articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/201019-asia-pacific-financial-institutions-monitor-4q2020-downside-risks-dominate-11693754 content
Log in to other products

Login to Market Intelligence Platform


Looking for more?

In This List

Asia-Pacific Financial Institutions Monitor 4Q2020: Downside Risks Dominate


Ratings On AMP Ltd. Capital Notes Lowered To 'B+'


Bulletin: Liberty's Strategy And Capital Management To Remain Stable Following IPO


Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Australia


Despite Declining Loss Provisions, U.S. Banks Still Face Asset Quality Risks And Low Interest Rates

Asia-Pacific Financial Institutions Monitor 4Q2020: Downside Risks Dominate

Downside risks will dominate Asia-Pacific banking for the remainder of 2020. Recoveries to pre-COVID-19 levels will likely be slow and uncertain, as in other regions. We have already negatively revised the economic or industry trends underpinning the financial strength of many banking jurisdictions globally; and we expect this negative trend will persist. We have taken 337 negative rating actions on financial institutions globally to Oct. 13, 2020, since the onset of the pandemic. Our outlooks for about one in five financial institutions in Asia-Pacific are currently negative. We believe this negative theme will likely stay in play for the rest of 2020.

We anticipate much uncertainty on the recovery pathway. A banking sector revival will not just depend on the economic recovery occurring broadly in accordance with our base case (see "Asia-Pacific's Recovery: The Hard Work Begins," published Sept. 24, 2020). Also key is the nature and extent of the economic damage affecting firms and households prior to the onset of the economic recovery, and the extent to which this will hit banks.

China, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong may be among the first in Asia-Pacific to recover to 2019 financial strength; but not until the end of 2022. We assume it will take this long to work through asset quality problems even in the case for China, the only major economy globally for which we assume positive GDP growth in 2020, and where COVID-19 infections are low. For the Chinese banking system we estimate that credit losses will increase by about US$370 billion to the end of 2021 because of COVID-19 (see "China's Economic Recovery Could Reduce Bad Loans Risk," published Oct. 15, 2020, and "The $2 Trillion Question: What's On The Horizon For Bank Credit Losses," published July 9, 2020).

Australia, Japan, and Indonesia may be among those to recover next; by year-end 2023. In Japan, we have taken 16 bank rating actions to Oct. 13, 2020, since the onset of COVID-19 encompassing major banks, regional banks, and government-related financial institutions. Sovereign- and bank-specific rating factors drove these actions.

We expect that the recovery of the Indian banking sector will not arrive until beyond 2023. Our negative rating actions on Indian banks and nonbank financial institutions were prompted by deteriorating operating conditions through the pandemic, noting that the Indian banking sector entered the pandemic with an overhang of high nonperforming assets.

For a discussion of the shape of the recovery for major banking systems globally, see "Global Banking: Recovery Will Stretch To 2023 And Beyond," published Sept. 23, 2020.

The Worst Of The Pandemic-Driven Economic Turmoil May Have Passed

The pandemic is not over but the worst of its economic impact may have passed. As relief measures taper and the credit impulse wanes, the true economic costs of COVID-19 will emerge. We expect Asia-Pacific to shrink by 2% in 2020 and rebound by about 7% next year leaving the region almost 5% below the pre-COVID trend by end 2021. We recently revised down our GDP growth prospects for 2020 for numerous Asia-Pacific economies, including Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand (see table 1).

We revised up China's 2020 GDP estimate, given its quicker path to normalization thus far. That said, its recovery is not yet self-sustaining. The country's potentially harder turn toward self-reliance, in response to geopolitical tensions, would move the economy closer to our downside medium-term growth scenario (see "Economic Research: Asia-Pacific's Recovery: The Hard Work Begins," published Sept. 24, 2020).

