The Rating Process July 2006
Fitch has standardid procedures for the preparation of ratings and the conduct of rating committees. This report summaris the typical rating process for the majority of Fitch’s traditional international scale credit ratings – procedures may vary including, for example, for the assignment of model-bad quantitative ratings as well as ast manager, fund, rvicer, operational risk or similar non-credit ratings. The paragraphs that follow should be read in conjunction with Fitch’s “Code of Conduct”, which was published in April 2005 and is available from Fitch’s free public website,
纱布是什么意思The disclaimers t forth in Section 4 of Fitch’s Code of Conduct apply equally here. Plea note, inter
能用机器人解决生理需求吗alia, that, with the publication of this document, Fitch does not intend to assume, and is not assuming, any responsibility or liability to any party arising out of, or with respect to, this document. This document is not intended to, and does not, form a part of any contract with anyone and no one shall have any right (contractual or otherwi) to enforce any of this document’s provisions, either directly or indirectly. Fitch may amend this document (and the process described herein) in its sole discretion, in any way Fitch es fit at any time.
>Analytical Team
At the start of the rating process each rated entity or transaction is assigned to a primary analyst, who works with the support of a back-up analyst. For corporate and public finance ratings, the primary analyst is responsible for leading the analysis and formulating a rating recommendation, and is typically also responsible for the continuous surveillance of the rating during the life of its publication. While the primary analyst for structured finance transactions is also responsible for leading the analysis and formulating the initial rating recommendations for the transaction, in most cas, they transfer responsibility for the ongoing surveillance of the transaction to a dedicated surveillance analyst after publication. Although Fitch analysts have a wide range of backgrounds, the majority are recruited from banks, insurance companies, investment hous and the financial depart
ments of major companies.
restful
>Input from Rated Entities
Fitch’s analysis and our rating decisions are bad on information received from all sources. This includes relevant publicly-available information on the issuer, such as company financial and operational statistics, reports filed with regulatory agencies and industry and economic reports. In addition, the rating process may incorporate data and insight gathered by analysts in the cour of their interaction with other entities across their ctor of experti.
The rating process also usually incorporates information provided directly by the rated issuer, arranger, sponsor or other involved party. This can include background data, forecasts, feedback on propod analytical rearch and other communications. Depending on the availability of management and the frequency or urgency of contact, this information is gathered through face-to-face management and treasury meetings, during site visits or via teleconferences and other correspondence. In general, the main topics for discussion and key questions are provided in advance of any management meetings and an agenda is established to ensure a productive dialogue. However, additional questions can ari during the cour of discussions.
With regard to corporate and financial institution ratings, an analyst’s main dialogue will typically be with nior executives from the financial departments of a rated entity, such as the chief financial officer or group treasurer. Nonetheless, they may also have discussions with nior strategic management, including the chief executive officer and chief risk officer where appropriate, as well as nior operational managers. For sovereign rating visits, analysts will meet with key policymakers and nior reprentatives of various public ctor institutions, such as the finance ministry and the central bank, as well as a number of informed outside obrvers of the political, economic and policy environment. Structured finance analysts will typically hold a dialogue with transaction arrangers and other agents of the issuer or originator, which in some cas will include site visits, on-site portfolio or rvicer reviews and similar face-to-face discussions.
For entity ratings, while historical performance often provides a starting point for our analysis, the outlook for the entity is the primary consideration in the determination of the rating. As such, Fitch will take into consideration both Fitch’s and, where appropriate, the entity’s medium-term projections
of operating and financial information. The forecasts are ud not so much as point estimates of financial parameters, but rather to provide a “road map” of the entity’s direction and the financial strategies that the entity is likely to u to achieve its strategic goals. At all times, Fitch must be satisfied that it has sufficient information to form a view on the creditworthiness of an entity or transaction. If Fitch does not have sufficient information either to assign or maintain a rating, then no rating will be assigned or maintained.
>The Committee Process
相去无几Ratings are assigned and reviewed using a committee process. The primary analyst incorporates the information from their rearch into their rating recommendation and supporting committee package. During this time, they also typically maintain a dialogue with the entity to resolve any outstanding issues or to request additional information.
Committees consider the information contained in the committee package, and a connsus decision is reached on an appropriate rating, including, where appropriate, a Rating Outlook or Rating Watch designation. Where entity ratings are assigned, the determination of an Issuer Default Rating or Long-term issuer rating is the primary focus of the committee. Issue ratings will be assigne
d relative to this rating and take into consideration Fitch’s opinion of the recovery prospects of different debt issues in the event of default.
The minimum committee size for rating decisions is generally four analysts, although many committees involve more analysts than this. The committee will generally include at least one analyst titled Senior Director or above. A Senior Director will typically average 6-7 years of tenure with Fitch, and/or a number of additional years of prior experience in the credit markets. The primary analyst for the credit will generally be one of the voters of record. Other voting members are chon bad on relevant experience. Rating committees frequently include analysts from outside the immediate ast class, sub-ctor or geographic area of the entity under review, since peer analysis (on a transaction or entity basis) is a central element of the rating committees’ discussions. Analysts joining Fitch are typically subject to a three-month non-voting ‘probationary’ period, but may attend committees as obrvers. The rating committee considers the relevant quantitative and qualitative issues to arrive at the rating that most appropriately reflects both the current situation and prospective performance. If there are no
unresolved issues, a rating is assigned and, to the extent feasible and appropriate, the outcome of the committee is communicated to the entity or, where applicable, their arranger/sponsor. If there are unresolved issues, the committee meeting may be suspended until the issues are resolved and a rating can be subquently determined. Where an ‘expected rating’ is assigned, this usually relates to a transaction rather than an entity rating. It indicates that the transaction will carry a finalid rating at that level subject to the receipt of final documentation that conforms with the assumptions prented to the committee.
