This article presents updates to S&P Global Ratings' views on the 88 banking systems that it currently reviews under its Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment (BICRA) methodology (see the chart below and the tables that follow). We also present government support assessments, as well as economic and industry risk trends, for those banking systems.
![image](/_assets/images/ratings/research/2469718_11845038.gif)
Latest BICRA Actions And Reports
Since we last published this report on May 27, 2020, we have revised:
Costa Rica:
- Our BICRA to Group '8' from Group '7', and our industry risk score to '8' from '7';
India:
- Our BICRA to Group '6' from Group '5', our economic risk score to '7' from '6', and our economic risk trend to stable from negative; and
New Zealand:
- Our economic risk trend to negative from stable.
Costa Rica
We have revised our BICRA for Costa Rica to Group '8' from Group '7', and our industry risk score to '8' from '7'. For the past couple of years, we have observed a steady decline in the Costa Rican banking system's profitability. The impact of COVID-19 will exacerbate this trend, in our view. Interest rates declining to historically low levels are ratcheting up pressure on net interest margins and active lending rates for core banking products. This, coupled with the market distortion stemming from the preponderant market share of government-owned banks and highly dollarized balance sheets, is taking a huge toll on revenues. At the same time, loan-loss provisions and credit losses will increase as the pandemic crimps the economy and banks' overall financial profile.
India
We have revised our BICRA for India to Group '6' from Group '5', and our economic risk score to '7' from '6'. We believe risks stemming from challenging operating conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have increased for Indian banks. Drastic efforts to curtail the spread of the coronavirus have resulted in a sharp economic contraction. The government's stimulus package, with a headline amount of 10% of GDP, has about 1.2% of direct stimulus measures, which is low relative to that of countries with similar economic impacts from the pandemic. The remaining 8.8% of the package includes liquidity support measures and credit guarantees that will not directly support growth. We now forecast a 5.0% contraction in the economy in fiscal 2021. We anticipate Indian banks' asset quality will deteriorate, credit costs will rise, and profitability will decline over the next 12-24 months.
We have also revised our economic risk trend for India to stable from negative. This is because we expect the country's economy will recover following the containment of the pandemic. We forecast that the economy will achieve a strong recovery following the deep contraction this year, with real GDP growth at 8.5% in fiscal 2022. The economy's long-term outperformance highlights its resilience. India's wide range of structural trends, including healthy demographics and competitive unit labor costs, works in its favor. Therefore, the banking system's nonperforming loans and credit costs will start to reduce gradually.
New Zealand
We have revised our economic risk trend for New Zealand to negative from stable. We consider that there is a one-in-three likelihood in the next two years that we assess the economic risk score as having worsened by one category within our BICRA for New Zealand. This could occur if we foresee the economic downturn--or its impact on the banking sector--becoming significantly more prolonged or severe than our current forecasts. For example, if we consider that credit losses are likely to rise substantially above our current forecasts, or if we see indications of structural weaknesses in the credit risks in the economy such as the financial strength of the corporate sector or underwriting standards followed by the banks, we could revise downward the economic risk score.
About BICRAs
The strengths and weaknesses of an economy and banking industry are critical factors that underpin the creditworthiness of a country's financial institutions. We distill this analysis into a single BICRA, "designed to evaluate and compare global banking systems," as stated in our criteria. BICRAs are grouped on a scale from '1' to '10', ranging from what we view as the lowest-risk banking systems (group '1') to the highest-risk (group '10'). The BICRA methodology has two main analytical components: "economic risk" and "industry risk."
A BICRA analysis for a country covers all of its financial institutions that take deposits, extend credit, or engage in both activities, whether we rate them or not. In addition, the analysis considers the relationship of the banking industry to the financial system, and furthermore to its sovereign. For that reason, many of the factors underlying a sovereign rating are important in determining a BICRA.
Our analysis of economic risk of a banking sector takes into account the structure and stability of the country's economy, including the central government's macroeconomic policy flexibility; actual or potential economic imbalances; and the credit risk of economic participants--mainly households and enterprises.
Our view of industry risk factors in the quality and effectiveness of bank regulation and the track record of authorities in reducing vulnerability to financial crises, as well as the competitive environment of a country's banking industry--including the industry's risk appetite, structure, and performance--and possible distortions in the market. Industry risk also addresses the range and stability of funding options available to banks, including the role of the central bank and government.