Risks Emanating From U.S.-China Strategic Confrontations Worsening

The multifaceted confrontation between the U.S. and China is increasing the risk of a financial market or policy reaction that results in material economic costs. Recent U.S. policies and initiatives are increasingly targeting China and the activities of Chinese entities. This could create significant business disruptions if their implementation is more severe. We believe the strained relationship between the economic giants could place additional pressure on economic and credit conditions in these two regions, and beyond (see "Economic Risks Rise As U.S.-China Disputes Heat Up," published Aug. 25, 2020).

Hong Kong is caught between these escalating U.S.-China tensions. Its financial institutions face potential sanctions under the U.S. Hong Kong Autonomy Act (HKAA) and Trump's related executive order. The HKAA was passed in response to China's implementation of a National Security Law in July 2020. For financial institutions operating in Hong Kong, sanction risk adds another layer of uncertainty on top of the pandemic, social unrest, and loss of its special trading status with the U.S. That said, we believe the probability of severe sanctions is very low, although their impact would be high if imposed (see "Credit FAQ: What Is The U.S. Sanction Risk For Banks Operating In Hong Kong?" published Sept. 17, 2020).

Economic Risks Are Increasing In Thailand And The Philippines

In August 2020, we took various negative actions on Thai banks. We now see a one-in-three possibility that economic risks facing the Thai banking system will increase. In our view, Thai banks' asset quality is set to deteriorate, credit losses to rise, and profitability to decline amid a sharp economic recession (see "Various Rating Actions Taken On Thai Banks On Rising Economic Weakness," published Aug. 24, 2020).

Likewise, the economic risk trend for banks operating in the Philippines has turned negative, in our view, causing us to revise our rating outlooks on two Philippine banks to negative (see "Bank of the Philippine Islands, Security Bank Outlooks Revised To Negative On Rising Economic Risks; Ratings Affirmed," published Oct. 12, 2020). We believe the risk of credit losses soaring for Philippine banks is higher than we previously expected, given our view that the economy will contract 9.5% in 2020, compared to our earlier forecast of a 3% dip. In our opinion, weak economic activity and tough employment conditions will dilute the Philippine banking sector's asset quality, earnings, and capitalization over the next two years. In our base case, credit costs (the ratio of provisions for bad loans to total loans) will stay elevated at 1.5%-2.0% in 2020 and 2021. We estimate nonperforming assets (including restructured loans) for the sector could rise to 5.5%-7.5% of total loans, from 4.6% as of August 2020.

After The 2019 Peak, We Expect Capital Ratios To Dip

S&P Global Ratings has updated its risk-adjusted capital (RAC) ratios in its annual capital review for the world's top 100 rated banks (see "Top 100 Banks: COVID-19 To Trim Capital Levels," published Oct. 7, 2020). This year's review indicates that the RAC ratios of the top 100 banks improved slightly in 2019 compared with those in 2018. The average RAC ratio ticked up to 9.0% in 2019 from 8.8% for the prior year.

However, the asset quality and revenue deterioration stemming from COVID-19 will hit internal capital generation. At the same time, banking regulators across the globe have encouraged banks to continue to lend to their customers by loosening capital requirements and minimum buffers. As such, we expect the average RAC ratio to weaken in 2020 to about 8.7% and stabilize in 2021. However, we believe there are material downside risks to our base-case assumptions, and consequently, to our RAC projections. This constitutes one of the factors behind the large proportion of negative outlooks we have assigned to banks (30% of the top 100).

The outlook for RAC across Asia-Pacific is slightly lower for many Top 100 banks. RAC ratios on Chinese banks in the Top 100 are weaker than average among the top 100 banks due mainly to higher risk weights on domestic banks' assets than those of their peers in the sample. Australia is one of the few systems where we don't expect a weakening in major banks' RAC ratios in 2020 and beyond. These institutions retain, in our view, sizeable headroom in their earnings to absorb the likely increase in credit losses and contraction in interest spreads and fee income.

