Key Takeaways
- Environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-related rating actions over the first two months of 2021 totaled 118, of which 75 were rating downgrades (see Table 1).
- With the effects of the pandemic gradually lessening, health-and-safety-related rating impacts have reduced, although they still accounted for 60% of total ESG-related rating actions in January and February. Amid renewed waves of COVID-19 infections and the emergence of new variants, social-distancing restrictions triggered further downgrades to commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS). Selective rating activity also continued for some corporate entities in aerospace, hotels, and entertainment sectors.
- The share of environmental considerations increased to about 30% over January-February, with the February storm triggering a series of rating actions among U.S. utilities and our ESG-driven downward revision of the oil and gas industry risk, leading to one-notch-downward rating adjustments for most oil and gas majors.
Table 1
| ESG-Related Rating Actions | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereigns | International public finance | U.S. public finance | Corporates and infrastructure | Structured finance | Total | |||||||||
| Downgrade | 2 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 42 | 75 | ||||||||
| CreditWatch negative | -- | -- | 8 | 12 | 9 | 29 | ||||||||
| Downward outlook revision | 1 | -- | 3 | 4 | -- | 8 | ||||||||
| Upgrade/upward outlook revision | -- | -- | 1 | 5 | -- | 6 | ||||||||
| Total ESG-related rating actions* | 3 | 5 | 15 | 44 | 51 | 118 | ||||||||
| Of which social§ | 3 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 42 | 76 | ||||||||
| Of which governance§ | -- | 1 | 10 | 3 | -- | 14 | ||||||||
| Of which environmental§ | -- | -- | 8 | 20 | 9 | 37 | ||||||||
| *Rating actions comprise rating, CreditWatch, and outlook changes over January-February 2020. Since March 30, 2020, S&P Global Ratings references in its press releases when rating changes have been influenced by ESG factors. §The sum of social, governance, and environmental actions exceed total ESG rating actions because some actions were influenced by multiple factors. ESG--Environmental, social, and governance. | ||||||||||||||
Chart 1
The pandemic has heightened the need for effective crisis management and emphasized the importance of stronger board engagement and oversight of ESG issues, as we highlight in the ESG-related reports "Six Key Corporate Governance Trends For 2021" (published March 22, 2021) and "Rising Shareholder Activism Mostly Harms Credit Quality" (published March 17, 2021).
2020 was very much a litmus test for governance and preparedness by management and boards. The pandemic laid bare companies' resilience (or lack thereof) in dealing with a crisis and being responsive and adaptable. There will be a lot to draw from the experience in the coming years, particularly when assessing how ready companies are to prepare for another systemic challenge: climate change. The recent events caused by February's winter storm, which left millions of homes in Texas without power (see chart 2), have shown the need to prepare for the unexpected. Compared with the last extreme climate event in February 2011, the number of consecutive hours with subfreezing temperatures was multiplied by 2.3x. Power prices are known to spike at extreme levels for a few hours, but before the Texas storm they had never averaged highs of $6,600 per megawatt hour (/MWh) over a six-day period. During the event, 60% of generation capacity was knocked out, including due to gas supply interruptions, since production equipment froze. While it may be unrealistic to expect this level of disruption, ESG is about scenario analysis and trying to factor in how companies and their boards are prepared and can mitigate or adapt.
Chart 2
We believe investors are increasingly taking a longer-term and more holistic view, and climate change is key to this. About 15 years ago, investors campaigned for a "Say on Pay"; now they are demanding a "Say on Climate," asking companies to not only disclose their emissions, but also to provide concrete plans to address climate change and deliver the transition required by the Paris Agreement. Underpinning most of these campaigns is the search for value. This includes better management of social and environmental risks and opportunities, which are essential to long-term, sustainable value creation in the interests of all stakeholders. Our credit ratings, and
our ongoing transparency efforts to highlight ESG impacts on credit ratings, align with the increased credit importance of sustainability factors: for instance, we recently reassessed our oil and gas long-term industry risk and related rating actions on various oil majors (see "ESG-Driven Industry Risk Assessments Update For Corporate And Infrastructure Ratings," published Jan. 27, 2021).