Part of our review involves an evaluation of governments' tendency to support private banks in countries where we assign BICRAs. Our view of the likelihood of government support may influence our issuer credit rating on systemically important banks in a particular country, according to our criteria (see "Banks: Rating Methodology And Assumptions," published on Nov. 9, 2011).
Latest BICRAs, Components, And Related Assessments
Table 1
BICRAs By Group And Country | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Group '1' to '10', from lowest to highest risk) | ||||||||||
Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | ||||||
Austria | Australia | Ireland | Bermuda | |||||||
Belgium | Chile | Kuwait | Hungary | |||||||
Canada | Czech Republic | Malaysia | Iceland | |||||||
Finland | Denmark | New Zealand | Italy | |||||||
Germany | France | Poland | Malta | |||||||
Hong Kong | Israel | Saudi Arabia | Mexico | |||||||
Liechtenstein | Japan | Slovenia | Panama | |||||||
Luxembourg | Korea | Spain | Peru | |||||||
Norway | Netherlands | Taiwan | Philippines | |||||||
Singapore | U.K. | Qatar | ||||||||
Sweden | U.S. | United Arab Emirates | ||||||||
Switzerland | Group 10 | |||||||||
Group 6 | Group 7 | Group 8 | Group 9 | Belarus | ||||||
Brazil | Bahrain | Armenia | Argentina | Nigeria | ||||||
Brunei | Croatia | Bolivia | Azerbaijan | Sri Lanka | ||||||
China | Guatemala | Costa Rica* | Bangladesh | Tunisia | ||||||
Colombia | Morocco | Cyprus | Cambodia | Ukraine | ||||||
India* | Oman | El Salvador | Egypt | |||||||
Indonesia | Georgia | Greece | ||||||||
Portugal | Honduras | Kazakhstan | ||||||||
South Africa | Jamaica | Kenya | ||||||||
Thailand | Jordan | Mongolia | ||||||||
Trinidad and Tobago | Paraguay | Papua New Guinea | ||||||||
Uruguay | Russia | Turkey | ||||||||
Uzbekistan | Vietnam | |||||||||
*Indicates a change in BICRA since our previous monthly article published May 27, 2020. Data as of June 26, 2020. BICRAs -- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessments. Source: S&P Global Ratings. |
Table 2
BICRA Economic Risk And Industry Risk Scores And Components | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Group '1' to '10', from lowest to highest risk) | ||||||||||||||||||||
--Economic risk factors and descriptors-- | --Industry risk factors and descriptors-- | |||||||||||||||||||
Country | BICRA Group | Economic Resilience | Economic Imbalances | Credit risk in the economy | Economic risk/Trend | Institutional framework | Competitive dynamics | Systemwide funding | Industry risk/Trend | |||||||||||
Germany | 2 | Very Low | Very Low | Low | 1/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | Very Low | 3/Negative | |||||||||||
Switzerland | 2 | Very Low | Low | Low | 2/Stable | Low | Low | Low | 2/Stable | |||||||||||
Finland | 2 | Very Low | Low | Low | 2/Negative | Intermediate | Low | Intermediate | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Austria† | 2 | Very Low | Low | Low | 2/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Norway | 2 | Very Low | Intermediate | Low | 2/Stable | Intermediate | Low | Intermediate | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Sweden | 2 | Very Low | Intermediate | Low | 2/Stable | Intermediate | Low | Intermediate | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Luxembourg | 2 | Very Low | Intermediate | Low | 2/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | Very Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Belgium | 2 | Low | Low | Low | 2/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | Very Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Liechtenstein | 2 | Low | Low | Low | 2/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Hong Kong | 2 | Low | Intermediate | Intermediate | 3/Stable | Very Low | Low | Very Low | 1/Stable | |||||||||||
Canada | 2 | Very Low | Intermediate | Intermediate | 3/Stable | Very Low | Low | Low | 2/Stable | |||||||||||
Singapore | 2 | Very Low | Intermediate | Intermediate | 3/Stable | Very Low | Low | Low | 2/Stable | |||||||||||
Japan | 3 | Low | Very Low | Low | 2/Stable | Intermediate | High | Very Low | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
Australia | 3 | Very Low | High | Low | 3/Negative | Low | Low | Intermediate | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Denmark | 3 | Very Low | Low | Intermediate | 2/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | Intermediate | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
U.S. | 3 | Very Low | Low | High | 3/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | Very Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Netherlands | 3 | Very Low | Intermediate | Intermediate | 3/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
France | 3 | Low | Intermediate | Low | 3/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | Low | 3/Negative | |||||||||||
