Madrid, July 29, 2011 -- Moody's Investors Service has today downgraded the long-term ratings of six Spanish regions by one notch and placed under review for downgrade the ratings of seven other Spanish Sub-Sovereign entities. The rationale for the two sets of rating actions is distinct. While the downgrades of the six Spanish regions reflect the deterioration in their fiscal and debt positions, the placement under review for downgrade of other Spanish Sub-Sovereigns rated at or above the Sovereign rating reflects the placement under review for downgrade of Spain's rating. As Moody's expects that any change to the Sovereign rating as a result of the review is most likely to be limited to one notch, Moody's considers that the positioning of the ratings of the six downgraded regions (which span from Aa3 to Baa1) does not necessitate placing all these ratings under review.
The ratings of the following regions have been downgraded:
- Castilla-La Mancha: long-term issuer and debt ratings downgraded to A3 from A2; under review for downgrade
- Comunidad Autonoma de Murcia: long-term issuer and debt ratings downgraded to A2 from A1; outlook negative
- Region of Valencia: debt ratings downgraded to A3 from A2; outlook negative; short-term rating downgraded to Prime-2 from Prime-1
- Catalunya: long-term issuer and debt ratings downgraded to Baa1 from A3; outlook negative; short-term rating affirmed at Prime-2
- Junta de Andalucia: long-term issuer and debt ratings downgraded to Aa3 from Aa2; outlook negative
- Junta de Castilla y Leon: long-term issuer and debt ratings downgraded to Aa3 from Aa2; outlook negative
At the same time, Moody's has placed under review for downgrade:
- the Aa2 ratings of the regional governments of Extremadura, Galicia and Madrid
- the Aa1 ratings of the Basque Country
- the Aa1 ratings of Basque provinces Diputacion Foral de Bizkaia and the Diputacion Foral de Guipuzcoa.
In addition, the Aa1 rating of Consorcio de Transportes de Bizkaia -- the Basque Country's transport company -- has also been placed on review for downgrade.
RATINGS RATIONALE FOR THE DOWNGRADE OF SIX SPANISH REGIONS
The downgrades of Castilla-La Mancha, Catalunya, Murcia and Valencia by one notch reflect the difficulties we expect them to experience in improving their deficit trajectories significantly in 2011. Moreover, the regions remain vulnerable to market disruptions given their large funding requirements. The liquidity pressures which have resulted in long-standing payment arrears in the healthcare sector as well as growing payables outstanding are also reflected in these downgrades.
The downgrade of Catalunya to Baa1 is based on Moody's expectation that the region will record particularly poor fiscal performance in 2011, deviating widely from the deficit limit for the year. While recognising that the deficit in 2011 is forecasted to be lower than in 2010 (2.7% of the regional GDP, against 3.9% last year), the deficit reduction was achieved by one-time reductions in capital expenditures rather than a narrowing of its ongoing operating deficit (budgeted at 20% of its operating revenue in 2011, vs. 17% in 2010 realised accounts), an approach we view as unsustainable in the long run.
Moreover, Moody's believes that Castilla-La Mancha's rating (which was lowered to A3 but remains on review for possible downgrade) could be lowered further if the newly elected regional government fails to present credible measures to redress the region's large budget imbalances.
Moody's says that Catalunya, Castilla-La Mancha, Murcia and Valencia will continue to face downward pressure on their ratings if they do not make credible commitments towards sustainable improvements in their fiscal positions. Nonetheless, as mitigating factors, Moody's notes that (i) under the current financing system, the regions benefit from significant tax autonomy, which had barely been used prior to the May 2011 regional elections, but is more likely to be activated as all regions in this group are forced to take serious measures to address their deficit problems; and (ii) the central government has a variety of options to provide liquidity to regions if needed. We believe that assistance would be likely, albeit with conditions likely to be attached, given that a default by any region, regardless of its size, would severely damage the sovereign's reputation and its ability to access the wholesale financial markets.
-- ANDALUCIA AND CASTILLA Y LEON
The downgrade of Andalucia and Castilla y Leon by one notch to Aa3 reflects Moody's concerns about their large commercial obligations. Although these two regions' overall financial performance continues to warrant a Aa rating, their large stock of commercial obligations in the healthcare sector and the absence of clear plans as to when or how these will be funded have negatively impacted their ratings.
