S&P Revised Bank Ratings Criteria and BICRA Methodologies

Standard & Poor's has just released revised bank ratings criteria. The new criteria aims to provide greater insight into how banks are rated, and claims that the new approach is more 'intuitive'. It builds on existing methodology but aims to simplify and incorporate what has been learned over the past few years throughout the financial crisis. According to Standard & Poor's, the stresses of the crisis have forced banking to reinvent itself. There has been, and continues to be, a potential shift in the balance of power between banks in the west and those in BRICs nations, and while recovery in the former is not a foregone conclusion, neither is sustained growth in the latter. Moreover, there has also be a shift in business volumes away from the formal banking sector towards the shadow banking sector. This is somewhat due to heavier regulation of banks following the crisis and the more stringent capital and liquidity requirements. Restrictions on higher risk activities have also forced these operations elsewhere, meaning that profit margins on regulated banking activities are likely to be reduced over coming years. Moreover, government support for banks is also less certain, with moves by many governments to support certain activities, sectors, and institutions, or in some cases to make it clear to the markets that no institution is too big to fail. The new criteria are designed to reflect the changes that are taking place, and keep pace with current market practice.

The new criteria also aim to establish a greater degree of global consistency across the ratings frameworks and - interestingly - in so doing to sustain market confidence in the ratings.

The revised BICRA (Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment and Assumptions) methodology results from consultations carried out throughout 2010 following a request for comment back in January 2010. According to the feedback from this request, Standard & Poor's report that one of the most often cited complaints was a lack of clarity about the criteria and how it was applied. Consequently, Standard & Poor's appears to be on something akin to a PR drive at the moment to publicize and more importantly explain how the methodology works.

So what is new?

The criteria take a revised approach to investment banking, with elements allowing for a greater differentiation of risk. This can now be taken into account with the business profile. Credit risks of banks operating in different business lines are also more clearly differentiated, meaning that risks pertaining to a specific sector can be more accurately expressed.

Secondly, criticism was levelled in replies to the 2010 request for comments that no account was taken of stronger liquidity of institutions in funding analysis. Under the revised criteria, "funding and liquidity" is a discreet factor. Now, when this is above average (strong liquidity and above-average funding), the standalone credit profile can be raised by one notch.

Thirdly, criticism was also directed at the practice of using capital standards globally. Under this system, the RAC (risk adjusted capital) ratio of banks operating in higher risk countries would be assessed in the same way as banks operating in lower risk countries. However, the capital standards one would expect to be achieved by a bank operating in a high risk country would, on average, be less. Under the revised criteria, country profiles are taken into account, and therefore for a bank operating in a higher risk country with a standalone credit risk anchor of BB or B-, slightly lower RAC ratios (moderate amounts of capital) falling just short of the usual 5-7% will not automatically see a rating reduced by one notch, as was previously the case. Risk adjusted capital frameworks (bank capital methodology) remain unchanged.

Finally, the BICRA methodology, while retaining its original structure, has been tightened somewhat. The criteria has been integrated more sovereign analysis in an attempt to make ratings more consistent. The BICRA methodology itself is designed to allow for evaluations and comparisons between global banking systems, with the system being given a BICRA score between 1 and 10, with 1 comprising the lowest risk groups and 10 the highest. A BICRA analysis for a country includes both rated and unrated financial institutions that take deposits and/or extend credit within a particular country. The new methodology takes a macroeconomic approach, looking at the entire financial system of a country and considering the relationship between the banking system and financial system as a whole, including the impact of non-bank market participants. The macroeconomic approach also assesses the influence of government supervision and regulation of the banking sector, including emergency support mechanisms, although note that targeted government intervention for systemically significant institutions is reflected through ratings uplift rather than BICRA.
The methodology remains divided into the two main areas of economic risk and industry risk, which are each further subdivided into three. Standard & Poor's claim that this will not only make the analysis easier for the user to assess, but will make bank ratings more consistent with their sovereign counterparts. Each factor is assessed for an economic and industrial score for each country - the BICRA score. The rating methodology for banks uses the economic and industrial profiles produced by the BICRA analysis to give an anchor which then acts as the starting point for determining the bank's stand alone credit profile (SACP). Following this, factors such as support from a government or parent group are considered before an overall rating is assigned.

The guidance notes go on to state that the creditworthiness of a sovereign and its banking sector are closely related, and that many of the factors underlying a sovereign rating are relevant in determining a BICRA score. Also, the sovereign rating methodology is applied in assessing sub-factor such as "economic resilience" and "economic imbalances". The methodology also recognizes that the influence of a sovereign's creditworthiness on the related BICRA is more pronounced when the sovereign's creditworthiness deteriorates.

