亚马逊债券评级之谜

    另一方面，标准普尔认为亚马逊在网络销售上占有统治地位，这种地位还将延续。标准普尔的昆茨认为，即便如果美国各州开始征收网络营业税，亚马逊的收入仍然能保持30%以上的年增长率。尽管盈利遇到问题，亚马逊手中的现金依然足以支付两倍于所需的利息支出。

    针对穆迪公司的评级，昆茨拒绝发表评论。关于为何与标准普尔在亚马逊债券评级上差距如此之大，穆迪公司也并没有给出回应。

    阿德尔森说，这次评分差距并不像是利益冲突或是幕后交易的结果。亚马逊很可能向穆迪公司和标准普尔的债券评级服务支付了同样的费用。亚马逊债券发行大户，所以两家公司也没有理由示好亚马逊，以求再次合作。

    实际上，阿德尔森认为观点不同是个好迹象。金融危机中，这些信用评级机构饱受批评。人们认为他们对华尔街的审查过于宽松，对那些千万亿的抵押交易给出了顶级评分，而最后不得不把评分降低。据报道，美国证券交易委员会（Securities and Exchange Commission）至今仍然在审查这些机构在房地产泡沫高点时期对抵押债券的评级流程。

    那么这次对亚马逊的债券评级，标准普尔和穆迪公司到底谁才是对的？也许都不对。亚马逊的十年期债券发行时，收益率为2.5%，如今已变为2.64%，这意味着它们已经贬值。尽管如此，吉米信贷的诺沃塞尔称，如果市场真的认定亚马逊债券的信用为BBB+，收益率如今应当下降到3%。不过该债券也没好到AA-的级别，该级别的债券交易收益率应为2.3%。所以亚马逊的债券评级应当介于这两个评级之间，这样才较为符合评级系统的运作原理。

    译者：严匡正

    S&P, on the other hand, said Amazon was dominating online, and would continue to do so. Even with the addition of sales taxes, which have not been charged online in many states, S&P's Kuntz said he thought the company's revenue could continue to grow more than 30% a year for the next few years. Despite its profit problems, Kuntz thought Amazon had about double the amount of cash on hand than it needed to make its interest payments.

    Kuntz declined to comment on Moody's rating. Moody's didn't return calls for comment on its bond rating for Amazone or why it differed from S&P's.

    Adelson says the different rating is not likely the result of a conflict of interest or some other behind the scenes deal. Amazon probably paid Moody's and S&P the same fee to rate its bonds. And Amazon is not a big issuer of debt so there was no real reason for either company to try to woo Amazon to use it again.

    In fact, Adelson says the difference of opinion is a good sign. During the financial crisis, the ratings agencies were often criticized as being rubber stamps for Wall Street, giving top ratings to tens of billions in mortgage deals that eventually had to be downgraded. The Securities and Exchange Commission is reportedly still examining the process by which the agencies rated mortgage bonds at the height of the housing bubble.

    So who's right on Amazon bonds? S&P or Moody's? Potentially neither. Amazon's 10-year bonds, which were offered with a yield of 2.5%, now have a yield of 2.64%, which means they have lost value. Nonetheless, Gimme Credit's Novosel says if the market really viewed the bonds as BBB+, the yield would have dropped to 3%. But they're not quite a AA-, either. Bonds with that rating tend to trade for a yield of 2.3%. So Amazon probably should have a rating somewhere between the ratings of S&P and Moody's, which is probably how the system is supposed to work.