????如果有人覺得評級機(jī)構(gòu)威勢不再,，周一的股市暴跌應(yīng)該能讓他認(rèn)清現(xiàn)實(shí),。

????標(biāo)普（Standard & Poor's）近日作出了備受爭議的決定，將美國債信評級從最高的AAA級下調(diào)至AA+級,，引發(fā)股市重挫,。盡管標(biāo)普主權(quán)評級委員會(huì)主席約翰?錢伯斯試圖輕描淡寫（“這不過是從靛藍(lán)變成海軍藍(lán)”），但本就脆弱不堪的股市大幅下挫,，全球各國財(cái)政部長被迫磋商應(yīng)對之策,。

????值此股市搖搖欲墜,，金價(jià)高歌猛進(jìn)，專家學(xué)者爭論這到底只是市場恐慌,，還是2008金融危機(jī)重演之時(shí),，《財(cái)富》雜志（FORTUNE）專訪了標(biāo)普總裁迪文?夏瑪。標(biāo)普隸屬麥格勞-希爾（McGraw-Hill）集團(tuán)旗下,，夏瑪從2007年9月開始掌管這家評級機(jī)構(gòu),。目前，該機(jī)構(gòu)正處于風(fēng)暴中心,。夏瑪就股市下跌,、標(biāo)普的聲譽(yù)以及備受爭議的2萬億美元修正等問題發(fā)表了看法，他還表示對奧巴馬就本次降級所作的公開回應(yīng)頗為贊賞,。

????本次美國債信評級下調(diào)符合市場預(yù)期,，股市卻仍然出現(xiàn)了暴跌，您對此如何看待,？

????首先,，市場自主決定是否根據(jù)信息行動(dòng)，而且不是反應(yīng)過激就是反應(yīng)不足,。希臘就是個(gè)典型,，我們多年來一直在談?wù)撛搰母鞣N弊病，結(jié)果什么都沒有發(fā)生,。我們將希臘主權(quán)債信評級下調(diào)至BBB級別時(shí),，其收益率仍維持在比AA級債券略低的水平，可當(dāng)我們進(jìn)一步下調(diào)至BB級時(shí),，其收益率一下子飆升至CCC級債券的水平,。

????可能影響市場的因素有很多：歐洲債務(wù)危機(jī)的演變，美國經(jīng)濟(jì)增長放緩,，高增長市場減速影響美國公司的全球收入,，圍繞美國政府如何實(shí)現(xiàn)削減1.5萬億美元財(cái)政支出的目標(biāo)也存在不確定性。許多人聲稱我們已進(jìn)入未知領(lǐng)域,，我本人也頗為贊同,。

????信用降級之后，奧巴馬總統(tǒng)發(fā)表了演講以示回應(yīng),，您對此如何評價(jià),？

????人們說他的演講缺乏新意，還是過去那一套,，可他是美國總統(tǒng),，而且是在呼吁各界（對美國債臺高筑的問題）形成一種緊迫感。演講開頭，奧巴馬就指出我們存在兩大挑戰(zhàn),，分別是債務(wù)規(guī)模日益增長,，及制定行動(dòng)方案,、解決債務(wù)問題的經(jīng)濟(jì)程序存在缺陷,。而這也正是（我們下調(diào)美國債信評級的）兩大原因，因此,，他的表態(tài)讓我深受鼓舞,。奧巴馬承認(rèn)這個(gè)問題很嚴(yán)重，作為一個(gè)美國公民,，這讓我覺得：嘿,，或許事情還有希望得到解決。

????美國債信評級下調(diào)是否會(huì)使奧巴馬無法連任,？

????我無意影響總統(tǒng)大選,。我們的角色是指出信貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。如果政界能拿出一套減輕債務(wù)負(fù)擔(dān)的方案來,，并找出促進(jìn)增長和降低失業(yè)率的方法,，所有人乃至整個(gè)國家都會(huì)普遍受益。

????政界能實(shí)現(xiàn)上述目標(biāo)嗎,？您有多大信心,？考慮到美元是世界儲備貨幣，有些人認(rèn)為人們?nèi)詴?huì)購買美國國債,，而且收益率仍將維持在低位,，因此政客們不會(huì)覺得必須采取行動(dòng)。美國和日本的情況相似,，日本也有一套結(jié)構(gòu)性機(jī)制,，使其在喪失AAA評級后仍然能使國債收益率維持在低位。日本沒有就緩解政治僵局并解決債務(wù)問題而實(shí)現(xiàn)任何進(jìn)展,。

