articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/201124-default-transition-and-recovery-2019-annual-emerging-markets-corporate-default-and-rating-transition-study-11743691 content esgSubNav
Log in to other products

Login to Market Intelligence Platform

 /


Looking for more?

In This List
COMMENTS

Default, Transition, and Recovery: 2019 Annual Emerging Markets Corporate Default And Rating Transition Study

COMMENTS

Default, Transition, and Recovery: Global Corporate Default Tally Remains At Four

COMMENTS

Credit Trends: U.S. Corporate Bond Yields As Of Jan. 20, 2021

COMMENTS

Default, Transition, and Recovery: The Elevated Weakest Links Tally May Signal Sustained Default Pressure In 2021

COMMENTS

Default, Transition, and Recovery: Distressed Exchanges Lead Corporate Defaults So Far In 2021


Default, Transition, and Recovery: 2019 Annual Emerging Markets Corporate Default And Rating Transition Study

The number of emerging market corporate issuers rated by S&P Global Ratings that defaulted in 2019 rose to 22 from 17 in 2018 (see chart 1). Of the 22 issuers that defaulted, 16 were rated speculative grade at the start of the year. Four of the issuers that defaulted received initial ratings during the year, and two of the issuers that defaulted had their ratings withdrawn prior to the start of the year. All of the issuers that defaulted in 2019 were initially rated in the speculative-grade category ('BB+' and lower).

Our study of corporate defaults in emerging markets identified a clear correlation between low ratings and the probability of default. The one-year Gini ratio was 87.46% in 2019, compared with the one-year weighted average Gini ratio (a measure of the rank-ordering power of ratings over a given time horizon) of 76.26% for emerging market corporate ratings since 1997. High Gini scores generally reflect a high proportion of the lowest-rated issuers among the defaulters in a given period. The majority of issuers in emerging markets that were rated at the beginning of 2019 and that defaulted were rated 'B-' or lower when the year began.

Chart 1

image

We group emerging market countries by geography into three subregions. In 2019, the Emerging Asia subregion led with 10 defaults, up from three in 2018. Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EEMEA) and Latin America and Caribbean each tallied six defaults after eight and six defaults, respectively, in the prior year. The sharp increase in Emerging Asia defaults in 2019 came from seven defaults in China (up from one in 2018) and one in Hong Kong (up from zero in 2018). This tally of eight defaults was the highest among all emerging market countries.

Overall credit quality among emerging market issuers was little changed in 2019, with fewer rating actions than in 2018. The proportion of speculative-grade issuers was 50.4% at the end of the year, down just 1.5 percentage points relative to the beginning of the year. Notably, the proportion of emerging market corporate issuers in the speculative-grade category has been lower than that of U.S. corporate issuers since year-end 2014. This both reflects the highly developed capital markets in the U.S. and the willingness of investors in recent years to accept higher credit risk for additional yield.

In the 23 years that we've tracked defaults in emerging markets, there have only been five periods when the speculative-grade corporate default rate exceeded that of all global speculative-grade corporate issuers: 1998, 1999, 2002, 2012, and 2015 (see chart 2). In 2019, the emerging markets speculative–grade corporate default rate was 75 basis points below that of all global speculative-grade corporate issuers. This is likely due to the smaller proportion of issuers rated 'B+' or lower among speculative-grade corporate issuers in emerging markets.

Since 1997, this proportion has been, on average, 11% below that of global speculative-grade corporate issuers. This gap may remain even as capital markets in emerging market countries develop. Investors in developing markets generally have less appetite for lower-rated issuers, given that recoveries in the event of default can be more complex.

Chart 2

image

Table 1

Emerging Markets Corporate Default Summary
Year Total defaults* Investment-grade defaults Speculative-grade defaults Default rate (%) Investment-grade default rate (%) Speculative-grade default rate (%)
1997 1 1 0 0.74 1.15 0.00
1998 16 2 13 5.49 1.63 8.67
1999 17 0 16 4.91 0.00 7.69
2000 5 0 4 1.08 0.00 1.67
2001 29 0 17 4.09 0.00 6.34
2002 60 0 53 11.73 0.00 17.79
2003 14 0 13 2.57 0.00 3.95
2004 4 0 3 0.53 0.00 0.85
2005 2 0 1 0.15 0.00 0.25
2006 2 0 2 0.26 0.00 0.44
2007 1 0 1 0.12 0.00 0.20
2008 16 1 13 1.46 0.24 2.43
2009 33 3 29 3.18 0.62 5.52
2010 9 0 8 0.82 0.00 1.56
2011 3 0 3 0.27 0.00 0.48
2012 24 0 17 1.43 0.00 2.64
2013 16 0 14 1.11 0.00 2.02
2014 15 0 8 0.58 0.00 1.06
2015 26 0 24 1.62 0.00 3.09
2016 31 1 28 1.90 0.14 3.44
2017 8 0 8 0.51 0.00 0.97
2018 17 0 12 0.73 0.00 1.37
2019 22 0 16 0.93 0.00 1.79
Average 16 0 13 2.01 0.16 3.23
Median 16 0 13 1.08 0.00 1.79
Standard deviation 14 1 12 2.60 0.42 3.99
Minimum 1 0 0 0.12 0.00 0.00
Maximum 60 3 53 11.73 1.63 17.79
*This column includes companies that were not rated as of the beginning of the year. Investment-grade (speculative-grade) defaults refer to defaulting entities within the year that were rated investment-grade (speculative-grade) in the beginning of the period. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 2

Global Corporate Default Summary
Year Total defaults* Investment-grade defaults Speculative-grade defaults Default rate (%) Investment-grade default rate (%) Speculative-grade default rate (%) Total debt defaulting (bil. $)
1981 2 0 2 0.15 0.00 0.63 0.1
1982 18 2 15 1.22 0.19 4.46 0.9
1983 12 1 10 0.77 0.09 2.98 0.4
1984 14 2 12 0.93 0.17 3.31 0.4
1985 19 0 18 1.13 0.00 4.37 0.3
1986 34 2 30 1.74 0.15 5.75 0.5
1987 19 0 19 0.95 0.00 2.83 1.6
1988 32 0 29 1.39 0.00 3.88 3.3
1989 44 3 35 1.79 0.22 4.70 7.3
1990 70 2 56 2.74 0.14 8.12 21.2
1991 93 2 65 3.26 0.14 11.05 23.7
1992 39 0 32 1.50 0.00 6.12 5.4
1993 26 0 14 0.60 0.00 2.51 2.4
1994 21 1 15 0.63 0.05 2.12 2.3
1995 35 1 29 1.05 0.05 3.54 9.0
1996 20 0 16 0.51 0.00 1.81 2.7
1997 23 2 20 0.63 0.08 2.01 4.9
1998 56 4 48 1.28 0.14 3.67 11.3
1999 109 5 92 2.15 0.17 5.57 39.4
2000 136 7 109 2.48 0.24 6.24 43.3
2001 229 7 173 3.79 0.23 9.90 118.8
2002 226 13 159 3.60 0.42 9.50 190.9
2003 119 3 89 1.93 0.10 5.07 62.9
2004 56 1 38 0.78 0.03 2.03 20.7
2005 40 1 31 0.60 0.03 1.51 42.0
2006 30 0 26 0.48 0.00 1.19 7.1
2007 24 0 21 0.37 0.00 0.91 8.2
2008 127 14 89 1.80 0.42 3.71 429.6
2009 268 11 224 4.19 0.33 9.95 627.7
2010 83 0 64 1.21 0.00 3.02 97.5
2011 53 1 44 0.80 0.03 1.85 84.3
2012 83 0 66 1.14 0.00 2.59 86.7
2013 81 0 64 1.06 0.00 2.31 97.3
2014 60 0 45 0.69 0.00 1.44 91.6
2015 113 0 94 1.36 0.00 2.78 110.3
2016 163 1 143 2.09 0.03 4.24 239.8
2017 95 0 83 1.21 0.00 2.46 104.6
2018 82 0 72 1.03 0.00 2.10 131.7
2019 118 2 92 1.30 0.06 2.54 183.2
Average 74 2 59 1.44 0.09 3.97 74.7
Median 56 1 44 1.21 0.03 3.02 21.2
Standard deviation 64 4 50 0.97 0.12 2.65 125.2
Minimum 2 0 2 0.15 0.00 0.63 0.1
Maximum 268 14 224 4.19 0.42 11.05 627.7
*This column includes companies that were not rated as of the beginning of the year. Investment-grade (speculative-grade) defaults refer to defaulting entities within the year that were rated investment-grade (speculative-grade) in the beginning of the period. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Unless noted otherwise, the statistics we present in this study refer to S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro® corporate local-currency ratings. Rated issuers include financial and nonfinancial companies in emerging markets but exclude sovereigns and public finance issuers. We calculated default and transition rates based on the number of issuers in the sample period. The weighted averages in this study use the number of issuers at the beginning of each year as the basis for each year's weight. The data we present in this study, unless labeled otherwise, refer to only public and confidential issuer credit ratings on nonfinancial and financial issuers and exclude credit estimates. For our full methodology and definitions of the terms used, as well as a full list of the emerging market countries used in this study, see Appendix I.

Findings From Our Study

  • Of the 1,720 emerging market corporate issuers that were rated at the beginning of 2019, 16 speculative-grade issuers defaulted, pushing the overall default rate to 0.93% and the speculative-grade default rate to 1.79%.
  • All 22 of the emerging market corporate defaulters in 2019 were initially rated speculative grade by S&P Global Ratings. Two issuers that defaulted in 2019 had their ratings withdrawn prior to the start of the year, and four received their first ratings during the year.
  • Two issuers defaulted twice during the year: Mexico–based Maxcom Telecomunicaciones S.A.B. de C.V. completed two distressed exchanges, and Brazil–based USJ Acucar e Alcool S/A completed a distressed exchange before it missed a principal/interest payment later in the year.
  • 2019 marks the second consecutive year that the overall and speculative-grade emerging market corporate default rates increased, but each remained at or below its long-term median at year-end.
  • In 2019, 18 emerging market defaults came from issuers in the nonfinancial sector, while four were from financial services issuers. The one-year default rate for nonfinancials rose to 1.18%, while the one-year default rate for financial services rose to 0.57%.
  • Most defaults during the year were due to missed principal/interest (45%), followed by distressed exchange (32%), regulatory directive (14%), and bankruptcy (9%).
  • Issuers based in China or Hong Kong accounted for the most emerging market corporate defaults in 2019 (with eight), followed by Lebanon (three), Panama (two), Mexico (two), Brazil (two), and India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Liberia, and South Africa (with one each).
  • The largest nonconfidential emerging market corporate defaulter was Panama–based McDermott International Inc., which had $4.86 billion in debt outstanding when it missed an interest payment on its senior unsecured notes due in 2024 on Dec. 3, 2019. After the year ended, McDermott International Inc. announced its intention to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Jan. 22, 2020.
  • The average time to default from the initial rating for emerging market defaulters in 2019 was 5.8 years, slightly longer than the average of 5.2 years in 2018. By comparison, the average time to default for corporate entities globally in 2019 was 5.9 years.
  • The emerging markets corporate issuer with the longest time to default from the initial rating in 2019 was Lebanon–based Bankmed s.a.l. at 22.4 years. It always had a speculative-grade rating throughout its rating history, with an initial 'BB-' rating on Aug. 7, 1997.
  • Mexico–based Maxcom Telecomunicaciones had the shortest time to default among nonconfidential defaulters, at 138 days, when it defaulted for a second time during the year on Aug. 21, 2019.
  • S&P Global Ratings assigned initial ratings to 172 emerging market corporate issuers in 2019, a decline from 217 in 2018 and the lowest tally since 2011. For the purposes of this study, we consider issuers that reemerge from default, including after distressed exchanges, to be new entities.
  • Of the issuers S&P Global Ratings assigned new ratings in 2019, the majority were in the 'B' (35%), 'BB' (30%), and 'BBB' (21%) categories.
  • In 2019, 6.4% of emerging market corporate issuers were upgraded, while 6.7% were downgraded (not including defaults). The ratio of downgrades to upgrades fell to 1.05 from 1.34 in 2018. The ratio of negative rating actions (including defaults) to upgrades decreased to 1.19 from 1.42 in 2018.
  • Among rated corporate issuers based in emerging markets, the one-year Gini coefficient was 87.46% in 2019, higher than the global one-year weighted average Gini coefficient of 82.53%. The Gini ratio summarizes our findings that emerging market issuer credit ratings are effective indicators of relative credit risk.

Emerging Market Corporate Rating Actions In 2019

Even as the number of defaults increased in 2019, there were both fewer downgrades and fewer upgrades. With nearly one upgrade for every downgrade, rating activity during the year was neutral. While there were a higher number of withdrawn ratings during the year, the proportion of changed ratings reached an all-time low of 23.6%, reflecting overall rating stability. The proportion of new issuer ratings that were speculative grade in 2019 ticked slightly higher, but this came as the total tally of new issuers (172) dropped to the lowest level since 2011.