Further illustrating investors' increasing focus on ESG is the threefold rise in environmental and social-driven campaigns (see chart 3). While shareholder activism that targets mergers and acquisitions (M&A), company breakups, and capital structure tends to be strongly credit negative, we have yet to take rating actions as a direct consequence of environmental or social campaigns.
Environmental campaigns have primarily targeted U.S.-based oil majors, transportation, and restaurant/retail sectors, as well as financial services. Most of these campaigns focused on climate change, while a small number pinpointed deforestation and plastic usage. Following activist pressure, several companies, including Unilever PLC, agreed to allow annual shareholder votes on its progress toward climate targets. Unsurprisingly, as a result of the COVID-19 upheaval, a number of social campaigns targeted companies in the consumer products, restaurants, and retail sectors as well as financial services entities. Their focus was the implementation of human rights policies, improvement to workforce health and safety, resilience, and increasing diversity.
Corporate governance activism exceeded one-half of all campaigns for the first time in 2020 (see chart 3).
Chart 3
Over the past six years, we took 12 rating actions resulting from governance-related activism (10 of which were negative). Abrupt changes in management, disagreements between existing board members and the new activist-nominated board member, or simply the change itself (laying bare past dysfunction or diverting management's attention from key strategic objectives) can be credit negative if we believe the company's ability to service debt will suffer as a result. One example of governance-related campaigns with a credit-positive development is our outlook revision in 2020 on agribusiness leader Bunge Ltd. from negative to stable, following a successful turnaround program.
ESG Analysis By Sector
Chart 4
Sovereigns And International Public Finance
Chart 5
Chart 6
Find a list of all rating actions in this sector here.
In our overview of ESG factors in sovereign ratings (see box below as well as "ESG Overview: Global Sovereigns," published Feb. 3, 2021), we offer a deeper look at the ESG factors that influence our sovereign credit ratings. Naturally, governance and social factors are at the heart of our sovereign risk analysis, but environmental risks, particularly climate and physical risk, are gaining prominence. For example, we noted in February the ongoing impact of recurrent extreme weather events on Mozambique's economic growth prospects.
Still, most ESG-driven rating actions taken in January-February 2021 in the Sovereign and International Public Finance sectors reflect the ongoing credit impact of health and safety risks posed by the pandemic on sovereign and sub-sovereign entities. For instance, we took negative rating actions on six Canadian airport authorities (of which four were downgrades), reflecting our expectation that activity levels at the airports will remain severely depressed and unpredictable due to the ongoing effects of the pandemic. A year after the onset of COVID-19, rate-setting mechanisms have not proven effective in the current low-volume environment, and headroom within the ratings has been depleted.
ESG Overview: Global Sovereigns
ESG credit factors are important to S&P Global Ratings' analysis of sovereign creditworthiness. They are embedded in several of our rating factors.
- Governance is a key pillar of sovereign creditworthiness. Alongside the governance credit factors included in the institutional assessment, our monetary assessment also reflects our opinion on monetary policy credibility, including the independence of the central bank, its policymaking tools and effectiveness, track record on price stability, and role as a lender of last resort.
- Social factors also inform our institutional assessment, mainly because they relate to the cohesiveness of civil society in the broadest sense. Our analysis of social cohesion looks at social mobility, social inclusion, the prevalence of civic organizations, degree of social order, and the capacity of political institutions to respond to societal priorities. Socioeconomic indicators, including demographics, play an important role and can cause or signal varying degrees of stress on government finances. High and sustained net emigration or unemployment, and unaddressed age-related spending imbalances, are often linked to poor social outcomes for a country's inhabitants and weigh on government finances.