In a paper written last year I suggested that greater amounts of end-user due diligence could be encouraged to relieve some of the excess reliance on market 'opinions' produced by credit rating agencies. The revision of analyses to enable users of ratings to more readily understand the methodology certainly goes some way towards increasing the transparency of the methods used and analysis undertaken by the agency and should be applauded. However we should be careful. The methodology is certainly more accessible, and Standard & Poor's are clearly aware that greater transparency of process is necessary for market trust and maintaining reputational capital. But we are still none the wiser as to the quality of information that goes in to the algorithms, or indeed what institutional and economic assumptions these latter are based on.

The new criteria are due to be applied in November/December 2011, and Standard & Poor's claims that the impact of the new methodologies will be less than previously feared, with 90% of new rating anticipated to remain within one notch of their previous rating. The agency claims that around 10% of A1 ratings will fall to A2 as a result of the revisions.

All criteria documents can be accessed online, and each has a straightforward explanation of the function and purpose of the criteria.

... and the downgrades continue

And so the banking crises and the sovereign debt crises rumble on, with endless meetings in Brussels that have so far achieved stupendously little given the time already devoted. We are being reassured that progress is taking place, so perhaps just a little longer...

In the meantime several more European downgrades have been occupying the rating agencies. On the 18th October Moody's cut Spain's sovereign credit rating, making it the last of the big three rating agencies to take such action, lowering the rating from Aa2 to A1. A couple of weeks before, Fitch had cut Spain's sovereign rating to A minus from double A, followed closely by a similar move by Standard and Poor's. Considering Spain's sovereign rating was triple A status until September last year, recent downgrades mark the latest turn in a significant drop. Moody's cited reasons of political uncertainty (further elections could see the conservative People's Party make huge gains in elections on November 20th), unrealistic deficit reduction plans (from 9.2 per cent of GDP last year to 4.4 per cent in 2012) with equally unrealistic growth figures (forecasts of 1.8 per cent growth have been estimated by Moody's to be closer to 1 per cent). Further reasons cited include the government debts of Spain's 17 autonomous regions, and the willingness of these to curb their spending.

Moody's have also downgraded both Belgium and Italy, the latter following a similar move by Standard and Poor's last month. Standard and Poor's have also downgraded three large Italian banks although it confirmed the ratings of 18 large banks - including the largest by assets. 21 regional banks were also downgraded. However concerns have been raised by the head of Italy's banking association and chairman of Monte dei Paschi, Giuseppe Mussari, that EU bank recapitalisation plans being discussed in Brussels could do more harm than good in Italy by forcing banks to hold 'unnecessary' amounts of capital and exacerbating the sovereign debt crisis. Italy's 10-year bond yield rose 7 basis points to 5.867 per cent on Tuesday, the highest close since before the European Central Bank began buying Italian bonds on August 8 to try keep down borrowing costs.

As negotiations to bail out Greece and the Euro with it continue in Brussels, Moody's has announced that it may change the outlook on France's triple A rating from stable to negative in the next three months. As is customary in such situations, a downgrade is neither forthcoming or imminent, but the mere prospect of such sends shivers through the markets and French banks' shares fell following the announcement. Moody's praised France's 'very high economic strength', its 'ample capacity to absorb shocks' and its 'favourable public debt maturity', along with political efforts aimed at fiscal consolidation. However, the global financial and economic crisis had, according to the rating agency, led to a deterioration in French 'government debt metrics'.

The agency stated that France's finances were now among the weakest of those countries which still had a triple A rating. France's public finances are not only looking vulnerable but French banks are heavily indebted to Greece. Standard and Poor's last week downgraded BNP Paribas by one notch from double A to double A minus citing exposure to Greek debt. What's more, major consequences could follow for France if Greece defaults on its liabilities and markets react poorly, or if there are any further defaults. Add in the fact that France has been gradually becoming less competitive for businesses over the past years - in contrast to neighbouring Germany - and it becomes easy to understand why Sarkozy might be worried. Moody's isn't alone, however, as Standard and Poor's included France in the role call of countries likely to see further downgrades in the case of a double dip recession - alongside Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal. France's public debt is approaching 90 per cent of GDP and so a downgrade could prove extremely painful, even though this figure is set to fall as France's budgetary deficit is brought down from 5.7% currently to 3% in 2013. These figures are - as most Eurozone projections - based on optimistic growth forecasts. France anticipates 1.75% over the next year. Most commentators doubt this will materialize, either making deficit reduction a longer-term goal, or necessitating further austerity measures in the run up to the election next year.