Table 3

Summary Of Emerging Market Net Annual Rating Activity (%)*
Year Issuers Upgrades (%) Downgrades (%)§ Defaults (%) Withdrawn ratings (%) Changed ratings (%) Unchanged ratings (%) Downgrade/ upgrade ratio
1997 135 5.19 17.78 0.74 5.19 28.89 71.11 3.43
1998 273 3.30 27.84 5.49 4.76 41.39 58.61 8.44
1999 326 2.76 16.26 4.91 8.28 32.21 67.79 5.89
2000 370 11.35 9.46 1.08 5.41 27.30 72.70 0.83
2001 416 8.17 17.55 4.09 9.38 39.18 60.82 2.15
2002 452 9.29 15.49 11.73 7.74 44.25 55.75 1.67
2003 506 14.43 5.93 2.57 9.09 32.02 67.98 0.41
2004 571 16.11 2.28 0.53 6.13 25.04 74.96 0.14
2005 662 25.83 2.27 0.15 7.40 35.65 64.35 0.09
2006 762 19.69 2.76 0.26 14.83 37.53 62.47 0.14
2007 835 20.36 3.83 0.12 9.34 33.65 66.35 0.19
2008 961 11.55 8.74 1.46 9.37 31.11 68.89 0.76
2009 1,006 5.17 17.89 3.18 9.84 36.08 63.92 3.46
2010 978 16.36 4.50 0.82 8.79 30.47 69.53 0.28
2011 1,131 16.62 9.37 0.27 9.64 35.90 64.10 0.56
2012 1,185 10.38 10.30 1.43 7.76 29.87 70.13 0.99
2013 1,266 13.98 9.56 1.11 7.50 32.15 67.85 0.68
2014 1,385 6.50 12.56 0.58 8.23 27.87 72.13 1.93
2015 1,481 6.68 15.26 1.62 8.98 32.55 67.45 2.28
2016 1,525 7.21 16.79 1.90 8.72 34.62 65.38 2.33
2017 1,579 8.04 11.15 0.51 9.25 28.94 71.06 1.39
2018 1,646 8.51 11.36 0.73 7.96 28.55 71.45 1.34
2019 1,720 6.40 6.69 0.93 9.59 23.60 76.40 1.05
Weighted Average 10.80 10.55 1.47 8.76 31.58 68.42 1.43
Average 11.04 11.11 2.01 8.40 32.56 67.44 1.76
Median 9.29 10.30 1.08 8.72 32.15 67.85 1.05
Std. Dev. 5.98 6.37 2.60 2.04 5.07 5.07 2.01
Min 2.76 2.27 0.12 4.76 23.60 55.75 0.09
Max 25.83 27.84 11.73 14.83 44.25 76.40 8.44
*This table compares the net change in ratings from the first to the last day of each year. All intermediate ratings are disregarded. §Excludes downgrades to 'D', shown separately in the default column. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 4

Rating Classification Of New Corporate Issuers* In Emerging Markets
--First rating--
Year AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC/C Total % IG % SG
1997 2 3 45 52 44 146 34.2 65.8
1998 2 6 18 30 25 81 32.1 67.9
1999 3 4 14 36 26 3 86 24.4 75.6
2000 2 3 10 23 26 5 69 21.7 78.3
2001 6 5 20 27 32 11 101 30.7 69.3
2002 2 6 30 44 57 12 151 25.2 74.8
2003 1 1 11 29 29 36 18 125 33.6 66.4
2004 1 13 25 43 30 12 124 31.5 68.5
2005 14 29 43 54 5 145 29.7 70.3
2006 2 13 36 59 70 12 192 26.6 73.4
2007 1 29 43 48 75 8 204 35.8 64.2
2008 1 23 42 43 35 8 152 43.4 56.6
2009 1 9 20 34 30 10 104 28.8 71.2
2010 2 5 39 64 121 16 247 18.6 81.4
2011 2 10 40 40 65 8 165 31.5 68.5
2012 1 13 34 59 77 9 193 24.9 75.1
2013 2 16 52 70 76 7 223 31.4 68.6
2014 2 24 68 46 61 8 209 45.0 55.0
2015 5 26 59 46 47 11 194 46.4 53.6
2016 18 69 65 37 8 197 44.2 55.8
2017 5 20 35 54 94 6 214 28.0 72.0
2018 1 19 51 59 78 9 217 32.7 67.3
2019 1 16 36 51 61 7 172 30.8 69.2
Total 6 40 306 844 1,065 1,257 193 3,711 32.2 67.8
*Includes issuers that are assigned a new rating after default as well as those companies that receive a rating for the first time. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Emerging market corporate issuer credit ratings are more highly concentrated in the 'BBB' and 'BB' rating categories than all global corporate issuer credit ratings. The concentration of issuers in the 'BBB' category is likely in part due to lower sovereign ratings in emerging markets. Although sovereign ratings aren't a ceiling on issuer credit ratings, a corporate issuer rated higher than the sovereign must be able to withstand a sovereign default. The concentration of issuers in the 'BB' rating category may reflect less investor demand for weaker rated emerging market debt due to the complexity of recoveries in the event of default in many emerging market countries.

Chart 3

image

Emerging Market Corporate Issuer Defaults

Default rates increased in both the financial and nonfinancial sectors. There were six industries with default rates above their long-term medians: telecommunications, forest and building products/homebuilders, transportation, health care/chemicals, aerospace/automotive/capital goods/metal, and financial institutions. The top three industries by number of defaults were consumer/service (with five), telecommunications (four), and financial institutions (four). Issuers that defaulted in these seven industries accounted for 95% of the defaults during the year.

Table 5

Annual Emerging Market Corporate Default Rates By Industry (%)
Year Aerospace / automotive / capital goods / metal Consumer / service sector Energy and natural resources Financial institutions Forest and building products / homebuilders Health care / chemicals High technology / computers / office equipment
1997 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
1998 4.35 3.85 0.00 8.54 5.00 20.00 0.00
1999 22.22 8.11 0.00 1.20 4.76 10.00 0.00
2000 0.00 2.78 5.88 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00
2001 14.81 4.65 0.00 4.32 15.79 0.00 25.00
2002 7.14 6.82 18.52 2.60 11.76 20.00 0.00
2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56 0.00 6.67
2004 0.00 0.00 3.13 0.44 5.56 0.00 0.00
2005 0.00 0.00 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2006 2.13 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2007 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2008 0.00 4.71 4.29 0.61 2.63 0.00 5.88
2009 10.17 8.70 2.86 2.75 5.13 7.69 0.00
2010 1.85 0.00 3.13 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00
2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
2012 3.17 3.09 2.44 0.50 2.44 2.17 0.00
2013 0.00 1.94 1.15 0.23 4.88 2.08 0.00
2014 1.47 0.85 1.94 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00
2015 3.80 5.31 1.96 1.41 4.35 0.00 0.00
2016 3.61 4.67 5.26 1.16 0.00 0.00 4.17
2017 0.00 0.00 2.04 0.38 0.00 0.00 4.00
2018 1.85 2.68 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00
2019 2.44 0.85 0.00 0.73 3.28 1.39 0.00
Weighted average 2.85 2.53 2.06 0.87 2.48 1.58 1.37
Average 3.51 2.64 2.40 1.27 3.09 3.19 1.99
Median 1.85 1.94 1.94 0.57 2.44 0.00 0.00
Standard deviation 5.49 2.77 3.96 1.92 4.10 6.17 5.42
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum 22.22 8.70 18.52 8.54 15.79 20.00 25.00
Insurance Leisure time / media Real estate Telecommunications Transportation Utility
1997 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1998 0.00 5.56 11.11 0.00 6.25 0.00
1999 0.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 5.26 0.00
2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.45 0.00 0.00
2001 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00
2002 0.00 45.00 12.50 16.22 0.00 27.54
2003 0.00 8.33 0.00 14.29 4.55 5.45
2004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2008 0.00 4.35 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00
2009 0.00 5.00 0.00 1.61 2.33 1.01
2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 0.96
2011 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.00
2012 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 1.82 3.48
2013 0.00 0.00 2.30 7.84 1.59 0.00
2014 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 0.00
2015 0.00 0.00 1.68 0.00 2.30 0.00
2016 0.63 0.00 0.83 3.33 5.32 0.00
2017 0.00 0.00 0.79 1.75 0.00 0.76
2018 0.00 4.55 0.74 0.00 1.75 0.00
2019 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 1.75 0.00
Weighted average 0.06 4.10 0.98 2.46 1.63 1.42
Average 0.03 3.86 1.48 2.62 1.59 1.70
Median 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 0.00
Standard deviation 0.13 9.55 3.36 4.51 1.99 5.78
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum 0.63 45.00 12.50 16.22 6.25 27.54
Includes investment-grade and speculative-grade entities. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 6

Cumulative Emerging Market Corporate Default Rates By Sector (%)
--All financials-- --All nonfinancials--
Year One-year Three-year 10-year One-year Three-year 10-year
1997 2.17 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A N/A
1998 8.24 N/A N/A 4.26 N/A N/A
1999 1.14 4.35 N/A 6.30 10.11 N/A
2000 0.00 9.41 N/A 1.67 10.64 N/A
2001 4.08 7.95 N/A 4.09 12.61 N/A
2002 2.47 5.34 N/A 16.90 22.59 N/A
2003 0.00 4.76 N/A 4.44 24.91 N/A
2004 0.40 2.47 N/A 0.63 21.72 N/A
2005 0.00 0.47 N/A 0.27 5.46 N/A
2006 0.00 0.40 10.87 0.47 0.94 23.60
2007 0.00 0.00 16.47 0.21 0.53 30.85
2008 0.48 0.00 11.36 2.19 1.40 31.93
2009 2.15 2.25 5.34 4.07 3.55 29.29
2010 0.64 3.15 6.12 0.98 6.75 27.14
2011 0.21 3.00 3.70 0.31 5.00 23.45
2012 0.38 1.07 1.41 2.26 2.75 7.17
2013 0.18 1.24 1.20 1.86 4.48 4.06
2014 0.33 0.96 1.39 0.77 4.82 4.53
2015 1.08 1.06 1.81 2.04 4.15 6.51
2016 1.03 1.83 4.78 2.60 4.97 7.52
2017 0.29 2.32 4.84 0.68 5.03 10.58
2018 0.43 1.91 4.94 0.95 4.02 9.81
2019 0.57 1.29 3.41 1.18 1.93 6.68
Average 1.14 2.63 5.55 2.57 7.54 15.94
Median 0.43 1.91 4.81 1.67 4.97 10.20
Standard deviation 1.85 2.51 4.46 3.55 7.20 10.94
Minimum 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.53 4.06
Maximum 8.24 9.41 16.47 16.90 24.91 31.93
Note: All financials refers to financial institutions and insurance combined. N/A--Not applicable. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Of the 22 emerging market defaulters in 2019, seven were rated confidentially (see table 7). For details on the defaulted companies, including their rating histories, see Appendix IV.

Table 7

Itemized 2019 Emerging Market Corporate Defaults
Company name Reason for default Country Industry Debt amount (mil. $) Default date Next-to-last rating Date of next-to-last rating Rating one year prior to default Rating three years prior to default First rating Date of first rating EM subregion

Eletson Holdings Inc.

Missed interest Liberia Transportation 614.07 1/30/2019 CCC 8/14/2018 - - CCC 8/14/2018 EEMEA

First Heartland Jusan Bank JSC

Distressed exchange Kazakhstan Financial institutions 33.93 2/1/2019 B- 11/30/2018 B+ B+ B- 8/15/2005 EEMEA

Maxcom Telecomunicaciones S.A.B. de C.V.

Distressed exchange Mexico Telecom 180.35 4/3/2019 CCC+ 5/26/2017 CCC+ - CCC+ 5/26/2017 Latin America

USJ Acucar e Alcool S/A

Distressed exchange Brazil Consumer/service sector 275.00 5/22/2019 CC 3/27/2019 CCC+ CCC- CCC- 5/17/2016 Latin America

Cell C (Pty) Ltd.

Distressed exchange South Africa Telecom 184.00 6/26/2019 CCC- 4/16/2019 CCC+ - B- 8/7/2017 EEMEA

Avianca Holdings S.A.

Missed principal Panama Transportation 1,045.00 7/23/2019 CCC+ 5/13/2019 B B B+ 4/25/2013 Latin America

Maxcom Telecomunicaciones S.A.B. de C.V.

Distressed exchange Mexico Telecom 180.35 8/21/2019 CC 6/19/2019 - - CCC 4/5/2019 Latin America

PT Delta Merlin Dunia Textile

Missed interest Indonesia Consumer/service sector 300.00 9/13/2019 CC 8/22/2019 - - BB- 3/13/2019 Emerging Asia

Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.

Missed interest India Aerospace / automotive / capital goods / metal 200.00 10/14/2019 CCC 7/26/2019 B+ - B+ 4/7/2017 Emerging Asia

USJ Acucar e Alcool S/A

Missed principal/interest Brazil Consumer/service sector 275.00 11/28/2019 CCC+ 5/27/2019 - - CCC+ 5/27/2019 Latin America

Shandong Yuhuang Chemical Co. Ltd.