Korea† | 3 | Low | Very Low | High | 3/Stable | Intermediate | High | Low | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
Czech Republic | 3 | Intermediate | Low | Intermediate | 3/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | Intermediate | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
Israel | 3 | Intermediate | Low | Intermediate | 3/Stable | Intermediate | High | Low | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
U.K. | 3 | Low | Intermediate | High | 4/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Chile | 3 | High | Low | Intermediate | 4/Negative | Low | Intermediate | Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Taiwan† | 4 | Intermediate | Low | Intermediate | 3/Stable | Intermediate | Very High | Very Low | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
New Zealand | 4 | Very Low | High | Intermediate | 4/Negative* | Intermediate | Low | High | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
Spain† | 4 | Intermediate | Intermediate | Intermediate | 4/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | Intermediate | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
Poland | 4 | High | Low | Intermediate | 4/Negative | Intermediate | High | Intermediate | 5/Negative | |||||||||||
Malaysia | 4 | High | Low | High | 5/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Saudi Arabia | 4 | High | Intermediate | Intermediate | 5/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Ireland | 4 | Low | High | High | 5/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | Intermediate | 4/Negative | |||||||||||
Slovenia | 4 | Intermediate | Intermediate | High | 5/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | Intermediate | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
Kuwait | 4 | High | Intermediate | Intermediate | 5/Stable | High | Intermediate | Low | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
Iceland | 5 | Low | High | Intermediate | 4/Negative | Intermediate | High | High | 6/Stable | |||||||||||
Malta | 5 | Intermediate | Low | High | 4/Negative | Very High | Intermediate | Intermediate | 6/Stable | |||||||||||
United Arab Emirates | 5 | Low | High | High | 5/Negative | Intermediate | High | Intermediate | 5/Negative | |||||||||||
Panama | 5 | Intermediate | High | Intermediate | 5/Stable | Intermediate | Low | Very High | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
Qatar | 5 | Intermediate | High | Intermediate | 5/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | High | 5/Negative | |||||||||||
Italy | 5 | Intermediate | High | High | 6/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | High | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
Bermuda | 5 | Intermediate | Very High | Intermediate | 6/Stable | Intermediate | Low | Intermediate | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Peru | 5 | High | Very Low | Very High | 6/Stable | Low | Intermediate | Intermediate | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Mexico | 5 | Very High | Very Low | High | 6/Stable | Intermediate | Intermediate | Low | 3/Stable | |||||||||||
Philippines† | 5 | Very High | Low | High | 6/Stable | High | Intermediate | Intermediate | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
Brunei | 6 | Intermediate | Low | High | 4/Stable | Extremely High | Intermediate | Low | 7/Stable | |||||||||||
Uruguay | 6 | High | Low | High | 5/Stable | High | High | High | 7/Stable | |||||||||||
Portugal | 6 | Intermediate | High | High | 6/Stable | Intermediate | High | High | 6/Stable | |||||||||||
Indonesia | 6 | High | Low | Very High | 6/Negative | High | High | Intermediate | 6/Stable | |||||||||||
Hungary | 5 | High | High | Intermediate | 6/Stable | Intermediate | High | Intermediate | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
Thailand | 6 | High | Low | Extremely High | 7/Stable | Intermediate | High | Low | 4/Stable | |||||||||||
China | 6 | Intermediate | High | Very High | 7/Stable | High | High | Very Low | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
Colombia | 6 | High | High | High | 7/Stable | High | Intermediate | Intermediate | 5/Positive | |||||||||||
India | 6* | High | High* | Very High | 7*/Stable* | High | High | Low | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
Trinidad and Tobago | 6 | Very High | Intermediate | High | 7/Negative | High | High | Low | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
South Africa | 6 | Very High | High | High | 7/Negative | Intermediate | Intermediate | High | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
Brazil† | 6 | Very High | High* | High | 7/Stable | Intermediate | High | Intermediate | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
