Huarong Issues Hint at Deeper Issues for the Credit Rating Agencies and their New Chinese Adventure
In today’s short post, the developing problems with Huarong – a state-backed asset manager that is one of China’s largest offshore issuers – are revealing some engrained issues within the credit rating industry that may provide insight into the future of the Big Three’s relationship with China as it continues to open its doors to the international rating agencies.
The company has missed a number of financial disclosure
deadlines and, according to the Financial Times, is in the middle
of a massive sell-off, which started a few weeks ago. However, it is only
over the past few days that the rating agencies have begun to take action,
which is leading some to declare that there
are similarities between this and the agencies’ actions regarding the collapse
of Lehman Brothers. Whilst some negative credit watches have been
established, it is Fitch who have broken rank and downgraded the company, from
A to BBB. The company itself is in disarray, with it declaring that it will
miss an April deadline to report its financials, as well its chairman Lai
Xiaomin being executed
in January for crimes that included bigamy and the abuse of power to allocate
credit. Bloomberg asks how the rating agencies have gotten it so wrong
again, and there is a particular reason for this.
In providing context for its downgrade, Fitch declared that it
‘believes
the government sponsor’s indication of support has not been forthcoming’,
which all three agencies have relied on given that, as of last June, the
company was 57% owned by the Ministry of Finance. As the company was set up in
1999 to help banks dispose of their distressed assets, Moody’s believed that
they would be enjoying a ‘very
high level’ of government support, and therefore provided it with some its
highest ratings. Moody’s even declared in a report published last year that a
stand-alone credit analysis on these companies i.e. not taking into account
governmental support, is ‘either
irrelevant or misleading’. However, this hints at a much larger problem.
The Chinese environment is a controlled environment, and the
international agencies will never be in a position to understand the rationale
and direction of the controlling communist party; the agencies are placed
within a reactionary position, in that sense. So, rating very highly on the
premise of governmental intervention is both particularly short-sighted and
also favours state-owned enterprises in a slightly imbalanced way. When it
comes to firms that issue offshore bonds, the international investor ought to
consider this dynamic much more than they are doing. The credit rating agencies
are not in a position to know the directing mindset behind governmental intervention,
and they are also, arguably, in a conflicted position whereby providing support
to state-owned enterprises keeps the government onside in what is an incredibly
lucrative endeavour for the for-profit rating agencies. The Chinese realm is
the new goldrush for the agencies, and this needs to be remembered at all times
as well. If one applies just an ounce of cynicism, then the answer to Bloomberg’s
question of ‘how have the rating agencies gotten it so wrong again?’ is
arguably clear for all to see.
Keywords – China, Huarong, offshore
Comments
Post a Comment