- The Swiss authorities have revised the banking act, allowing systemically important banks (SIBs) to tap extraordinary and government-backed emergency liquidity assistance in the event of an unexpected shortage.
- This change codifies the emergency ordinance that the authorities passed in March 2023 when Credit Suisse was close to failure.
- In our view, this revision does not materially increase the structural default risk for Swiss SIBs' additional Tier 1 instruments over that already reflected in our ratings on such instruments.
- However, the revision does increase the possibility that we could apply additional notches to our ratings on some issuers' instruments if a Swiss SIB faced an extraordinary liquidity stress scenario, and may carry heightened risks.
Switzerland has adopted a public liquidity mechanism based on the backstop first provided to Credit Suisse. The new law grants additional emergency and extraordinary liquidity assistance to systemically important banks (SIBs).
Following a consultation period, the final law was introduced on Sept. 6, 2023. It is largely identical to the draft version (see "Swiss Public Liquidity Backstop For Banks Comes With Strings Attached," published July 17, 2023, on RatingsDirect), except the SIBs must now pay lump-sum compensation in advance, regardless of whether the public liquidity backstop (PLB) is granted.
The law provides the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) with codified powers, including the write-down or coupon deferral of AT1, if an SIB is using the PLB while it remains solvent.
S&P Global Ratings has considered whether the legal change should weigh on our ratings on Swiss SIBs' additional Tier 1 (AT1) instruments. In our view, the explicit legal linkage of bank liquidity stress to coupon nonpayment is novel among major banking markets. We think that the revision increases the possibility that we could apply additional notches to our ratings on these instruments if a Swiss SIB faced or was at risk of facing an extraordinary liquidity stress scenario.
We could widen the notching on Swiss SIBs' AT1 instruments by deducting a notch or more under step 2b of our hybrid methodology (see "Hybrid Capital: Methodology And Assumptions," published March 2, 2022) if there were signs that an SIB was at heightened risk of significant stress, either on liquidity or capital.
Our view on the legal change indicates the following:
- The write-down and coupon nonpayment of AT1 instruments is not mandatory upon use of the PLB by an SIB. We consider FINMA's decision to enforce a write-down on Credit Suisse's AT1s as a notable precedent, but we do not conclude that FINMA would automatically follow a similar approach in the future should other Swiss SIBs make use of the PLB. Regulatory interventions on AT1 instruments remain at the discretion of FINMA and subject to broader legal principles, such as the principle of proportionality.
- The new law only makes explicit a risk that we see as already inherent in AT1 instruments. We consider that AT1s are deeply subordinated instruments with discretionary coupon payments and subject to potential regulatory intervention in case of stress. Our notching approach for such AT1 instruments--typically rated four notches below the bank's stand-alone credit profile (SACP) for standard low-trigger AT1 instruments--reflects this view. The explicit inclusion of a legal basis linking AT1 write-down or coupon conversion and liquidity stress is unusual, but we do not see it as a material increase in the structural default risk already reflected in the ratings on Swiss SIBs' AT1s.
- Even if stressed Swiss SIBs have not accessed the PLB, they might anyway become nonviable and so default on their AT1s. Whether this stress stems from capital or liquidity or both, it can be difficult to turn around a deeply stressed bank and avoid nonviability. In such a scenario, the PLB may not have been accessed--either because access was not requested, or because the request was not granted.
Similar Measures In Other Countries
We consider that Switzerland's approach might not materially differ from foreign authorities'. Authorities in other markets have taken emergency actions that led stressed banks to default on hybrid instruments, including AT1s. While regulators do not take lightly the decision to require coupon nonpayment, it is possible that even outside Switzerland regulators may balk at the idea of allowing discretionary distributions to investors, such as the payment of AT1 coupons, if a bank benefits from extraordinary liquidity support under the terms of which, for example, the government faces substantial credit risk.
The SACP is the usual starting point for our ratings on bank hybrids. If a bank's creditworthiness weakens--whether this is due to liquidity, capital, or other concerns--then we would lower our assessment of the SACP, and therefore of related issue ratings, including on the bank's hybrids. If we see additional risks for specific instruments, we use step 2b under our hybrid methodology to notch down those issue ratings further. Should a Swiss SIB face extraordinary liquidity stress in the future, the existence of the new Swiss law will likely increase the possibility that we apply additional notches to our ratings on a Swiss SIB's AT1s.
- Hybrid Capital: Methodology And Assumptions, March 2, 2022
- Financial Institutions Rating Methodology, Dec. 9, 2021
This report does not constitute a rating action.
|Primary Credit Analyst:||Lukas Freund, Frankfurt + 49-69-3399-9139;|
|Secondary Contacts:||Giles Edwards, London + 44 20 7176 7014;|
|Salla von Steinaecker, Frankfurt + 49 693 399 9164;|
|Anna Lozmann, Frankfurt + 49 693 399 9166;|
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 acknowledgement 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 nonpublic 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.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.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.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.