Bahrain | 7 | High | High | Very High | 7/Stable | Intermediate | High | High | 6/Stable | |||||||||||
Croatia | 7 | High | High | Very High | 7/Negative | High | High | Intermediate | 6/Stable | |||||||||||
Morocco | 7 | Very High | Low | Very High | 7/Stable | Intermediate | High | High | 6/Stable | |||||||||||
Oman | 7 | Very High | High | High | 7/Negative | Intermediate | High | High | 6/Stable | |||||||||||
Guatemala | 7 | Extremely High | Intermediate | Very High | 8/Stable | High | Intermediate | Intermediate | 5/Stable | |||||||||||
Costa Rica | 8* | High | High | Very High | 7/Negative | High | Extremely High* | High | 8*/Stable | |||||||||||
Uzbekistan | 8 | Very High | Intermediate | Very High | 7/Negative | Extremely High | High | Very High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Honduras | 8 | Very High | Intermediate | Extremely High | 8/Stable | Very High | Intermediate | High | 7/Stable | |||||||||||
Georgia | 8 | Very High | High | Very High | 8/Stable | High | High | Very High | 7/Stable | |||||||||||
Russia | 8 | Very High | High | Very High | 8/Stable | Very High | High | High | 7/Stable | |||||||||||
Jordan | 8 | Extremely High | Intermediate | Very High | 8/Stable | High | High | High | 7/Stable | |||||||||||
Cyprus | 8 | Intermediate | Very High | Extremely High | 8/Stable | High | Very High | Very High | 8/Stable | |||||||||||
Armenia† | 8 | Very High | Intermediate | Extremely High | 8/Stable | Very High | High | Very High | 8/Stable | |||||||||||
Paraguay | 8 | Very High | Intermediate | Extremely High | 8/Stable | Very High | Very High | High | 8/Stable | |||||||||||
Jamaica | 8 | Extremely High | Intermediate | Very High | 8/Negative | High | Very High | Very High | 8/Stable | |||||||||||
Bolivia | 8 | Very High | High | Extremely High | 9/Stable | Very High | Very High | Intermediate | 7/Stable | |||||||||||
El Salvador | 8 | Extremely High | Intermediate | Extremely High | 9/Stable | High | Intermediate | Very High | 7/Stable | |||||||||||
Turkey† | 9 | High | Very High | Very High | 8/Negative | Very High | Very High | Very High | 9/Negative | |||||||||||
Bangladesh | 9 | Very High | Low | Extremely High | 8/Stable | Extremely High | Extremely High | Intermediate | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Kenya | 9 | Very High | Intermediate | Extremely High | 8/Stable | Extremely High | Very High | High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Vietnam | 9 | Very High | High | Extremely High | 9/Stable | Extremely High | Very High | Intermediate | 8/Stable | |||||||||||
Greece | 9 | Very High | Very High | Very High | 9/Stable | High | High | Extremely High | 8/Stable | |||||||||||
Papua New Guinea | 9 | Extremely High | High | Very High | 9/Negative | Very High | High | Very High | 8/Stable | |||||||||||
Egypt | 9 | Extremely High | High | Very High | 9/Stable | Extremely High | High | High | 8/Stable | |||||||||||
Mongolia | 9 | High | Very High | Extremely High | 9/Stable | Extremely High | High | Very High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Kazakhstan | 9 | High | Very High | Extremely High | 9/Stable | Extremely High | Very High | High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Azerbaijan | 9 | Very High | High | Extremely High | 9/Stable | Extremely High | High | Very High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Cambodia | 9 | Very High | High | Extremely High | 9/Stable | Extremely High | High | Very High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Argentina | 9 | Extremely High | High | Extremely High | 10/Stable | High | High | Very High | 7/Negative | |||||||||||
Belarus | 10 | Very High | Very High | Very High | 9/Stable | Extremely High | Very High | Very High | 10/Stable | |||||||||||
Sri Lanka | 10 | Very High | Very High | Extremely High | 10/Stable | Very High | Very High | Very High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Ukraine | 10 | Very High | Very High | Extremely High | 10/Stable | Very High | Very High | Very High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Nigeria | 10 | Extremely High | High | Extremely High | 10/Stable | Extremely High | Intermediate | Extremely High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
Tunisia† | 10 | Extremely High | High | Extremely High | 10/Stable | Extremely High | High | Very High | 9/Stable | |||||||||||
*Indicates a change in BICRA score/trend since our previous monthly article published on May 27, 2020. Data as of June 26, 2020. BICRA -- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment. †We have released a comprehensive BICRA report since we last published this report. Source: S&P Global Ratings. |
Table 3
Government Support Assessment By Region | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
--Asia-Pacific-- | --CEEMEA-- | --Latin America and Caribbean-- | ||||||||||