Missed principal China Health care/chemicals 300.00 11/29/2019 CC 11/22/2019 B+ - B+ 3/14/2017 Emerging Asia

McDermott International Inc.

Missed interest Panama Aerospace / automotive / capital goods / metal 4,860.00 12/3/2019 CC 10/28/2019 B+ B+ B+ 11/26/2014 Latin America

Bankmed s.a.l.

Regulatory directive Lebanon Financial institutions 0.00 12/18/2019 CCC 11/14/2019 B- B- BB- 8/7/1997 EEMEA

Bank Audi S.A.L.

Regulatory directive Lebanon Financial institutions 0.00 12/18/2019 CCC 11/14/2019 B- B- BB- 8/27/1997 EEMEA

Blom Bank sal

Regulatory directive Lebanon Financial institutions 0.00 12/18/2019 CCC 11/14/2019 B- B- BB- 11/17/1997 EEMEA
Total 8,448
Note: Excludes confidential issuers. Debt excludes confidential debt. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Emerging Markets Ratings Performance

The small sample size of emerging market defaults presents a challenge in our analysis. The average time to default for all emerging market defaulters from 1997-2019 was 3.9 years, which is notably lower than the global average from 1981-2019. However, from 1997-2019, corporate defaults in emerging markets totaled just 371, a small fraction of the 2,374 recorded globally during that period.

The average times to default across rating categories in emerging markets are shorter than in the global pool. Higher ratings generally take a longer time to default, but this appears less evident in emerging markets because of the paucity of investment-grade defaults (see chart 8). The average time to default from the original rating for 'A' rated issuers in emerging markets should be considered an anomaly, with just one default at this rating level from 1997-2019. Shorter average times to default in emerging markets are, in part, a result of the small default tallies in every rating category during the observation period.

The emerging markets rating categories with the highest default tallies exhibit the same relationship that appears in the global data. Corporate issuers rated in the 'B' category took 3.2 years to default, on average, while those rated in the 'BB' category took 5.4 years. This relationship holds regardless of whether the times to default are calculated from original ratings (see table 8) or from subsequent ratings (see table 9). However, it appears to weaken, and the average time to default is shorter, using post-original ratings.

Chart 4

image

Chart 5

image

Chart 6

image

Table 8

Time To Default From Original Rating Among Corporate Defaulters (Emerging Markets Versus Global)
Original rating Defaults Average years from original rating Median years from original rating Standard deviation of years from original rating
Emerging markets (1997-2019)
AAA N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA N/A N/A N/A N/A
A 1 1.6 1.6 N/A
BBB 38 4.7 4.4 3.5
BB 106 5.4 4.5 4.4
B 175 3.2 2.5 2.6
CCC/C 51 2.7 1.4 3.5
Total 371 3.9 3.1 3.5
Global (1981-2019)
AAA 8 18.0 18.5 11.4
AA 30 16.0 16.8 9.2
A 99 13.8 10.8 8.8
BBB 215 9.1 7.2 6.7
BB 623 6.9 5.3 5.6
B 1,593 4.9 3.6 4.2
CCC/C 304 2.2 1.3 2.8
Total 2,872 5.8 4.0 5.6
N/A--Not applicable. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 9

Time To Default From Post-Original Ratings Among Corporate Defaulters (Emerging Markets Versus Global)
Rating path to default Average years from rating category Median years from rating category Standard deviation of years from rating category
Emerging markets (1997-2019)
AAA N/A N/A N/A
AA N/A N/A N/A
A 0.7 0.7 N/A
BBB 4.2 3.9 2.5
BB 2.6 1.3 2.7
B 2.4 0.9 3.6
CCC/C 0.6 0.2 1.4
Total 1.7 0.6 2.8
Global (1981-2019)
AAA 23.7 23.3 8.2
AA 14.1 15.5 8.9
A 11.2 9.6 8.2
BBB 8.2 6.4 6.9
BB 5.9 4.0 5.7
B 3.1 1.8 3.8
CCC/C 0.9 0.3 1.6
Total 3.3 1.3 4.8
N/A--Not applicable. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Looking at default rates by modifier shows that lower rating categories experience higher default rates on average historically, though variability is possible in any given year (see table 10). Nevertheless, the data from past default cycles indicates that most defaults came from the lowest rating categories.

Table 10

Emerging Market Corporate Default Rates By Rating Modifier (%)
AAA AA+ AA AA- A+ A A- BBB+ BBB BBB- BB+ BB BB- B+ B B- CCC/C
1997 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
1998 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.85 3.85 3.57 0.00 13.51 22.22 20.00 N/A
1999 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 12.12 23.81 6.67 23.81
2000 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33 5.56 0.00 10.00
2001 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.69 12.96 5.45 4.35 4.76 20.00
2002 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 3.39 10.26 2.27 20.51 16.67 59.26
2003 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.28 5.71 2.56 18.18
2004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 1.67 0.00 0.00 2.63
2005 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.00 0.00
2006 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55
2007 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.17
2008 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 1.19 0.76 2.94 4.94 4.00 10.53
2009 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.92 0.00 1.04 0.71 9.86 8.22 9.84 40.00
2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67
2011 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33 4.17
2012 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 1.92 1.74 7.41 19.35
2013 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 1.03 1.71 3.88 18.75
2014 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.74 1.20 9.43
2015 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 4.92 4.72 1.35 18.18
2016 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.57 0.00 1.52 1.68 2.91 13.04 17.78
2017 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.06 18.18
2018 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 4.21 27.27
2019 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 1.16 6.58 20.69
Average 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.32 0.25 0.38 0.50 1.50 2.88 4.84 4.63 17.31
Median 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 1.72 2.56 18.18
Standard deviation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.39 0.83 1.02 1.05 3.29 3.91 7.26 5.58 13.47
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 0.00 0.00 1.18 6.67 3.85 3.85 3.57 12.96 13.51 23.81 20.00 59.26
Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Transition And Cumulative Default Rate Tables

Analysis of 2019 rating transitions suggests that ratings behavior in emerging markets is consistent with global trends, which have shown a clear correlation between low ratings and the probability of default. Investment-grade-rated issuers in emerging markets tend to have greater rating stability (as measured by the rate of transitions) than their speculative-grade counterparts (see table 11). For instance, about 93.18% of emerging market issuers rated 'A' as of Jan. 1, 2019, were still rated 'A' at the end of 2019, whereas the comparable metric for issuers rated 'B' was 75.33%. Caution should be used when comparing the emerging markets and global transition tables given the smaller sample size.

Table 11

One-Year 2019 Corporate Transition Rates: Emerging Markets Versus Global (%)
From/to AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC/C D NR
Emerging markets
AAA 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AA 0.00 93.48 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.35
A 0.00 0.00 93.18 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.79
BBB 0.00 0.00 1.95 91.83 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25
BB 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 83.26 3.10 0.21 0.00 11.16
B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.36 75.33 2.36 2.62 17.32
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.24 41.38 20.69 20.69
Global
AAA 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AA 0.00 93.29 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.57
A 0.00 0.71 93.71 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64
BBB 0.00 0.00 2.68 91.42 1.23 0.05 0.00 0.11 4.50
BB 0.00 0.00 0.07 2.62 83.08 5.01 0.30 0.00 8.91
B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.21 78.46 5.14 1.49 12.69
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 8.29 46.34 29.76 15.12
Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence’s CreditPro®.

This pattern is similar to the long-term trend of ratings behavior among all global rated issuers. Of the emerging market issuers rated 'AAA' from 1997-2019, 89.53% retained this rating after one year, whereas 80.34% of issuers rated 'BB' retained that rating (see table 12). Transition rates for emerging markets are generally consistent with global patterns. Based on the transition analysis for a time horizon of two years rather than one year, lower ratings also tend to display less stability than higher ratings (see table 13).

By modifier, rating transitions display the same relationship by and large, though differences in sample size occasionally create slight variations between adjacent rating categories (see table 14).

Table 12

Average One-Year Corporate Transition Rates (%)
From/to AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC/C D NR
Emerging markets (1997-2019)
AAA 89.53 9.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16
(21.26) (20.87) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (6.28)
AA 1.04 88.61 7.66 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.48
(5.09) (11.64) (9.37) (1.39) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.08)
A 0.00 1.58 90.92 4.52 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.04 2.38
(0.00) (1.67) (5.22) (3.91) (0.76) (1.10) (0.00) (0.14) (1.11)
BBB 0.00 0.02 2.34 87.05 4.38 0.35 0.17 0.12 5.59
(0.00) (0.09) (2.21) (5.58) (4.20) (1.24) (1.03) (0.36) (1.90)
BB 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.19 80.34 4.74 0.61 0.53 9.58
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.39) (4.10) (2.15) (1.99) (1.15) (3.16)
B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 5.84 72.70 3.51 3.03 14.90
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.11) (3.77) (4.95) (2.90) (3.46) (2.93)
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 18.60 44.64 18.30 18.01
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.95) (13.30) (14.41) (15.03) (10.30)
Global (1981-2019)
AAA 87.03 9.08 0.53 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.00 3.12
(7.17) (7.22) (0.83) (0.25) (0.28) (0.17) (0.34) (0.00) (2.42)
AA 0.49 87.23 7.73 0.48 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.02 3.91
(0.53) (5.22) (4.17) (0.68) (0.19) (0.20) (0.07) (0.08) (1.82)
A 0.03 1.66 88.42 5.04 0.27 0.11 0.02 0.05 4.40
(0.09) (1.03) (3.71) (2.18) (0.38) (0.24) (0.06) (0.11) (1.69)
BBB 0.01 0.09 3.37 86.32 3.52 0.44 0.10 0.16 5.99
(0.04) (0.15) (1.55) (3.90) (1.60) (0.66) (0.21) (0.25) (1.55)
BB 0.01 0.03 0.11 4.73 77.79 6.58 0.54 0.61 9.60
(0.05) (0.08) (0.24) (1.87) (4.47) (2.98) (0.72) (0.83) (2.18)
B 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.16 4.76 74.75 4.48 3.33 12.42
(0.00) (0.08) (0.20) (0.21) (2.08) (4.04) (2.00) (3.13) (2.20)
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.19 0.58 12.93 43.64 27.08 15.47
(0.00) (0.00) (0.41) (0.63) (0.90) (7.51) (8.46) (10.48) (5.07)
Note: The emerging market figures are for the time period from 1997-2019 . Numbers in parentheses are weighted standard deviations. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 13

Average Two-Year Corporate Transition Rates (%)
From/to AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC/C D NR
Emerging markets (1997-2019)
AAA 78.57 19.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38
(28.48) (28.79) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (8.83)
AA 2.29 78.95 14.42 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.89
(7.38) (16.23) (13.64) (1.84) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.81)
A 0.00 2.90 82.62 8.27 0.81 0.39 0.00 0.04 4.98
(0.00) (2.16) (6.64) (4.12) (2.96) (0.93) (0.00) (0.15) (1.56)
BBB 0.00 0.02 4.66 76.23 7.54 0.67 0.31 0.53 10.05
(0.00) (0.10) (3.52) (7.09) (5.50) (1.49) (1.35) (2.03) (2.74)
BB 0.00 0.00 0.03 7.84 65.45 7.03 0.91 1.64 17.09
(0.00) (0.00) (0.10) (3.49) (5.86) (2.76) (1.99) (3.33) (3.64)
B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 9.81 55.26 4.23 6.36 24.21
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.33) (6.22) (6.16) (2.94) (5.33) (3.68)
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.62 27.68 20.53 22.71 28.30
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.64) (1.50) (13.65) (10.35) (15.45) (12.94)
Global (1981-2019)
AAA 75.65 16.22 1.43 0.11 0.24 0.05 0.11 0.03 6.17
(10.10) (10.59) (1.47) (0.30) (0.46) (0.23) (0.41) (0.17) (4.24)
AA 0.87 76.18 13.77 1.23 0.18 0.14 0.02 0.06 7.56
(0.70) (8.18) (5.95) (1.10) (0.33) (0.29) (0.06) (0.12) (2.93)
A 0.04 2.98 78.30 8.81 0.71 0.25 0.04 0.14 8.74
(0.07) (1.67) (5.75) (2.89) (0.78) (0.41) (0.10) (0.19) (2.68)
BBB 0.02 0.17 6.18 74.91 5.66 1.01 0.20 0.45 11.41
(0.08) (0.23) (2.43) (6.10) (2.03) (1.08) (0.30) (0.63) (2.49)
BB 0.01 0.04 0.27 8.46 60.75 9.83 0.99 1.96 17.69
(0.06) (0.10) (0.49) (2.76) (6.44) (2.72) (0.90) (2.19) (3.04)
B 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.39 8.09 55.77 5.24 7.83 22.53
(0.00) (0.11) (0.29) (0.44) (3.09) (5.08) (1.86) (5.69) (3.68)
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.48 1.04 17.15 20.73 36.51 23.96
(0.00) (0.00) (0.47) (1.15) (1.13) (7.38) (7.51) (11.83) (7.04)
Note: The emerging market figures are for the time period from 1997-2019 . Numbers in parentheses are weighted standard deviations. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 14

