最近，亚马逊（Amazon）发行了25亿美元的债券。如果债券在大受欢迎的亚马逊网站上售卖，将会获得两种截然不同、令人困惑的评价：有人会给出接近五星的好评，有人则会给出一星差评。

    11月末，这家在线零售商发行债券的前几天，评估机构标准普尔（Standard & Poor）发布了对其债券的评估报告。标准普尔给出的评级为AA-，与美国政府获得的评级相差不远。后者尽管近期遭遇财政危机，仍被认为颇具信用，获得了AA+的评分。标准普尔的分析师、负责评估亚马逊债券的大卫•昆茨说：“我们认为亚马逊的违约概率非常小。”

    同一天，穆迪（Moody’s）也发布了对亚马逊债券的评定：近似于垃圾债券。确切的评级是Baa1，相当于BBB+，仅比确定投资是否安全的及格线高两级。

    评估机构有时的确会对同一债券交易给出不同的评价，不过这次对亚马逊债券评估的差距之大仍属罕见。标准普尔和穆迪公司的评级相差四级，独立债券研究机构吉米信贷公司（Gimme Credit）的高级分析师大卫•诺沃塞尔称这种事“简直是前所未闻。”

    换个角度看，这相当于中国和意大利的差距。中国的GDP每年增速超过7%，标准普尔对其信用评级为AA-。意大利去年差点遭遇主权债务危机，评级为BBB+。标准普尔的前信贷部门主管马克•阿德尔森在推行更严格的评级标准后，于八月离职。他说他于一年前查看过125家公司的CDX北美投资级指数（CDX North American Investment Grade index）评分，发现标准普尔和穆迪公司对其他公司的信用评价几乎没什么不同。阿德尔森说：“有时会有差别，但是四级的差距实在太大了。”

    更奇怪的是，这个分歧发生在亚马逊身上。这是一家相对没有债务、最近深得股票投资者青睐的公司。亚马逊股价今年涨幅超过45%，最近达到了253美元。

    穆迪公司不看好亚马逊债券行情看重的是一个事实：亚马逊最近的财报显示，公司的利润已经降至六年来的最低值。分析家称，由于市场竞争加剧，运输费用提高，其盈利空间很可能继续走低。此外，穆迪的分析师认为，亚马逊大力推动设备和其他网络服务会导致更多资本支出，拖累盈利水平。

    Amazon's recent $2.5 billion bond offering, if it were listed on the popular retailer's website, would get two very different and confusing reviews: One for nearly five stars; the other for just over one.

    Days before the online retailer's late November debt deal, ratings agency Standard & Poor's issued its report on the soon-to-be sold bond. S&P gave Amazon's debt an AA-. That's not much different a rating than that of the U.S. government, which, despite the country's recent fiscal problems, is still considered sterling credit and gets an AA+. "We think Amazon has a very low probability of default," says David Kuntz, S&P's analyst who rated the bond.

    On the same day, Moody's came out with its rating for Amazon's debt: Nearly junk. The actual rating was Baa1, which is the equivalent of BBB+ and only two steps up from the demarcation line between what is considered a safe investment and what's not.

    While the ratings agencies do sometimes give different ratings to the same bond deal, it's very rare for them to diverge as widely as they have on Amazon. David Novosel, a senior analyst at independent bond research house Gimme Credit, says a four notch difference, which is the spread between S&P's rating and Moody's, is "almost unheard of."

    Another way to think about it is the different between China and Italy. China, which is growing its GDP at more than 7%, gets an AA- rating from S&P. Italy, on the other hand, was seen last year to be on the verge of a sovereign debt crisis. It gets a rating of BBB+.About a year ago, S&P's former chief credit officer Mark Adelson, who left the agency in August after pushing for stricter ratings criteria, says he went through the ratings of the 125 companies in the CDX North American Investment Grade index. He says he found little difference between S&P and Moody's on any of the companies. "Splits happen," says Adelson. "But a four notch difference is quite big."

    Even stranger is that the split is on Amazon, a company that has relatively little debt and is these days beloved by stock investors. Shares of Amazon (AMZN) are up more than 45% this year to a recent $253.

    Moody's (MCO), the more bearish of the two, focused on the fact that Amazon recently reported its lowest level of profits in six years. The analysts said profit margins were likely to stay down, due to rising competition and increased shipping costs. In addition, Moody's analysts said they thought the company's push into devices and other online services will require more capital spending, which would also drag down profits.

    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.