Hubbry Logo
S&P Global RatingsS&P Global RatingsMain
Open search
S&P Global Ratings
Community hub
S&P Global Ratings
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
S&P Global Ratings
S&P Global Ratings
S&P Global Ratings
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

S&P Global Ratings (previously Standard & Poor's and informally known as S&P) is an American credit rating agency (CRA) and a division of S&P Global that publishes financial research and analysis on stocks, bonds, and commodities. S&P is considered the largest of the Big Three credit-rating agencies, which also include Moody's Ratings and Fitch Ratings.[2] Its head office is located on 55 Water Street in Lower Manhattan, New York City.[3]

Key Information

Corporate history

[edit]
Poor's Directory of Railroad Officials, 1893 (frontispiece)

The company traces its history back to 1860, with the publication by Henry Varnum Poor of History of Railroads and Canals in the United States. This book compiled comprehensive information about the financial and operational state of U.S. railroad companies. In 1868, Henry Varnum Poor established H.V. and H.W. Poor Co. with his son, Henry William Poor, and published two annually updated hardback guidebooks, Poor's Manual of the Railroads of the United States and Poor's Directory of Railway Officials.[4][5]

In 1906, Luther Lee Blake founded the Standard Statistics Bureau, with the view to providing financial information on non-railroad companies. Instead of an annually published book, Standard Statistics would use 5-by-7-inch cards, allowing for more frequent updates.[4]

In 1941, Paul Talbot Babson purchased Poor's Publishing and merged it with Standard Statistics to become Standard & Poor's Corp. In 1966, the company was acquired by The McGraw-Hill Companies, extending McGraw-Hill into the field of financial information services.[4]

Credit ratings

[edit]

As a credit rating agency (CRA), the company issues credit ratings for the debt of public and private companies, and public borrowers such as governments, governmental agencies, and cities. It is one of several CRAs that have been designated a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO) by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Long-term credit ratings

[edit]
Countries by Standard & Poor's long-term sovereign rating. Legend:
AAA AA+ AA AA− A+ A A− BBB+ BBB BBB−
BB+ BB BB− B+ B B− CCC+ CCC CCC− SD/D

S&P rates borrowers on a scale from AAA to D. Intermediate ratings are offered at each level between AA and CCC (such as BBB+, BBB, and BBB−). For some borrowers issuances, the company may also offer guidance (termed a "credit watch") as to whether it is likely to be upgraded (positive), downgraded (negative) or stable.

Investment Grade

  • AAA: An obligor rated 'AAA' has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments. 'AAA' is the highest issuer credit rating assigned by Standard & Poor's.
  • AA: An obligor rated 'AA' has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments. It differs from the highest-rated obligors only to a small degree. Includes:
    • AA+: equivalent to Moody's Aa1 (high quality, with very low credit risk, but susceptibility to long-term risks appears somewhat greater)
    • AA: equivalent to Aa2
    • AA−: equivalent to Aa3
  • A: An obligor rated 'A' has strong capacity to meet its financial commitments but is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligors in higher-rated categories.
    • A+: equivalent to A1
    • A: equivalent to A2
  • BBB: An obligor rated 'BBB' has adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitments.

Non-Investment Grade (also known as speculative-grade)

  • BB: An obligor rated 'BB' is less vulnerable in the near term than other lower-rated obligors. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties and exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, which could lead to the obligor's inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments.
  • B: An obligor rated 'B' is more vulnerable than the obligors rated 'BB', but the obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments. Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely impair the obligor's capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitments.
  • CCC: An obligor rated 'CCC' is currently vulnerable, and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions to meet its financial commitments.
  • CC: An obligor rated 'CC' is currently highly vulnerable.
  • C: highly vulnerable, perhaps in bankruptcy or in arrears but still continuing to pay out on obligations
  • R: An obligor rated 'R' is under regulatory supervision owing to its financial condition. During the pendency of the regulatory supervision, the regulators may have the power to favor one class of obligations over others or pay some obligations and not others.
  • SD: has selectively defaulted on some obligations
  • D: has defaulted on obligations and S&P believes that it will generally default on most or all obligations
  • NR: not rated

Short-term issue credit ratings

[edit]

The company rates specific issues on a scale from A-1 to D. Within the A-1 category, it can be designated with a plus sign (+). This indicates that the issuer's commitment to meet its obligation is very strong. Country risk and currency of repayment of the obligor to meet the issue obligation are factored into the credit analysis and reflected in the issue rating.

  • A-1: obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is strong
  • A-2: is susceptible to adverse economic conditions however the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is satisfactory
  • A-3: adverse economic conditions are likely to weaken the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation
  • B: has significant speculative characteristics. The obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial obligation but faces major ongoing uncertainties that could impact its financial commitment on the obligation
  • C: currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation
  • D: is in payment default. Obligation not made on due date and grace period may not have expired. The rating is also used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

Governance scores

[edit]

S&P has had a variety of approaches to reflecting its opinion of the relative strength of a company's corporate governance practices. Corporate governance serves as investor protection against potential governance-related losses of value, or failure to create value.

