Image
Icon

Directory

IconAlternative Investments
IconAsset Managers
IconAssociations and Institutes
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconFinancial Planners
IconInvestment Consulting
IconLinked Investment Service Providers
IconListed Equities
IconOmbud
IconOnline Share Trading
IconParticipation Bond Managers
IconProperty Unit Trusts
IconPublications
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconStock Exchange
IconUnit Trust Fund Managers
IconWellness Programs
Advertise Here
  Subscribe To »

How serious is SA’s credit downgrade?

Published

2017

Wed

19

Apr

By George Herman, Citadel Director and Chief Investment Officer
 
Bloomberg news agency recently published an article stating that South African bonds were now seemingly “junk” – a word which is loaded with negative sentiments.
 
In turbulent times such as these, it is essential to remain calm and objective, and not to become embroiled in such emotional judgements. Ask yourself: were South African bonds “junk” 10 days ago? No. Has our probability of default increased meaningfully since then? The answer, again, is no.
 
The Bloomberg article made reference to the recent credit rating downgrades to “sub-investment” grade by Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, a level often touted as “junk”. “Junk”, however, is not the word used by the credit agencies, but merely a label developed among regulated investors who are not permitted to invest beyond “investment grade” securities or countries. And yet the word carries tremendous weight and emotional currency, most of which is an inaccurate reflection of what investment grade or sub-investment grade actually means.
 
In short, it is a poorly defined term that should be banished from the investment lexicon. The attractiveness of an investment is determined by the objective of a client or investor and the mandate that client has given the financial manager. That mandate may exclude many countries or asset classes and that exclusion doesn’t make those particular investments “junk”.
 
Global ratings agencies are like film critics. They have a published and pre-determined set of credit scoring criteria and aim to identify risks with those scores when giving their “outlook”. You may decide that you’ll only watch movies rated above a certain level by a certain critic, because you agree with the criteria, and that’s a perfectly acceptable way of filtering the entire universe of movies to suit your particular taste. There are two messages to take from this analogy:
  1. If this particular critic rates a particular movie at a score lower than your cut-off point, it doesn’t make that particular movie “junk”.
  2. If this particular critic rates this specific movie lower than a score generally associated with a “good” movie, it serves absolutely no purpose criticising the critic.
Global investment firms require an independent, objective party to rate or score the entire global fixed income investment universe. Their mandates are then set up to include only investments higher than a specific score and this universe of investments is then investable for them. Over the years regulations for global pension funds have been standardised and, in so doing, this has created what is now known as the investment grade universe. This is merely a line in the sand, since a distinction or limit needs to be set somewhere. On the continuum of risk, the difference between the lowest ranked security in investment grade and the highest ranked security in the non-investment grade list is absolutely marginal and most definitely not as binary as the inclusion or exclusion would suggest. The one investment can’t be described as perfectly acceptable while the next as “junk”. It is merely outside the predetermined universe of a certain set of investors.
 
When a country such as South Africa now lands on this borderline where some agencies rate us within the investment grade universe and some outside, and some for foreign currency debt and some for local currency debt, we face a cliff risk. Stay within investment grade and the entire world can invest in your bonds. Move one notch lower and suddenly very few global investors are allowed to invest in your bonds. This single notch rating change thus poses the reality of rising risk premiums and, in this instance, higher bond yields.
 
At Citadel, we appreciate that defaults by countries in the top bracket of non-investment grade are only marginally higher than those in the lowest bracket of investment grade, so the actual difference in absolute credit risk is marginal. However, the shift from investment grade to non-investment grade causes a much greater adjustment in yields than the numerical assessment of risk suggests. Falling out of the investment grade universe is costly, but it is also not the end of the world. The risk of South Africa dropping out of the investment grade universe has been with us for over a year and is no surprise to us at all. We have been advocating an underweight stance to South African bonds for a long time.
 
It is also exactly why times like these offer opportunities. When other investors become forced sellers of South African bonds, we will have the opportunity to create attractive assets for our portfolios for many years to come. This is a good example of where active managers can effectively reduce risk prior to an event and, in so doing, protect capital and enhance returns. By comparison, the passive investor will now be forced to sell at a massive loss.
 
While current local rhetoric is relying heavily on the term “junk”, you will notice that Citadel does not use this description at all. No investment is “junk” simply because some foreign investor can no longer invest in it. As South African investors, our home market still provides opportunities, despite some critics now scoring us lower than before. For us at Citadel, the movie goes on and our task of managing our clients’ wealth has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the movie’s rating.  
 
Source: Cambial Communications
 
« Back to previous page Print this page » |
 

Breaking News »

SARS Trade Data Commentary

By Karl Gotte, head of Standard Bank Commercial Banking The country posted a trade surplus of R 11. 4bn in March 2017, an improvement from February’s trade surplus of R5. 2bn, which is in line­­ ...
Read More »

  

Citibank agrees to R69.5m fine

Pretoria: Citibank has agreed to pay an administrative penalty of almost R69. 5 million in relation to the bank’s involvement in a forex trading cartel, the Competition Commission said on Wednesday. Citibank ...
Read More »

  

South African High Court rules on South African New Nuclear Build

By Amanda Scribante, Associate, under the supervision of David Davies, Consultant, and Kieran Whyte, Partner, Energy Mining & Infrastructure Practice, Baker McKenzie, Johannesburg   On Wednesday ...
Read More »

  

Bowmans partner is Africa’s first president of Insol International

By Adam Harris, Partner in the Litigation practice at Bowmans In a first for Africa, the continent has produced the top office-bearer at the world’s leading insolvency association, Insol International ...
Read More »

 

More News »

Image

Healthcare »

Image

Life »

Image

Retirement »

Image

Short-term »

Advertise Here
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

First Surplus Treaty:

The name given to an ordinary surplus treaty, which means that the surplus must be allotted to the treaty first and in priority to any other surplus reinsurance treaty. Sometimes a second surplus treaty, and a third surplus treaty are in place and these would receive a share of the surplus only after the first surplus treaty had received the full amount to which it was entitled.
More Definitions »

 
 
By using this website you agree to the Terms of Use.
Copyright © Stoker Risk & ICT (Pty) Ltd 2004 - 2017.
All Rights Reserved.
Icon

Advertise

  Icon

eZine

  Icon

Contact IG

Icon

Media Pack

  Icon

RSS Feeds