The EU Publishes a Report on Credit Rating Practices in the CLO Market
Today’s post is just a very short alert on the publication
of a report today by the EU. The report, entitled ‘Thematic Report: EU CLO
credit ratings – an overview of Credit Rating Agencies practices and challenges’
is available here.
The aim of the report is to examine the rating practices that underlay the
development of collateralised loan obligations, with a particular focus on how
risk is identified and transmitted within the process. There is also a distinct
focus on the stress-testing that the agencies undertake for these products,
with ESMA stating in their press release that they ‘expect
CRAs to continue to perform regular stress-testing simulations and to provide
market participants with granular information on the sensitivity of CLO credit
ratings to key economic variables affected by the pandemic’. Steven
Maijoor, the Chair of the Regulator, went further and stated that the regulator’s
assessments of the agencies’ practices in this particular sector ‘highlight
a number of supervisory concerns and risks associated with risking this asset
class’. These supervisory concerns include:
· The internal organisation of CRAs – specifically
regarding sharing information between groups of analysts so that a holistic
picture of CLO creditworthiness is reached;
· The interactions with CLO issuers – issuers can
identify which agency provides for the best ratings for a particular tranche,
so ‘shopping’ and commercial conflicts are a worry for regulators;
· Model/third party dependencies leading to
potential operational risks – there is a dependency on data provided by third
parties, which needs to be thoroughly accounted for;
· Rating methodologies, modelling risks and
commercial influence – because CLO models and methodologies are underpinned by
assumptions, regulators want CRAs to be clear on the limitations of their
methodologies;
· The thorough analysis of CLOs – regulators want
the CRAs to carefully monitor market trends and perform thorough analyses of
the CLOs they rate.
Despite the conflicting messages within the final two issues
– ESMA acknowledge that the CLO methodologies are underpinned by assumption,
but simultaneously request that CLOs are thoroughly analysed – the majority of
the issues raised by ESMA are issues that are consistently raised. The need for
the protection of analyst independence, a reduction in commercial conflicts of
interest, and a holistic process to examining creditworthiness are all common
calls in this sector. What it does tell us is that the EU is attempting to be
proactive regarding credit rating regulation in this current climate, perhaps
on the back of developments including the ECB
dismissing traditional rating cut-off points, and prominent politicians
calling for more
reform in the wake of the pandemic-induced downgrades. How the EU continues
to respond will be interesting.
Keywords – EU, Rating agencies, @finregmatters
Comments
Post a Comment