Wed, May 23, 2018
A A A
Welcome Guest
Free Trial RSS
Get FREE trial access to our award winning publications
Industry Updates

SFC Consultation on Credit Rating Agencies

Saturday, July 24, 2010
Opalesque Industry Update - Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has issued a consultation paper seeking public feedback on its proposals to introduce a regulatory regime for credit rating agencies (CRAs). The firms will be subject to licensing requirements, with their existing rating analysts grandfathered into the new regime on the basis that they "invariably are highly qualified".

However, following the apparent contribution of poor quality credit ratings to the global financial crisis, the appropriate regulatory environment for this industry is still evolving and hotly debated. Whilst the SFC's licensing proposals have been driven in large part by new European Union regulations (forcing other jurisdictions to adopt "equivalent" regulations if ratings produced by their local CRAs are to remain serviceable in Europe), recent developments in the United States could also have a significant impact on the industry worldwide.

The Dodd-Frank Act, signed into law by President Obama on 21 July 2010, includes a provision repealing immunities previously enjoyed by CRAs from liability for their opinions. The "Big Three" generally thought to own the credit rating universe – Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch – immediately reacted by prohibiting use of their ratings in new bond sales in the United States. At least until CRAs work out how to protect their interests under the new rules, this has effectively shut down some of the bond markets.

Whilst the SFC's consultation paper will clearly be of interest to the Big Three, all of which have offices in Hong Kong, it is also important for other entities to consider whether the proposals could affect their own operations. The SFC has made a worthy effort to identify activities that (without careful drafting of definitions for "credit ratings" and "providing credit rating services" in proposed amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance), could inadvertently be captured under the new regime.

Many organisations produce ratings that closely resemble those of traditional CRAs – such as banks' in-house assessments of counterparty risk. The SFC currently has no interest in licensing such activities, essentially on the grounds that the ratings are produced for internal purposes rather than for public consumption. Given that banks may distribute their ratings amongst group companies, however, the rating activities of banks (and others) can be difficult to distinguish from the activities of the traditional CRAs.

Similarly, the SFC's objectives do not include the creation of licensing obligations in relation to private credit ratings prepared pursuant to an individual order, the sharing or analyzing of consumer or commercial credit data (such as through consumer or commercial credit reference agencies), or the sharing or analyzing of personal consumer credit data.

The SFC has found a number of smaller CRAs, whose business models may differ significantly from those of their larger competitors. Given the overwhelming dominance of the Big Three (across the ratings industry as a whole, if not in some niche areas), it will be particularly important for smaller CRAs to ensure that the SFC has not overlooked their individual circumstances in drafting licensing requirements that will have to apply across the whole industry.

The SFC has taken the opportunity to attempt to distinguish "providing credit rating services" from "advising on securities". Issuing credit ratings has historically been considered to fall outside the definition of "advising on securities" on the basis that credit ratings are issued specifically for the purpose of indicating creditworthiness, rather than for facilitating decisions on whether securities should be acquired or disposed of. It is in the interests of issuers of credit ratings, and even of anyone involved in republication of credit ratings, to ensure that the distinction is properly achieved. Likewise, it is in the interests of persons licensed for Type 4 regulated activity (advising on securities) to ensure that the new Type 10 regulated activity (providing credit rating services) will not inadvertently capture anything that they may do, such as issuing broker recommendations.

Perhaps most importantly, given that soft consultation with major stakeholders will already have been undertaken, the SFC will also be looking for feedback from the users of credit ratings, including the issuers of debt securities who engage CRAs to rate their products. The "issuer pays" business model is deeply controversial, with many commentators believing that this arrangement leaves CRAs – whose revenues depend on the issuers whose products they rate – hopelessly conflicted. For this reason, the draft Code of Conduct for CRAs (attached to the SFC's consultation paper) includes a raft of measures designed to ameliorate inherent conflicts of interest in the rating process. These measures will change the way that issuers deal with CRAs, particularly when negotiating fees.

In light of continuing international developments, it is likely there will be some changes to the SFC's proposed regime before it is implemented. Accordingly, the many various parties who may be affected are encouraged to comment. The SFC's consultation paper, which was issued on 19 July 2010, is available at: Source
KM

What do you think?

   Use "anonymous" as my name    |   Alert me via email on new comments   |   
Today's Exclusives Today's Other Voices More Exclusives
Previous Opalesque Exclusives                                  
More Other Voices
Previous Other Voices                                               
Access Alternative Market Briefing

 



  • Top Forwarded
  • Top Tracked
  • Top Searched
  1. News Briefs - Warren Buffett: Target date funds aren't the way to go, Cambridge Analytica could be reborn under a different name[more]

    Warren Buffett: Target date funds aren't the way to go Planning for retirement can be complicated and stressful. This is why target date funds - funds that are managed based on when you expect to retire - are so attractive. Over time, the balance of stocks, bonds and cash evolve automati

  2. Investing - Hedge funds hike Smurfit Kappa positions amid takeover deal hopes, Hedge fund IBV Capital digs deep to unlock long-term value in a competitive market, Eisman of 'The Big Short' fame recommends shorting Deutsche Bank[more]

    Hedge funds hike Smurfit Kappa positions amid takeover deal hopes From Irishtimes.com: Two US hedge funds, Davidson Kempner and York Capital, have accumulated a combined 4.74 per cent interest in cardboard box maker Smurfit Kappa using financial derivatives. It comes as many investors cl

  3. Foundations of hedge fund managers gave big to controversial donor-advised funds[more]

    In the world of philanthropy and tax-deductible charitable giving, the explosion of donor-advised funds has touched off intense debate. Now, there is evidence that the DAF boom is being further fuelled by hedge fund foundation money. Four of the top five foundations that gave the most to large do

  4. Study: For hedge funds, smaller is better[more]

    From Institutionalinvestor.com: The smaller the hedge fund is, the better its performance is likely to be, according to a new study. The study - "Size, Age, and the Performance Life Cycle of Hedge Funds," released April 26 - sought to determine whether a hedge fund's size and age had any effect on i

  5. Hedge fund returns rose in April for first gain since January[more]

    From Bloomberg.com: Bloomberg Hedge Fund Database shows returns flat this year - Currency strategies had the biggest monthly gain at 13% Hedge fund returns increased 0.78 percent in April, reversing two consecutive monthly declines. The swing of 134 basis points was driven by gains in all seven