- Environmental credit factors are the most complex to capture and, due to climate change and efforts to contain it, the most rapidly evolving. Physical risks pose a limited direct threat to our ratings on sovereigns with advanced economies, since advanced economies with exposure to natural catastrophes also tend to have solid adaptation strategies, resilience records, and infrastructure. Our ratings on many emerging-market sovereigns, on the other hand, already reflect potential risks arising from future natural disasters. This can be seen in the overall good alignment of our economic assessment with the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-Gain) index.
See "Environmental, Social, And Governance: ESG Overview: Global Sovereigns," published Feb. 3, 2021.
U.S. Public Finance
Chart 7
Chart 8
Find a list of all rating actions in this sector here.
U.S. public finance (USPF) ESG-driven rating actions slowed in January and February, but the severe winter storm in Texas presented unique challenges for utilities in that state. Even if health and safety social risks stemming from the pandemic continue to weigh on certain sectors, 10 of the 15 ESG-driven rating actions taken in USPF over the two months were related to the February storm, reflecting both environmental exposure to physical climate change (natural conditions) and related risk-management concerns (governance).
The most pronounced rating transition stemmed from the sudden bankruptcy and default of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative on March 1, 2021. Although details of the events that saddled this utility with a $1.8 billion bill for electricity purchase over the course of a week are still unfolding, it appears that the extreme weather, which disabled power plants at Brazos and across Texas, triggered major short exposures and drove wholesale power prices to $9,000/MWh (see "Winter Storm In Texas Will Continue To Be Felt In Utilities' Credit Profiles," published March 15, 2021).
For public power and electric cooperative utilities in Texas, February's severe winter event brought into sharper focus a spectrum of ESG-related risks that may inform our credit analyses and rating actions over the longer term. In our view, the specter of climate change may weigh more heavily as a credit risk factor for these not-for-profit utilities. In particular, we expect to consider the adequacy of management's counterbalancing measures to plan for, mitigate, or adapt to risks associated with extreme weather conditions that have the potential to disrupt power generation and transmission. Among these considerations are exposures under commodity hedging arrangements, plans relating to power plant weatherization and redundancy, and capital and liquidity sufficiency.
Case Study: San Antonio Electric, Gas System 'AA' Senior Lien, 'AA-' Junior Lien Ratings Placed On Watch Negative Feb. 26, 2021; Downgraded One Notch March 10, 2021
The downgrade was based on our revision of the operational and management assessment (OMA) to strong from very strong to reflect a generation fleet that was revealed by February's storm to be exposed to operational risks related to extreme weather events. The utility's significant purchase power and natural gas costs highlight the limits of its natural gas hedging practices and the inability of its hedging arrangements to withstand the severity and duration of the weather event. The supply and demand imbalance resulted in negative financial implications for the utility. The City Public Service Board of San Antonio is issuing bonds to meet its estimated $1 billion of extraordinary electricity and gas commodity procurement costs, in order to preserve its balance-sheet liquidity and mitigate the effect of February's bills on retail rates. Nevertheless, these costs will add to its debt burden, weigh on its rate-making flexibility, and potentially weaken its financial performance.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors for this credit rating change:
- Natural conditions
- Risk management
- Internal controls
Corporates And Infrastructure
Chart 9
Chart 10
Find a list of all rating actions in this sector here.
The COVID-19 pandemic--which we classify as a health and safety factor when it directly influences an entity's business activity--continued to account for close to one in two ESG-driven rating actions over the first two months of 2021. Among these actions, media and leisure companies continued to be negatively affected by social-distancing requirements, including downgrades of Viking Cruises Ltd., Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., and Lago Resort & Casino. Aerospace issuers continue to be affected by ongoing weak commercial air travel, including downgrades of Hexcel Corp. and Embraer S.A. The extended impact of lockdowns also triggered downgrades of food services provider Elior Group S.A. and Dutch catering and hospitality provider, Vermaat (Vincent Topco BV).