Tech Adoption Continues To Accelerate In The Region

Major banks in Thailand will likely increase their already substantial investments in technology and innovation over the coming few years to remain competitive and to cater to the evolving preferences of an increasingly more digital-savvy customer (see "Tech Disruption In Retail Banking: Agile Thai Banks Have An Upper Hand," published Aug. 26, 2020). Similarly, in Korea, tech-savvy consumers and increasing digital transactions amid the pandemic are incentivizing banks to augment their digital transformation. We believe Korean banks will likely hold their ground against tech disruption given their fast adoption of new technology (see "Tech Disruption In Retail Banking: Korean Banks Accelerate Digital Transformation," published July 31, 2020). Meanwhile, the digital progress of banks in Taiwan has lagged most key markets in the region. Slow fintech deregulation, low systemwide profitability, and a conservative organizational culture have long stifled the sector's digital transformation (see "Tech Disruption In Retail Banking: Digitalization Will Divide Taiwan Banks," published July 31, 2020).

The Philippines is also taking a step toward a digital revolution with virtual bank regulations in the works. Youthful demographics, a large untapped market, low costs, and regulatory latitude will all help the early entrants. And S&P Global Ratings believes the incumbent banks may have to make aggressive moves to hold off online rivals. The large banks we rate should retain their market share over the next three to five years supported by their strong brand recognition and longstanding customer relationships, however (see "Philippine Banks On The Cusp Of A Digital Revolution," Sept. 10, 2020).

China's Sizable TLAC Funding Gap Continues To Grow

This year, China passed the halfway mark in its 10-year timetable to meet international standards on "too big to fail" banking risks. The regulator recently released draft rules on total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) for its four globally systemically important banks (G-SIBs). The country's "Big Four" banks have no later than Jan. 1, 2025, to bolster their TLAC, or the type of capital and debt meant to protect public finances when major banks suffer crises.

Chinese G-SIBs must meet global TLAC capital requirements of 16% of risk-weighted assets (RWA) by Jan. 1, 2025, and 18% by Jan. 1, 2028. This is in addition to a 3.5%-4% capital surcharge, comprised of a higher loss-absorbency requirement (1.0%-1.5%) for G-SIBs and capital conservation buffer (2.5%) for Chinese banks. This renders a total regulatory and TLAC capital requirements of 19.5%-20% RWA in 2025 and 21.5%-22% RWA in 2028. As a comparison, the Big Four banks' capital adequacy ratios were between 15.59%-17.52% as of Dec. 31, 2019. Using end-2019 financial results, we estimate the TLAC capital shortage was Chinese renminbi (RMB) 2.25 trillion (US$323 billion), reflecting the sheer size of China's four largest banks. The gap is set to widen because RWA has been expanding faster than internally generated capital, a trend that will be amplified by profit hits due to COVID. By our estimates, RWA will grow at a rate of high-single-digit to low-teens. We project the capital gap could more than double, to RMB5.77 trillion-RM6.51 trillion by 2024, without considering new capital fundraising (see "Credit FAQ: How Are China’s Big Four Banks Addressing The RMB6 Trillion TLAC Gap?" published Aug. 26, 2020; and "Chinese Government Remains Highly Supportive Of Large Banks Despite Introducing TLAC Rules," published Oct. 15, 2020).

ESG Risks--An Increasing Focus For Investors

We consider that environmental, social, and technology risks globally are elevated, and that this risk is worsening (see "Global Credit Conditions: The K-Shaped Recovery," published Oct. 6, 2020). In the financial services arena, we note that early signs of a green or sustainability-linked hybrid capital market for banks and insurers highlights the emerging importance of ESG factors for investors (see "The Greening Of Financial Services: Challenges For Bank And Insurance Green And Sustainability Hybrids," published Aug. 12, 2020).

S&P Global Ratings acknowledges a high degree of uncertainty about the evolution of the coronavirus pandemic. The current consensus among health experts is that COVID-19 will remain a threat until a vaccine or effective treatment becomes widely available, which could be around mid-2021. We are using this assumption in assessing the economic and credit implications associated with the pandemic (see our research here: As the situation evolves, we will update our assumptions and estimates accordingly.

