Malta's election results have no immediate effect on sovereign ratings – Standard & Poor
This wouldn’t have been the case if Sant were prime minister today – but try telling that to the Qui-Si-Sana car-park ‘militants’
March 10, 2008: 08:51 AM EST/CNN Money
Standard & Poor’s (NYSE:MHP) Ratings Services said the parliamentary election results in the Republic of Malta have no immediate effect on its sovereign credit ratings.
‘The close victory of the long-ruling Nationalist Party, led by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, over the opposition Labour Party, headed by Alfred Sant, promises a continuation of the polices we have seen over past years,’ S&P said.
In particular, S&P said it expects further gradual fiscal consolidation, a reduction in general government debt, and a commitment to enhance the economy’s growth potential and competitiveness, especially by maintaining wage developments.
S&P said Malta’s creditworthiness is likely to improve as the reforms, such as the ongoing restructuring of the traditional economic sectors and the diversification into new services sectors, gradually result in a more competitive economy with higher growth prospects.
Conversely, the ratings would come under pressure in the case of sustained and significant fiscal deterioration, or if there are significant setbacks in implementing the reform agenda, the ratings agency said.
S&P has an ‘A’ rating with a stable outlook, and an ‘A-1’ rating on Malta.
4 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Think this is dubious: posting private correspondence on your blog. Isn’t there a distinct possibility you will be sued for this? And since when was it the lawyer administering the property’s business to tell the tenant he was falling short of his own principles? Arrogant or what?
Correspondence is only private as long as those who send it or receive it wish it to be private. What are you suggesting, S. Galea – that I raided my husband’s filing cabinets? He’s the one who gave me the letters – for publication. So exactly who do you imagine will sue? The answer to your second question is in the word ‘administering’. That’s what an administrator does. He administers on behalf of somebody else. Face up to the fact that your hero has feet of clay.
who exactly is my ‘hero’,Daphne? I am not an admirer of the Labour Party nor its decidedly unpalatable erstwhile leader! Just feel you don’t further any decent cause by an exposition of this correspondence and your timing is cowardly. Not sure either why there was anything wrong with using the information of apparent corruption in the case of JPO to further the case for their party over the apparently corrupt one wanting to be voted back into carry on. The fact that your husband adminsters a flat on behalf of some unknown does not give him the right to reveal the correspondence between him and a tenant.It would be for Harry Vassallo to sue.Being too clever by half is neither kind nor admirable: the complete disregard for any fault in our party; the need to win at any cost without a sense of fairness and admission of culpability for wrongdoings is arrogant dishonesty.So not only do you flog a dead horse ad nauseam you also do so with a forensic cruelty that is personal and unnecessary.Did you ask Harry if it would be alright to post his correspondence all over your blog?
[Moderator – Harry Vassallo made the correspondence public himself. It was posted on another blog that goes by name Kaizenlog.]
Instead of the idiotic and irrelevant “the answer is in the word ‘ administer'”,DCG only had to tell me that.Straightforward communicaton is the best way to further intelligent exchange; not petty point scoring about precisely nothing. Interesting that as soon as DCG feels she may not be admired for her actions by me that she assumes i am a Labourite. Well, news flash, I ain’t.