????這個(gè)類比很有趣,。喪失AAA評級的國家通常在9-15年內(nèi)重獲該評級，但日本沒有做到,。日本國債主要是由國內(nèi)儲蓄支持,，因此其政府沒有受到高收益率的壓力（來作出艱難的決定）。不過,，日本人口正在老齡化,，而且他們遲早會(huì)停止購買日本國債，而將儲蓄用于退休生活,。屆時(shí)日本就得向國外借款了,，那會(huì)引發(fā)多么嚴(yán)重的后果？

????至于美國，美元是世界儲備貨幣,，我們可以享受開動(dòng)鈔票印刷機(jī)帶來的好處,。問題是，人們何時(shí)會(huì)開始尋找替代性貨幣,？屆時(shí)會(huì)發(fā)生什么后果,？目前機(jī)制的作用總是有限的。

????由于標(biāo)普分析師在研究美國債務(wù)問題時(shí)出現(xiàn)了2萬億美元的差錯(cuò),，財(cái)政部質(zhì)疑標(biāo)普是否稱職,。

????我來澄清一下。這不是差錯(cuò),，而是根據(jù)我們與債券發(fā)行者的對話而對假定情形所作的調(diào)整,。這是對各種信用（包括公司、主權(quán)和結(jié)構(gòu)性信用產(chǎn)品在內(nèi)）進(jìn)行評級時(shí)的程序之一,，我們都會(huì)與發(fā)行者對話,，聽取他們的反饋。如果我們贊同其反饋,，就會(huì)對分析進(jìn)行調(diào)整,，對此我們并不避諱。

????這次,，國會(huì)預(yù)算辦公室（Congressional Budget Office）對可以自由支配的政府開支的增長有幾種不同假設(shè)情景,，我們選取了此項(xiàng)開支與國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值（GDP）增速一致的設(shè)想。隨后財(cái)政部指出,，根據(jù)預(yù)算法案規(guī)定,，政府可自由支配的開支增長速度不得超過通脹率。與國會(huì)預(yù)算辦公室和財(cái)政部進(jìn)一步對話后,，我們認(rèn)同了這種說法,，并調(diào)整了我們的分析。

????可是,，這一調(diào)整并不足以改變我們的看法,。如今，美國的債務(wù)規(guī)模已高達(dá)11.4萬億美元,，即占到國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的74%,。根據(jù)我們原先的假設(shè)，債務(wù)規(guī)模將在2015年增加到14.7萬億美元,，調(diào)整分析報(bào)告后,，到2015年債務(wù)規(guī)模仍將高達(dá)14.5萬億美元。美國債務(wù)負(fù)擔(dān)仍在增加,，而且正向不可持續(xù)的水平發(fā)展,，總統(tǒng)也認(rèn)同這一點(diǎn)。

????那財(cái)政部是想掩飾上述對話的真相嗎？

????我只能說,，本次降級對財(cái)政部來說是一項(xiàng)重大事件,，不容易接受。我們經(jīng)常得作出重大決定,，盡管它們會(huì)給全球各國人士帶來一些困難,。我們降低其他國家的評級時(shí)，其反應(yīng)也一樣激烈,。

????你有沒有給標(biāo)普的主權(quán)信用評級團(tuán)隊(duì)雇保鏢,？

????可以想象，我們收到的一些電子郵件的言辭頗為有趣,。不過，人們的反應(yīng)總是各不相同,，我們得專注于標(biāo)普自身的使命和角色,。

????且不論好壞，您覺得降低美國信用評級是否會(huì)影響標(biāo)普的聲譽(yù),？

????我希望人們最終能認(rèn)識到,，我們是獨(dú)立而客觀的。我們從前瞻性角度發(fā)現(xiàn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn),，并如實(shí)指出,。

????至于人們將如何看待我們上周五的決定，這還很難說,。得用歷史性的眼光來看這個(gè)問題,，即在今后5到10年后再加判斷。如果（美國政治上的機(jī)能障礙）得不到改變,，歷史將會(huì)證明我們正確地指出了風(fēng)險(xiǎn),。當(dāng)年我們降低日本債信評級時(shí)，該國是世界第二大經(jīng)濟(jì)體,，且正在表現(xiàn)出驚人的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力,，因此，人們困惑不已,，完全不能理解我們在說什么,。可如今日本的債務(wù)規(guī)模已達(dá)到國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的200%,，問題已經(jīng)相當(dāng)嚴(yán)重,。

????譯 小宇

????For those who doubt that credit ratings still wield power, look no further than Monday's market rout.

????The selloff followed a controversial decision by Standard & Poor's to downgrade the United States from AAA, the gold standard in credit ratings, to AA+. Even though S&P's head of sovereign ratings John Chambers has downplayed the move ("It's like going from indigo to navy blue''), already fragile stock markets plummeted, and the world's finance ministers were forced to discuss the situation.