Table 1

Real GDP Forecast
Change from June 2020 forecast (ppt)
(% year over year) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020 2021
Australia 1.8 (4.0) 4.2 3.3 2.6 0.0 (1.1)
China 6.1 2.1 6.9 4.8 5.2 0.9 (0.5)
Hong Kong (1.2) (7.2) 5.3 3.3 2.2 (2.5) 0.4
India 4.2 (9.0) 10.0 6.0 6.2 (4.0) 1.5
Indonesia 5.0 (1.1) 6.3 5.8 5.4 (1.8) (0.4)
Japan 0.7 (5.4) 3.2 1.0 0.9 (0.5) (0.2)
Malaysia 4.3 (5.0) 8.4 6.2 4.9 (3.0) 0.9
New Zealand 2.3 (5.5) 5.2 3.2 2.9 (0.5) (0.8)
Philippines 6.0 (9.5) 9.6 7.6 7.4 (6.5) 0.2
Singapore 0.7 (5.8) 6.3 2.7 2.5 (0.8) (0.4)
South Korea 2.0 (0.9) 3.6 3.4 2.6 0.6 (0.4)
Taiwan 2.7 1.0 3.0 2.6 2.4 0.4 (0.2)
Thailand 2.4 (7.2) 6.2 4.4 4.0 (2.1) 0.2
Vietnam 7.0 1.9 11.2 6.8 6.8 0.7 1.7
Asia Pacific 4.6 (2.0) 6.9 4.6 4.7 (0.7) 0.0
Note: For India, the year runs April to following March, e.g., 2019--fiscal 2019/2020, ending March 31, 2020. ppt--percentage point. Source: Economic Research: Asia-Pacific's Recovery: The Hard Work Begins, Sept. 24, 2020.

Key Banking Sector Risks

The table below presents S&P Global Ratings' views about key risks and risk trends for banking sectors in Asia-Pacific countries where we rate banks. For more detailed information, please refer to the latest Banking Industry Country Risks Assessment (BICRA) on a given country. According to our methodology, BICRAs fall into groups from '1' to '10', ranging from what we view as the lowest-risk banking systems (group '1') to the highest-risk (group '10').


Selected Research

Banking Sector Research
Economic, Sovereign, And Other Research
Ratings Methodology News
Webcasts: Asia-Pacific Banking Insights

In the last quarter, we have held the following webcasts to share our views on Asia-Pacific and other banking topics. The replays are available on

  • Webinar Replay: Global Credit Conditions - Shape of Recovery (APAC Session), Oct. 6, 2020
  • Tuesday Asia-Pacific Credit Focus: Shape of Recovery - September 22, Sept. 22, 2020
  • How Are China's Big Four Banks Addressing The RMB6 Trillion TLAC Gap, Sept. 9, 2020
  • Webinar Replay: How Resilient Is Taiwan Banking Sector To COVID-19? Sept. 2, 2020
  • APAC FI Monitor Q3 2020: Recession Risks Weigh On Banking Prospects, Aug. 12, 2020
  • Webinar Replay: S&P Global Ratings LIVE: ESG – The New Differentiator, July 9, 2020
  • Webinar Replay: Impact Of COVID-19 On The South Korea Sovereign, Economy, Financial Institutions & Insurers, July 8, 2020
  • Webinar Replay: Kookmin Bank US$7 Billion Global Covered Bond Program Assigned Preliminary 'AAA' Rating; Outlook Stable, July 3, 2020
  • Webinar Replay: COVID-19 And Indian Banks: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, July 3, 2020
  • Webinar Replay: Global Credit Conditions 2020 - Shape Of Recovery (APAC), July 2, 2020
  • Webinar Replay: Malaysia - Fiscal And Debt Risks Reflect Impact Of COVID-19, July 1, 2020

BICRA Changes

Over the past quarter (to Sept. 25, 2020), we made the following changes to our Banking Industry Country Risk Assessments (BICRAs):


We revised our economic risk trend for Thailand to negative from stable. We now see a one-in-three possibility that economic risks facing the Thai banking system will increase. This could occur if the already high corporate and household leverage rises sharply such that imbalances in the system heighten. It could also occur if the banking system's asset quality and financial performance deteriorate beyond our current expectations.