Average One-Year Transition Rates For Emerging Market Corporate Issuers By Rating Modifier (1997-2019) (%)
--Rating--
From/to AAA AA+ AA AA- A+ A A- BBB+ BBB BBB- BB+ BB BB- B+ B B- CCC D NR
AAA 89.53 8.14 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16
(21.26) (20.39) (6.28) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (6.28)
AA+ 20.83 66.67 4.17 8.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(44.49) (51.64) (21.89) (30.28) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
AA 0.00 3.67 88.07 7.34 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(0.00) (11.82) (22.92) (14.64) (0.00) (0.00) (9.76) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
AA- 0.00 0.00 5.14 80.86 9.71 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.43
(0.00) (0.00) (10.03) (14.29) (10.72) (1.13) (1.33) (1.70) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (4.93)
A+ 0.00 0.00 0.16 6.86 80.70 7.81 0.80 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 2.07
(0.00) (0.00) (0.64) (6.78) (11.24) (8.81) (1.80) (1.61) (0.85) (0.00) (1.28) (0.00) (0.00) (1.90) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.64) (1.92)
A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 6.84 82.06 5.49 1.35 0.56 0.22 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.44) (6.04) (10.82) (6.14) (3.41) (1.90) (1.52) (0.00) (1.14) (0.00) (1.09) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.57)
A- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 6.45 82.76 6.60 0.67 0.67 0.07 0.30 0.00 0.15 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.69) (5.71) (8.41) (4.36) (1.44) (3.35) (0.33) (1.18) (0.00) (0.85) (0.34) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.52)
BBB+ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 7.04 80.61 6.81 0.94 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 4.04
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.46) (5.54) (7.02) (4.83) (1.25) (0.00) (0.50) (0.38) (0.72) (0.72) (0.00) (0.00) (0.25) (2.66)
BBB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.32 9.63 75.63 7.32 1.11 0.42 0.16 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.11 5.00
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.27) (0.24) (0.00) (0.92) (6.65) (7.62) (6.39) (2.20) (1.59) (0.53) (0.61) (0.00) (0.42) (0.44) (0.63) (3.49)
BBB- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.82 7.66 73.02 7.66 1.72 0.43 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.39 0.17 7.27
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.28) (0.57) (1.24) (4.58) (9.78) (7.81) (2.78) (0.66) (0.96) (1.12) (0.81) (2.14) (0.63) (2.99)
BB+ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.69 11.86 65.41 9.74 1.89 0.52 0.34 0.23 0.46 0.23 8.42
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.70) (1.97) (8.18) (9.20) (9.30) (2.46) (0.82) (1.26) (0.59) (2.51) (0.69) (4.57)
BB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.14 1.07 10.06 66.17 9.64 1.67 0.56 0.14 0.79 0.32 9.36
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.34) (0.38) (0.90) (6.89) (9.80) (7.91) (1.70) (0.79) (0.59) (2.75) (0.79) (4.19)
BB- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.22 1.04 10.23 66.39 7.44 2.05 0.26 0.57 0.96 10.67
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.69) (1.29) (1.61) (5.90) (6.88) (3.66) (1.71) (0.42) (1.45) (2.38) (3.65)
B+ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.41 11.81 56.88 9.21 3.09 1.46 2.28 13.54
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.99) (1.87) (6.03) (8.35) (5.16) (2.19) (2.51) (3.13) (3.83)
B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.17 1.34 9.38 58.62 10.37 2.68 2.91 14.45
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.35) (0.49) (3.06) (6.71) (10.64) (6.45) (3.27) (4.74) (5.58)
B- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.23 0.23 2.72 12.37 55.10 7.55 4.28 17.43
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.41) (0.00) (0.62) (0.85) (4.82) (6.84) (7.81) (7.19) (4.48) (5.75)
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.89 1.79 15.92 44.64 18.30 18.01
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.95) (2.25) (2.30) (11.19) (14.41) (15.03) (10.30)
Note: Numbers in parentheses are weighted standard deviations. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

The correlation between lower ratings and defaults in emerging markets remains true over time (see tables 15-16 and chart 9). In emerging markets, no issuers rated 'AAA' or 'AA' have ever defaulted, and the 'A' category has had only one default. From 1997-2019, 'BB' rated emerging market issuers had an average default rate of 0.53% after one year and 1.60% after two years. Issuers rated 'B' had an average default rate of 3.03% after one year and 6.33% after two years.

Our findings in this study are constrained by the small number of issuers in the 2019 pool and the short observation period. There were only 3,711 issuer ratings in the emerging markets pool from 1997-2019, compared with 21,053 issuers for the global study that covers 1981-2019. Although the study period for emerging markets is 1997-2019, more than 72% of the total issuer ratings in that period were assigned after 2005. Therefore, a significant portion of the pool isn't as seasoned as its global counterparts, which leads to averages that are more heavily influenced by recent pools, especially for longer time horizons.

Table 15

Comparison Of Corporate Cumulative Average Default Rates (%)
--Time horizon (year)--
From/to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Emerging markets (1997-2019)
AAA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
A 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
BBB 0.12 0.52 0.97 1.52 2.03 2.36 2.45 2.56 2.64 2.64
BB 0.53 1.60 2.79 3.93 4.85 5.42 5.89 6.21 6.61 6.93
B 3.03 6.33 8.77 10.65 12.04 13.12 14.00 14.80 15.43 16.06
CCC/C 18.30 22.81 25.21 25.54 26.09 26.29 26.52 27.28 27.83 28.41
Investment grade 0.08 0.34 0.63 0.98 1.31 1.53 1.59 1.65 1.70 1.70
Speculative grade 2.59 4.78 6.56 7.96 9.05 9.82 10.44 11.00 11.50 11.97
All rated 1.47 2.80 3.93 4.87 5.63 6.15 6.54 6.88 7.20 7.47
Global (1981-2019)
AAA 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.24 0.35 0.45 0.51 0.59 0.64 0.70
AA 0.02 0.06 0.12 0.21 0.31 0.42 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.72
A 0.05 0.14 0.23 0.35 0.47 0.62 0.79 0.93 1.08 1.24
BBB 0.16 0.45 0.78 1.17 1.58 1.98 2.33 2.67 3.00 3.32
BB 0.61 1.93 3.48 5.05 6.52 7.85 9.01 10.05 10.97 11.78
B 3.33 7.71 11.56 14.59 16.94 18.84 20.37 21.61 22.71 23.75
CCC/C 27.08 36.64 41.42 44.11 46.21 47.11 48.28 49.07 49.78 50.40
Investment grade 0.09 0.24 0.42 0.65 0.88 1.11 1.32 1.52 1.72 1.91
Speculative grade 3.61 7.00 9.93 12.32 14.27 15.86 17.20 18.32 19.32 20.23
All rated 1.48 2.89 4.13 5.17 6.04 6.76 7.38 7.90 8.37 8.80
Note: The emerging market figures are for the time period from 1997-2019. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 16

Emerging Markets Corporate Cumulative Average Default Rates By Rating Modifier (1997-2019) (%)
--Time horizon (year)--
Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AAA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AA+ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AA- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
A+ 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
A- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BBB+ 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
BBB 0.11 0.16 0.35 0.84 1.22 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48
BBB- 0.17 1.10 2.11 3.10 3.99 4.54 4.77 5.03 5.23 5.23
BB+ 0.23 0.97 1.84 2.58 3.09 3.18 3.29 3.29 3.43 3.74
BB 0.32 1.47 2.63 3.63 4.46 4.61 5.03 5.42 5.95 6.45
BB- 0.96 2.21 3.67 5.26 6.55 7.82 8.56 9.04 9.49 9.69
B+ 2.28 5.25 7.21 8.50 9.54 10.35 10.89 11.58 11.80 11.93
B 2.91 5.84 8.21 10.31 11.58 12.72 13.90 14.88 16.01 17.50
B- 4.28 8.49 11.72 14.17 16.20 17.58 18.60 19.34 20.02 20.41
CCC/C 18.30 22.81 25.21 25.54 26.09 26.29 26.52 27.28 27.83 28.41
Investment grade 0.08 0.34 0.63 0.98 1.31 1.53 1.59 1.65 1.70 1.70
Speculative grade 2.59 4.78 6.56 7.96 9.05 9.82 10.44 11.00 11.50 11.97
All rated 1.47 2.80 3.93 4.87 5.63 6.15 6.54 6.88 7.20 7.47
Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Gini Ratios And Lorenz Curves

As in our global default study, the default data indicates that emerging market issuer credit ratings are effective indicators of relative credit risk over time. We measure this relationship with movements in Gini ratios. If corporate ratings were perfectly rank ordered so that all defaults occurred only among the lowest-rated issuers, the Gini coefficient would be 100%. Among rated corporate issuers based in emerging markets, the one-year Gini coefficient was 87.46% in 2019.

The Gini ratio for emerging markets has steadily improved over the past 10 years as the pool of rated issuers has grown. The one-year Gini coefficient is based on ratings one year prior to default rather than those immediately preceding default. Growth in the number of emerging market corporate issuers rated by S&P Global Ratings will continue to make this metric more meaningful and will lower the likelihood of data distortion by outliers, which still affect emerging markets long-term averages.

Over the longer time horizon of 1997-2019, the one-year weighted-average Gini coefficient for emerging markets was 76.26%, the three-year was 61.82%, and the five-year was 53.81%. By comparison, the 1981-2019 one-year weighted-average Gini coefficient for the global pool was 82.53%, the three-year was 75.21%, and the five-year was 71.4%. Gini ratios measure the rank-ordering power of ratings over a given time horizon and show the ratio of actual rank-ordering performance to theoretically perfect rank ordering. (For definitions and more information on the Gini methodology, see Appendix III.)

Table 17

Corporate Gini Coefficients By Region (%)
--Time horizon--
Region One-year Three-year Five-year
Global 82.53 75.21 71.40
U.S. 80.71 72.85 69.02
Europe 90.29 85.18 82.57
Emerging markets 76.26 61.82 53.81
Emerging market figures are for the period 1997-2019. Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Chart 7

image

Chart 8

image

Chart 9

image

Appendix I: Default Methodology And Definitions

This long-term corporate default and rating transition study uses S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro® database of long-term local currency issuer credit ratings. Most exhibits in this study are the direct output of the CreditPro® interface, while others reflect manual manipulation of the underlying database.

An issuer credit rating reflects S&P Global Ratings' forward-looking opinion of a company's overall creditworthiness to pay its financial obligations. This opinion focuses on the obligor's capacity and willingness to meet its financial commitments as they come due. It does not apply to any specific financial obligation because it does not take into account the nature and provisions of the obligation, its standing in bankruptcy or liquidation, statutory preferences, or the legality and enforceability of the obligation. It is not necessary for a company to have rated debt to have an issuer credit rating.

While the issue credit rating is an assessment of default risk, it may also incorporate an assessment of the relative seniority or ultimate recovery of the issue in the event of default. The junior obligations of a company are typically rated lower than the senior obligations to reflect the lower priority in bankruptcy and ultimate recovery expectations. Alternatively, secured debt may receive a rating that is above the issuer credit rating. Notching also applies to the structural subordination of debt issued by operating subsidiaries or holding companies that are part of an enterprise that we view as a single economic entity.

The ongoing enhancement of the CreditPro® database used to generate this study could lead to outcomes that differ, to some degree, from those reported in previous studies. However, this poses no continuity problem because each study reports statistics going back to Dec. 31, 1996. Therefore, each annual default study is self-contained and effectively supersedes all previous versions.

Issuers included in this study

For the purposes of this study, emerging markets refers to Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Macao Special Administrative Region of China, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands Antilles, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Taiwan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turks and Caicos Islands, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Yemen.

The study analyzes the rating histories of 3,711 emerging market companies that S&P Global Ratings Research had ratings on starting on Jan. 1, 1997, through Dec. 31, 2019. These include industrials, utilities, financial institutions, and insurance companies with long-term local currency ratings. The analysis excludes public information ("pi") ratings and ratings based on the guarantee of another company or government entity. Structured finance vehicles, public-sector issuers, and sovereign issuers are the subject of separate default and transition studies, and we excluded these from this study.

In this study, the insurance industry includes life insurance, health insurance, property/casualty insurance, reinsurance, bond insurance, mortgage insurance, and title insurance. In addition to these subsectors, this study also groups insurance service providers (such as insurance brokers and third-party administrators that are rated according to corporate criteria) with the insurance industry.

To avoid double counting, the CreditPro database excludes subsidiaries with debt that is fully guaranteed by a parent or with default risk that is considered identical to that of their parents. The latter are companies with obligations that are not legally guaranteed by a parent but that have operating or financing activities that are so inextricably entwined with those of the parent that it would be impossible to imagine the default of one and not the other. At times, however, some of these subsidiaries might not yet have been covered by a parent's guarantee, or the relationship that combines the default risk of parent and subsidiary might have come to an end or might not have begun. We included such subsidiaries for the period during which they had a distinct and separate risk of default.

