Talk:List of countries by credit rating

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denmark Update REQUEST[edit]

The map showing S&P rating has Denmark listed as a AA+. It should be AAA. Will someone more image savvy than me please change it? 90.184.255.144 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see whats wrong. The Netherlands was downgraded and someone clearly doesn´t know the geography of Europe;) The Netherlands are the the landmass bordering the north-western part of Germany. Denmark is the country north of Germany, west of Sweden, south of Norway and east of GB. Please swap the colours between the two. 90.184.255.144 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia Update[edit]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/bolivia-fitch-upgrade-idUSL1E8L2KLG20121002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.191.98 (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil Update[edit]

Brazil is now BBB not BBB-

17 nov 2011 http://economia.ig.com.br/mercados/standard-poors-eleva-rating-do-brasil-para-bbb/n1597372602256.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.253.33 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel update[edit]

9 September 2011, S&P Raises Israel's Credit Rating to A+ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147725 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4120053,00.html Please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.161.23 (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium update[edit]

Belgium update

update on ranking fitch on belgium to aa+ watch negatif per may 23 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/fitch-threatens-belgium-with-credit-rating-cut/article2031972/ it also mentions standard and poor did the same thing in december.

Ron128 (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fitch Japan update

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-27/japan-s-aa-rating-outlook-lowered-to-negative-by-fitch-in-warning-to-kan.html http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110527-704043.html

to aa- negative Ron128 (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default sort[edit]

Since the title of this article is "list of countries by credit rating" then surely the default sorting of these tables should be by the credit rating column? Alternatively change the title to "List of credit ratings by country". Dermot Smith (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to ISO country code templates[edit]

For posterity, I mention that I've parsed the article source with User:Bxj/ParseFlags.groovy to do this edit. --Bxj (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do that? Now it's very difficult to find a particular country in the long list, unless you happen to know the ISO code. And who knows the ISO codes? Perhaps a genius like you and a few others knows the codes, but most editors don't. When Bloomberg or another news service reports that a country's rating has changed, they use the common name of that country and do not mention its ISO code. This is just making it hard to update the list! Urbanus Secundus (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to update the sorting key along with the ratings[edit]

Otherwise the sorting by credit rating will not be accurate.--Lady Pablo (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


U.S. Credit Rating[edit]

Since this is not List of countries by credit rating "according to S&P," and two of the three agencies cited for the article still maintain a AAA rating on the U.S., shouldn't we take that into account? 50.29.208.66 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already do. Scroll the page down a bit and you'll find all the ratings by Moody's and Fitch, including of course the one for the US.--Lady Pablo (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but the U.S. credit ratings by both Fitch and Moody's should be AAA +/stable. Only S&P downgraded. But on this list Fitch lists as AA+ and Moody's as AAA negative. Thanks. Noblerinthemind (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the table list S&P's US credit rating as AAA? it has been listed as AA+ since 2011, and the diagram just to the right also colours based on the AA class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.229.147.73 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Country[edit]

Why Abu Dhabi is listed as country? Abu Dhabi is an emirate belongs to the country of UAE. 86.96.229.85 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Nimzy[reply]

Because some subnational entities still issue sovereign bonds, like Abu Dhabi or Montserrat, while others (like Puerto Rico) don't. Perhaps it should be clarified further in the lede.--LK (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why multiple tables & why limited number of rating agencies[edit]

Rather than having multiple tables of ratings, wouldn't it make more sense to have a single table with sortable columns? Have one column for Country name, and then a separate column for the rating from each agency. That would make comparisons much easier, and not make it difficult to find ratings other than Standard and Poor's.

Also, only three rating agencies? Shouldn't the smaller players be listed, too? For example, recently Dagong Global Credit Rating Rating Co., Ltd. made the news when it downgraded the USA prior to Standard & Poor's. If there was a column for Dagong, it would help the reader determine if their ratings were at all in line with the Big Three or if they were determined only by politics. (Dagong is based in China.)

--Fredrik Coulter (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly favour keeping the current layout, for two reasons. The first is size, a single table would be too large on smaller resolution. The second, and most important, is the ease of editing: the ratings are essentially mass-updated through an Excel spreadsheet, which is then converted to wikicode. A single table would make it extremely inconvenient and time-consuming to update the credit ratings of an agency while keeping the ratings of another. As for the other matter, I don't oppose the inclusion of other non-American ratings agencies, but at some point we should decide just how "major" an agency needs to be to warrant inclusion in this article. In Dagong's case, the availability of English-language references could also be an issue.--Lady Pablo (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But in the current layout its much more complicated to compare the ratings. You have to scroll up und down like crazy, jump to the every country with the search funktion or open three tabs to compare them. One single table would make this much more easy. --93.82.129.165 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lady Pablo's first argument, really considers the reader's convenience only (rather than the editor's convenience), but it ignores the fact that when the reader is given two alternatives, the first one of which is: one single table (being too large on smaller resolution, but letting them compare the ratings), whereas the second alternative is: four tables (having a regular size - but without letting the reader compare the tables), then the reader will (in my opinion) prefer the first alternative to the other one.
As for User:Lady Pablo's second argument, it's in favor of the editors, rather than of the readers, while I'm in favor of the readers, and that's why I support Fredrik Coulter's request.
HOOTmag (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very unhelpful layout. --64.134.240.153 (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dagong? Really?[edit]

It seems those ratings were added by User:Lady Pablo here, but why? It's not notable and no one has even heard of it outside of China prior to their downgrade. I don't think any investor in their right mind would even rely on their ratings. If the ratings have to be somewhere, they should be on their WP page, and not here.