Papua New Guinea

We have discontinued our BICRA for Papua New Guinea, since we no longer maintain public ratings on any bank based in the country.

Chart 1


Chart 2


Chart 3


Table 2

Issuer Credit Ratings And Component Scores For The Top 60 Asia-Pacific Banks
Institution Opco L-T ICR/outlook Anchor Business position Capital and earnings Risk position Funding and liquidity SACP or Group SACP Type of support No. of notches of support Additional factor adjustment
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. AA-/Negative bbb+ Strong Strong Adequate Avg/Adequate a Sys. Imp. 2 0
Commonwealth Bank of Australia AA-/Negative bbb+ Strong Strong Adequate Avg/Adequate a Sys. Imp. 2 0
Macquarie Bank Ltd. A+/Negative bbb+ Adequate Strong Adequate Avg/Adequate a- Sys. Imp. 2 0
National Australia Bank Ltd. AA-/Negative bbb+ Strong Strong Adequate Avg/Adequate a Sys. Imp. 2 0
Westpac Banking Corp. AA-/Negative bbb+ Strong Strong Adequate Avg/Adequate a Sys. Imp. 2 0
Agricultural Bank of China Ltd. A/Stable bb+ Very Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong bbb+ GRE 2 0
Bank of China Ltd. A/Stable bbb- Very Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong a- GRE 1 0
Bank of Communications Co. Ltd. A-/Stable bb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Adequate bbb- GRE 3 0
China CITIC Bank Co. Ltd. BBB+/Stable bb+ Adequate Weak Adequate Avg/Adequate bb Group 4 0
China Construction Bank Corp. A/Stable bb+ Very Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong bbb+ GRE 2 0
China Merchants Bank Co. Ltd. BBB+/Stable bb+ Strong Moderate Strong Above Avg/Adequate bbb Sys. Imp. 1 0
China Minsheng Banking Corp. Ltd. BBB-/Stable bb+ Adequate Weak Adequate Avg/Adequate bb Sys. Imp. 2 0
Hua Xia Bank Co. Ltd. BBB-/Stable bb+ Adequate Moderate Moderate Avg/Adequate bb GRE 2 0
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. A/Stable bb+ Very Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong bbb+ GRE 2 0
Postal Savings Bank Of China Co. Ltd. A/Stable bb+ Strong Moderate Adequate Above Avg/Strong bbb GRE 3 0
Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Co. Ltd. BBB/Stable bb+ Adequate Weak Adequate Avg/Adequate bb GRE 3 0
Hong Kong
Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd. A+/Stable bbb+ Strong Strong Adequate Above Avg/Strong a+ Sys. Imp. 1 -1
Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd. A+/Stable bbb+ Adequate Strong Adequate Above Avg/Strong a Sys. Imp. 1 0
The Bank of East Asia Ltd. A-/Stable bbb+ Adequate Adequate Adequate Avg/Adequate bbb+ Sys. Imp. 1 0
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. AA-/Stable bbb+ Strong Strong Adequate Above Avg/Strong a+ Sys. Imp. 1 0
Axis Bank Ltd. BB+/Stable bb+ Strong Adequate Moderate Avg/Adequate bb+ None 0 0
Bank of India BB+/Stable bb+ Adequate Moderate Weak Above Avg/Strong bb GRE 1 0
HDFC Bank Ltd. BBB-/Stable bb+ Strong Adequate Strong Above Avg/Strong bbb+ None 0 -2
ICICI Bank Ltd. § BBB-/Negative bb+ Strong Strong Moderate Avg/Adequate bbb- None 0 0
State Bank of India BBB-/Stable bb+ Strong Moderate Moderate Above Avg/Strong bbb- None 0 0
PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) BBB-/Negative bb+ Strong Strong Moderate Avg/Strong bbb- None 0 0
PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia (Persero) Tbk. BBB-/Negative bb+ Strong Strong Moderate Avg/Strong bbb- None 0 0
Chiba Bank Ltd. A-/Stable bbb+ Adequate Adequate Strong Avg/Strong a- None 0 0
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc.* A/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong a None 0 0
Mizuho Financial Group Inc.* A/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong a None 0 0
