The 388 Time In 3 Years, The Rating Was Raised By &Nbsp; The Relegation Was Only 13 Times.

The credit level of the market is stagnant or even lowered. Why is the issuer's credit rating generally raised?

"We live in the world of two superpowers, one is the United States, the other is Moodie.

The United States can destroy a country with bombs. Moodie can downgrade and destroy a country with bonds.

This is a sentence by Freedman, author of "the world is flat."

This point points out the power of rating agencies.

Of course, this power comes from long-term accumulation.

China's rating industry has attracted attention since Dagong international has been widely questioned about its 3A rating for many city bonds because of its higher rating on the Ministry of Railways and higher than the national rating.

A document obtained from the central government debt clearing and Clearing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "China debt company") showed that in 2008~2010, there were 388 ratings upgrades in the bond issuer's tracking rating, with only 13 downgrades, and the proportion increased by over 96%. Especially in 2010, there were 179 rating increases, corresponding to 3 downgrades.

In the past three years, during the financial crisis, many debt issuers have exposed the crisis.

At present, China has a total of five furniture.

In the paper, China bond company pointed out: "on the surface, the issuer's credit rating is generally raised, but in fact, the market credit level is still in place or even reduced."

The central debt company is a wholly state-owned central financial enterprise. Its main business is to provide government bonds, financial bonds, corporate bonds and other fixed income securities registration, trusteeship, settlement and agency services.

"At present, the credit rating of China's bond issuers is upregulated, and there is a big gap between the developed countries and the developed countries."

According to the data of China debt Corporation, from the proportion of credit rating change in 2010, China's 2 /100 downgrades were raised, while the 58 European /100 downgrades were raised, and the US's 77.34 downgrades were raised by /100.

The upward trend of ratings has been widespread and intensified.

Take the county level city investment enterprise - Changxing County traffic construction investment company's main rating change as an example: in July 2008, Dagong international gave its A+ rating for the first time. In February 2010, the Dagong international upgrade rating was AA-. In February 2011, Peng Yuan further raised the rating to AA.

From A+ to AA, the city voted to achieve a credit rating "two jump" in less than three years.

In recent years, the rapid expansion of the city investment bonds, fully enjoy the "upgrading" treatment.

From 2008 to 2010, a large number of local city investment enterprises credit rating increased from A+ to AA or even AA+ level.

Entering the 2011, while the risk of local bonds is constantly exposed, there are still some municipal credit rating agencies of urban investment bonds being raised, such as Mianyang investment control, Yancheng city investment and Suzhou city investment.

During this period, how did the credit quality of city investment bonds change?

Guotai Junan bond analyst Jiang Chao pointed out in a July research report that with the 2009 years and two years of 2010, the city voted debt has been mainly AA+ level and below, with unsecured bonds as the main concern, and the overall credit quality is decreasing year by year.

"Vigorously developing the credit bond market has become the development trend of China's bond market.

If a credit rating agency wants to cater to the issuer, it will increase the credit risk of the bond market by blindly raising its credit rating. "

Chinese debt companies are called.

According to the data of China debt Corporation, from the settlement yield and valuation yield rate, "the current market recognition rate of tracking rating is 70%, and 30% of the bond rating has not been fully recognized by the market from the past year's market pactions."

As a result, there is a big difference in the interest rate of issuing credit bonds with credit rating.

At the beginning of the year, the coupon interest rates of 11 Zoucheng state debt and 11 Rugao exchange bonds were 7.20% and 8.51% respectively, but the ratings of the two sides were AA- respectively.

How about the rating?

According to the reporter, the issuer payment mode is the mainstream of the world rating industry. Moodie, Fitch and the S & P three Rating firm all adopt this mode.

China's five largest Rating firm is no exception.

As a new service industry, in order to prevent price wars from endangering the industry order, the five companies in 2007 reached the "self financing Convention on rating fees for credit rating agencies in the inter bank bond market" according to the guidance of the people's Bank of China's credit rating management guidance and the credit market and interbank bond market credit rating business standard, and began to implement in October 18th of that year.

The self regulatory document obtained by reporters shows that the rating of short-term financing bonds needs to be issued separately by the enterprise credit rating report and debt credit rating report, of which the main credit rating fee should not be less than 100 thousand yuan, and the debt credit rating charge should not be less than 150 thousand yuan, the total amount of not less than 250 thousand yuan, and the tracking rating does not charge.

For bonds issued in the interbank bond market, bonds such as Switching Company bonds, [128.91 -0.02%] coupons and medium-term notes, the single bond rating fees should not be less than 250 thousand yuan, and the single financial debt rating fees should not be less than 350 thousand yuan. During the duration of the bonds, the following rating fees will be charged annually according to the year after the issuance, and the standard is 20% of the initial rating fee.

"The current charging mode can easily lead to conflicts of interests, affecting the objectivity and impartiality of ratings, so we should actively explore different charging modes."

Dagong international responsible person told reporters that in the new model has not yet been found, but also through business contracts, charging documents and other measures to standardize market behavior.

Li Jianyun, an analyst of the interbank market dealers association, wrote in March this year that the development of China's rating industry is still at an early stage, and that Rating firm has lowered the rating standard for competition in the market share, and even has seen "grade purchase" and other unhealthy phenomena. The credibility of the rating agencies has not been high.

In fact, not only the rating industry, but also the audit and lawyer industries charge directly to the clients, but the latter two have developed fairly well.

Based on this, some scholars believe that the focus is not on the charging system itself, but on the lack or implementation of safeguards related to the charging system, resulting in the lack of independence and impartiality.