Selected aspects of due diligence of sovereigns
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2012.005Ključne riječi
due diligence, public debt, sovereign credit ratingSažetak
The purpose of this paper is to present and analyse the prevailing credit rating methodologies, as an element of due diligence process of countries, in the light of the attributes of the sovereigns and associated risks. The concept of sovereignty introduces many variables to the due diligence analysis and in particular to credit risk analysis. The multidimensional character of a sovereign and its complex decision-making process require special attention from the creditors. The prevailing methodologies stress the fact that both quantitative and qualitative elements need to be taken into consideration. Debt affordability, referring to debt size and financial ability to repay it, remains an important factor in a quantitative analysis, but not a decisive one. Qualitative elements such as the assessment of the institutional capacity become essential, since in the case of the sovereigns, the ability to repay does not necessarily imply the willingness to repay. Due diligence of IFIs goes beyond traditional credit risk assessment in the domains, where states ‘surrender’ their sovereignty to the regulation of international law, particularly in the sphere of human rights and environment.References
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2004), International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards. A Revised Framework, BIS, Basel.
BIS (2012), BIS Quarterly Review, September 2012.
Eaton J., Gersovitz M., Stiglitz J. E. (1986), The Pure Theory of Country Risk, NBER, Cambridge, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(86)90004-8.
ECB (2006), Acceptance criteria for third-party rating tools within the Eurosystem Credit Assessment Framework. ECB, Frankfurt.
The Equator Principles (2006), A financial industry benchmark for determining, assessing and managing social and environmental risk in project financing, http://www.equator-principles.com (retrieved 15.11.2012).
Jackson J. H. (2003), Sovereignty-modern: new approach to an outdated concept, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 97, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3133680.
Kaufmann D., Kraay A., Mastruzzi M. (2010), The Worldwide Governance Indicators. Methodology and Analytical Issues, World Bank, Washington.
Knight F. H (1921, 2000), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Library of Economics and Liberty, http://www.econlib.org (retrieved 20.02.2013).
Moody’s (2008), Sovereign Bond Ratings. Rating methodology, http://www.moodys.com (retrieved 15.11.2012).
OECD (2010), Central Government Debt: Statistical Yearbook 2010, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2011), Government debt, [in:] OECD Factbook 2011–2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Reinhart C. M, Rogoff K. S. (2009), This Time Is Different. Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Standard and Poor’s (2011), Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions, http://www.standardandpoors.com (retrieved 15.11.2012).
Standard and Poor’s (2012), Sovereign Defaults And Rating Transition Data, 2011 Update, http://www.standardandpoors.com (retrieved 15.11.2012).
Stiglitz J. E. (2000), Economics of the Public Sector (Third Edition), W. W. Norton, London.
US Securities and Exchange Commission (2012), Annual Report on Nationally Recognised Statistical Ratings Organisations, SEC, Washington.
Downloads
Objavljeno
How to Cite
Broj časopisa
Rubrika
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 467
Number of citations: 0