Nomura Holdings Inc.* A-/Stable bbb+ Moderate Strong Moderate Avg/Adequate bbb Sys. Imp. 2 0
Norinchukin Bank A/Negative bbb+ Adequate Adequate Moderate Above Avg/Strong bbb+ Sys. Imp. 2 0
Resona Holdings* A/Stable bbb+ Adequate Moderate Adequate Above Avg/Strong bbb+ Sys. Imp. 2 0
Shinkin Central Bank A/Stable bbb+ Adequate Adequate Adequate Avg/Strong bbb+ Sys. Imp. 2 0
Shizuoka Bank Ltd. A-/Stable bbb+ Adequate Strong Adequate Avg/Strong a- None 0 0
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc.* A/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong a None 0 0
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings* A/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Avg/Strong a- Sys. Imp. 1 0
Industrial Bank of Korea AA-/Stable bbb+ Adequate Adequate Adequate Avg/Adequate bbb+ GRE 4 0
KEB Hana Bank A+/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Avg/Adequate a- Sys. Imp. 2 0
Kookmin Bank A+/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Avg/Adequate a- Sys. Imp. 2 0
Korea Development Bank§ AA/Stable bbb+ Moderate Moderate Weak Below Avg/Adequate bb- GRE 10 0
Nonghyup Bank A+/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Moderate Above Avg/Adequate bbb+ GRE 3 0
Shinhan Bank A+/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Avg/Adequate a- Sys. Imp. 2 0
Woori Bank A/Positive bbb+ Strong Adequate Moderate Avg/Adequate bbb+ Sys. Imp. 2 0
Public Bank Bhd. A-/Negative bbb Strong Adequate Strong Above Avg/Strong a None 0 -1
Malayan Banking Bhd. A-/Negative bbb Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong a- None 0 0
CIMB Bank Bhd. A-/Negative bbb Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong a- None 0 0
New Zealand
ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd. AA-/Negative bbb Strong Strong Adequate Avg/Adequate a- Group 3 0
ASB Bank Ltd. AA-/Negative bbb Strong Strong Adequate Avg/Adequate a- Group 3 0
Bank of New Zealand AA-/Negative bbb Strong Adequate Adequate Avg/Adequate bbb+ Group 4 0
Westpac New Zealand Ltd. AA-/Negative bbb Strong Strong Adequate Avg/Adequate a- Group 3 0
DBS Bank Ltd. AA-/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong a Sys. Imp. 2 0
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. Ltd. AA-/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong a Sys. Imp. 2 0
United Overseas Bank Ltd. AA-/Stable bbb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong a Sys. Imp. 2 0
CTBC Bank Co. Ltd. A/Stable bbb Strong Strong Adequate Avg/Strong a- Sys. Imp. 1 0
Mega International Commercial Bank Co. Ltd. A/Stable bbb Strong Strong Adequate Avg/Adequate a- Sys. Imp. 1 0
Bangkok Bank Public Co. Ltd. BBB+/Stable bb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Above Avg/Strong bbb Sys. Imp. 1 0
KASIKORNBANK PCL BBB+/WatchNeg bb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Avg/Strong bbb- Sys. Imp. 2 0
Krung Thai Bank Public Co. Ltd. BBB/WatchNeg bb+ Adequate Adequate Adequate Avg/Adequate bb+ Sys. Imp. 2 0
Siam Commercial Bank Public Co. Ltd. BBB+/Negative bb+ Strong Adequate Adequate Avg/Strong bbb- Sys. Imp. 2 0
Data as of September 30, 2020. Type of Support column -'None' includes some banks where ratings uplift because of support factors may be possible but none is currently included. (For example, this column includes some systemically important banks where systemic importance results in no rating uplift). *Holding company; the rating reflects that on the main operating company. ICR--Issuer credit rating. GRE--Government-related entity. SACP--Stand-alone credit profile. Sys. Imp.--Systemically important. ALAC--Additional loss-absorbing capacity. N/A--Not applicable. Sov --Capped by Sovereign Rating. §This ICR applies to the Foreign Currency Rating only.