-RATIONALE FOR THE NEGATIVE OUTLOOK ON THESE REGIONS
The publication of Moody's Special Comment entitled "Spanish Regions: Continued Fiscal Slippage Would Have Negative Ratings Impact", published 28 June 2011, reiterated Moody's negative outlook for the regional government sector in Spain. The outlook remains negative for these and other regions, reflecting (i) Spain's weak economic growth prospects, which will likely continue to adversely affect the regional tax base; and (ii) uncertainty associated with the regions' ability to meet its forthcoming borrowing requirements at an affordable cost in the context of constrained market conditions.
-RATIONALE FOR THE REVIEW FOR DOWNGRADE OF EXTREMADURA, GALICIA AND MADRID
The rating announcement follows Moody's announcement to place the Government of Spain's ratings on review for downgrade on 29 July 2011. Moody's notes that despite these three regions having reported solid financial performances throughout the crisis, they continue, with the exception of Madrid, to rely significantly on transfers from the central government to operate. We currently consider that these three regions -- ratings currently on par with the Sovereign -- neither have the required fiscal manoeuvrability nor the institutional strength to maintain a rating above the sovereign. Since similar considerations apply to other lower-rated regions, the review would very likely be extended were the Sovereign to be downgraded by more than one notch.
-RATIONALE FOR THE REVIEW FOR DOWNGRADE OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY, BIZKAIA, GUIPUZCOA AND CONSORCIO DE TRANSPORTES DE BIZKAIA
The rating announcement also follows Moody's decision to place the Government of Spain's ratings on review for downgrade on 29 July 2011. Although the Basque entities benefit from a unique status which provides them with greater fiscal flexibility than that of their national peers, their economies remain closely integrated within the wider Spanish economy and they remain exposed to the same broader economic and financing pressures weighing on the sovereign rating. Were the wider economic pressures, which are reflected in the review of the Sovereign rating for downgrade, to materialise across Spain, tax revenues for the Basque entities would very likely decline. As a result, Moody's believes that while the three Basque entities - currently positioned one-notch above the sovereign -- are likely to retain greater credit strength than the Sovereign, they do not exhibit sufficiently strong financial metrics to justify more than a one-notch differential from the Sovereign rating.
The rating announcement for the Consorcio de Transportes de Bizkaia is in line with placement of the Basque Country on review for downgrade, as it is a government-related issuer and its rating closely reflects that of the Basque Country.
-FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW
Moody's will monitor the conclusion of the review at the sovereign level and the reasons for a downgrade, should it materialise at the end of the review. As a result, the ratings of those sub-sovereign entities currently placed on review for downgrade (with the exception of Castilla-La Mancha described above) are likely to mirror any changes at the sovereign level.
Nevertheless, Moody's will view positively any strong signs of improvement in these regional and local governments' initial 2011 targets or any credible plan supporting a significant enhancement in their 2012-13 budget trajectories (e.g. tax rises, sustainable decrease in operating costs), which would imply a positive shift from our current baseline scenario and a decrease in debt levels more rapidly than initially contemplated.
WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATINGS UP/DOWN
Moody's notes that the strong ongoing support from the government of Spain toward the regions is an incentive to maintain the regions' ratings in the investment grade category; any signal of weakening support would be a negative credit factor.
Stabilisation of the outlooks or an upgrade to the ratings would require stabilisation or upgrade of the sovereign rating as well as credible plans from the regional administrations to restore their fiscal performances and reverse debt ratios.
PREVIOUS RATING ACTION & METHODOLOGIES USED
Please see ratings tab on the issuers/entities page on Moodys.com for the last rating action and the rating history.
The principal methodologies used in these ratings were "Regional and Local Governments Outside the US ", published in May 2008, "The Application of Joint Default Analysis to Regional and Local Governments" published in December 2008, and "Government-Related Issuers: Methodology update" published in July 2010. Please see the Credit Policy page on www.moodys.com for a copy of these methodologies.
REGULATORY DISCLOSURES
For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt, this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody's rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation to the rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.
The ratings have been disclosed to the rated entities or their designated agents and issued with no amendment resulting from that disclosure.
Information sources used to prepare the credit ratings are the following: parties involved in the ratings, parties not involved in the ratings, public information and confidential and proprietary Moody's Investors Service's information.
Moody's considers the quality of information available on the rated entity, obligation or credit satisfactory for maintain a credit rating.
Moody's adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a rating is of sufficient quality and from sources Moody's considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, Moody's is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process.
Moody's Investors Service may have provided Ancillary or Other Permissible Service(s) to the rated entity or its related third parties within the three years preceding the credit rating action. Please see the ratings disclosure page on our website www.moodys.com for further information.
Please see Moody's Rating Symbols and Definitions on the Rating Process page on www.moodys.com for further information on the meaning of each rating category and the definition of default and recovery.
Please see ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the last rating action and the rating history.