A significant (40%) share of ESG-related rating actions in January-February was influenced by environmental factors, as follows:
- We lowered the ratings on six highly rated investment-grade oil and gas players, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Total S.A., and ConocoPhillips, while revising the outlook to negative on two others, including BP PLC. Rating actions were triggered by a change in our industry risk assessment for oil and gas exploration and production and integrated companies, reflecting heightened uncertainty caused by the energy transition, including: gradual market share declines due to growth of renewables; pressures on profitability; and recent and expected higher oil and gas price volatility (see "The Change To The Industry Risk Assessment For Exploration & Production Companies And What It Means For Issuer Ratings," published Jan. 25, 2021).
- Extremely harsh weather conditions in February (due to the storm in Texas) triggered negative rating actions affecting many electric and gas market participants in Texas and the U.S. southwest (see "Winter Storm In Texas Will Continue To Be Felt In Utilities' Credit Profiles," published March 15, 2021). Even if merchant generators and independent power producers have been less exposed to credit pressures than public electric utilities (see U.S. Public Finance, above), we placed Vistra Corp. and NRG Energy Inc. on CreditWatch with negative implications. Investor-owned gas utilities Atmos Energy Corp. and Gas One suffered a downgrade, after gas supply costs soared in the wake of supply disruptions and a spike in demand.
Case Study: Atmos Energy Corp. Downgraded To 'A-' On Weakening Credit Metrics; Ratings Placed On CreditWatch Negative, Feb. 22, 2021
Atmos Energy Corp., a distributor of regulated natural gas, expects incremental gas costs in the $2.5 billion-$3.5 billion range stemming from unprecedented winter weather in various service territories, including Texas, and extraordinarily higher prices for natural gas to meet a spike in demand.
As a result, we expect weaker financial measures because of the extreme winter weather and extraordinary increase in natural gas prices. The severe winter weather and extremely cold temperatures created a very large increase in demand as well as a spike in natural gas prices. Because of the higher costs, we expect Atmos' financial measures to significantly weaken, and we revised Atmos' financial risk profile downward, to significant.
Financial Services
Financial services ratings have experienced very few ESG-related impacts over the past 12 months. Over the past year, the banking and insurance sectors have seen hardly any rating or outlook changes directly attributable to ESG factors. The ESG trends we see as most relevant for financial services companies, and which are growing in momentum, are tackling climate change and the standardization of ESG reporting. As many countries target a green recovery post-COVID-19, banks and insurers have an opportunity to support this with regards to the way they allocate capital through lending, investing, or underwriting. This presents opportunities for growth and returns, but also poses challenges as firms look to manage their exposures to climate risks throughout their value chains. However, because banks and insurers are often dependent on the quality of disclosure from their underlying counterparties (for example, borrowers, policyholders, or investee companies), their ability to reliably assess their own exposures can be affected if there are gaps in the underlying data.
Structured Finance
Chart 11
Chart 12
Find a list of all rating actions in this sector here.
While all ESG-related rating actions in 2020 were driven by social credit factors, primarily due to health and safety considerations related to the pandemic, rating actions at the beginning of 2021 reflect some exposure to environmental credit factors. Six out of 43 rating changes in February were linked to the recent revision in industry risk in the oil and gas sector, and three more were downgrades attributed to the environmental risk of coal ash. However, 42 out of a total of 51 rating changes (36 of which were downgrades) in January and February stemmed from health and safety considerations. Commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) remains the most affected sector, with a total of 39 ESG-related rating actions. Amid renewed waves of COVID-19 infections and the spread of new variants, social-distancing restrictions continue to weigh on the revenues and credit profile of properties that back loans in commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), such as shopping centers (see case study, below).
Case Study: Trafford Centre Finance's U.K. CMBS Notes Ratings Lowered, Feb. 3, 2021
In February 2021, we lowered all ratings in Trafford Centre Finance, a U.K. CMBS transaction, which is secured by one of the largest shopping centers in Europe.
