articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/201217-default-transition-and-recovery-2019-annual-mexican-structured-finance-default-and-rating-transition-study-11781704 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 Mexican Structured Finance Default And Rating Transition Study

COMMENTS

Credit Trends: Risky Credits: U.S. And Canadian Upgrades Outpace Downgrades In 'CCC' Category As Issuers Access Debt

COMMENTS

Credit Trends: Review Of Ratings Performance Highlights Resilience In 2020

COMMENTS

Default, Transition, and Recovery: Revenue Pressures Continue To Weigh On Consumer-Related Weakest Links

COMMENTS

Default, Transition, and Recovery: Two European Corporate Defaults Push The 2021 Global Tally To 11


Default, Transition, and Recovery: 2019 Annual Mexican Structured Finance Default And Rating Transition Study

Credit Performance: No Defaults In 2019, And Upgrades Rose To Historical High

The overall credit performance of Mexican structured finance securities rated by S&P Global Ratings improved in 2019, and there were no defaults. The upgrade rate (the number of upgrades as a portion of the number of ratings outstanding) rose to the second highest on record. The downgrade rate (the number of downgrades as a portion of the number of ratings outstanding) increased in 2019 but remained well below comparable rates in the past 10 years.

The 12-month-trailing average change in credit quality (see definition in Appendix I) for Mexican structured finance was +0.05 rating notches at the end of 2019. This marks the first time the measure has ended the year positive since 2007. After spending over a decade in negative territory, the measure turned positive in August 2019, at +0.07 notches. On average, ratings have been drifting higher since the start of 2018 (see chart 1).

Chart 1

image

2019 marks the second time in the past 10 years there were no defaults for Mexico, the other being recorded in 2017 (see chart 2).

Chart 2

image

Mexican structured finance credit performance in 2019 varied across sectors, although some have very few ratings, so comparisons may not always be meaningful. For example, the further flows sector recorded a downgrade rate of 50% in 2019, but the entire pool of outstanding ratings for the sector is just two credits, indicating there was only a single downgrade. Apart from future flows, the one-year average downgrade rate improved for all other sectors in 2019 compared with the year prior (see chart 3).

Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) accounted for all of the recorded upgrades in 2019, leading to an upgrade rate of 9.8% for the sector. RMBS account for the majority of outstanding securities included in this study. The one-year average upgrade rate improved for both the RMBS and structured credit sectors in 2019.

Once again, asset-backed securities (ABS) had the highest one-year average default rate among all the sectors, at 5.2%. The RMBS and future flows sectors both reported lower one-year average default rates in 2019. Once again, there was no measure for the structured credit sector due to a lack of defaults.

Chart 3

image

Chart 4

image

Ratings Performance: Ratings Have Historically Differentiated Default Rates

Our structured finance ratings express an opinion on the securities' creditworthiness, for which the focus is an assessment of default likelihood, rather than the likelihood of upgrade or downgrade. That said, our ratings also consider credit stability as a secondary factor.

Across Mexican structured finance, downgrade rates in 2019 differed somewhat by ratings. However, across the board, downgrades rates improved. The categories with the highest number of ratings outstanding at the start of 2019 were 'mxAAA' and 'mxAA', which experienced no downgrades or any defaults. Downgrades were primarily concentrated in the 'mxBB+' and lower category, with a downgrade rate of 16.7%. Upgrades were exclusively in the 'mxBBB-' and higher category, with an upgrade rate of 6.8% (see table 1).

Upgrade rates in 2019 for all rating categories were at or above their respective one-year averages. Downgrade rates held below respective historical averages throughout 2019.