????With stocks still shaky, gold prices soaring and talking heads debating whether this is market panic or 2008 redux, FORTUNE spoke with Deven Sharma, the president of S&P, the company that at the eye of this particular storm. Sharma, who became head of the McGraw-Hill (NYSE: MHP) division in September 2007, talked about the stock market slide, his company's reputation, the controversial $2 trillion revision and why he liked Obama's public response to the downgrade.

????Given that the U.S. downgrade was widely anticipated, what do you make of the sharp stock market selloff?

????First, markets act on information when they want to, and they always over- and under-shoot. Greece is the classic example. We talked about the problems there for years, and nothing happened. We lowered the rating on Greek sovereign debt to BBB, and spreads stayed just below levels for AA rated bonds. But when we lowered the rating to BB, we saw spreads hit CCC bond levels.

????There are many factors that could be influencing the markets: the debt situation in Europe, the economic slowdown in the US, a slowdown in high-growth markets that could impact U.S. companies with a mix of global revenues and uncertainty around how U.S. government will achieve the $1.5 trillion in cuts. I've heard many people say, and I agree, that we are in uncharted territory.

????What did you think of the speech President Obama gave in response to the downgrade?

????People say that we've heard what he had to say before, but he is the president and he was calling for a sense of urgency about [America's indebtedness]. I was encouraged that he began by saying that we have two challenges, the rising debt level and the economic process by which we create an action plan to address the debt. Those were the two reasons [why we downgraded the U.S.]. Obama recognizes this is a serious problem, and as a citizen I personally thought, hey, maybe there is hope that things will get sorted out.

????Will the U.S. credit downgrade could make Obama a one-term president?

????Listen, I'm not going to weigh in on the election. Our role is to speak to credit risk. If politicians can come up with a game plan to address debt levels, figure out a way to drive growth, and lower unemployment, it will be good for everyone and for the country broadly.

????What hope do you have that our politicians can deliver? Given that we have the reserve currency, the argument has been made that people will buy our debt and interest rates will stay low, and politicians won't feel compelled to act. It's akin to Japan, which also had a structural mechanism that kept rates low even after the country lost its AAA rating. Japan has done nothing to ease political gridlock and fix its debt problem.

????That's an interesting comparison. Japan did not regain its AAA rating in the nine to 15 year period typical of other countries that lost AAA ratings. They are funded by domestic savings, so the government has not been pressured [to make hard decisions] by higher interest payments. But the Japanese population is aging and, at some point, they will have to stop buying Japanese bonds and spend their savings in retirement. Then Japan will have to borrow from outside the country. Then what happens?

????As for the U.S., the dollar is the reserve currency and we have the benefit of printing money. The question then is, at what point do people look for alternative currencies. Then what happens? There are limits to these mechanisms.

????S&P's competence has been called into question by the Treasury because of a $2 trillion error that your analysts made when they looked at the U.S. debt situation.

????Let me clarify. This was not an error. It was a change in assumptions based on conversations we had with the issuer. That is part of the ratings process for any credit [including corporate, sovereign, and structured credit]. We talk to the issuer. If they have feedback, we listen. If we agree, we have no qualms about saying that we will adjust our analysis.

????In this case, the Congressional Budget Office had different scenarios for discretionary spending growth, and we picked the scenario by which discretionary spending grew at the same rate as GDP. Then the Treasury pointed out that the budget act caps discretionary spending growth at the rate of inflation. After further conversation with the Treasury and CBO, we agreed with them and adjusted the analysis.

????But that adjustment wasn't enough to change our minds. Today, America's debt level is 74% of GDP, or $11.4 trillion. Our initial assumption was that it would grow to $14.7 trillion in 2015. After we adjusted our analysis, we still see debt hitting 14.5 trillion in 2015. The debt is still rising, and moving to an unsustainable level, which the president acknowledged.

????Was Treasury trying to spin this conversation?

????I would only say that the downgrade was a momentous event for the Treasury and not an easy one. We have to make calls that create difficult situations for people globally. When we downgrade other countries, the reaction is equally strong.

????Have you invested in bodyguards for your sovereign debt rating team yet?

????You can imagine some of the email traffic has been interesting. But, hey, people have all kind of reactions. We have to focus on our organization purpose and role.

????For better or worse, will downgrading the U.S. impact S&P's reputation?

????I hope over time that people recognize that we are objective and independent. We call risks as we see them with a forward-looking view.

????It's hard to say how our decision Friday will be taken. You have to look at it in the context of history, five, ten, or 10 years from now. If [U.S. political dysfunction] doesn't change, history will say that we made the right risk call. When we downgraded Japan it was the second largest economy and it was coming off so much economic strength. People wondered, what the hell we were talking about. But now Japan has more than 200% debt to GDP and the problem there is big.