Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 167

Are opinions of rating agencies worthwhile?

There’s been a spike in interest in rating agencies recently, due to the recent downgrade in the UK’s rating and the possibility that Australia could follow suit. Yet few people understand what goes into a credit rating and what it’s really worth, if anything. So should investors pay any attention to these agencies, particularly after their poor performance during the financial crisis?

Credit ratings are a mix of qualitative and quantitative factors. The primary driver of a rating is a combination of financial ratios such as debt/EBITDA for corporates or debt/GDP for governments. Analysts overlay a qualitative adjustment to the ratios that can result in a slightly higher or lower outcome than the ratios alone would indicate. The entire process is subjective; what ratios are used, and in what proportion they are weighted. Additionally, the qualitative adjustments are all components that issuers argue about.

Investors still value agency’s opinions. A lower rating indicates a higher risk of principal and interest not being paid in full. The chart below shows how companies with lower ratings have an exponentially higher probability of defaulting on their debts. As a result, debt issuers with lower ratings must pay a higher interest rate to attract buyers for their debt.

Criticisms of credit agencies

1. Conflicts of interest

Governments, regulators and investors have criticised the big three rating agencies (Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch) for charging both issuers and investors for their services. Issuers pay the agencies to prepare a report and provide an opinion on their risk profile. This creates tension as the issuer can threaten not to pay if they don’t like the opinion. Investors pay rating agencies to access detailed reports, though the agencies make the ratings publicly available for free. As a result of this conflict of interest, independent credit research firms such as CreditSights and Egan-Jones have emerged where only investors pay for their analysis.

2. Ratings are not equivalent

One of the biggest misgivings with agency credit ratings is that they apply the same risk rating for different types of debt (e.g. corporate, sovereign, financial institution), meaning they believe that they have equal likelihood of defaulting. As history has shown many times, different types of debt have very different risk profiles. It is reasonable to compare ratings within the same debt type, but erroneous to compare ratings between debt types.

3. Ratings changes are delayed

Investors have long complained that agencies fail to downgrade ratings in a timely fashion. Many prefer credit default swaps as a better measure of the real time probability of default, although these have a tendency to overshoot when negative information comes to light. Rating agencies often give the benefit of the doubt to debt issuers as downgrading a rating is typically a controversial step that the issuer may publicly disagree with.

4. Performance in the financial crisis

Very poor performances during the financial crisis means the big three aren’t trusted anywhere near as much as they used to be. Lehman Brothers had 'A' ratings when it defaulted and many other failing banks were similarly rated. Thousands of ratings and trillions of dollars of debt were downgraded across mortgage-backed securities and collateralised debt obligations from 2007 onwards. In the worst examples, securities went from AAA to defaulting within a year. Investors who failed to do their own due diligence suffered substantial losses and many took legal action as a result.

Merits of ratings for different debt types

1. Corporate debt

Ratings on corporate debt are the bread and butter of rating agencies and it is where they do their best work. Thousands of companies have been publicly rated with Moody’s data set stretching back to 1920. Annual reports from the agencies confirm that lower-rated corporates are far more likely to default than higher-rated ones. On the whole, there are few examples of highly rated corporates defaulting, with Enron and Parmalat arguably the worst in recent decades. Both of these involved financial deception by management. The main criticism of corporate debt ratings is the slowness of downgrades as companies deteriorate. Investors can generally expect corporate credit ratings to be an approximately fair reflection of default risk.

2. Sovereign debt

Rating agencies are almost always too optimistic in regards to their ratings for developed nations. The standout example is Japan, with the big three all seeing it in the “A” category. Most independent analysis of Japan has it unable to repay its debt without printing money. If the average interest rate on its debt was to rise by 3% all government revenues would be consumed by interest payments with nothing left for healthcare, education or defence spending. Many governments in Europe and the US continue to receive high ratings even though they are running substantial budget deficits year after year and have sizeable unfunded pension obligations. Ratings for developing nations tend to be a fairer reflection of their risk of defaulting. Investors should treat sovereign debt ratings with great caution.

3. Financial institutions debt

Rating agencies tend to be way too optimistic in rating large banks and somewhat less optimistic in their opinions of smaller banks. For large banks, credit ratings have a substantial impact on their ability to attract institutional funding and to trade with their counterparts. A downgrade below investment grade (below BBB-) is effectively a death knell. AIG and Lehman Brothers were examples of hugely optimistic ratings during 2008. Comparisons are now being made between Lehman Brothers and Deutsche Bank, which could see its funding and trading opportunities rapidly disappear if it suffers further downgrades. Several Italian banks are being talked about as needing government bailouts yet still have credit ratings in the “B” and “BB” categories. Investors should also treat credit ratings of financial institutions with great caution.

4. Securitised debt

Rating agencies were rightly excoriated for their ratings of securitised debt such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralised debt obligations in the lead-up to the financial crisis. As highlighted in the movie The Big Short, rating agencies gave inflated ratings to securitised debt to protect their market share and maximise revenues. However, since the financial crisis, rating agencies have dramatically increased their analysis of securitised debt to the point where the ratings are generally pessimistic. In a reverse of the situation for other types of debt, agencies are now being criticised for failing to upgrade ratings in a timely fashion when securitised transactions perform in line or better than expected. Investors can generally expect securitised debt credit ratings to be an approximately fair reflection of default risk, but need to bear in mind the diversity within securitised debt and the range of complex assumptions required to produce a rating.