Table 1

Mexican Structured Finance National-Scale Transition And Default Summary
2019 versus one-year average
--2019-- --One-year average--
Ratings (no.) Stable (%) Upgrades (%) Downgrades (%)* Defaults (%) Defaults (no.) Stable (%) Upgrades (%) Downgrades (%)* Defaults (%)
Overall 154.0 90.9 6.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 86.8 2.6 10.6 2.1
Sectors 0.7
RMBS 102.0 87.3 9.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 85.8 3.0 11.1 1.4
Future flow 2.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 85.3 5.0 9.7 0.6
ABS 49.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.5 0.4 13.1 5.2
Synt 1.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.3 0.9 1.8 0.0
Vintage
2004 2.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.7 0.4 4.9 2.0
2005 2.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 84.6 4.7 10.8 1.1
2006 10.0 60.0 30.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 75.9 2.2 21.8 4.0
2007 16.0 56.3 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.2 3.7 21.2 4.1
2008 15.0 93.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 85.2 2.3 12.5 2.5
2009 13.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.2 2.1 3.7 0.4
2010 11.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.6 2.3 1.1 0.0
2011 11.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.3 5.0 1.7 0.8
2012 12.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.3 2.9 4.8 1.0
2013 7.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.7 0.0 1.3 1.3
2014 6.0 83.3 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 94.6 1.8 3.6 0.0
2015 7.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.2 0.0 1.8 0.0
2016 12.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.6 0.0 2.4 0.0
2017 19.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2018 11.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rating category
mxAAA 90.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.4 0.0 4.6 0.0
mxAA 46.0 89.1 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.7 6.9 8.3 0.2
mxA 6.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 74.3 6.1 19.6 2.8
mxBBB 6.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 59.2 9.9 31.0 4.2
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.2 0.0 47.8 8.7
mxB 2.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.2 0.0 50.8 25.4
mxCCC 3.0 66.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 68.1 0.0 31.9 21.7
mxCC 1.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 30.0 30.0
Rating grade
mxBBB-' and higher 148.0 91.2 6.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 89.0 2.8 8.2 0.5
mxBB+' and lower 6.0 83.3 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 59.6 0.0 40.4 21.6
Note: Securities whose ratings migrated to 'NR' over the period are classified based on their rating prior to 'NR'. *Includes downgrades resulting in defaults. Source: S&P Global Ratings Research.

Chart 5

image

We typically expect default rates to be lower for higher-rated securities, provided that observations are made over sufficiently long time horizons and large samples. Over shorter time frames or smaller samples, this relationship may not always hold, and default rates can also vary over time.

For Mexican structured finance, higher-rated securities were generally associated with lower one-year weighted-average default rates from 2000 to 2019 (see chart 6). Once again, there were no defaults in any rating category in 2019, so the one-year average default rates fell for every category compared with 2018.

Chart 6

image

Appendix I: Terminology, Data Selection, And Calculation Approaches

This Mexican structured finance default and rating transition study uses our database of long-term Mexican national scale issue credit ratings.

Our ongoing enhancement of the database used to generate this study occasionally leads to changes in the reported statistics from one edition of the study to the next. However, each study includes statistics for previous years, ensuring that each study is self-contained and effectively supersedes all previous editions.

National scale credit ratings provide a wider range of relative credit quality indicators in jurisdictions where sovereign ratings limit the range of global scale credit ratings assigned to local market issuers or issues. While global scale credit ratings are comparable across all regions, national scale credit ratings are not--they provide a rank ordering of credit risk within that country only. In addition, national scale ratings may change more often, including multinotch rating actions, rendering them more volatile than global scale ratings. For example, a one-notch change in the underlying global scale rating may result in a multiple-notch change on the national scale.

While a sovereign rating change may or may not result in a corresponding change to the relevant mapping table, national scale mapping tables can change over time. In general, a national scale rating change that arises only from a national scale mapping recalibration does not represent a change in our view of the issuer's or issue's intrinsic credit quality. Such rating changes may be purely a result of a change to the configuration of the mapping specifications, with the intention of creating the most appropriate distinction among ratings on the national scale. In turn, this may make certain national scale-based transition rates difficult to compare over time and, as a result, less helpful.

Issues included in this study

This study analyzes the rating histories of 606 Mexican structured finance instruments that S&P Global Ratings first rated between 1999 and Dec. 31, 2019. The term "structured finance" in this report refers to asset-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities, future flow transactions (including partial-credit guaranteed [PCG] and future tax revenue-backed transactions), RMBS, and structured credit (including issues backed by a single credit, where the rating on the note is directly linked to that on the underlying credit--so-called repackaged transactions or "repacks").

In this report, we consider future flow transactions as a separate sector, given the relatively large number of such transactions historically in the Mexican market. In our global structured finance default and rating transition study, we include these transactions in the structured credit sector. We include PCG transactions (also known as multiple-credit-dependent obligations) in the future flow sector because, like future flow securities, PCGs are linked to the rating on an entity--in this case, the issuer.

National scale ratings

National and regional scale ratings express relative opinions about the creditworthiness of an issuer or the credit quality of an individual debt issue within the universe of credit risk on the national scale. National scale ratings are not directly comparable with our global scale ratings or with national scale ratings for other countries. Our Mexico national scale credit ratings generally include a prefix of 'mx' to distinguish them from global scale ratings and other national scale ratings.

Rating transitions

Our rating transition statistics use a "static pool" approach. To calculate the transition statistics over a given period (or "transition window"), we consider the static pool of ratings outstanding at the beginning of that period. The transition statistics for that static pool of ratings are then based on the movements in ratings between the start and end of the transition window.