Country | Government support assessment | Country | Government support assessment | Country | Government support assessment | |||||||
Australia |
Highly supportive |
Kuwait |
Highly supportive |
Bolivia |
Supportive | |||||||
Brunei |
Highly supportive |
Qatar |
Highly supportive |
Brazil |
Supportive | |||||||
China |
Highly supportive |
Saudi Arabia |
Highly supportive |
Chile |
Supportive | |||||||
India |
Highly supportive |
United Arab Emirates |
Highly supportive |
Colombia |
Supportive | |||||||
Indonesia |
Highly supportive |
Georgia |
Supportive |
Guatemala |
Supportive | |||||||
Japan |
Highly supportive |
Israel |
Supportive |
Mexico |
Supportive | |||||||
Korea |
Highly supportive |
Kazakhstan |
Supportive |
Peru |
Supportive | |||||||
Malaysia |
Highly supportive |
Morocco |
Supportive |
Trinidad and Tobago |
Supportive | |||||||
Philippines |
Highly supportive |
Russia |
Supportive |
Uruguay |
Supportive | |||||||
Singapore |
Highly supportive |
Uzbekistan |
Supportive |
Argentina |
Uncertain | |||||||
Taiwan |
Highly supportive | Armenia | Uncertain |
Costa Rica |
Uncertain | |||||||
Thailand |
Highly supportive |
Azerbaijan |
Uncertain |
El Salvador |
Uncertain | |||||||
Vietnam |
Highly supportive |
Bahrain |
Uncertain | Honduras | Uncertain | |||||||
Hong Kong |
Supportive |
Belarus |
Uncertain |
Jamaica |
Uncertain | |||||||
Bangladesh | Uncertain |
Croatia |
Uncertain |
Panama |
Uncertain | |||||||
Cambodia |
Uncertain |
Czech Republic |
Uncertain |
Paraguay |
Uncertain | |||||||
Mongolia |
Uncertain |
Egypt |
Uncertain | |||||||||
New Zealand |
Uncertain |
Hungary |
Uncertain | |||||||||
Papua New Guinea |
Uncertain |
Jordan |
Uncertain | |||||||||
Sri Lanka |
Uncertain |
Kenya |
Uncertain | |||||||||
Nigeria |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Oman |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Poland |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Slovenia |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
South Africa |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Tunisia |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Turkey |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Ukraine | Uncertain | |||||||||||
--North America-- | --Western Europe-- | |||||||||||
Country | Government support assessment | Country | Government support assessment | |||||||||
Bermuda |
Supportive |
Austria |
Uncertain | |||||||||
Canada |
Supportive |
Belgium |
Uncertain | |||||||||
United States of America |
Uncertain | Cyprus | Uncertain | |||||||||
Denmark |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Finland |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
France |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Germany |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Greece |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Iceland |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Ireland |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Italy |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Liechtenstein |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Luxembourg |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Malta | Uncertain | |||||||||||
Netherlands |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Norway |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Portugal |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Spain |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Sweden |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
Switzerland |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
U.K. |
Uncertain | |||||||||||
*Indicates a change in our government support assessment since our previous monthly article published on May 27, 2020. CEEMEA -- Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Note: Data as of June 26, 2020. Source: S&P Global Ratings. |
Chart 1a
Chart 2a
BICRA Estimates And Regional Averages
We determine BICRAs for all countries where rated banks are domiciled, but many rated banks have exposures to countries and banking systems with no rated banks. If the aggregate credit exposures to these countries and banking systems where we do not have BICRAs are significant, or if we otherwise determine them to be relevant to our analysis, we perform a standard but simplified BICRA analysis for the purpose of computing risk-adjusted capital ratios (we call these BICRA Estimates). If rated banks' aggregate exposure is not significant, we use a BICRA proxy for the same purpose based on our foreign currency sovereign rating on the jurisdiction (we call these BICRA Proxies). The BICRA Regional Averages calculate the BICRA Group and Economic Risk score, based on the countries within each region, weighted by GDP. (For more information, please see paragraph 12 of Risk-Adjusted Capital Framework Methodology, published July 20, 2017.)
