Reports of Credit Rating Agencies Moving into the ESG Marketplace
Earlier this month, the Financial
Times reported that the Big Three credit rating agencies were continuing
to make their move into the ESG marketplace via a number of concerted deals.
This report falls directly in line with the analysis I developed in my recent
book The Role of Credit Rating
Agencies in Responsible Finance and in an article last year entitled Sustainable
Finance Ratings as the Latest Symptom of “Rating Addiction”. As I will
be producing a chapter for a book next year, with that chapter being entitled Sustainable Rating Agencies, it seems
prudent to review the market and its developments.
The FT begins by noting that Moody’s has been making
particular waves in the marketplace, as they purchased
a majority stake in Vigeo Eiris earlier this year, and followed this with
the purchasing of Four
Twenty Seven. In June, S&P
published its first ESG evaluation – of the company NextEra Energy. The
article goes on to discuss how experts believe the market for sustainable-based
ratings will grow from $200 to $500 million in the next few years, with one
onlooker stating that the two agencies ‘know this will be a big market in the
future and it will only grow’. The article makes the accurate connection
between the growth of the marketplace, the attention of the rating agencies,
and regulatory designs which are pushing for increased sustainability disclosures.
This policy will, naturally, increase the need for the verification and
categorisation of this increased data. It should also have the theoretical
effect of making ESG-based ratings much more accurate, as disclosure increases.
However, that is only theoretical. The article discusses how
research has shown that the agencies, whilst focusing more on ESG, are not
disclosing their methodologies and, as a result, ‘ESG ratings from different sources
are aligned in about 6 out of 10 cases, whereas regular ratings for
creditworthiness match 99% of the time’. Whilst we may not want conformity in
this particular instance, a divergence of 40% seems to be too large for
investors to incorporate and understand. There are attempts to resolve this
issue – standards boards are aiming at creating a single rating spectrum – but the
accepted understanding is that this is some way off, if at all.
In my book I raised the issue of the credit rating agencies
moving into the marketplace in such a concerted way, that there was bound to be
problems. This report suggests that such a conclusion may well be accurate. If
the Top Two, in particular, continue at the pace they are setting, then they
will devour the market for ESG/sustainable ratings. If they do, then investors
will be left with just two choices. Perhaps some investors may suggest this is preferable,
given the massive divergence that exists currently within the ratings sphere
regarding ESG/sustainability. However, there is then scope for the engrained
conflicts of interest within the credit rating model to affect the sustainable
finance field. If the sustainable finance field is, as some would suggest, the
best response to the Crisis-era, then exposing that to the engrained conflicts
of interests within the credit rating industry may not be so preferable. It is
worth continuing to monitor this market, if only to confirm the hypotheses that
the oligopolistic credit rating industry is on its way to devouring the
ESG/sustainable ratings field.
Keywords – credit rating agencies, business, ESG,
sustainable finance, @finregmatters
Comments
Post a Comment