The date on which some ratings were first released goes back to a time before Moody's ratings were fully digitized and accurate data may not be available. Consequently, Moody's provides a date that it believes is the most reliable and accurate based on the information that is available to it. Please see the ratings disclosure page on our website www.moodys.com for further information.
Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody's legal entity that has issued the rating.
Madrid
Marisol Blazquez
Analyst
Sub-Sovereign Group
Moody's Investors Service Espana, S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 44 20 7772 5456
SUBSCRIBERS: 44 20 7772 5454
Última edición por alquilerin; 29-jul-2011 a las 07:18
Estos 12 usuarios dan las gracias a alquilerin por su mensaje:
Lo de las deudas entre Catalunya y el bobierno es de risa... Catalunya le reclama 1400M al bobierno por lo del fondo de compensación ese, para que así puedan tapar la deuda que tenemos. El bobierno le reclama a Catalunya 2400M.
Solucion? Que catalunya pida prestamos (¿¿¿???) para pagar la deuda con el estado mientras reclama la deuda con el estado.
Estamos todos locos o que? So el unico que cuándo ha escuchado esta noticia me ha venido la cabeza las hogueras intentando ser apagadas con gasolina???
Todos en cana.
Estos 4 usuarios dan las gracias a alquilerin por su mensaje:
España siempre ha sido un lastre para Cataluña pero hoy lo es más que nunca. Cornudos y apaleados los catalanes por España.
No me imagino al ejército sacando los tanques a la calle en Plaza Cataluña en el siglo XXI, y quien se iba a joder bien jodida con una independencia de Cataluña sería España, así que más le valdría al gobierno de España no tocarles mucho los huevos a los catalanes, porque sería la puntilla que nos faltaba para irnos a tomar por culo.
__________________
so glad we've almost made it
so sad they had to fade it
everybody wants to rule the world
La Generalitat endurece el Plan de Reequilibrio para lograr el aprobado del Ministerio de Hacienda - Se desmarca de autonomías del PP y reconoce la oferta de financiar parte de la deuda al Estado a través del ICO
José Manuel Vela. manuel molines
Editorial: Condenados a recortarJ. G. G. VALENCIA A la vuelta del verano, los nuevos consellers tendrán sobre la mesa una mala noticia. El Consell logró el miércoles la aprobación al nuevo Plan de Reequilibrio de la Generalitat presentado por exigencias del Ministerio de Hacienda que compromete un recorte de los gastos este año respecto a las obligaciones reconocidas en 2010 de nada menos que 1.800 millones. Esta cifra casi cuadruplica el "tijeretazo" que el Consell, obligado por el hundimiento de los ingresos debido a la crisis, aplicó el año pasado en relación a 2009, de 498 millones. El "aprobado" de Hacienda es imprescindible para que el ministerio autorice al Consell a endeudarse y el nuevo titular de Hacienda, José Manuel Vela, a la vista de la situación financiera, no consentirá caprichos a sus compañeros de Ejecutivo.
Tras cerrar con déficit sus cuentas, la Generalitat presentó inicialmente a Madrid un plan de saneamiento 2010-2012 que incluía un recorte de 500 millones en el gasto de 2010 respecto a 2009. Pero Hacienda exigió ajustes adicionales para dar el visto bueno. El nuevo plan aprobado el miércoles, ahora para el periodo 2011-2013, compromete un recorte de 1.800 millones este año en relación a las obligaciones reconocidas de 2010, que fueron de 14.736 millones. Esto es, que este ejercicio el Consell tendrá que gastar hasta 12.936 millones. El presupuesto aprobado en diciembre en las Corts prevía un desembolso de 13.713 millones.
La diferencia es el ajuste adicional de 700 millones anunciado por el presidente, Alberto Fabra, el martes en su investidura. Las obligaciones reconocidas en 2009 fueron de 15.234 millones. En 2010, el presupuesto fue de 14.392 millones, por debajo del que luego fue el gasto real, tendencia que ahora se pretende invertir. El plan de reequilibrio prevé, una vez logrado el ajuste de 1.800 millones, mantener la senda de déficit previsto en 2012 y 2013.
Ayer, Vela mostró su satisfacción con el Gobierno p0r la aprobación del plan, algo que no ha logrado Cataluña. En el Consell se destaca el clima de entendimiento y receptividad del Ejecutivo. No obstante, insistió en criticar la negativa de Madrid a anticipar el Fondo de Competitividad, que para el Consell supone 635 millones y que no cobrará hasta 2013.