While it was our expectation before the pandemic that income from retail assets may decline over the medium term given the rise of e-commerce, the multiple lockdown measures imposed since the beginning of the pandemic exacerbated this trend and caused low rental collections. An increasing number of retailers are now suffering financial difficulties, and the risk of increased vacancy levels and diminishing rental levels remains. This in turn led to elevated cash flow risk for the transaction and a reduced recovery assessment. The risk remains somewhat mitigated in the long term by the Trafford Centre's position as one of the prime super-regional shopping centers in the U.K.
ESG credit factors for this credit rating change:
- Health and safety
Assessing The Impact Of Climate Risk: A U.S. CMBS Scenario Analysis
Record billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2020 and February 2021's storm in Texas show that the U.S. is particularly exposed to the physical impacts of climate change
Acute, extreme weather or natural disaster events--such as storms, hurricanes, wildfires, and earthquakes--may cause severe physical damage to the properties that back loans in CMBS. Research suggests a strong relationship between rising temperatures and fire extent, and many scientists expect an increase in extreme wind speeds in North America. Our recent scenario analysis (see "Damage Limitation: Using Enhanced Physical Climate Risk Analytics In The U.S. CMBS Sector," published Feb. 19, 2021) assesses climate-related risks and opportunities in the U.S. CMBS sector using data by Trucost (part of S&P Global), and looks at different climate scenarios--the Representative Concentration Pathways--produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
While exposure varies by state and hazard, wildfires, earthquakes, and hurricanes represent the main physical climate-related risks for U.S. CMBS
Of the total 11,051 properties backing rated U.S. CMBS transactions, 605 have a high exposure to wildfire. California, with 266 highly exposed properties, is the most vulnerable state. In addition to its geographical location, the state's high population density further increases its sensitivity, both due to the higher risk of human ignitions and greater concentration of properties. The particularly devastating 2020 wildfire season, with about 4% of California affected, is a striking illustration.
Similarly, California hosts the bulk share of properties with high exposure to earthquakes, with 585 out of 608, 361 of which are located in just two Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA): Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim and San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley. Florida stands out as the state most vulnerable to hurricanes--183 properties have the maximum risk exposure score, concentrated in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach MSA.
Insurance is a key credit risk mitigant, and U.S. CMBS loans typically require property insurance coverage equal to a property's full replacement cost against fire and casualty events. Furthermore, assets located in zones considered at risk typically require additional coverage. If, in our view, the property is insufficiently insured, our criteria call for an increase to the minimum amount of credit enhancement, or we may decide not to assign or to withdraw our ratings.
See "Damage Limitation: Using Enhanced Physical Climate Risk Analytics In The U.S. CMBS Sector," published Feb. 19, 2021.
Appendix
COVID-19's direct (ESG) versus indirect (non-ESG) impact. We consider the COVID-19 pandemic to be a social credit factor when we believe health concerns and social-distancing measures have a direct impact on an entity's activities. Put differently, our data presented here exclude rating actions stemming from the pandemic-induced recession, and from the downturn in oil and gas that started before the COVID-19 outbreak and is tied to oversupply and a price war. For sovereign ratings, however, we see the pandemic's direct and indirect macroeconomic, fiscal, and external impacts as intertwined and feeding into each other, and therefore consider rating actions triggered by the COVID-19-induced recession as health and safety-related.
For the broader statistics of COVID-19 and oil-related downgrades, see "COVID-19 Activity In U.S. Public Finance," published March 18, 2021; "COVID-19- And Oil Price-Related Public Rating Actions On Corporations, Sovereigns, International Public Finance, And Project Finance To Date," published Feb. 23, 2021, and "COVID-19 Activity In Global Structured Finance As Of Dec. 11, 2020," published Dec. 18, 2020.
We have tagged rating actions tied directly to health and safety concerns as ESG-driven. One of the clearest examples is airlines, for which demand has significantly dropped due to travel restrictions to stop the spread of the virus. Other examples include auto dealers, which were forced to close their doors due to social-distancing requirements, resulting in lost sales for auto manufacturers. Movie theaters, airports, restaurants, and leisure activities were/have been shut down due to the virus and local requirements for social distancing, resulting in a total cessation of revenue streams and limitations on large and social gatherings.