Issuers with withdrawn ratings

S&P Global Ratings withdraws ratings when an entity's entire debt is paid off or when the program or programs rated are terminated and the relevant debt extinguished. For the purposes of this study, a rating may be withdrawn as a result of mergers and acquisitions. Others are withdrawn because of a lack of cooperation, particularly when a company is experiencing financial difficulties and refuses to provide all the information needed to continue surveillance on the ratings, or at the entity's request.

Definition of default

An obligor rated 'SD' (selective default) or 'D' is in payment default on one or more of its financial obligations (rated or unrated) unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within five business days, irrespective of any grace period. S&P Global Ratings also lowers a rating to 'D' upon an issuer's filing for bankruptcy or taking a similar action that jeopardizes payments on a financial obligation. A 'D' rating is assigned when S&P Global Ratings believes that the default will be a general default and that the obligor will fail to pay all or substantially all of its obligations as they come due. S&P Global Ratings assigns an 'SD' rating when it believes that the obligor has selectively defaulted on a specific issue or class of obligations but will continue to meet its payment obligations on other issues or classes of obligations in a timely manner. A selective default includes the completion of a distressed exchange offer, whereby one or more financial obligation is either repurchased for an amount of cash or replaced by other instruments having a total value that is less than par.

'R' indicates that an obligor is under regulatory supervision owing to its financial condition. This does not necessarily indicate a default event, but the regulator might have the power to favor one class of obligations over others or pay some obligations and not others. Preferred stock is not considered a financial obligation; thus, a missed preferred stock dividend is not normally equated with default.

We deem 'D', 'SD', and 'R' issuer ratings as defaults for the purposes of this study. A default is assumed to take place on the earliest of: the date S&P Global Ratings revised the rating(s) to 'D', 'SD', or 'R'; the date a debt payment was missed; the date a distressed exchange offer was announced; or the date the debtor filed or was forced into bankruptcy.

When an issuer defaults, it is not uncommon for S&P Global Ratings to subsequently withdraw the 'D' rating. For the purposes of this study, if an issuer defaults, we end its rating history at 'D'. If any defaulting entity reemerges from bankruptcy, or otherwise restructures its defaulted debt instruments thereby reestablishing regular, timely payment of all its debts, we reenter this issuer into the database as a new entity. Its rating history after the default event is included in all calculations as entirely separate from its experience leading up to its earlier default.

Calculations

Static pool methodology.  S&P Global Ratings Research conducts its default studies on the basis of groupings called static pools. For the purposes of this study, we form static pools by grouping issuers by rating category at the beginning of each year covered by the study. Each static pool is followed from that point forward. All companies included in the study are assigned to one or more static pools. When an issuer defaults, we assign that default back to all of the static pools to which the issuer belonged.

We use the static pool methodology to avoid certain pitfalls in estimating default rates. This is to ensure that default rates account for rating migration and to allow for default rates to be calculated across multiperiod time horizons. Some methods for calculating default and rating transition rates might charge defaults against only the initial rating on the issuer, ignoring more recent rating changes that supply more current information. Other methods calculate default rates using only the most recent year's default and rating data; these methods might yield comparatively low default rates during periods of high rating activity because they ignore prior years' default activity.

The pools are static in the sense that their membership remains constant over time. Each static pool can be interpreted as a buy-and-hold portfolio. Because errors, if any, are corrected by every new update and the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of companies in the default study are subject to minor revisions as time goes by, it is not possible to compare static pools across different studies. Therefore, every new update revises results back to the same starting date of Dec. 31, 1996, so as to avoid continuity problems.

Entities that have had ratings withdrawn--that is, revised to 'NR'--are surveilled with the aim of capturing a potential default. Because static pools only include entities with active ratings as of the beginning date of a given pool, we exclude companies with withdrawn ratings, as well as those that have defaulted, from subsequent static pools. If an entity has its rating withdrawn after the start date of a particular static pool and subsequently defaults, we will include it in that static pool as a default and categorize it into the rating category it was a member of at that time.

For instance, the 1998 static pool consists of all companies rated as of 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 1, 1998, while the 1999 static pool consists of those companies first rated in 1998 and the surviving members of the 1998 static pool. All rating changes that took place in 1998 are reflected in the newly formed 1999 static pool. We used this same method to form static pools for each year in the study.

Consider the following example: S&P Global Ratings Research downgraded an issuer that was originally rated 'BB' in mid-1998 to 'B' in 2000 and then withdrew the rating ('NR') in 2002; the company subsequently defaulted ('D') in 2005. This hypothetical company would be included in the 1999 and 2000 pools with the 'BB' rating, which it was rated at the beginning of those years. Likewise, the company would be included in the 2001 and 2002 pools with the 'B' rating. The company would not be part of the 1998 pool because it was not rated as of the first day of that year, and we would not include it in any pool after the last day of 2002 because S&P Global Ratings had withdrawn the rating by then. Yet each of the four pools in which this company was included (1999-2002) would record its 2005 default at the appropriate time horizon.

S&P Global Ratings withdraws ratings when an entity's entire debt is paid off or when the rated program(s) are terminated and the relevant debt extinguished. Rating withdrawals can also occur as a result of mergers and acquisitions as well as a lack of cooperation, particularly when a company is experiencing financial difficulties and refuses to provide all the information needed to continue surveillance on the ratings.

Default rate calculation.  We calculated annual default rates for each static pool, first in units and then as percentages with respect to the number of issuers in each rating category. Finally, we combined these percentages to obtain cumulative default rates for the 23 years the study covers.

Issuer-weighted default rates.  All default rates that appear in this study are calculated based on the number of issuers rather than the dollar amounts affected by defaults or rating changes. Although dollar amounts provide information about the portion of the market that is affected by defaults or rating changes, issuer-weighted averages are a more useful measure of the performance of ratings.

Many practitioners use statistics from this default study and CreditPro® to estimate "probability of default" and "probability of rating transition." It is important to note that S&P Global Ratings' credit ratings do not imply a specific probability of default.

Cumulative average default rate calculation.  The cumulative default rates in this study average the experience of all static pools by first calculating marginal default rates for each possible time horizon and for each static pool, weight averaging the marginal default rates conditional on survival (survivors being nondefaulters), and accumulating the average conditional marginal default rates. We calculate conditional default rates by dividing the number of issuers in a static pool that default at a specific time horizon by the number of issuers that survived (did not default) to that point in time. The weights are based on the number of issuers in each static pool. The cumulative default rate is one minus the product of the proportion of survivors (nondefaulters).

For instance, the hypothetical weighted-average first-year default rate for speculative-grade-rated companies in emerging markets for all 23 pools was 2.59%, meaning that an average of 97.41% survived one year. Similarly, the second-year conditional marginal average--shown in the summary statistics section at the bottom of table 20--was 2.25% for the first 22 pools (97.75% of those companies that did not default in the first year survived the second year), and the third-year conditional marginal average was 1.87% for the first 21 pools (98.13% of those companies that did not default by the second year survived the third year). Multiplying 97.41% by 97.75% results in a 95.22% survival rate to the end of the second year, which yields a two-year cumulative average default rate of 4.78%. Multiplying 95.22% by 98.13% results in a 93.44% survival rate to the end of the third year, which yields a three-year cumulative average default rate of 6.56%.

Standard deviations

Many of the exhibits in this study display averages of default rates, transition rates, and Gini ratios. As described earlier, often these are issuer-weighted averages. Prior studies have shown that fluctuations within default rates and transitions can vary greatly depending on many circumstances specific to particular time frames, industries, and geographic regions. Standard deviations are also shown to provide a gauge of the dispersion of the ranges of data behind these averages.

For the transition matrices in tables 12-14 and 21-23, the standard deviation for each cell in a given matrix is calculated using the data from each of the underlying cohort years that contribute to the averages. For example, in the average one-year emerging market transition matrix in table 12, each cell's standard deviation is calculated from the series of that particular cell in each of the 23 cohorts beginning with the 1997 cohort and ending with the 2019 cohort.

The standard deviations for cumulative average default rates in tables 15 and 16 were calculated from the cumulative average default rate tables by all available sequential cohort combinations that began with the 1997 cohort for emerging markets and 1981 cohort for global issuers. For example, the emerging markets cumulative average default rates in table 15 are issuer-weighted average default rates conditional on survival, derived from the default experience of all 23 available calendar year cohorts--from 1997-2019.

The squared difference between each cohort's transition rate and the weighted average--which is the data point in each cell--is multiplied by each cohort's weight. These weights are based on each cohort's rating level's contribution to the 23-year total issuer base for each rating level. We then divide this by the ratio of the total number of non-zero weights minus one and the total number of non-zero weights.

In this study, we applied some changes to the calculation or exclusion of standard deviations for transition matrices and cumulative default rates. For tables 15 and 16, we have removed standard deviations that were included in prior studies. For tables 12, 13, and 21-23, standard deviations in prior studies were calculated with each year's transition rates carrying equal weighting. For this study, we have updated the transition matrices to include weighted standard deviations. For details regarding their calculation, please refer to the calculations section of this appendix.

Time sample

This update limits the reporting of default rates in the emerging markets to the 23-year time horizon, and we based all calculations on the rating experience of that period. Global data are based on a 39-year time horizon. The maturities of most obligations are much shorter than 23 years. In addition, average default statistics become less reliable at longer-time horizons because the sample size becomes smaller and the cyclical nature of default rates has a bigger effect on averages.

Default patterns share broad similarities across all static pools, suggesting that S&P Global Ratings Research standards have been consistent over time. Adverse business conditions tend to coincide with default upswings for all pools. Speculative-grade issuers have been hit the hardest by these upswings, but investment-grade default rates also increase in stressful periods.

Transition analysis

Transition rates compare issuer ratings at the beginning of a time period with ratings at the end of the period. To compute one-year rating transition rates by rating category, we compared the rating on each entity at the end of a particular year with the rating at the beginning of the same year. We counted an issuer that remained rated for more than one year as many times as the number of years it was rated.

For instance, an issuer continually rated from mid-1999 to mid-2006 would appear in the six consecutive one-year transition matrices from 2000 to 2005. If the rating on the issuer was withdrawn in the middle of 2006, it would be included in the column representing transitions to 'NR' in the 2006 transition matrix. Similarly, if it defaulted in the middle of 2006, it would be included in the column representing transitions to 'D' in the 2006 one-year transition matrix.

All 1997 static pool members still rated on Dec. 31, 2019, had 23 one-year transitions, while companies first rated on Jan. 1, 2019 had only one. Each one-year transition matrix displays all rating movements from the beginning of the year through year-end. For each rating listed in the matrix's left-most column, there are nine ratios listed in the rows, corresponding to the ratings from 'AAA' to 'D', plus an entry for 'NR'. For instance, the first panel of table 11, which corresponds to the 2019 static pool, shows that out of all 'A' rated companies at the beginning of that year, 93.18% were still rated 'A' at year-end, while S&P Global Ratings had upgraded 0.46% to 'AA', and so on. We calculated the average one-year transition matrices on the basis of the one-year transition matrix just described. The ratios represent the historical incidence of the ratings listed in the first column changing to the ones listed on the top row over the course of the reference period (see tables 12 and 13).

The only ratings considered in these calculations are those on entities at the beginning of each static pool and those at the end. All rating changes that occur in between are ignored. For example, if an entity was rated 'A' on Jan. 1, 2019, and was downgraded to 'BBB' in the middle of the year and then later upgraded to 'A' later in the year (with no other subsequent rating changes), this entity would only be included in the percentage of issuers that began the year as 'A' that ended the year as 'A'. This also applies to transition matrices that span longer time horizons. If an issuer defaults or has its rating withdrawn in the middle of the year, then either a 'D' or 'NR' would be considered its rating as of Dec. 31 of that particular year.

Multiyear transitions.  We also calculated multiyear transitions for periods of two years to five years. In this case, we compared the rating at the beginning of the multiyear period with the rating at the end. For example, we could calculate two-year transition matrices by comparing the ratings at the beginning of the years 1997-2019 with the ratings at the end of the years 1998-2019 (see table 13). Otherwise, the methodology was identical to that used for single-year transitions.

We calculated average transition matrices on the basis of the multiyear matrices just described. These average matrices are a true summary, the ratios of which represent the historical incidence of the ratings listed on the first column, changing to the ones listed on the top row over the course of the multiyear period (see tables 21-23). Transition matrices that present averages over multiple time horizons are also calculated as issuer-weighted averages.