France is already committed to €158.5bn ($217bn) in guarantees for the new eurozone rescue fund, the European financial stability facility, which is equivalent to 8.5 per cent of GDP. It has also just agreed to guarantees for the failing Franco-Belgian bank Dexia. Now these don't matter much unless and until one of these fails, at which point the government is bound to step in. But it does mean that France has much less room for manoeuvre on its balance sheets than it did three years ago, leaving it vulnerable to further financial shocks. It is also limited in the resources it can supply to the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), and Germany's peas for a greater Greek write-off followed by French re-leveraging of banks is, as a consequence, increasingly difficult. Politically, at least, Sarkozy has hailed the AAA rating as 'untouchable', and while rating agencies take political direction into account, it will no doubt take more than a statement of intent to preserve France's rating.

Bank of America - Too Big To Fail No Longer?

Can a bank ever be too big to fail?

After a three month review the rating of long term Bank of America debt has been downgraded a couple of notches from A2 to Baa1. Moody's have cited the reduced chance of a full-scale bailout by the US government should the bank run into difficulties, although the rating agency concedes that should trouble occur, it is still likely that some government help would be likely. According to Moody's, allowing a troubled bank to fail is now more likely than previously because of a realisation that this approach reduces the risk of contamination. Citigroup's long term rating and Wells Fargo's rating have also both been downgraded.

So are taxpayers safe from future bailouts? Are the big banks now no longer "too big to fail"? In its report, accessible here, Moody's states:

"Moody's continues to see the probability of support for highly interconnected, systemically important institutions as very high, although that probability is lower than it was during the financial crisis. During the crisis, the risk of contagion to the US and global financial system from a major bank failure was viewed as too great to allow such a failure to occur -- a view borne out in the aftermath of the Lehman failure. This led the government to extend an unusual level of support to weakened financial institutions and Moody's to incorporate the expectations of such support in its ratings. Now, having moved beyond the depths of the crisis, Moody's believes there is an increased possibility that the government might allow a large financial institution to fail, taking the view that contagion could be limited."


So Moody's believes that the worst of the financial crisis is over and that we are emerging into the sunny uplands of recovery? Maybe not, however there seems to have been a shift in perception that contagion can now be stopped not by bailing out huge financial institutions, but by letting them fail. There are obviously political implications in protecting the taxpayer from more massive bills (more on this later), however provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that work to reduce interconnectedness among financial institutions can also explain this. Under rules recently finanalized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the orderly liquidation authority set out in Dodd-Frank sets out a clear intent to impose future losses on bond holders in the event that a systemically important bank - such as the Bank of America - was nearing failure.

However, as yet the parts of Dodd-Frank that would serve to reduce interconnectedness among financial institutions, such as resolution plans or changes to over-the-counter derivatives markets, are still pending. It would therefore be extremely difficult for an orderly liquidation of an institution the size of Bank of America to occur at the present time, and consequently Moody's believes that for this reason, should disaster strike, the government would still be compelled to provide some financial support. Reliance on the ordinary liquidation authority to resolve a systemically important bank would prove too disruptive to the marketplace and wider economy, leading to a situation almost as undesirable as those Dodd-Frank was designed to avoid.

Bank of America, according to Moody's is still exposed to "potentially significant" levels of risk related to both residential mortgages and home equity loans that are still languishing on its balance sheet. Moreover, while Bank of America has taken steps to improve its capital and liquidity positions, and while Moody's believes that it has an ample buffer to absorb any losses that might occur as a result of bad debts, a deterioration in the economic environment or adverse legal rulings on claims against it might serve to tip the balance against the bank's long term financial stability. Of course, these latter are not within the direct control of management of the Bank, meaning that short of further increasing their "modest" capital and liquidity, there is little more the Bank can do except weather the storm out. Of course, following a downgrade of long term debt by the CRA, this one option available to the Bank of America is now just that little bit harder.

So can a bank ever be too big to fail? The obvious answer has to be yes, however the political climate in which a financial crisis materializes should not be underestimated. Is Moody's taking into account the rise of the Tea Party movement in the US? Considering Obama's difficulties in raising the debt ceiling, and the way in which a left-leaning congress balked at previous bailouts, the increasingly vocal right wing in American politics is likely to signal the end for taxpayer support of financial institutions.