Table 4
BICRA Scores For Estimates And Regional Averages | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
--BICRA Estimates-- | ||||||
BICRA Group | Economic Risk | |||||
Andorra | 7 | 5 | ||||
Bahamas | 7 | 7 | ||||
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 9 | 9 | ||||
Bulgaria | 7 | 7 | ||||
Estonia | 4 | 4 | ||||
Ghana | 9 | 9 | ||||
Latvia | 5 | 5 | ||||
Lithuania | 5 | 5 | ||||
Romania | 7 | 7 | ||||
Senegal | 9 | 8 | ||||
Serbia | 7 | 7 | ||||
Slovakia | 4 | 5 | ||||
--BICRA Regional Averages-- | ||||||
BICRA Group | Economic Risk | |||||
Africa | 9 | 9 | ||||
Asia Pacific | 5 | 6* | ||||
Central America and the Caribbean | 8 | 8 | ||||
Europe, the Middle East and Africa | 5 | 5 | ||||
Europe | 4 | 4 | ||||
European Union | 3 | 3 | ||||
Gulf Cooperation Council | 5 | 5 | ||||
Latin America | 6 | 7 | ||||
North America | 3 | 3 | ||||
World | 4 | 5 | ||||
Data as of June 26, 2020. *Indicates a change in BICRA score/trend since our previous monthly article published on May 27, 2020. For the purposes of calculating the scores in the table, the North America region includes only Canada and the U.S. |
Related Criteria And Research
For a fuller understanding of our revised framework for rating banks, including the BICRA methodology, the bank criteria, and other relevant publications, please see the following articles published on RatingsDirect.
Related criteria
- Sovereign Government Rating Methodology And Assumptions, Dec. 23, 2014
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment Methodology And Assumptions, Nov. 9, 2011
- Banks: Rating Methodology And Assumptions, Nov. 9, 2011
Related research
- Axis Bank Downgraded On Worsening Operating Conditions; Indian Bank On CreditWatch Negative; BICRA Lowered To Group '6', June 26, 2020
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Turkey, June 23, 2020
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Taiwan, June 23, 2020
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Brazil, June 22, 2020
- New Zealand Bank Ratings Can Withstand Rising Economic Risks, Multifold Rise In Credit Losses, June 22, 2020
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Armenia, June 19, 2020
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Spain, June 18, 2020
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Philippines, June 18, 2020
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Austria, June 17, 2020
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Tunisia, June 12, 2020
- Two Costa Rican State-Owned Banks Downgraded To 'B' From 'B+' On Similar Action On Sovereign; Outlook Still Negative, June 12, 2020
- Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Korea, June 1, 2020
- Global Outlook: Banks Can Largely Fend Off Tougher 2020, Nov. 18, 2019
- S&P To Publish Economic And Industry Risk Trends For Banks, March 12, 2013
- Analytical Linkages Between Sovereign And Bank Ratings, Dec. 6, 2011
- S&P's BICRAs Measure Banking Risks For 86 Countries, Nov. 9, 2011
- The Evolving Landscape For Banks Requires A Robust Analytical Framework, Nov. 1, 2011
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analyst: | Alfredo E Calvo, Mexico City (52) 55-5081-4436; alfredo.calvo@spglobal.com |
Secondary Contacts: | Emmanuel F Volland, Paris (33) 1-4420-6696; emmanuel.volland@spglobal.com |
Devi Aurora, New York (1) 212-438-3055; devi.aurora@spglobal.com | |
Elena Iparraguirre, Madrid (34) 91-389-6963; elena.iparraguirre@spglobal.com | |
Sharad Jain, Melbourne (61) 3-9631-2077; sharad.jain@spglobal.com | |
Harm Semder, Frankfurt (49) 69-33-999-158; harm.semder@spglobal.com | |
Associate: | Michael L Forbes, Toronto (1) 416-507-2525; michael.forbes@spglobal.com |
Additional Contact: | Financial Institutions Ratings Europe; FIG_Europe@spglobal.com |
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.