For the purposes of classifying ESG impacts, we excluded indirect rating actions tied to the pandemic-induced recession
For example, the recession may ultimately increase the risk of nonpayments for banks or depress asset values, affecting insurers. While important, we have not flagged these as ESG-driven. Similarly, many corporate sectors are indirectly affected; for instance, many consumer products companies have had to reduce their advertising, thereby affecting media companies. Also, job losses and loss of consumer confidence have stopped buyers from making large consumer products purchases.
Related Research
ESG in ratings industry-related commentaries:
- The ESG Pulse: 2020 Lookback, Feb. 15, 2021
- The ESG Pulse: 2021 Lookahead, Feb. 11, 2021
- The ESG Pulse: Reimagining Accounting To Measure Climate Change Risks, Dec. 22, 2020
- The ESG Pulse: COVID-19 Vaccine Hope As Second Wave Sets In, Nov. 19, 2020
- The ESG Pulse: Better Climate Data Could Provide Foundation For Understanding Physical Risks, Oct. 8, 2020
- The ESG Pulse: The Search For A Vaccine, Aug. 31, 2020
- The ESG Pulse: Social Factors Could Drive More Rating Actions As Health And Inequality Remain In Focus, July 16, 2020
Cross-practice:
- Six Key Corporate Governance Trends For 2021, March 22, 2021
- Rising Shareholder Activism Mostly Harms Credit Quality, March 17, 2021
- Corporate Governance Practices In The GCC, March 15, 2021
- Transition Finance: Finding A Path To Carbon Neutrality Via The Capital Markets, March 9, 2021
- Sustainability In 2021: A Bird's-Eye View Of The Top Five ESG Topics, Jan. 28, 2021
- Stakeholder Capitalism: Aligning Value Creation With Protection Of Values, Jan. 19, 2021
- COVID-19- And Oil Price-Related Public Rating Actions On Corporations, Sovereigns, International Public Finance, And Project Finance To Date, Dec. 15, 2020
- Sustainable Finance Addresses Social Justice As COVID-19 Raises The Stakes, Nov. 10, 2020
- Diversity And Inclusion As A Social Imperative, Aug. 3, 2020
- Why Corporations' Responses To George Floyd Protests Matter, July 23, 2020
- The EU Recovery Plan Could Create Its Own Green Safe Asset, July 15, 2020
- Water Conflicts Are Heightening Geopolitical And Social Tensions Globally, July 7, 2020
- A Pandemic-Driven Surge In Social Bond Issuance Shows The Sustainable Debt Market Is Evolving, June 22, 2020
- People Power: COVID-19 Will Redefine Workforce Dynamics In The Post-Pandemic Era, June 4, 2020
- Too Late For Net-Zero Emissions By 2050? The Potential Of Forests And Soils, June 4, 2020
- ESG Insights For Sectors Across Corporates And Financial Services Industries, Feb. 11, 2020
- How ESG Factors Have Begun To Influence Our Project Finance Rating Outcomes, Jan. 27, 2020
Sovereigns and supranationals:
- ESG Overview: Global Sovereigns, Feb. 3, 2021
- Global Sovereign Rating Trends Midyear 2020: Outlook Bias Turns Negative As Governments Pile On Debt To Face COVID-19, July 30, 2020
- What The EU Recovery Fund Breakthrough Could Mean For Eurozone Sovereign Ratings, July 22, 2020
- How Multilateral Lending Institutions Are Responding To The COVID-19 Pandemic, June 9, 2020
International public finance:
- Institutional Framework Assessment: Australian States And Territories, Nov. 9, 2020