Table 3

Recent Rating Actions: Asia Pacific Banks
Release date Org legal name Org country From To
07-Sep-20 AMP Ltd. Australia BBB/Watch Neg/-- BBB-/Stable/--
07-Sep-20 AMP Bank Ltd. Australia BBB+/Watch Neg/A-2 BBB/Stable/A-2
24-Aug-20 Siam Commercial Bank Public Co. Ltd. Thailand BBB+/Stable/A-2 BBB+/Negative/A-2
24-Aug-20 Krung Thai Bank Public Co. Ltd. Thailand BBB/Stable/A-2 BBB/Watch Neg/A-2
24-Aug-20 KASIKORNBANK PCL. Thailand BBB+/Stable/A-2 BBB+/Watch Neg/A-2
24-Aug-20 TMB Bank Public Co. Ltd. Thailand BBB-/Positive/A-3 BBB/Negative/A-2
04-Aug-20 Seven Bank, Ltd. Japan A+/Stable/A-1 A+/Watch Neg/A-1
02-Aug-20 China Guangfa Bank Co. Ltd. China BBB-/Stable/A-3 BBB-/Negative/A-3
16-Jul-20 Sony Bank Inc. Japan A/Watch Neg/A-1 A/Stable/A-1
13-Jul-20 AMP Ltd. Australia BBB+/Watch Neg/-- BBB/Watch Neg/--
08-Jul-20 Guangzhou Finance Holdings Group Co. Ltd. China BBB+/Stable/A-2 BBB+/Negative/A-2
*Recent rating actions are for the period July 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020. The list refers to banks and bank holding companies (banks) where the rating has been upgraded or downgraded, or the outlook has been changed. Banks where the ratings have been affirmed or the outlooks have not been changed are not included in the list.

This report does not constitute a rating action.

S&P Global Ratings Australia Pty Ltd holds Australian financial services license number 337565 under the Corporations Act 2001. S&P Global Ratings' credit ratings and related research are not intended for and must not be distributed to any person in Australia other than a wholesale client (as defined in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act).

Primary Credit Analyst:Gavin J Gunning, Melbourne (61) 3-9631-2092;
Secondary Contacts:Vera Chaplin, Melbourne (61) 3-9631-2058;
Ryoji Yoshizawa, Tokyo (81) 3-4550-8453;
Sharad Jain, Melbourne (61) 3-9631-2077;
Geeta Chugh, Mumbai (91) 22-3342-1910;
Harry Hu, CFA, Hong Kong (852) 2533-3571;
Ivan Tan, Singapore (65) 6239-6335;
Nico N DeLange, Sydney (61) 2-9255-9887;
Daehyun Kim, CFA, Hong Kong (852) 2533-3508 ;
HongTaik Chung, CFA, Hong Kong (852) 2533 3597;
Eunice Fan, Taipei (8862) 8722-5818;
Chizuru Tateno, Tokyo (81) 3-4550-8578;
Fern Wang, CFA, Hong Kong (852) 2533-3536;
Ryan Tsang, CFA, Hong Kong (852) 2533-3532;
Ming Tan, CFA, Hong Kong + 852 2532 8074;
Lisa Barrett, Melbourne (61) 3-9631-2081;
Research Assistant:Priyal Shah, CFA, Mumbai

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, (free of charge), and and (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at

Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to:

Register with S&P Global Ratings

Register now to access exclusive content, events, tools, and more.

Go Back