>Criteria Development
Rating decisions are made in accordance with the methodologies and criteria applicable to that ctor. The methodologies themlves, and the criteria that determine rating levels within each major methodology, are created and revid by the analytical teams. New and revid criteria documents are reviewed by the agency’s global Criteria Committees, covering Corporate Finance, Structured Finance, Public Finance and Emerging Markets. The Committees meet regularly and are compod of nior analysts from a balanced lection of different analytical groups and international offices. New criteria that affect a wider range of analytical areas, or propo a new rating scale, are additionally submitted to Fitch’s multi-disciplinary Credit Policy Board, the nior-mo
st analytical decision-making body of the agency. The Credit Policy Board also rves as an appeal forum for the agency’s Criteria Committees. >Differences of Opiniondiscuss的用法
If a committee cannot reach a connsus, an appeal procedure exists for a review of the rating. In addition, in certain circumstances, an issuer may also request a review as long as it provides, in a timely manner, new or additional information that Fitch believes to be relevant to the rating. However, rating affirmations, Outlook changes and Rating Watch actions are not generally subject to review at the request of the issuer.
Where a review is considered appropriate, nior analysts not previously involved in the committee process join members of the original rating committee to reconsider the rating analysis. Fitch aims to conclude the review of any new rating expeditiously and the review of any existing ratings within two business days. In cas where the review of an existing rating is not finalid during that period, the rating is typically placed on Rating Watch Negative. As noted in the Fitch Ratings Code of Conduct, Fitch rerves the right to publish a public rating if circumstances warrant, even though a review may be in process.
Appendix A illustrates the credit rating and appeal process in more detail.
fuck the pain away>Access to Confidential Information
Analysts at Fitch regularly have access to confidential information. This is treated with appropriate nsitivity in accordance with Fitch’s confidentiality policy (Fitch Ratings Worldwide Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest and Securities Trading Policy), which is available from our free public website. Importantly, urs of our ratings should be aware that the analysis and committee decision for all Fitch ratings is bad on all information known to Fitch and believed by Fitch to be relevant to the rating decision. Therefore, information shared with one analytical group may be shared internally with another group if it is considered relevant.
Urs of ratings should nonetheless be aware of the general limitations on the nature of the information that rated entities make available to rating agencies. Fitch does not, and has no obligation to, audit or verify the accuracy of data provided. Moreover, issuers may choo not to share certain pieces of information with external parties, including rating agencies, at any time. While Fitch expects that each issuer that has agreed to participate in the rating process, or its agents, will s
upply promptly all information relevant to evaluating both the ratings of the issuer and all relevant curities, the agency neither has, nor would it ek, the right to compel the disclosure of information by any issuer. >Surveillance of Ratings
Unless they are of a ‘point-in-time’ nature, Fitch’s ratings are monitored on an ongoing basis and Fitch is staffed to ensure that this is possible.1 Analysts in all groups will initiate a rating review whenever they become aware of any business, financial, operational or other information that they believe might reasonably be expected to result in a rating action, consistent with the relevant criteria and methodologies. Thus, for example, an operational or fiscal deterioration, an acquisition, a divestiture, or the announcement of a major share repurcha may all trigger an immediate rating review. Conquently, the review process should be regarded as a continuous one. Ratings are also subject to formal periodic reviews.shots是什么意思
>Rating Dismination
思想政治教育专业考研Following the completion of a rating review, all rating actions for new or existing publicly-rated entities – whether an affirmation, downgrade, or upgrade, and including any decisions taken regarding either the Outlook or Watch status – are published on Fitch’s free public website and simul
taneously relead to major newswire rvices. The rating action commentaries provide a brief rationale for the rating decision. The ratings of all publicly-rated debt issues of the issuer are also available from the public website, along with all current criteria and methodologies, and a broad lection of special reports. Access to the public website requires the reader to create a Ur ID and a password, but is available at no charge.
All public ratings, both of entities and individual debt issues, are also available free of charge from the Ratings Desk, for which contact details can be found on the public website. Analysts are available by telephone, e-mail and at various public forums to discuss the rationale for our ratings. Pre-sale rearch reports may also be made available on lected transactions.
zhenghongFitch makes every reasonable effort to ensure that the time between a rating committee determining a final rating action and the publication of that rating action and related commentary is as short as reasonably possible. Revisions to, or affirmations of, existing ratings generally occur by the end of the following business day at the latest, with many announcements occurring on the same business day. The timing of the announcement for initial ratings may be more flexible on occasion, but Fitch strives to ensure that the timing remains as expeditious as possible.
1 ‘Point-in-time’ (PIT) ratings would be assigned, for example, to debtor-in-posssion financings of bankrupt entities in the US, or in the ca of ratings that are bad purely on periodic quantitative scoring, such as Q-IFS ratings for insurance companies. Where ratings are constructed on a ‘point-in-time’ basis, this is clearly disclod in the accompanying rating action commentary. Separate conditions can sometimes apply to the assignment of such ratings, as disclod in the relevant methodology and, due to their PIT nature, the ratings are excluded from default rate calculations.bandage