Comparing transition rates with default rates.  Rating transition rates may be compared with the marginal and cumulative default rates described in the previous sections. For example, the one-year default rate column of table 15 is equivalent to column 'D' of the average one-year transition matrix in table 12 and the cumulative average in summary statistics of the year one column in table 20. However, the two-year default rate column in table 15 is not the same as column 'D' of the average two-year transition matrix in table 21. This difference results from the different methods of calculating default rates. The default rates in table 21 are calculated as not conditional on survival, while those in table 15 are average default rates conditional on survival. The two-year default rates in table 15 are calculated in the same way as those in the cumulative average section for the year two column in table 20, while those in the 'D' column of table 21 are equivalent to adding up all the defaults behind the year two column's annual default rates in table 20 divided by the sum of all the issuers in table 20.

The links between transition matrices and average cumulative default rates can be best illustrated through tables 18-20. The default rates in the columns of these tables, associated with each static pool year, are calculated in the same way as they would be for individual years' one-year transition matrices. Tables 18, 19, and 20 are broken out by the broadest rating classifications (all rated, investment-grade, and speculative-grade, respectively). These tables can also be constructed for each rating category.

As an example, the year two column of table 20 shows the two-year default rates (not conditional on survival) for each static pool. These are calculated in the same way as the default column in table 11, though table 11 shows the one-year default rates for each rating category for 2019 exclusively. In the summary section at the bottom of tables 18-20, the first row shows the issuer-weighted averages of the marginal default rates. These marginal averages are then used to calculate the cumulative average default rates in the row directly beneath them, as explained in the average cumulative default rate section above. These default rates are the same that appear in table 15 and are average cumulative default rates conditional on survival.

Appendix II: Additional Tables

Table 18

Static Pool Cumulative Corporate Default Rates Among All Rated Emerging Market Issuers (1997-2019) (%)
--Time horizon (year)--
Year Issuers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1997 135 0.74 3.70 8.15 8.15 11.11 17.78 19.26 19.26 19.26 19.26
1998 273 5.49 9.52 10.26 14.29 23.08 26.01 26.37 26.37 26.37 26.37
1999 326 4.91 6.44 11.35 22.70 25.77 26.07 26.07 26.07 26.07 26.38
2000 370 1.08 5.14 16.49 19.46 19.73 19.73 19.73 20.00 20.27 20.81
2001 416 4.09 15.38 17.79 18.03 18.27 18.27 18.51 18.75 19.47 19.71
2002 452 11.73 14.38 14.82 15.04 15.04 15.27 15.49 16.15 16.37 16.37
2003 506 2.57 3.16 3.36 3.36 3.56 3.75 4.35 4.74 4.74 4.74
2004 571 0.53 0.70 0.70 0.88 1.05 1.58 2.10 2.10 2.28 2.80
2005 662 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.60 1.51 2.11 2.11 2.57 3.02 3.17
2006 762 0.26 0.39 0.79 2.10 2.62 2.62 3.41 3.94 4.20 4.46
2007 835 0.12 0.72 2.99 3.83 3.95 4.79 5.39 5.51 5.87 6.35
2008 961 1.46 4.37 5.20 5.31 6.35 6.87 6.97 7.49 8.12 8.12
2009 1,006 3.18 3.98 4.08 5.07 5.67 5.86 6.36 7.06 7.16 7.55
2010 978 0.82 0.92 1.94 2.56 2.97 3.48 4.19 4.29 4.70 5.11
2011 1,131 0.27 2.03 3.09 3.63 4.33 5.22 5.31 5.66 6.01
2012 1,185 1.43 2.62 3.12 4.05 4.98 5.23 5.65 5.99
2013 1,266 1.11 1.50 2.76 4.11 4.50 4.90 5.21
2014 1,385 0.58 2.17 3.61 3.97 4.48 4.84
2015 1,481 1.62 3.44 3.85 4.46 4.93
2016 1,525 1.90 2.36 3.08 3.48
2017 1,579 0.51 1.14 1.65
2018 1,646 0.73 1.52
2019 1,720 0.93
Summary statistics
Marginal average 1.47 1.35 1.16 0.98 0.80 0.56 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.29
Cumulative average 1.47 2.80 3.93 4.87 5.63 6.15 6.54 6.88 7.20 7.47
Standard deviation 2.60 4.18 5.32 6.69 7.76 8.35 8.47 8.55 8.67 8.80
Median 1.08 2.49 3.36 4.08 4.93 5.22 5.65 6.52 7.16 7.84
Minimum 0.12 0.15 0.30 0.60 1.05 1.58 2.10 2.10 2.28 2.80
Maximum 11.73 15.38 17.79 22.70 25.77 26.07 26.37 26.37 26.37 26.38
Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 19

Static Pool Cumulative Corporate Default Rates Among Investment-Grade Emerging Market Issuers (1997-2019) (%)
--Time horizon (year)--
Year Issuers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1997 87 1.15 2.30 2.30 2.30 3.45 10.34 10.34 10.34 10.34 10.34
1998 123 1.63 1.63 1.63 3.25 13.01 13.82 13.82 13.82 13.82 13.82
1999 118 0.00 0.00 0.85 12.71 13.56 13.56 13.56 13.56 13.56 13.56
2000 131 0.00 0.00 11.45 12.21 12.21 12.21 12.21 12.21 12.21 12.21
2001 148 0.00 10.14 10.14 10.14 10.81 10.81 10.81 11.49 11.49 11.49
2002 154 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
2003 177 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56
2004 220 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
2005 258 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
2006 308 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
2007 345 0.00 0.29 0.58 0.87 0.87 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16
2008 425 0.24 0.71 0.94 0.94 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.65 1.65
2009 481 0.62 0.83 0.83 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.46 1.46 1.46
2010 466 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
2011 504 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
2012 542 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
2013 574 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.70 0.70
2014 627 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.64 0.64
2015 705 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.43 0.43
2016 711 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.28
2017 751 0.00 0.00 0.00
2018 770 0.00 0.00
2019 826 0.00
Summary statistics
Marginal average 0.08 0.26 0.29 0.35 0.33 0.21 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.00
Cumulative average 0.08 0.34 0.63 0.98 1.31 1.53 1.59 1.65 1.70 1.70
Standard deviation 0.42 2.18 3.18 4.14 4.98 5.38 5.44 5.59 5.67 5.75
Median 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.50 0.64 0.67 1.04 1.17 1.30 1.38
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
Maximum 1.63 10.14 11.45 12.71 13.56 13.82 13.82 13.82 13.82 13.82
Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 20

Static Pool Cumulative Corporate Default Rates Among Speculative-Grade Emerging Market Issuers (1997-2019) (%)
--Time horizon (year)--
Year Issuers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1997 48 0.00 6.25 18.75 18.75 25.00 31.25 35.42 35.42 35.42 35.42
1998 150 8.67 16.00 17.33 23.33 31.33 36.00 36.67 36.67 36.67 36.67
1999 208 7.69 10.10 17.31 28.37 32.69 33.17 33.17 33.17 33.17 33.65
2000 239 1.67 7.95 19.25 23.43 23.85 23.85 23.85 24.27 24.69 25.52
2001 268 6.34 18.28 22.01 22.39 22.39 22.39 22.76 22.76 23.88 24.25
2002 298 17.79 21.81 22.48 22.48 22.48 22.82 22.82 23.83 24.16 24.16
2003 329 3.95 4.86 5.17 5.17 5.47 5.47 6.38 6.99 6.99 6.99
2004 351 0.85 1.14 1.14 1.42 1.42 2.28 3.13 3.13 3.42 4.27
2005 404 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.74 2.23 3.22 3.22 3.96 4.70 4.95
2006 454 0.44 0.66 1.10 3.30 4.19 4.19 5.51 6.39 6.83 7.27
2007 490 0.20 1.02 4.69 5.92 6.12 7.35 8.37 8.57 9.18 10.00
2008 536 2.43 7.28 8.58 8.77 10.45 11.38 11.57 12.50 13.25 13.25
2009 525 5.52 6.86 7.05 8.76 9.90 10.29 11.24 12.19 12.38 13.14
2010 512 1.56 1.76 3.71 4.88 5.66 6.64 7.62 7.81 8.59 9.38
2011 627 0.48 3.67 5.58 6.54 7.81 9.09 9.25 9.89 10.53
2012 643 2.64 4.82 5.75 7.47 8.71 9.18 9.95 10.58
2013 692 2.02 2.75 5.06 7.08 7.80 8.38 8.96
2014 758 1.06 3.96 6.20 6.86 7.65 8.31
2015 776 3.09 6.31 7.09 8.12 9.02
2016 814 3.44 4.30 5.53 6.27
2017 828 0.97 2.17 3.14
2018 876 1.37 2.85
2019 894 1.79
Summary statistics
Marginal average 2.59 2.25 1.87 1.50 1.19 0.84 0.70 0.62 0.57 0.53
Cumulative average 2.59 4.78 6.56 7.96 9.05 9.82 10.44 11.00 11.50 11.97
Standard deviation 3.99 5.78 7.24 8.55 9.95 10.97 11.40 11.47 11.63 11.80
Median 1.79 4.56 5.75 7.27 8.71 9.13 9.95 11.38 12.38 13.19
Minimum 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.74 1.42 2.28 3.13 3.13 3.42 4.27
Maximum 17.79 21.81 22.48 28.37 32.69 36.00 36.67 36.67 36.67 36.67
Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 21

Average Multiyear (Two-Year) Emerging Markets Corporate Transition Matrix (1997-2019) (%)
From/to AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC/C D NR
AAA 78.57 19.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38
(28.48) (28.79) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (8.83)
AA 2.29 78.95 14.42 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.89
(7.38) (16.23) (13.64) (1.84) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.81)
A 0.00 2.90 82.62 8.27 0.81 0.39 0.00 0.04 4.98
(0.00) (2.16) (6.64) (4.12) (2.96) (0.93) (0.00) (0.15) (1.56)
BBB 0.00 0.02 4.66 76.23 7.54 0.67 0.31 0.53 10.05
(0.00) (0.10) (3.52) (7.09) (5.50) (1.49) (1.35) (2.03) (2.74)
BB 0.00 0.00 0.03 7.84 65.45 7.03 0.91 1.64 17.09
(0.00) (0.00) (0.10) (3.49) (5.86) (2.76) (1.99) (3.33) (3.64)
B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 9.81 55.26 4.23 6.36 24.21
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.33) (6.22) (6.16) (2.94) (5.33) (3.68)
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.62 27.68 20.53 22.71 28.30
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.64) (1.50) (13.65) (10.35) (15.45) (12.94)
Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 22

Average Multiyear (Three-year) Emerging Markets Corporate Transition Matrix (1997-2019) (%)
From/to AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC/C D NR
AAA 69.14 28.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.47
(31.87) (32.92) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (9.00)
AA 3.54 71.46 19.70 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55
(8.76) (16.47) (15.04) (2.58) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.63)
A 0.00 4.06 75.56 11.03 1.20 0.34 0.00 0.04 7.78
(0.00) (2.63) (7.34) (4.97) (2.78) (0.66) (0.00) (0.15) (2.28)
BBB 0.00 0.02 6.53 66.89 9.83 0.95 0.40 1.03 14.35
(0.00) (0.11) (4.39) (6.74) (6.06) (1.53) (1.39) (2.98) (3.20)
BB 0.00 0.00 0.11 10.69 53.74 8.03 1.01 2.98 23.43
(0.00) (0.00) (0.27) (4.40) (6.37) (3.31) (1.74) (4.91) (4.41)
B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 12.15 43.05 3.93 8.95 31.46
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.75) (7.82) (6.89) (2.72) (6.10) (3.92)
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 1.29 30.43 8.21 24.64 35.27
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.65) (1.82) (14.61) (5.27) (15.88) (15.10)
Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Table 23

Average Multiyear (Five-Year) Emerging Markets Corporate Transition Matrix (1997-2019) (%)
From/to AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC/C D NR
AAA 58.46 38.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.08
(34.55) (36.71) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (9.99)
AA 7.14 61.04 23.70 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.52
(11.78) (15.14) (17.37) (4.10) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (4.77)
A 0.00 7.01 64.73 13.07 2.37 0.11 0.00 0.05 12.65
(0.00) (2.82) (7.67) (5.54) (2.58) (0.22) (0.00) (0.17) (2.68)
BBB 0.00 0.02 9.31 54.33 10.84 1.33 0.36 2.33 21.46
(0.00) (0.15) (4.56) (5.58) (5.53) (1.65) (0.87) (4.82) (3.47)
BB 0.00 0.00 0.40 13.42 38.71 8.14 0.63 5.72 32.99
(0.00) (0.00) (0.83) (5.14) (7.52) (3.11) (1.32) (7.41) (6.31)
B 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.35 12.68 27.82 2.64 12.45 43.03
(0.00) (0.00) (0.21) (1.37) (7.43) (6.86) (2.40) (7.56) (3.85)
CCC/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 4.42 24.31 2.03 25.41 43.65
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.69) (5.41) (13.37) (1.68) (16.79) (17.14)
Sources: S&P Global Ratings Research and S&P Global Market Intelligence's CreditPro®.

Appendix III: Gini Methodology

To measure ratings performance or ratings accuracy, we plotted the cumulative share of issuers by rating against the cumulative share of defaulters in a Lorenz curve to visually render the accuracy of their rank ordering. Max O. Lorenz developed the Lorenz curve as a graphical representation of the proportionality of a distribution.

