Response to joint Consultation on mechanistic references to credit ratings in the ESAs’ guidelines and recommendations
Go back
In CFA Institute’s December 2009 response (http://www.cfainstitute.org/Comment%20Letters/20091221_2.pdf) to CESR’s consultation paper on these guidelines, we commented that:
“We oppose the option contained in the definition that would, in effect, prohibit investment in securities not rated by a credit rating agency. This option would entrench the use of credit ratings in both the investment policy of the fund and in regulation, which would contradict the wider regulatory objective (as part of the package of regulatory reforms of credit rating agencies) to reduce the reliance on credit ratings. Such a move would also contradict international efforts, such as those in the United States, to remove references to credit ratings in regulation where applicable. The initiative to reduce excessive reliance on credit ratings also emphasises the importance… for managers to consider other factors in addition to credit ratings when assessing the quality of an instrument.”
Though we are disappointed our December 2009 comments were not heeded when these guidelines were developed, we are pleased that the ESAs are now addressing this issue.
ESMA’s proposed revisions to the guidelines are paraphrased below. In our opinion, it is appropriate for the guidelines to refer to credit ratings as a factor that could be used by the management company when performing its own credit risk assessment, but the guidelines should not mandate the use of credit ratings. Such an obligation risks entrenching mechanistic behaviour with regard to credit risk assessment. Consequently, we believe that ESMA’s proposed language could go further to remove the risk of mechanistic reliance.
To remove this risk, we urge ESMA to give due consideration to the following suggested edits (shown in capitals):
Paragraph 4 of Box 2:
“For the purposes of point 3a), ensure that the management company performs its own documented assessment of the credit quality of money market instruments that allows it to consider a money market instrument as high quality. ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT such an assessment COULD have regard to IS the credit rating(s) provided by one or more credit rating agencies registered and supervised by ESMA. While there should be no mechanistic reliance on such external ratings, any downgrade below the two highest short term credit ratings used by such an agency should BE A FACTOR THAT WOULD lead the manager to undertake a new assessment of the credit quality of the money market instrument to ensure it continues to be of high quality.”
Paragraph 2 of Box 3:
““[…]
In addition, a Money Market Fund:
2. May, as an exception to the requirement of point 4 of Box 2, hold sovereign issuance of a lower internally assigned credit quality based on the MMF manager‟s own documented assessment of credit quality. ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT such an assessment COULD have regard to IS the credit rating(s) provided by one or more credit rating agencies registered and supervised by ESMA. While there should not be mechanistic reliance on such external ratings, any downgrade below investment grade by such an agency should BE A FACTOR THAT WOULD lead the manager to undertake a new assessment of the credit quality of the money market instrument to ensure it continues to be of appropriate quality. Sovereign issuance" should be understood as money market instruments issued or guaranteed by a central, regional or local authority or central bank of a Member State, the European Central Bank, the European Union or the European Investment Bank.”
We believe these edits improve the language and mitigate any residual risk of sole or mechanistic reliance on credit ratings in ESMA’s MMF guidelines."
In particular, do you agree with the proposed revisions of the ESMA Money Mar ket Funds Guidelines? If not, please suggest an alternative.
ESMA’s MMF guidelines on a common definition of European money market funds (developed by ESMA’s predecessor, CESR) are considered to include mechanistic references to credit ratings in two places. Firstly, under the guidelines, a money market instrument is not considered to be of high quality unless “it has been awarded one of the two highest available short-term credit ratings by each recognised credit rating agency that has rated the instrument”. Secondly, as an exception to this rule, a MMF may “hold sovereign issuance of at least investment grade quality.”In CFA Institute’s December 2009 response (http://www.cfainstitute.org/Comment%20Letters/20091221_2.pdf) to CESR’s consultation paper on these guidelines, we commented that:
“We oppose the option contained in the definition that would, in effect, prohibit investment in securities not rated by a credit rating agency. This option would entrench the use of credit ratings in both the investment policy of the fund and in regulation, which would contradict the wider regulatory objective (as part of the package of regulatory reforms of credit rating agencies) to reduce the reliance on credit ratings. Such a move would also contradict international efforts, such as those in the United States, to remove references to credit ratings in regulation where applicable. The initiative to reduce excessive reliance on credit ratings also emphasises the importance… for managers to consider other factors in addition to credit ratings when assessing the quality of an instrument.”
Though we are disappointed our December 2009 comments were not heeded when these guidelines were developed, we are pleased that the ESAs are now addressing this issue.
ESMA’s proposed revisions to the guidelines are paraphrased below. In our opinion, it is appropriate for the guidelines to refer to credit ratings as a factor that could be used by the management company when performing its own credit risk assessment, but the guidelines should not mandate the use of credit ratings. Such an obligation risks entrenching mechanistic behaviour with regard to credit risk assessment. Consequently, we believe that ESMA’s proposed language could go further to remove the risk of mechanistic reliance.
To remove this risk, we urge ESMA to give due consideration to the following suggested edits (shown in capitals):
Paragraph 4 of Box 2:
“For the purposes of point 3a), ensure that the management company performs its own documented assessment of the credit quality of money market instruments that allows it to consider a money market instrument as high quality. ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT such an assessment COULD have regard to IS the credit rating(s) provided by one or more credit rating agencies registered and supervised by ESMA. While there should be no mechanistic reliance on such external ratings, any downgrade below the two highest short term credit ratings used by such an agency should BE A FACTOR THAT WOULD lead the manager to undertake a new assessment of the credit quality of the money market instrument to ensure it continues to be of high quality.”
Paragraph 2 of Box 3:
““[…]
In addition, a Money Market Fund:
2. May, as an exception to the requirement of point 4 of Box 2, hold sovereign issuance of a lower internally assigned credit quality based on the MMF manager‟s own documented assessment of credit quality. ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT such an assessment COULD have regard to IS the credit rating(s) provided by one or more credit rating agencies registered and supervised by ESMA. While there should not be mechanistic reliance on such external ratings, any downgrade below investment grade by such an agency should BE A FACTOR THAT WOULD lead the manager to undertake a new assessment of the credit quality of the money market instrument to ensure it continues to be of appropriate quality. Sovereign issuance" should be understood as money market instruments issued or guaranteed by a central, regional or local authority or central bank of a Member State, the European Central Bank, the European Union or the European Investment Bank.”
We believe these edits improve the language and mitigate any residual risk of sole or mechanistic reliance on credit ratings in ESMA’s MMF guidelines."