Credit ratings play an important part in the functioning of capital markets, but should always be treated as an opinion not a definitive judgement. Investors should conduct their own financial analysis and form their own judgement before investing.


Source: Standard & Poor's

Jonathan Rochford is Portfolio Manager at Narrow Road Capital and this article expresses the personal views of the author at a point in time. It is for educational purposes and is not a substitute for professional financial advice. Narrow Road Capital advises on and invests in a wide range of securities.

Warren Bird
August 05, 2016

Ashley, you aren't listening. Credit ratings are an input to decision making about corporate bonds, but not the full story. I wouldn't invest in a corporate bond fund that ignored default risk and credit ratings are an assessment of that. By all means take a different view on a specific risk rating if you wish, but that is something completely different.

In any case, what Buffett does with his concentrated equity portfolio investments is completely irrelevant to the usefulness or otherwise of credit ratings.

August 04, 2016

Why do people still take credit ratings seriously? Recall that Berkshire Hathaway (BH) profited handsomely from Moody’s robo-ratings in the 2000s credit boom (BH was Moody’s largest shareholder). When questioned all Buffett could say was “Investors, government and rating agencies learned exactly nothing from the manufactured-home debacle. Instead, in an eerie rerun of that disaster, the same mistakes were repeated with conventional homes in the 2004-07 period." BH sold their stake in Moody’s after the crash when there was no more river of gold in ratings. Don’t follow credit ratings – follow the Buffett money trail instead.

Warren Bird
August 04, 2016

Good summary, Jonathan. The other thing I always tell people to keep in mind is that a rating is not a recommendation to invest. It is an assessment - an opinion, as you point out - of the risk of the issuer defaulting. It says nothing about the liquidity of the issue, or whether the return it is being priced to deliver compared to similar risk assets is attractive or not. It also says nothing about the likely correlation of default between this issue and other issues that might be in your portfolio.

I think that ratings are still very important and useful information for corporate issuers and traditional structures like mortgage-backed securities. Where the agencies let themselves down was in rating more complex, leveraged structures like CDO's and the like. In those situations the rating - often AAA - turned out to be based upon assumptions that did not play out, but which weren't sufficiently tested nor made clear. But their processes for rating the default risk of companies and mortgages has stood the test of almost a century of use. And when you look back over 10 or 20 years, you will see that the universe that was rated at a certain level has defaulted at pretty close to the % implied by the rating at the start of the period.


Leave a Comment:


Most viewed in recent weeks

Lessons when a fund manager of the year is down 25%

Every successful fund manager suffers periods of underperformance, and investors who jump from fund to fund chasing results are likely to do badly. Selecting a manager is a long-term decision but what else?

2022 election survey results: disillusion and disappointment

In almost 1,000 responses, our readers differ in voting intentions versus polling of the general population, but they have little doubt who will win and there is widespread disappointment with our politics.

Welcome to Firstlinks Election Edition 458

At around 10.30pm on Saturday night, Scott Morrison called Anthony Albanese to concede defeat in the 2022 election. As voting continued the next day, it became likely that Labor would reach the magic number of 76 seats to form a majority government.   

  • 19 May 2022

Betting markets as election predictors

Believe it or not, betting agencies are in the business of making money, not predicting outcomes. Is there anything we can learn from the current odds on the election results?

Keep mandatory super pension drawdowns halved

The Transfer Balance Cap limits the tax concessions available in super pension funds, removing the need for large, compulsory drawdowns. Plus there are no requirements to draw money out of an accumulation fund.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 455 with weekend update

The resolve of many investors to focus on the long term with their share portfolios is increasingly tested as the list of negatives lengthens. There is a lack of visionary policies during an election campaign and stimulatory spending is contradicting the aims of tighter monetary policy.

  • 28 April 2022

Latest Updates

In praise of our unique democracy and its sausage

For all the shortcomings of our political campaigns, our election process is the best. We are blessed with honest administrators and procedures that we all trust to hand over power peacefully, with a big snag. 

Investment strategies

Is the investing landscape really different this time?

Many market analysts argue that the pandemic has changed everything but we must judge whether the circumstances are as drastic as billed. A quick review of four major events helps decide if this time is different.


Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.


When will I retire? Economic impact of an ageing population

About 39% of the labour force is aged over 45. Intergenerational reports highlight the challenges of an ageing population and the impacts on consumption patterns, dependencies, public finances and economic growth.

The real story behind the crypto crash

The recent sell-off in the crypto market and its trigger - the collapse of the Terra UST coin - has affected many institutions either holding or trading crypto assets, including crypto fund managers.

Investment strategies

Cash is the nightingale, the bird in the hand

The bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and it's an apt metaphor for investment choices. In 2021, as investors hunted in the bush for decent returns, demand overwhelmed supply. Cash is the bird in the hand.


Book review of 'Putin’s People' and his motivation for war

Author Catherine Belton argues Putin’s sole ambition is to hold onto power. Her book seeks to understand why Putin invaded Ukraine after he became isolated and out of touch with reality during the pandemic.



© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.