International regulatory body calls for end to 'hard wiring' of credit ratings in regulations

National authorities should end the "mechanistic reliance" of regulatory regimes and market participants on external credit ratings, which can lead to "herd behaviour and cliff effects" in market prices when downgrades occur, an international financial sector regulatory body says.

In a report to leaders of the Group of 20 nations, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) says it wants to end over reliance on credit rating agency ratings. It wants to end reliance by banks, institutional investors and other market participants by reducing the “hard wiring” of such ratings in standards, laws and regulations and by providing incentives for firms to develop their own capacity for credit risk assessment and due diligence.

"Authorities need to accelerate work to end the mechanistic reliance of regulatory regimes and of market participants on external ratings, which can lead to herd behaviour and cliff effects in market prices when downgrades occur," the FSB says.

"As demonstrated during the (global) financial crisis, such reliance can be a cause of herding behaviour and of abrupt sell-offs of securities when they are downgraded ('cliff effects') which can in turn amplify procyclicality and cause systemic disruption."

Use of credit ratings 'should not be mechanistic'

The FSB says it does, however, recognise credit rating agencies play an important role and their ratings can appropriately be used as an input to firms’ own judgement as part of internal credit assessment processes.

"But any use of credit rating agency ratings by a firm should not be mechanistic and does not lessen its own responsibility to ensure that its credit exposures are based on sound assessments."

The FSB says the greatest use of credit rating agency ratings among international standards is in the Basel banking framework, a New Zealand version of which was introduced by the Reserve Bank at the start of the year. Under Reserve Bank of New Zealand rules all banks, non-bank deposit takers and insurers must have a credit rating.

No comment from the RBNZ

Asked for comment a Reserve Bank spokesman said: "We are aware of the issues raised by the FSB but don’t have comment to make on the issues or on the progress report to the St Petersburg G20 Summit."

The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision, which oversees the Basel rules, has made proposals to reduce reliance on credit ratings.

"The challenge is to identify credible alternative standards of creditworthiness," the FSB says.

"At present, credit rating agency ratings continue to play a significant role in setting bank capital adequacy requirements, although they play a less prominent role in the prudential supervision of insurance companies and other non-bank financial intermediaries."

The FSB says both the United States and the European Union have taken significant steps to remove the hard-wiring of credit rating agency ratings from their rules and regulations, with the US having gone furthest through the Dodd-Frank Act.

"Progress in most other jurisdictions has been slower."

"Market participants need to improve their own capacity to make their own credit assessments in order that they can safely reduce their reliance on credit rating agency ratings. This too presents challenges and will take time," the FSB says.

See credit ratings explained here.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment or click on the "Register" link below a comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

3 Comments

This is just confirming the reality of Basel III introducing the right of banks to choose their own risk weighting ratios to apply to assets (credit). In effect self regulating.
 
How will it end? Not well.
 
Under OBR, NZ depositors (unsecured creditors) certainly need to have better access to risk analysis determining the actual publicly agreed day to day quality of bank assets and the quantified impact of systemic insolvency. Behind the scenes transfer of risk to unsecured bank creditors without a concomitant increase in legally enforced public srutiny and appropriately adjusted risk returns borders on outright regulatory negligence, if not fraud. 

Yes and something I hadn't thought about OBR came up when enquiring of Bonus Bonds whether their investments were subject to the OBR. They didn't provide a clear answer - yes or no - so I emailed RBNZ. And a very nice prompt reply - so all credit to them.
 
The shortened version of what they said was this;
 
With regard to your specific query: the manager of the bonus bonds or unit trust would normally invest in a variety of instruments like bank deposits, bonds, and other debt securities.
 
If a bank was to become distressed, and the Open Bank Resolution option was used, the potential partial freeze would apply to the deposits made on behalf of the bonus bonds or unit trusts in that particular bank.
 
Nowhere to hide, eh!
 

POS (point of sale)  discussion paper depending on how it would be implemented seems a rational starting point. If the POS is applied across ALL products sold then some security to depositors and account holders would be had. While I haven't read the full article below I would be interested to know what the interpretation of the word Product would be. Would all accounts come under the Product umbrella etc?
 
http://www.bis.org/publ/joint32.htm
 
In regards to the credit ratings I would ask the question: Have credit ratings served the system well? My answer would have to be NO.