IOSCO Publishes Report on the Effect of Covid Economic Support on Credit Ratings

The Board of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) recently published a report regarding the effect on the credit ratings of the Big Three credit rating agencies (S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch) of the use of ‘Government Support Measures’ (GSM) relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. Interestingly, IOSCO combed public information and also liaised with the credit rating agencies themselves to study the methodological changes, and also the real effect changes to the ratings produced since the onset of the pandemic. The result is not really surprising, but there is a clear warning from the credit rating agencies, via IOSCO and this report, that the withdrawal of GSM across the board needs to be very gradual indeed.

 

The report, available here, contains the review of ratings from the Big Three in a variety of categories, ranging from structured finance ratings to sovereign ratings. IOSCO start by stating that ‘the analysis includes a review of any changes made to the methodologies, their application to rating actions taken during the timeframe of the pandemic, as well as implications of the withdrawal of GSMs on credit ratings and methodologies’. Rightly, the report follows with ‘the pandemic’s economic and market turmoil led to many credit rating downgrades and has put credit rating agencies and their credit ratings into greater regulatory, industry and media focus’. The credit rating agencies, since the pandemic started, have produced more than 20,000 ratings between them, which has been identified as being proportionally higher than the previous 3-year range. This is not surprising of course, given the environment we inhabit at the moment, but the question is how have the agencies responded to this unique environment?

 


The report found that the agencies did consider the usage of GSMs heavily, suggesting that ‘GSMs have a significant role in alleviating the downward pressure on credit ratings’. However, there were issues with regards to the transparency surrounding these ratings – as if often the case with the leading credit rating agencies – because, as the report states, ‘the review observed no material changes to CRA methodologies. However, according to CRAs, certain assumptions or stress scenarios used in assessing credit ratings were updated to reflect the change in the macro-economic outlook. CRAs explained that the methodologies are sufficiently flexible in their application to account for a variety of economic shocks and scenarios’. This may well be the case, but a. this is all on the CRAs word, without evidence, and without anything that can be measured – how are ‘assumptions’ measured? Also, can the rating agencies pre-pandemic methodologies really be so flexible to account for a global pandemic? It is questionable, and these issues are the ones continually highlighted by the critics of the rating agencies.

 

Ultimately, the Report concludes that the credit rating agencies view the usage and continuation of GSMs as positive, particularly in the developed world. However, in both the developed and developing worlds, the process of GSMs must be reduced gradually because not doing so could be regarded negatively by the agencies – this is particularly important for developing countries, the credit rating agencies say. This makes sense, of course, because the need to return to pre-pandemic economic levels needs to be balanced with the level of GSM utilised by governments. What IOSCO do not question is the assumptive quality of the credit ratings themselves. They do finish by suggesting that ‘the impact of GSMs on credit ratings should continue to be monitored through regular supervisory channels’, but that is all. Again, the official viewpoint is that the rating agencies will be free to determine what is material, and when. Perhaps that is not the role of the regulators – which may well be the case – but the conclusion has to be that the economic arena is subject to the credit rating agencies’ assumptions. This is a vitally important understanding, and one the global regulators always need to consider.

 

Keywords – credit ratings, ISOCO, @finregmatters 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lloyds Bank and the PPI Scandal: The Premature ‘Out of the Woods’ Rhetoric

Image
Today’s very short post focuses upon the news that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has recently extended the deadline to claim compensation for mis-sold ‘Payment Protection Insurance’ (PPI). Whilst a lot of financial institutions will have to prepare to offset the extended deadline, it is Lloyds that has grabbed the business headlines by apportioning an extra £350 million to offset any further claims that may be made of it – however, this comes only a week or two after the Bank posted its best performance figures in over a decade, as was previously discussed in Financial Regulation Matters . This post will therefore argue that the rhetoric being advanced recently regarding Lloyds – rhetoric like Lloyds represents ‘ a modern day success story ’ is wide of the mark and creates a false sense of security that we simply cannot afford to believe in. The ‘ robust recovery ’ was heralded far and wide upon the publication of Lloyds Bank’s financial performance for the previous fi
Read more

The Analytical Credit Rating Agency: A New Entrant That Will Further Enhance Russia’s Isolation

Image
This short post is based upon a forthcoming article by this author that examines the viability of the latest entrant into the credit rating arena, the Analytical Credit Rating Agency (ACRA). The article, which is due to be published in the European Company Law Journal (and is available here in a pre-published version), looks at the chances of the ACRA succeeding when viewed within the parameters of perception , an aspect that underpins the credit rating sector. For this post, the focus will be upon introducing the ACRA, and then on examining the effect it may have upon the wider political issues affecting the Russian Federation. The Analytical Credit Rating Agency was established in November 2015 and comprises of 27 major Russian companies and financial institutions that serve as its shareholders. The agency, which became the first rating agency to receive accreditation from the Russian Central Bank under the new N 222-FZ Law which was designed to protect investors, has a re
Read more

The Case of Purdue Pharma, the Sackler Family, and the Opioid Crisis

Image
In the first of two short posts today, we will look at the case of the billionaire Sackler Family and their remarkable effect upon American society. The family, who own Purdue Pharma amongst a list of other ventures, have this week seen a massive legal action taken against them by the State of New York who argue that the company is ‘ responsible for the opioid epidemic ’ sweeping through the United States. The attorney-general for New York has called the lawsuit the ‘ nation’s most extensive ’ with respect to the pharmaceutical industry and comes right on the heels of a $270 million suit that was settled in the State of Oklahoma on exactly the same grounds. Whilst the company and the billionaire family who own it did not admit guilt (settling parties rarely do, hence why they settle outside of court) it has potentially opened the trapdoors for litigation. It comes as no surprise then that the company is reportedly considering bankruptcy proceedings in the face of such an onsl
Read more