For instance, we calculate the 2019 transition rates by determining the ratings on each security outstanding at the start of 2019 and determining the ratings on those same securities at the end of 2019. We then calculate statistics such as upgrade, downgrade, and stability rates, equivalent to the proportions of securities in the static pool with ratings that moved up, down, or remained the same, respectively, over the transition window.

Rating modifiers

We use rating modifiers ('+' and '-') to calculate the upgrade, downgrade, and stability rates given in the text, tables, and charts throughout this study. However, the transition matrices in Appendix II of this report show only the full rating categories for practical reasons.

In other words, the use of a rating category suggests that transitions, for example, to 'mxAA' from 'mxAA-' or to 'mxBBB+' from 'mxBBB-' are not considered rating transitions because the rating remained within the rating category.

Rating discontinuance or withdrawal

We may discontinue ratings when, for example, a rated obligation's payments have been made in full in accordance with its terms or when a rated issue matures. Ratings may also be withdrawn because of a lack of sufficient information of satisfactory quality or at the issuer's request.

In these cases, the rating may change to not rated ("NR"). When we withdraw or discontinue ratings within the transition window under consideration, we may either derive our reported statistics by classifying the rating transition as a move to "NR" (the "NR-included" approach), or, for some other analyses, we may classify the transition as a move to the last "non-NR" rating before withdrawal or discontinuance (the "NR-adjusted" approach).

In the text of this report, when we refer to upgrade and downgrade rates, for example, we use the latter approach. In the tables and charts, we clarify the approach used in the footnotes. We do not include a security with a withdrawn rating at the beginning of a transition window in the transition and default rate calculations for that period.

Treatment of 'D' ratings

Counts of defaults and default rate statistics in this report are based on securities that we downgraded to 'D'. For the purposes of this report, when a rating has moved to 'D', we consider this a terminal state and do not include such a security in any transition windows that start on a subsequent date.

In practice, however, some securities with ratings that have migrated to 'D' may later be assigned a different rating. This can occur, for example, if the defaulted security is subsequently restructured to different terms, such as a lower coupon. In these cases, we treat the security's post-default rating history as if it were for a new security, beginning from the date that the rating changed from 'D'.

Weighted-average transition and default rate calculation

For weighted-average transition rates (including default rates), we calculate the individual transition rates for different static pools. We then calculate a single averaged transition rate, weighted by the number of ratings in each static pool. We use this technique to determine, for example, the five-year weighted-average transition rates, by analyzing static pools over five-year periods and aggregating.

Appendix II: Detailed Default And Transition Statistics

Tables 2 and 3 provide various default and transition rate statistics for Mexican structured finance securities.

Table 2

Mexican Structured Finance National-Scale Rating Transitions, 2019 And Multiyear Averages, NR Adjusted (%)
From/to mxAAA mxAA mxA mxBBB mxBB mxB mxCCC mxCC mxC D
2019
mxAAA 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
mxAA 8.7 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
mxA 0.0 33.3 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
mxBBB 0.0 16.7 16.7 50.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
mxBB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
One-year weighted average
mxAAA 95.4 2.8 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
mxAA 1.2 92.6 3.2 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2
mxA 0.6 3.1 79.3 6.7 3.4 2.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.8
mxBBB 1.4 2.8 2.8 64.8 15.5 5.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.2
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.3 17.4 10.9 8.7 0.0 8.7
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.6 15.9 3.2 0.0 25.4
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.6 8.7 0.0 21.7
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 30.0
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Two-year weighted average
mxAAA 90.9 4.5 1.8 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6
mxAA 2.0 88.6 3.5 3.0 0.7 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2
mxA 0.9 5.4 67.6 7.1 5.7 2.6 3.1 0.6 0.0 7.1
mxBBB 1.5 4.6 3.1 49.2 12.3 12.3 6.2 3.1 0.0 7.7
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.3 10.9 15.2 10.9 0.0 21.7
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.7 24.6 4.9 0.0 32.8
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.5 10.6 0.0 40.9
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.3 0.0 48.7
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Three-year weighted average
mxAAA 87.4 5.4 1.9 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.3
mxAA 2.7 84.6 4.3 3.8 0.9 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.5
mxA 0.9 7.8 58.5 6.9 5.8 3.2 4.3 1.4 0.0 11.2
mxBBB 1.7 6.8 3.4 37.3 10.2 13.6 6.8 3.4 0.0 16.9
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.6 6.7 13.3 13.3 0.0 31.1
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 25.9 8.6 0.0 34.5
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 9.7 0.0 58.1
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.8 0.0 62.2
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Four-year weighted average
mxAAA 85.0 5.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.0 2.2
mxAA 2.1 84.3 3.3 4.1 1.2 2.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.0
mxA 0.9 9.7 53.5 6.5 4.1 2.6 4.4 3.2 0.0 15.0
mxBBB 1.9 7.5 1.9 32.1 7.5 13.2 5.7 1.9 0.0 28.3
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 6.8 15.9 9.1 0.0 36.4
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 28.1 7.0 0.0 38.6
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 10.3 0.0 75.9
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 71.4
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Five-year weighted average
mxAAA 83.2 5.4 2.2 2.4 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 3.3
mxAA 2.1 84.1 2.5 4.0 1.0 2.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.5
mxA 0.9 11.6 49.8 5.5 4.3 2.1 4.9 2.7 0.0 18.2
mxBBB 2.0 8.2 2.0 28.6 8.2 8.2 6.1 2.0 0.0 34.7
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 7.1 14.3 7.1 0.0 40.5
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 27.5 7.8 0.0 37.3
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 7.1 0.0 82.1
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 75.8
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A--Not applicable. Securities whose ratings migrated to 'NR' over the period are classified based on their rating prior to 'NR'. Source: S&P Global Ratings Research.