En este clima de diálogo, el conseller de Hacienda se desmarcó de los consejeros económicos del PP de otras autonomías y alabó la oferta de financiar parte de la deuda que deben al Estado -consecuencia del exceso en los anticipios por la optimista previsión de ingresos del Gobierno- a través de préstamos del ICO. El Consell tiene que reintegrar 2.343 millones, 635 de 2009 y 1.707 de 2010. "Reconozco la buena disposición del Gobierno", afirmó. El PP reclamaba que se aplace el pago, de los 5 años previstos, a 10.
Vela también indicó en los pasillos de las Corts que la propuesta de Murcia de devolver competencias a Madrid si no garantiza una financiación adecuada es "un tema que debemos pensar" dado que "en este país las transferencias se hicieron como se hicieron en su día" y "no es de recibo" que las comunidades autónomas, "que tienen el peso de toda la prestación de servicios sociales no tengan una financiación estable y segura".
Sobre la situación económica, lanzó un mensaje positivo: "Veo la luz al final del túnel, no veo todavía muchos brotes verdes pero la lucecita está allá, al final; está lejos pero la veremos".
Vela y Alarte coinciden
en reclamar el cambio del modelo para tener más dinero per cápita
El conseller José Manuel Vela y el líder del PSPV, Jorge Alarte, coincidieron en reclamar el cambio del modelo de financiación autonómica para que la C. Valenciana tenga unos recursos similares a la media del conjunto de autonomías, tras publicar ayer este periódico la liquidación de 2009, según la cual, la Generalitat sigue la penúltima en fondos per cápita, aunque la diferencia con la media se ha reducido un 43% (de 329 a 187 euros por habitante). Vela reconoció que "la horquilla se ha estrechado" pero "seguimos igual, en la cola", y consideró que la reforma del sistema "es ya inaplazable". Alarte indicó que, aunque la diferencia se ha acortado,"sigue siendo insuficiente". "Es innegociable el que la financiación per capita de cada valenciano debe ser como mínimo igual a la de cada español y mientras ese objetivo no se cumpla, nos da igual quién gobierne en España: nosotros no estaremos satisfechos".
Lo de las deudas entre Catalunya y el bobierno es de risa... Catalunya le reclama 1400M al bobierno por lo del fondo de compensación ese, para que así puedan tapar la deuda que tenemos. El bobierno le reclama a Catalunya 2400M.
Solucion? Que catalunya pida prestamos (¿¿¿???) para pagar la deuda con el estado mientras reclama la deuda con el estado.
Estamos todos locos o que? So el unico que cuándo ha escuchado esta noticia me ha venido la cabeza las hogueras intentando ser apagadas con gasolina???
Todos en cana.
Con hacienda pasa lo mísmo,a tí te puede deber algo y ya pagará,pero ojo no le debas a ella...que a pagar ya o ya.
Estos usuarios dan las gracias a socrates99 por su mensaje:
El problema de Catalunya no es la capacidad de pago, sinoel brutal desequilibrio entre ingresos y gastos.
En un post mio del año 2009, explique que no podia ser las barbaridades cometidas. No esmuy dificil de entender, tampoco es facil, pero gracias al cacarrado "expolio fiscal" Catalunya esta mejor en terminos de deficit que sin expolio.
-Todas las CCAA (como muchos paises) no es que ajusten los ingresos a los gastos, sino que gastan mas de lo que ingresan.
-En sotuaciones de crisis los entes publicos rralizan presupuestos fuera de la realidad y rn la economia se activan los estabilizadores automaticos
- Alemania o Pais Vasco son ejemplos de que aunque tengan un presupuesto elevado, cuando viene una crisis como la actual y se desploman los ingresos se incurre en Deficit.
El presupuesto de la Generalitat para 2010 fue el siguiente ( CIU y Pp callaron como ptas)
El tripartit esperaba que bajaran los ingresos -12%
El tripartit aumento el presupuesto un 7%
Como veis son presupuestos de loco que rozan la intervencion penal por delito de sedicion contra España y sobre todo contra Cataluña
Este descalabro "sin expolio" hubiera sido mas bestia
-Los ingresos hubieran caido mas en terminos relaivos y absolutos.
-Los lumbreras del tripartir para compensarlo hubieran aumentado mas el presupuesto, por lo que el deficit hubiera sido brutal.
Los ingresos no llegaran ( de momento) a niveles precrisis, con expolio o sin el
Dicho esto si el estado salva abankitos tambien deberia emitir deuda para Catalunya y no al reves
Estos usuarios dan las gracias a Azrael_II por su mensaje:
Tweet 
29-jul-2011, 07:10
Mode Lineal
Temas Similares