Quite simply, we should stick to the big three here. Just because Dagong made news for a day and a half doesn't grant the right to be here, at all.

Cheers!

Λuα (Operibus anteire) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dagong is known outside China, and likely at least Chinese investors would rely on it. Also, this is encyclopedia, not a site specifically for investors. GreyHood Talk 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to those points, but they don't address the issue.
The point of this list is to have the big three here; not every single CRA that makes the news for 15 mins. If we are going to have Dagong, why not Ahbor Rating or CMC International (yeah, the one in Nigeria)? You see the slippery slope here. I probably can find news articles about them and then argue my way to including them, but that defeats the purpose of this list. It really does.
You see, the problem with Dagong is that it REALLY doesn't fall within the scope of this article.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could ask the original contributor for their input if you want.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Dagong? It's the number 2 in Asia and comparisons with CMC from Nigeria are superfluous. I am pro Dagong. Their ratings are more objective than many others ► robomod 19:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever been to Shanghai? It has a few super-modern hotels that would be considered first-rate in any city in the world. But the creaky old Peace Hotel has to be ranked #1 because, well, it's the Peace Hotel, and the Peace Hotel is the best hotel in Shanghai. That mentality is exactly what's wrong with Dagong's ratings too. Look, the Chinese government itself doesn't agree with Dagong's ratings; otherwise they wouldn't keep buying Treasuries...--98.114.178.200 (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One look on Dagong's ratings is enough to see it's much more objective than "big three". Argument that Chinese government doesn't agree with Dagong becouse they are buying Treasuries is little bit simplification. Gov's ordinary make they moves with political reasons behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.151.80 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

these Lists are all hostile towards Russia[edit]

even dagong its just a joke, Russia has the third largest foreign reserves one third of their gdp and lower % of public debt than china, and almost the same gold amount which is not good for such a strong economy like china and all what they give is an A, its even lower than japan, gadong is a racist agency thats pushing asian agenda, the same goes for the all other three who are pushing just for anglo saxon internists. These agencies are corrupt and racist.--Altair937 (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are, but calling them racist without any evidence simply doesn't work. Russia is not a member of the World Trade Organization, corruption is rampant and the country's justice is simply a joke. All these things affect the ratings. Be honest: would you invest your money in such a country if you had other alternatives? Your complaint about the corruption and injustice of the rating agencies towards Russia won't change this article. I honestly suggest you find credible sources (economists, books, reputed magazines - The Economist, The Times, etc) which talk about the rating of Russia. If you find anything about the injustice you can include them in the article. Flamarande (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although China is only slightly better than Russia in terms of corruption and justice, it doesn't justify the huge difference between them on the Dagong scale (AAA v. A). The difference can be attributed to more complex factors having to do with Russian defaults as well as Russia's fiscal irresponsibly. Not only this, but we also have demographic factors (shrinking Russian population), and sociopolitical factors (Russia is surprisingly less open to foreign investments than China). All of these contribute to the ratings despite Russia's large reserves and its abundant natural resources.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all this agencies which give better credit rating to USA than for instance China. ( and we all know for fact that China acctually crediting USA...are just bunch of idiot's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.151.80 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC) btw The Economist, The Times, etc are not really credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.151.80 (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel S&P now at A+ (A Plus)[edit]

Israel S&P had reached A+ (A Plus) status, can an admin update the article?

Sources: S&P Reuters Ynet News

Thank you.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Assaf124, 9 September 2011[edit]

Israel rating is now A+ according to S&P Assaf124 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it as it is now open, I requested above the same thing.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S&P country listing[edit]

The Isle of Man is listed as a country, (as mentioned re Abu Dhabi above). It is tiny island, part of the UK. It may have it's own status but it isn't a country. Span (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not part of the UK but you are right in saying that it isn't an actual country. But neither are many of the names in the lists like Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong, Guernsey. Entities which issue sovereign bonds are rated by these agencies and should be included in the list. You will also note that all of these places are major financial centers and so rather important to a page listing countries by credit rating!--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 21:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resource from Portal:Current events/2012 January 13[edit]

99.19.45.64 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

The three tables can be merged particularly through the use of templates. It is confusing to edit at the moment as the code is complex. Also I would like to compare ratings by different credit rating agencies. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree here. This article would be much more useful if the readers could easily compare the ratings of agencies for a country. I hope somebody could do it for us, as it would take some effort... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.233.13 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rating of Turkey.[edit]

There is somthing wrong I believe. The Foreign Currency Rating of Turkey ist BB (S&P).