- ESG Industry Report Card For Non-U.S. Public And Nonprofit Social Housing Providers, Aug. 4, 2020
U.S. public finance:
- Winter Storm In Texas Will Continue To Be Felt In Utilities' Credit Profiles, March 15, 2021
- 2021 Sustainable Finance Outlook: Large Growth In Green, Social, Sustainable Labels As Municipal Market Embraces ESG, Feb. 16, 2021
- Better Data Can Highlight Climate Exposure: Focus On U.S. Public Finance, Aug. 24, 2020
- COVID-19 Activity In U.S. Public Finance, Aug. 21, 2020
- California Public Power Utilities Face Disparate Physical And Credit Exposures To Wildfires, Aug. 4, 2020
- U.S. Municipal Sustainable Debt And Resilience 2020 Outlook: Sprouting More Leaves, March 4, 2020
Corporates and infrastructure:
- Winter Storm In Texas Will Continue To Be Felt In Utilities' Credit Profiles, March 15, 2021
- Corporate Governance Practices In The GCC, March 15, 2021
- EU Could Meet 70% Vaccination Target By Late July If Production Steps Up, Feb. 11, 2021
- The Health Care Credit Beat: U.S. Herd Immunity By Midyear Is Possible With Additional Vaccine Approvals, Feb. 11, 2021
- How Russian Companies Are Responding to Growing ESG Pressures, Feb. 8, 2021
- ESG-Driven Industry Risk Assessments Update For Corporate And Infrastructure Ratings, Jan. 27, 2021
- How COVID-19 And ESG Factors Are Weighing On Airports' Credit Quality, Dec. 10
- As COVID-19 Cases Increase, Global Air Traffic Recovery Slows, Nov. 12, 2020
Banks:
- The Greening Of Financial Services: Challenges For Bank And Insurance Green And Sustainability Hybrids, Aug. 12, 2020
- Islamic Finance And ESG: Sharia-Compliant Instruments Can Put The S In ESG, May 27, 2020
- Climate Change: Can Banks Weather The Effects?, Sept. 9, 2019
Insurance:
- COVID-19 Highlights Global Insurance Protection Gap On Climate Change, Sept. 28, 2020
- COVID-19 Pushes Global Reinsurers Farther Out On Thin Ice; Sector Outlook Revised To Negative, May 18, 2020
- Sink Or Swim: The Importance Of Adaptation Projects Rises With Climate Risks, Dec. 3, 2019
Structured finance:
- Damage Limitation: Using Enhanced Physical Climate Risk Analytics In The U.S. CMBS Sector, Feb. 19, 2021
- COVID-19 Activity In Global Structured Finance As Of Oct. 16, 2020, Oct. 22, 2020
- Credit Concerns Loom On COVID-19 Resurgence, Oct. 21, 2020
This report does not constitute a rating action.
| Primary Credit Analysts: | Karl Nietvelt, Paris + 33 14 420 6751; karl.nietvelt@spglobal.com |
| Sarah Limbach, Paris + 33 14 420 6708; Sarah.Limbach@spglobal.com | |
| Nicole Delz Lynch, New York + 1 (212) 438 7846; nicole.lynch@spglobal.com | |
| Joydeep Mukherji, New York + 1 (212) 438 7351; joydeep.mukherji@spglobal.com | |
| Nora G Wittstruck, New York + (212) 438-8589; nora.wittstruck@spglobal.com | |
| Matthew S Mitchell, CFA, Paris +33 (0)6 17 23 72 88; matthew.mitchell@spglobal.com | |
| Secondary Contacts: | Kurt E Forsgren, Boston + 1 (617) 530 8308; kurt.forsgren@spglobal.com |
| Emmanuel F Volland, Paris + 33 14 420 6696; emmanuel.volland@spglobal.com | |
| Dennis P Sugrue, London + 44 20 7176 7056; dennis.sugrue@spglobal.com | |
| Michael Wilkins, London + 44 20 7176 3528; mike.wilkins@spglobal.com | |
| Research Contributor: | Yogesh Balasubramanian, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, Mumbai |
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.