them to avoid rebalancing the maturities of their assets and liabilities through a downscaling of longer-term lending. Incidentally, we want to make it absolutely clear that in the present conditions where systemic risk is seriously hampering the functioning of the economy, we see no stigma attached to the use of central banking credit provisions: our facilities are there to be used.
Banks will be able to refinance term lending with the Eurosystem and thus preserve their long-term exposures to the real economy. After the first year, banks will have the option to terminate the operation. So they can flexibly adapt to changing liquidity conditions and a normalising market environment.
Our second measure will allow banks to use loans as collateral with the Eurosystem, thereby unfreezing a large portion of bank assets. It should also provide banks with an incentive to abstain from curtailing credit to the economy and to avoid fire-sales of other assets on their balance sheets.
The goal of these measures is to ensure that households and firms – and especially small and medium-sized enterprises – will receive credit as effectively as possible under the current circumstances. Of course, we have to screen the collateral carefully so as to protect our balance sheet.
The third measure we announced last week is to reduce the required reserves ratio from 2% to 1%. This measure frees up liquidity of the banking sector by about 100 billion euro. Along with other measures, this reduction in the reserve requirements should, too, help revive money market activity and lending.
You will notice that I referred repeatedly to small and medium-sized enterprises. The reason for drawing your attention to these businesses is that they are a significant part of our economy, accounting for about 70% of employment in the euro area and 60% of the turnover of all firms. We believe that the measures introduced last Thursday will provide support for this sector and indirectly also support much-needed investment, growth and employment.

Foundations for a stable economic and monetary union

Let me now shift my attention to last week’s European Council summit. For more than 12 years, Europe’s economic and monetary union has been haunted by concerns about national budgets. Within a common currency area during normal times, the fiscal policies of individual countries typically face less pressure from financial markets. It was for this reason that at the very beginning of Europe’s single currency, the Stability and Growth Pact was established to provide a control mechanism for fiscal policy.
Next year, the euro area as a whole will have a government primary budget deficit close to zero. This compares with primary deficits projected at around 5% of GDP in Japan, the UK and the US.
Yet the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact has not been good enough. As the Federal Chancellor of Germany recently remarked, the Pact has been broken 60 times over the past 12 years. So we clearly have work to do to prevent this happening again.
The new set of rules for economic and fiscal surveillance known as the six-pack – which was approved by the European Parliament earlier this year – will certainly strengthen the implementation of the rules. But while these changes were being planned, the entire fiscal cohesion and credibility of the euro area was weakened.
We have now begun the process of re-designing Europe’s fiscal framework on three fronts.
The first lies with the countries concerned: they have to put their policies back on a sound footing. I believe that they are now on the right track and they are right in implementing budgetary consolidation resolutely. The unavoidable short-term contraction may be mitigated by the return of confidence. But in the medium term, sustainable growth can be achieved only by undertaking deep structural reforms that have been procrastinated for too long.
The second pillar of a response to the crisis consists of a re-design of the fiscal governance in the euro area, what I called the fiscal compact. The fiscal compact is a fundamental restatement of the rules to which national budgetary policies ought to be subject so as to gain credibility beyond doubt.
Last week’s summit committed to enshrine these rules in the primary legislation. They will foresee that the annual structural deficit should not exceed 0.5% of nominal GDP. Euro area Member States will implement such a rule in their national legal frameworks at a constitutional level, so that it is possible to avoid excessive deficits before they arise, rather than trying to control them after they have emerged. Prevention is better than cure.
Rules will also foresee an automatic correction mechanism in case of deviation. Moreover, the leaders agreed on a numerical benchmark for annual debt reduction to bring down debt levels. They also agreed to sanctions that will apply automatically to euro area Member States in breach of the 3% reference value for deficits.
The European Court of Justice may be asked to verify the implementation of these rules at national level.
Taken together, I believe that these decisions are capable of making public finances in the euro area credibly robust.
But restoring financial markets’ confidence also requires that investors be reassured that government debt will always be repaid and timely serviced. Greece will remain a unique case, and a credible stabilisation mechanism, a firewall, will be in place and can be activated when needed subject to proper conditionality. The leaders unambiguously agreed to assess the adequacy of the firewall by next March. Its objective is to address the threats to financial stability, and especially the risk of contagion between different sovereign debt markets.
The leaders decided to deploy the leveraging of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) at the earliest opportunity. At the same time they agreed that the EFSF’s successor, the European Stability Mechanism, should come into force by July 2012.
It is crucial that the EFSF be fully equipped and be made operational as soon as possible. With this goal in mind, last Thursday, the Governing Council decided that the ECB would stand ready to act with its technical infrastructure and know-how as an agent for the EFSF in carrying out its market operations.

Conclusion

Let me conclude. The decisions of the European Council summit, together with the six-pack approved recently by the European Parliament, are a breakthrough for clear fiscal rules in our monetary union.
However, the crisis has not ended yet. It is now important not to lose momentum and to swiftly implement all those decisions that have been taken to put the euro area economy back on course.
The monetary policy measures taken last week by the ECB’s Governing Council will support the flow of credit to firms and households in the euro area economy.
Ludwig Erhard faced a situation that was much more difficult than what we face today. Still, he was able to look through the challenging present and to work hard to build a future that he never doubted would be brighter. The European policy makers might well be inspired by his style: “Den Strom der Zeit können wir zwar nicht lenken, aber wir werden unser Schiff sicher steuern.”
Thank you very much for your attention.
European Central Bank
Directorate Communications
Press and Information Division
Kaiserstrasse 29, D-60311 Frankfurt am Main
Tel.: +49 69 1344 7455, Fax: +49 69 1344 7404
Internet: http://www.ecb.europa.eu
Reproduction is permitted provided that the source is acknowledged.