To build the Lorenz curve, we ordered the observations from the low end of the ratings scale ('CCC'/'C') to the high end ('AAA'). If S&P Global Ratings' corporate ratings only randomly approximated default risk, the Lorenz curve would fall along the diagonal and their Gini coefficient--which is a summary statistic of the Lorenz curve--would be zero. If corporate ratings were perfectly rank ordered so that all defaults occurred only among the lowest-rated entities, the curve would capture all of the area above the diagonal on the graph and its Gini coefficient would be 1.0 (see chart 10). We calculate the Gini coefficients by dividing area B by the total area A plus B. In other words, the Gini coefficient captures the extent to which actual ratings accuracy diverges from the random scenario and aspires to the ideal scenario.

Chart 10

image

Appendix IV: Defaults In Profile

In 2019, there were 22 emerging market corporate issuer (including seven rated confidential issuers) defaults. Defaulters had a total of US$8.4 billion of debt outstanding (excludes confidential issuer debt). Two issuers, Maxcom Telecomunicaciones S.A.B. de C.V. (April and August) and USJ Acucar e Alcool S/A (May and November), defaulted twice in 2019. This appendix provides summaries of the events leading up to each default and, in some cases, events following the default. We also list the defaulting instruments that S&P Global Ratings rates for each company.

Eletson Holdings Inc.
  • US$300 million 9.625% first-preferred ship mortgage notes due Jan. 15, 2022
  • US$314.068 million 12.00% first-preferred ship mortgage notes due Jan. 15, 2022

On Jan. 30, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its issuer credit rating on Liberia-registered product tanker and liquefied petroleum gas carrier owner and operator Eletson Holdings Inc. to 'SD' from 'CCC' after the company missed a coupon payment on its $300 million 9.625% first-preferred ship mortgage notes due 2022 on Jan. 15. In addition, on Jan. 25, 2019, Eletson entered into a forbearance agreement with over 90% of its noteholders on restructuring the notes. We believed the company would not make the interest payment in full within the stated grace period because of its strained liquidity position and discussion with noteholders to undertake debt structure amendments, which we would assess as constituting a distressed exchange.

Table 24

Issuer Credit Rating History--Eletson Holdings Inc.
Date To
30-Jan-2019 SD/NM/--
14-Aug-2018 CCC/Developing/--
22-Feb-2018 SD/NM/--
27-Oct-2017 CCC+/Negative/--
12-Apr-2017 CCC+/Watch Dev/--
31-Oct-2016 B/Negative/--
30-Oct-2015 B/Positive/--
28-Oct-2014 B/Stable/--
11-Dec-2013 B/Positive/--
Tsesnabank
  • KZT10 billion floating-rate medium-term notes series 12 due June 4, 2023
  • KZT3 billion 8.00% medium-term notes series 17 due April 10, 2019
  • KZT5 billion 9.00% subordinated notes due June 4, 2028
  • KZT6 billion 8.00% subordinated notes due July 31, 2019
  • KZT4 billion 8.00% subordinated notes July 31, 2019
  • KZT5 billion 8.00% subordinated notes due June 4, 2020
  • KZT10 billion 8.00% subordinated notes due April 10, 2021
  • KZT5 billion 8.00% subordinated notes due April 10, 2021
  • KZT5 billion 8.00% subordinated notes due April 10, 2021
  • KZT3.482 billion 7.50% senior unsecured notes due July 11, 2027
  • KZT10 billion 7.10% senior unsecured notes due June 4, 2023

On Feb. 1, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its long- and short-term issuer credit ratings on Kazakhstan-based Tsesnabank to 'SD' from 'B-'. On Jan. 29, 2019, Tsesnabank had amended the terms and conditions of its senior unsecured bond, extending the maturity and lowering the coupon rate. We viewed these changes as tantamount to a restructuring, since the new offer constituted less than the original promise to bondholders and did not provide additional compensation.

On Feb. 6, 2019, Kazakhstan-based securities firm First Heartland Securities purchased 99.8% of Tsesnabank's ordinary shares and recapitalized the bank for KZT70 billion. Government-backed Problem Loans Fund bought an additional KZT604 billion of loans from Tsesnabank at book value, therefore providing substantial liquidity support to the bank. We believed this would support the bank's capacity to sustain its financial commitments.

On Feb. 20, 2019, we raised our long- and short-term issuer credit ratings on Tsesnabank to 'B-' from 'SD'. The outlook was stable. The upgrade followed the ownership change, recapitalization by the new owner, a significant cleanup of Tsesnabank's operations, and the additional asset sale to Problem Loans Fund.

On Aug. 12, 2019, S&P Global Ratings revised the outlook on First Heartland Jusan Bank (formerly known as Tsesnabank) to positive from stable, reflecting the new management team, gradual progress in the bank's financial rehabilitation, and the possibility of achieving a more sustainable business position in the local market.

Table 25

Issuer Credit Rating History--Tsesnabank
Date To
12-Aug-2019 B-/Positive/--
20-Feb-2019 B-/Stable/--
01-Feb-2019 SD/NM/--
30-Nov-2018 B-/Watch Neg/--
17-Sep-2018 B/Negative/--
20-May-2016 B+/Negative/--
18-Jun-2014 B+/Stable/--
23-May-2013 B/Positive/--
09-Jul-2012 B/Stable/--
12-Dec-2011 B/Negative/--
29-Jun-2011 B/Stable/--
08-Dec-2010 B-/Stable/--
20-Feb-2009 B-/Negative/--
15-Aug-2005 B-/Stable/--
Maxcom Telecomunicaciones S.A.B. de C.V.
  • US$180.354 million step-up senior notes due Dec. 31, 2020

On Aug. 21, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its issuer credit rating on Mexico-based telecommunication services provider Maxcom Telecomunicaciones S.A.B. de C.V. to 'D from 'CC' on account of the company's missed interest payment on June 19, 2019, on its step-up senior notes due 2020. There was no intention to honor the coupon payment within the grace period because Maxcom announced potential restructuring or filing for bankruptcy under U.S. Chapter 11.

Earlier, on April 3, 2019, we had lowered our issuer credit rating on Maxcom to 'SD' from 'CCC+' following the company's announcement on April 1 that it executed a debt repurchase for an additional $9 million of its senior secured step-up notes due 2020. Following the completion of the debt repurchase, we raised the issuer credit rating to 'CCC' and subsequently lowered it to 'CC' in June.

Later, on Dec. 10, 2019, we raised our issuer credit rating on Maxcom to 'CCC+' from 'D' after it completed its debt restructuring under the protection of U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy law (as announced on Nov. 28, 2019). At this point, the company exchanged in full its $103.4 million step-up senior notes due 2020 with a discount of approximately 15.6%, reducing total debt obligations by about $16.2 million. The remaining outstanding amount consisted of the exchange of $56.9 million for the new 8% senior secured notes due 2024, about $20.0 million for its junior payment-in-kind notes with no fixed final maturity date, and about $10.3 million paid in cash through a capital injection from shareholders of MXN330 million.

Table 26

Issuer Credit Rating History--Maxcom Telecomunicaciones S.A.B. de C.V.
Date To
10-Dec-2019 CCC+/Stable/--
21-Aug-2019 D/--/--
19-Jun-2019 CC/Watch Neg/--
05-Apr-2019 CCC/Negative/--
03-Apr-2019 SD/NM/--
26-May-2017 CCC+/Stable/--
24-May-2017 SD/NM/--
27-Apr-2017 CC/Negative/--
17-Feb-2016 CCC+/Stable/--
01-Apr-2014 B-/Stable/--
19-Jun-2013 D/--/--
21-Feb-2013 CC/Negative/--
06-Dec-2012 CCC+/Watch Neg/--
23-Aug-2011 CCC+/Negative/--
03-Mar-2011 B-/Negative/--
22-Jun-2010 B/Negative/--
09-Mar-2009 B/Stable/--
12-Oct-2007 B/Positive/--
27-Nov-2006 B/Stable/--
USJ Acucar e Alcool S/A
  • US$275 million 9.875% notes due Dec. 31, 2019
  • US$272.78 million 10.50% payment-in-kind notes due Nov. 9, 2023
  • US$197.03 million 9.875% secured notes due Nov. 9, 2021

On Nov. 28, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its issuer credit rating on Brazilian sugarcane processor USJ Acucar e Alcool S/A to 'SD' from 'CCC+' after the company missed the amortization and coupon payments of the outstanding amount of the 2019 notes, totaling $8.7 million and $400,000, respectively, due Nov. 9, 2019. It was the second time in 2019 the company had been placed on selective default.

Earlier, on May 22, 2019, we had lowered our global scale issuer credit rating on USJ to 'SD' from 'CC'. The downgrade followed bondholders' acceptance of the company's exchange offer of 69.95% and 98.10% of the original 2019 and 2021 bonds, respectively, on May 21, 2019. We considered the exchange offer to be distressed, which is tantamount to a default on USJ's obligations, because the new terms and conditions of payment differed from the original.

Then, on May 27, 2019, we raised the global scale issuer credit rating on USJ to 'CCC+' from 'SD', reflecting relief in the company's liquidity pressures following the conclusion of the debt exchange offer.

Table 27

Issuer Credit Rating History--USJ Acucar e Alcool S/A
Date To
28-Nov-19 SD/NM/--
27-May-19 CCC+/Negative/--
22-May-19 SD/NM/--
27-Mar-19 CC/Watch Neg/--
14-Jan-19 CCC-/Negative/--
11-Jul-18 CCC/Negative/--
28-Jul-17 CCC+/Stable/--
3-Mar-17 CCC+/Negative/--
27-Jul-16 CCC+/Stable/--
17-May-16 CCC-/Watch Pos/--
10-May-16 SD/NM/--
16-Mar-16 CC/Watch Neg/--
14-Jan-16 CCC-/Negative/--
24-Sep-15 B-/Negative/--
1-Jul-15 B/Watch Neg/--
5-Dec-14 B+/Negative/--
15-Jul-14 BB-/Negative/--
24-Oct-12 BB-/Stable/--
Cell C (Pty) Ltd.
  • US$184 million 8.625% notes due Aug. 2, 2020

On June 26, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its long-term issuer credit rating on South Africa-based telecommunication service provider Cell C (Pty) Ltd. to 'SD' from 'CCC-'. The rating was lowered after the issuer amended the terms of the private Airtime Facility agreement to delay the timing of selected repayments. Cell C had fulfilled all of its debt obligations to date, including repayments under this amended agreement, and, as such, no conventional event of default had been triggered. However, we viewed the repayment schedule restructuring as a distressed exchange, and therefore tantamount to a selective default, given Cell C's liquidity stress and unsustainable capital structure. Furthermore, because the schedule of agreed repayments had slowed, we believed lenders would receive less value than the promise of the original agreement. We also believed there was a realistic possibility of a conventional payment default before the exchange, given the company's weak liquidity position.

On Aug. 22, 2019, S&P Global Ratings downgraded Cell C to 'D' from 'SD' after the company failed to make interest payments on certain bilateral loan facilities due July 2019. The company had also suspended future interest payments pending the conclusion of its operational and balance-sheet restructuring.

Table 28

Issuer Credit Rating History--Cell C (Pty) Ltd.
Date To
22-Aug-19 D/--/--
26-Jun-19 SD/NM/--
16-Apr-19 CCC-/Developing/--
7-May-18 CCC+/Negative/--
7-Aug-17 B-/Negative/--
6-Feb-17 D/--/--
6-Dec-16 SD/NM/--
14-Oct-16 B/Stable/--
28-Jun-16 B-/Watch Dev/--
22-Dec-15 B-/Watch Pos/--
22-Jul-15 B-/Stable/--
1-Jun-15 B-/Watch Neg/--
21-Jun-12 B-/Stable/--
14-Dec-10 B-/Positive/--
15-Sep-10 B-/Watch Pos/--
9-Jul-08 B-/Stable/--
15-May-08 B-/Watch Pos/--
7-Dec-07 B-/Negative/--
13-Jun-06 B/Negative/--
15-Apr-05 B+/Stable/--
Avianca Holdings S.A.
  • US$550 million 8.375% notes due May 10, 2020
  • US$495 million floating-rate first-lien bank loan due Aug. 18, 2022

On July 23, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its issuer credit rating on Colombia-based airline operator Avianca Holdings S.A. to 'SD' from 'CCC+' following the company's announcement on July 22, 2019, that it had missed payments on several long-term leases and on the principal on some loan obligations, which constitutes an event of default. The company also announced an exchange offer proposal on its $550 million senior unsecured notes due May 2020 that, in our view, would not constitute a distressed exchange because the offer considers a par-value exchange with a higher interest rate and collateral promising equal or more value than the original notes, despite an extended maturity.