Table 3

Mexican Structured Finance National-Scale Rating Transitions, 2019 And Multiyear Averages, NR Included (%)
From/to mxAAA mxAA mxA mxBBB mxBB mxB mxCCC mxCC mxC D NR
2019
mxAAA 73.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7
mxAA 8.7 65.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.1
mxA 0.0 33.3 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
mxBBB 0.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0
mxBB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
One-year weighted average
mxAAA 81.2 2.6 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6
mxAA 1.1 78.7 3.1 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 14.2
mxA 0.0 3.1 65.9 5.9 3.1 2.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.8 15.4
mxBBB 0.0 1.4 2.8 50.7 15.5 5.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.2 16.9
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 15.2 8.7 8.7 0.0 8.7 21.7
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9 7.9 3.2 0.0 25.4 20.6
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.3 8.7 0.0 21.7 7.2
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 30.0 10.0
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Two-year weighted average
mxAAA 64.2 4.1 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 27.7
mxAA 1.7 63.0 3.2 2.2 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 27.5
mxA 0.0 4.0 44.3 5.7 5.4 2.3 2.6 0.6 0.0 7.1 28.1
mxBBB 0.0 3.1 3.1 30.8 9.2 10.8 4.6 3.1 0.0 7.7 27.7
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 6.5 10.9 8.7 0.0 21.7 39.1
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 9.8 4.9 0.0 32.8 31.1
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 9.1 0.0 40.9 13.6
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 48.7 12.8
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Three-year weighted average
mxAAA 52.0 4.9 1.3 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 37.0
mxAA 2.1 50.1 3.8 2.5 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 38.5
mxA 0.0 4.3 28.0 4.6 4.6 2.9 2.9 1.2 0.0 11.2 40.3
mxBBB 0.0 5.1 3.4 15.3 3.4 10.2 5.1 1.7 0.0 16.9 39.0
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 2.2 6.7 11.1 0.0 31.1 42.2
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 10.3 8.6 0.0 34.5 32.8
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 8.1 0.0 58.1 14.5
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.0 62.2 16.2
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Four-year weighted average
mxAAA 43.1 5.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.2 44.6
mxAA 1.5 41.0 2.7 1.7 0.6 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 49.5
mxA 0.0 4.4 18.5 4.1 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.4 0.0 15.0 49.1
mxBBB 0.0 3.8 1.9 9.4 0.0 11.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 28.3 41.5
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.3 6.8 6.8 0.0 36.4 43.2
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 12.3 7.0 0.0 38.6 35.1
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 75.9 15.5
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 71.4 20.0
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Five-year weighted average
mxAAA 36.0 4.7 1.1 1.5 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.3 51.5
mxAA 1.5 32.4 1.9 1.5 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 58.8
mxA 0.0 4.6 11.2 3.3 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.0 18.2 55.9
mxBBB 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.1 0.0 6.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 34.7 46.9
mxBB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 4.8 4.8 0.0 40.5 45.2
mxB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 7.8 7.8 0.0 37.3 43.1
mxCCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 82.1 12.5
mxCC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.8 24.2
mxC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A--Not applicable. Source: S&P Global Ratings Research.

Related Criteria

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
Kirsten R Mccabe, New York + 1 (212) 438 3196;
kirsten.mccabe@spglobal.com
Research Contributor:Sundaram Iyer, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P 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