The As, Bs and Cs
When investing in bonds, the larger banks, fund managers and corporates often conduct their own credit analysis of individual bond issues, but the majority of the huge volume of bond investments are made using CRA ratings for guidance.
The top part of Table 5.1 shows the ratings regarded as investment grade (prime grade). This is important because many institutional investors are permitted to invest only in investment-grade securities. The difference in bond yield between the different grades can be as little as 30 basis points, but this can rise dramatically at times of financial trauma, e.g. in early 2009.The ratings that CRAs give to countries, sovereign ratings, can vary - see Table 5.2. A notch is a one-stage move on the rating scale, e.g. moving from A- to BBB+. The UK lost its AAA rating with some of the CRAs in 2013, due to concern about future financial stability. S&P downgraded the US to AA+ in 2011 after the prolonged political wranglings over the US government debt level, and the Chinese agency, Dagong, caused controversy by downgrading the US rating by several notches, from AAA to A-, in 2013 when the US government could not agree on its financial policy (again, arguments in Congress over the debt ceiling) and came dangerously close to being unable to meet the payments due on its bonds. The Chinese are concerned about the US debt burden as they are the biggest holders of US Treasury securities, at $1.3 trillion:
For a long time the U.S. government maintains its solvency by repaying its old debts through raising new debts, which constantly aggravates the vulnerability of the federal government’s solvency. Hence the government is still approaching the verge of default crisis, a situation that cannot be substantially alleviated in the foreseeable future.
Dagong Global (http://en.dagongcredit.com)
Table 5.1 Credit rating systems for long-term debt (more than one year)
| Moody's | S&P | Fitch | Dagong | ||
| Investment grade | |||||
| Aaa | AAA | AAA | Highest quality, minimal credit risk | AAA | Highest credit quality |
| Aa1 | AA+ | AA+ | AA+ | ||
| Aa2 | AA | AA | High grade, high quality, very low credit risk | AA | Very high credit quality |
| Aa3 | AA- | AA- | AA- | ||
| A1 | A+ | A+ | A+ | ||
| A2 | A | A | Upper medium grade, low credit risk | A | High credit quality |
| A3 | A- | A- | A- | ||
| Baa1 | BBB+ | BBB+ | Lower medium grade, moderate credit risk, possessing certain | BBB+ | |
| Baa2 | BBB | BBB | BBB | Medium credit quality | |
| Baa3 | BBB- | BBB- | speculative characteristics | BBB- | |
| Non-investment grade (speculative grade) | |||||
| Ba1 | BB+ | BB+ | BB+ | ||
| Ba2 | BB | BB | Speculative elements, subject to significant credit risk | BB | Low-medium credit quality |
| Ba3 | BB- | BB- | BB- | ||
| B1 | B+ | B+ | B+ | ||
| B2 | B | B | Speculative, high credit risk | B | Relatively low credit quality |
| B3 | B- | B- | B- | ||
| Caa | CCC+ | Poor standing, very high credit risk | CCC | Low credit quality | |
| Highly speculative, likely, in the near | Very low credit quality | ||||
| Ca | CCC | CCC | future, to default with some prospect of principal and coupon recovery | CC | |
| C | CCC- | Typically in default with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest | C | Lowest credit quality | |
| In default. These trade on the | |||||
| D | D | assumed recovery rate following | |||
| default | |||||
Source: Data from Rating agencies
Table 5.2 Sovereign ratings
| Dagong | S&P | Moody’s | Fitch | |
| Australia | AAA | AAA | Aaa | AAA |
| Belgium | A+ | AA | Aa3 | AA |
| Brazil | A- | BBB+ | Baa2 | BBB |
| Canada | AA+ | AAA | Aaa | AAA |
| China | AA+ | AA- | Aa3 | A+ |
| Egypt | B- | B- | Caa1 | B- |
| Finland | AAA | AAA | Aaa | AAA |
| France | A+ | AA | Aa1 | AA+ |
| Germany | AA+ | AAA | Aaa | AAA |
| Greece | CC | B- | Caa3 | B |
| Hong Kong | AAA | AAA | Aa1 | AA+ |
| India | BBB | BBB- | Baa3 | BBB- |
| Ireland | BBB | A- | Baa1 | BBB+ |
| Italy | BBB- | BBB | bgcolor=white>Baa2BBB+ | |
| Japan | A | AA- | Aa3 | A+ |
| Luxembourg | AAA | AAA | Aaa | AAA |
| Mexico | BBB | A | A3 | BBB+ |
| Netherlands | AA+ | AA+ | Aaa | AAA |
| New Zealand | AA+ | AA+ | Aaa | AA |
| Norway | AAA | AAA | Aaa | AAA |
| Portugal | BB | BB | Ba1 | BB+ |
| Russia | A | BBB | Baa1 | BBB |
| Singapore | AAA | AAA | Aaa | AAA |
| South Africa | A- | BBB+ | Baa1 | BBB |
| South Korea | AA- | AA- | Aa3 | AA- |
| Spain | BBB+ | BBB | Baa3 | BBB+ |
| Sweden | AAA | AAA | Aaa | AAA |
| Switzerland | AAA | AAA | Aaa | AAA |
| UK | A+ | AAA | Aa1 | AA+ |
| USA | A- | AA+ | Aaa | AAA |
Source: Data from CRAs' websites
When the rating agencies disagree we have a split rating - as you can see, this occurs quite often.
The rating and re-rating of bonds is followed with great interest by borrowers and lenders and can give rise to some heated argument. Italians were very upset in 2014 when S&P was accused of taking insufficient account of the country's qualities - see Article 5.1.