In early September 2019, the company announced that it tendered 86.41% of its existing notes for exchange, which would allow it to continue re-profiling its capital structure. This agreement would allow Avianca's noteholders to exchange their existing 8.375% notes due 2020 for the new notes. Avianca offered to exchange the notes at par value with a higher coupon rate (9%) due May 2023 upon the closing of an investment of up to $250 million of new equity or convertible debt from United Airlines Inc. and Kingsland Holdings. The new notes would include additional collateral that consists of certain intellectual property, including the Avianca brand, and stock representing the residual value after debt and other liabilities of the company's aircraft fleet, estimated at about $1 billion, which we believed could compensate creditors.

On Dec. 20, 2019, we raised our issuer credit rating on Avianca to 'B-' from 'SD' after it announced completion of its liability management plan after the renegotiation of its operating and financial leases.

Table 29

Issuer Credit Rating History--Avianca Holdings S.A.
Date To
20-Dec-2019 B-/Stable/--
23-Jul-2019 SD/NM/--
13-May-2019 CCC+/Watch Neg/--
13-Apr-2016 B/Stable/--
5-May-2015 B+/Stable/--
28-Mar-2014 B+/Positive/--
25-Apr-2013 B+/Stable/--
PT Delta Merlin Dunia Textile
  • US$300 million 8.625% notes due March 12, 2024
  • US$215 million guaranteed senior secured first-lien term loan due June 21, 2023

On Sept. 13, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its issuer credit rating on Indonesian spinning, weaving, dyeing, finishing, and knitting company PT Delta Merlin Dunia Textile to 'D' from 'CC' after the company missed interest payments on its senior unsecured notes due on Sept. 12, 2019.

On Oct. 17, 2019, S&P Global Ratings withdrew its ratings on the company at its request.

Table 30

Issuer Credit Rating History--PT Delta Merlin Dunia Textile
Date To
17-Oct-2019 NR/--/--
13-Sep-2019 D/--/--
22-Aug-2019 CC/Negative/--
16-Jul-2019 CCC-/Negative/--
13-Mar-2019 BB-/Stable/--
Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
  • US$200 million 7.125% notes due Jan. 23, 2022

On Oct. 15, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its issuer credit rating on Indian microirrigation company Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. to 'SD' from 'CCC' after the company missed certain principal payments under its working capital facilities.

Earlier, on June 20, 2019, we had lowered our issuer credit rating on the company to 'B-' from 'B+', citing tight liquidity and operational risks. Subsequently, on July 26, 2019, we lowered the rating to 'CCC'.

Table 31

Issuer Credit Rating History--Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
Date To
14-Oct-2019 SD/NM/--
26-Jul-2019 CCC/Watch Neg/--
20-Jun-2019 B-/Watch Neg/--
07-Apr-2017 B+/Stable/--
Shandong Yuhuang Chemical Co. Ltd.
  • US$300 million 6.625% notes due March 27, 2020
  • CNY500 million 7.00% unsecured notes due Dec. 12, 2021
  • CNY500 million 6.00% unsecured notes due Nov. 21, 2021

On Nov. 29, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its issuer credit rating on Chinese chemical products company Shandong Yuhuang Chemical Co. Ltd. to 'D' from 'CC' after the company failed to repay its RMB500 million onshore bond within a five-business-day imputed grace period.

Earlier, on June 14, 2019, we had lowered our issuer credit rating on the company to 'B-' from 'B+' owing to high refinancing and liquidity risks. Subsequently, on Sept. 5, 2019, we lowered the rating to 'CCC+', and on Nov. 22, 2019, we lowered the rating to 'CC'.

Later, on Jan. 9, 2020, S&P Global Ratings withdrew its issuer credit rating on the company.

Table 32

Issuer Credit Rating History--Shandong Yuhuang Chemical Co. Ltd.
Date To
29-Nov-2019 D/--/--
22-Nov-2019 CC/Negative/--
05-Sep-2019 CCC+/Watch Neg/--
14-Jun-2019 B-/Negative/--
26-Jun-2018 B+/Negative/--
14-Mar-2017 B+/Stable/--
McDermott International Inc.
  • US$2.26 billion floating-rate term bank loan due May 10, 2025
  • US$1.3 billion 10.625% senior notes due May 1, 2024
  • US$1.3 billion term bank loan due Oct. 21, 2021

On Dec. 3, 2019, S&P Global Ratings lowered its issuer credit rating on Panama-based engineering and construction provider McDermott International Inc. to 'SD from 'CC' after the company announced that it entered into a forbearance agreement with 35% of the holders of its unsecured notes due in 2024, related to a missed interest payment due Nov. 1, 2019.

Earlier, on March 7, 2019, we had lowered our issuer credit rating on the company to 'B' from 'B+' owing to greater-than-expected project losses. Subsequently, on Aug. 6, 2019, we lowered the rating to 'B-', owing to greater-than-expected cash outflows, and then, on Nov. 22, we lowered the rating to 'CCC' upon the company's hiring of external advisers to evaluate opportunities for changes to its capital structure. On Oct. 28, 2019, we lowered the rating to 'CC' on a potential distressed exchange.

Table 33

Issuer Credit Rating History--McDermott International Inc.
Date To
03-Dec-2019 SD/NM/--
28-Oct-2019 CC/Negative/--
20-Sep-2019 CCC/Watch Dev/--
06-Aug-2019 B-/Negative/--
06-Mar-2019 B/Negative/--
09-Nov-2018 B+/Negative/--
14-May-2018 B+/Stable/--
19-Dec-2017 B+/Watch Neg/--
12-Jul-2017 B+/Positive/--
26-Nov-2014 B+/Stable/--
03-Apr-2014 BB-/Negative/--
17-Mar-2014 BB/Negative/--
30-Mar-2010 BB/Stable/--
09-Dec-2009 BB+/Watch Neg/--
28-May-2008 BB+/Positive/--
24-May-2007 BB/Stable/--
09-May-2006 B+/Positive/--
01-Dec-2005 B+/Stable/--
27-Sep-2005 B-/Watch Pos/--
19-Mar-2004 B-/Stable/--
17-Oct-2003 CCC+/Watch Pos/--
07-Apr-2003 CCC+/Negative/--
07-Nov-2002 B/Watch Neg/--
08-Aug-2002 B/Negative/--
10-Jun-2002 B/Developing/--
20-Dec-2000 B/Watch Neg/--
22-Feb-2000 BB+/Watch Neg/--
21-Sep-1999 BBB-/Stable/--
Bankmed S.A.L.

On Dec. 4, 2019, Lebanon's central bank issued a circular requesting banks to pay half of the interest due on U.S. dollar-denominated term deposits in the local currency, Lebanese pounds. This move, following a number of other measures, further limited depositors' access to their funds. S&P Global Ratings viewed these changes as consistent with its definition under its criteria of a restricted default of rated banks in Lebanon. As a result, we lowered our foreign and local currency issuer credit ratings on Bank Audi S.A.L., Blom Bank S.A.L., and Bankmed S.A.L. to 'SD' from 'CCC'.

Earlier, on Nov. 14, 2019, S&P Global Ratings had lowered its issuer credit rating on the three banks to 'CCC' from 'B-' on rising liquidity pressure.

Table 34

Issuer Credit Rating History--Bankmed S.A.L.
Date To
18-Dec-2019 SD/NM/--
14-Nov-2019 CCC/Watch Neg/--
28-Oct-2019 B-/Watch Neg/--
05-Mar-2019 B-/Negative/--
06-Sep-2016 B-/Stable/--
16-Sep-2015 B-/Negative/--
17-Apr-2014 B-/Stable/--
06-Nov-2013 B-/Negative/--
30-May-2012 B/Negative/--
19-Jan-2011 B/Stable/--
23-Dec-2009 B/Positive/--
06-Aug-2008 B-/Stable/--
01-Feb-2008 CCC+/Stable/--
27-Nov-2007 B-/Watch Neg/--
12-Sep-2006 B-/Negative/--
14-Jul-2006 B-/Watch Neg/--
10-Oct-2003 B-/Stable/--
24-Apr-2003 B-/Positive/--
19-Dec-2002 B-/Stable/--
10-Apr-2002 B-/Negative/--
28-Sep-2001 B/Negative/--
25-May-2001 B+/Negative/--
18-Sep-2000 B+/Stable/--
07-Jun-2000 BB-/Watch Neg/--
05-Feb-1998 BB-/Negative/--
07-Aug-1997 BB-/Stable/--
Bank Audi S.A.L.
  • US$350 million 6.75% medium-term subordinated note due Oct. 16, 2023

On Dec. 4, 2019, Lebanon's central bank issued a circular requesting banks to pay half of the interest due on U.S. dollar-denominated term deposits in the local currency, Lebanese pounds. This move, following a number of other measures, further limited depositors' access to their funds. S&P Global Ratings viewed these changes as consistent with its definition under its criteria of a restricted default of rated banks in Lebanon. As a result, we lowered the foreign and local currency issuer credit ratings on Bank Audi S.A.L., Blom Bank S.A.L., and Bankmed S.A.L. to 'SD' from 'CCC'.

Earlier, on Nov. 14, 2019, S&P Global Ratings had lowered its issuer credit ratings on the three banks to 'CCC' from 'B-' on rising liquidity pressure.

Table 35

Issuer Credit Rating History--Bank Audi S.A.L.
Date To
18-Dec-2019 SD/NM/--
14-Nov-2019 CCC/Watch Neg/--
28-Oct-2019 B-/Watch Neg/--
05-Mar-2019 B-/Negative/--
06-Sep-2016 B-/Stable/--
16-Sep-2015 B-/Negative/--
17-Apr-2014 B-/Stable/--
06-Nov-2013 B-/Negative/--
30-May-2012 B/Negative/--
19-Jan-2011 B/Stable/--
23-Dec-2009 B/Positive/--
06-Aug-2008 B-/Stable/--
01-Feb-2008 CCC+/Stable/--
27-Nov-2007 B-/Watch Neg/--
12-Sep-2006 B-/Negative/--
14-Jul-2006 B-/Watch Neg/--
10-Oct-2003 B-/Stable/--
24-Apr-2003 B-/Positive/--
19-Dec-2002 B-/Stable/--
10-Apr-2002 B-/Negative/--
28-Sep-2001 B/Negative/--
25-May-2001 B+/Negative/--
18-Sep-2000 B+/Stable/--
07-Jun-2000 BB-/Watch Neg/--
05-Feb-1998 BB-/Negative/--
27-Aug-1997 BB-/Stable/--
Blom Bank S.A.L.
  • US$300 million 7.5% senior unsecured notes due May 4, 2023

On Dec. 4, 2019, Lebanon's central bank issued a circular requesting banks to pay half of the interest due on U.S. dollar-denominated term deposits in the local currency, Lebanese pounds. This move, following a number of other measures, further limited depositors' access to their funds. S&P Global Ratings viewed these changes as consistent with its definition under its criteria of a restricted default of rated banks in Lebanon. As a result, we lowered our foreign and local currency issuer credit ratings on Bank Audi S.A.L., Blom Bank S.A.L., and Bankmed S.A.L. to 'SD' from 'CCC'.

Earlier, on Nov. 14, 2019, S&P Global Ratings had lowered its issuer credit rating on the three banks to 'CCC' from 'B-' on rising liquidity pressure.

Table 36

Issuer Credit Rating History--Blom Bank S.A.L.
Date To
18-Dec-2019 SD/NM/--
14-Nov-2019 CCC/Watch Neg/--
28-Oct-2019 B-/Watch Neg/--
05-Mar-2019 B-/Negative/--
06-Sep-2016 B-/Stable/--
16-Sep-2015 B-/Negative/--
17-Apr-2014 B-/Stable/--
06-Nov-2013 B-/Negative/--
30-May-2012 B/Negative/--
19-Jan-2011 B/Stable/--
23-Dec-2009 B/Positive/--
06-Aug-2008 B-/Stable/--
01-Feb-2008 CCC+/Stable/--
27-Nov-2007 B-/Watch Neg/--
12-Sep-2006 B-/Negative/--
14-Jul-2006 B-/Watch Neg/--
10-Oct-2003 B-/Stable/--
24-Apr-2003 B-/Positive/--
19-Dec-2002 B-/Stable/--
10-Apr-2002 B-/Negative/--
28-Sep-2001 B/Negative/--
25-May-2001 B+/Negative/--
18-Sep-2000 B+/Stable/--
07-Jun-2000 BB-/Watch Neg/--
05-Feb-1998 BB-/Negative/--
17-Nov-1997 BB-/Stable/--

Related Research

2019 Annual Global Corporate Default And Rating Transition Study, April 29, 2020

The use of the term "methodology" in this article refers to data aggregation and calculation methods used in conducting the research. It does not relate to S&P Global Ratings' methodologies, which are publicly available criteria used to determine credit ratings.

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Ratings Performance Analytics:Nick W Kraemer, FRM, New York + 1 (212) 438 1698;
nick.kraemer@spglobal.com
Jon Palmer, CFA, New York;
jon.palmer@spglobal.com
Research Contributor:Nivritti Mishra Richhariya, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P Global Ratings affiliate, 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, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (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 www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

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: research_request@spglobal.com.


Register with S&P Global Ratings

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

Go Back