Look at the list here: http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/sovereigns/ratings-list/en/us?sectorName=null&subSectorCode=39&filter=T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.182.185 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Union rating[edit]

I think the ratings for the Eurozone fund (current EFSF, to be replaced by ESM) and the EU fund (EFSM) should be added to the tables. Japinderum (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tables merged[edit]

I merged the five tables (Fitch, Moody's, Standard & Poor's, Dagong and unrated, versions of 2012-12-31) into one big table. You can find it in my userspace. Sorting is still problematic, due to the subheaders I used. Perhaps someone wants to improve on it? SQB (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion; Exclusive AAA rating list[edit]

Just putting this one out there;

When I look on this list, what I'm really interested in is the highest rated countries, hence I'm only really interested in knowing which countries that all rating agencies agree are AAA. Might it be interesting to make a small meta list at the top with only these countries?

S&P Table - float left?[edit]

Because we now have two large pictures in the Standard and Poor's section, the table is now pushed really far down which leaves a huge blank space. Is there a way to float the table left so that it is at the same level as the pictures? I tried some CSS, but can't get it to work. Boweruk (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LITHUANIA update request[edit]

Lithuania's credit rating has been changed from BBB to A(-) by S&P.

Source: http://www.ekspertai.eu/-standard-poorspagerino-lietuvos-skolinimosi-reitinga/

Please update the map as well to reflect that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxae (talk • contribs) 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia has been downgraded as of 2015.[edit]

Saudi Arabia was downgraded from AA- to A+. Hence, the first map is outdated. Please make the necessarily connections. A SVG map would be much better by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status on maps for the Netherlands incorrect[edit]

The Netherlands regained their AAA status, but the map does still show the AA status. Might just be that some other countries are the incorrect color too. I'm not good with making maps so hopefully someone can make the map correct again? 145.133.44.236 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands has incorrect colour in map[edit]

The Netherlands has a AAA credit rating and this is also shown in the table of S&P ratings in this article. However, the medium green colour in the map of countries indicates that the Netherlands has a AA credit rating. That is incorrect and should be fixed. Rvaneeuwijk (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The UK and updated credit rating[edit]

My edit keeps on getting reverted. Didn't they get from AA to AAA? It keeps getting changed back to AA.

Help? Coolcam6578 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Coolcam6578 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by credit rating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of countries by credit rating[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of countries by credit rating's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Profile":

  • From Nigeria: Library of Congress – Federal Research Division (July 2008). "Country profile: Nigeria" (PDF): 9. Retrieved 28 December 2011. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • From Pakistan: Curtis, Mark. Secret Affairs Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam (New updated ed.). London: Profile. ISBN 1-84765-301-4.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by credit rating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bahamas and The Gambia[edit]

Is there any particular reason the official short name for The Bahamas and The Gambia are not used in this article? It seems both inaccurate and disrespectful to cut off part of their names. 2001:4898:A800:1012:50B5:263:F44A:B524 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map update[edit]

The map needs to be updated. Taiwan is AA+ now so it should be the same shade of green as New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greysholic (talk • contribs) 06:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing or removing China Chengxin which is a Chinese state-owned company from this article is not possible[edit]

It is not permissible to alter, edit, modify, or delete any/all information related to China Chengxin, a state-owned Chinese company. Any such attempt will be considered disruptive editing, regardless of whether the information is completely outdated or unavailable in English on the company's website. I urge all readers to reflect on this message and consider its implications for the Wikimedia Foundation. It is possible that the individuals who removed the edits and deletions were affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. Thank you. 174.115.165.23 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter one bit whether it's in English or any other language. I will go ahead and start updating it (slowly). M.Bitton (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I demand that an editor or administrator immediately review the revision history of this article. During the editing process, M.Bitton (talk) and I had a serious disagreement that resulted in conflict. He closely monitored my actions, made threats towards me, reverted all my editions from this article and quickly deleted all the messages I had left on his talk page without any discussion. Moreover, despite its lack of recognition and familiarity, he stubbornly insisted on including a little-known Chinese state-owned company, China Chengxin Credit Rating Group, which is strictly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, in this article. His actions deliberately created confusion and an illusion, targeting highly reputable companies traditionally recognized by the US Securities and Exchange Commission and worldwide (i.e, Standard & Poors, Moody's, Fitch Ratings, etc.), in an attempt to undermine their authority and manipulate readers and information seekers. Such an unethical edition is unacceptable and tantamount to cheating or deception. I demand that immediate action be taken to rectify this situation. It is imperative that this situation is rectified promptly in order to preserve Wikipedia's credibility and reliability. Failure to do so could have a significant and far-reaching impact, potentially dissuading future references to Wikipedia. Thank you. 2607:FEA8:BADF:6DB0:5170:A7DE:BD8F:9743 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_credit_rating&oldid=1207118915"