CGS scores

[edit]

S&P developed criteria and methodology for assessing corporate governance. It started issuing Corporate Governance Scores (CGS) in 2000. CGS assessed companies' corporate governance practices. They were assigned at the request of the company being assessed, were non-public (although companies were free to disclose them to the public and sometimes did) and were limited to public U.S. corporations. In 2005, S&P stopped issuing CGS.[6]

GAMMA scores

[edit]

S&P's Governance, Accountability, Management Metrics and Analysis (GAMMA) scores were designed for equity investors in emerging markets and focused on non-financial-risk assessment, and in particular, assessment of corporate governance risk. S&P discontinued providing stand-alone governance scores in 2011, "while continuing to incorporate governance analysis in global and local scale credit ratings".[7]

Management and Governance criteria

[edit]

In November 2012, S&P published its criteria for evaluating insurers and non-financial enterprises' management and governance credit factors.[8] These scores are not standalone, but rather a component used by S&P in assessing an enterprise's overall creditworthiness. S&P updated its management and governance scoring methodology as part of a larger effort to include enterprise risk management analysis in its rating of debt issued by non-financial companies. "Scoring of management and governance is made on a scale of weak, fair, satisfactory or strong, depending on the mix of positive and negative management scores and the existence and severity of governance deficiencies."[9]

Downgrades of countries

[edit]

Downgrade of U.S. long-term credit rating

[edit]
Main article: United States federal government credit rating downgrade, 2011

On August 5, 2011, following enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011, S&P lowered the US's sovereign long-term credit rating from AAA to AA+.[10] The press release sent with the decision said, in part:

  • " The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
  • " More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
  • " Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon."[10]

The United States Department of the Treasury, which had first called S&P's attention to its $2 trillion error in calculating the ten-year deficit reduction under the Budget Control Act, commented, "The magnitude of this mistake – and the haste with which S&P changed its principal rationale for action when presented with this error – raise fundamental questions about the credibility and integrity of S&P's ratings action."[11] The following day, S&P acknowledged in writing the US$2 trillion error in its calculations, saying the error "had no impact on the rating decision" and adding:[12]

In taking a longer term horizon of 10 years, the U.S. net general government debt level with the current assumptions would be $20.1 trillion (85% of 2021 GDP). With the original assumptions, the debt level was projected to be $22.1 trillion (93% of 2021 GDP).[12]

In 2013, the Justice Department charged Standard & Poor's with fraud in a $5 billion lawsuit: U.S. v. McGraw-Hill Cos et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 13-00779. Since it did not charge Fitch and Moody's and because the Department did not give access to evidence, there has been speculation whether the lawsuit may have been in retaliation for S&P's decision to downgrade.

On April 15, 2013, the Department of Justice was ordered to grant S&P access to evidence.[13]

Downgrade of France's long-term credit rating

[edit]

On November 11, 2011, S&P erroneously announced the cut of France's triple-A rating (AAA). French leaders said that the error was inexcusable and called for even more regulation of private credit rating agencies.[14][15] On January 13, 2012, S&P truly cut France's AAA rating, lowering it to AA+. This was the first time since 1975 that Europe's second-biggest economy, France, had been downgraded to AA+. The same day, S&P downgraded the rating of eight other European countries: Austria, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Malta, Slovenia, Slovakia and Cyprus.[16]

Publications

[edit]

The company publishes The Outlook, a weekly investment advisory newsletter for individuals and professional investors, published continuously since 1922.[17] Credit Week is produced by Standard & Poor's Credit Market Services Group. It offers a comprehensive view of the global credit markets, providing credit rating news and analysis. Standard & Poor's offers numerous other editorials, investment commentaries and news updates for financial markets, companies, industries, stocks, bonds, funds, economic outlook and investor education. All publications are available to subscribers.[18]

S&P Dow Jones Indices publishes several blogs that do not require a subscription to access. These include Indexology, VIX Views and Housing Views.[19]

Criticism and scandal

[edit]
See also: Credit rating agency § Criticism, and United States public debt

Role in the 2008 financial crisis

[edit]

Credit rating agencies such as S&P have been cited for contributing to the 2008 financial crisis.[20] Credit ratings of AAA (the highest rating available) were given to large portions of even the riskiest pools of loans in the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market. When the real estate bubble burst in 2007, many loans went bad due to falling housing prices and the inability of bad creditors to refinance. Investors who had trusted the AAA rating to mean that CDO were low-risk had purchased large amounts that later experienced staggering drops in value or could not be sold at any price. For example, institutional investors lost $125 million on $340.7 million worth of CDOs issued by Credit Suisse Group, despite being rated AAA by S&P.[21][20]

Companies pay S&P, Moody's, and Fitch to rate their debt issues. As a result, some critics have contended that the credit ratings agencies are beholden to these issuers in a conflict of interests and that their ratings are not as objective as they ought to be, due to this "pay to play" model.[22]

In 2015, Standard and Poor's paid $1.5 billion to the U.S. Justice Department, various state governments, and the California Public Employees' Retirement System to settle lawsuits asserting its inaccurate ratings defrauded investors.[23]

Criticism of sovereign debt ratings

[edit]

In April 2009, the company called for "new faces" in the Irish government, which was seen as interfering in the democratic process. In a subsequent statement they said they were "misunderstood".[24]

S&P acknowledged making a US$2 trillion error in its justification for downgrading the credit rating of the United States in 2011,[25] but stated that it "had no impact on the rating decision".[26]

Australian Federal Court decision

[edit]

In November 2012, Judge Jayne Jagot of the Federal Court of Australia found that: "A reasonably competent ratings agency could not have rated the Rembrandt 2006-3 CPDO AAA in these circumstances";[27] and "S&P’s rating of AAA of the Rembrandt 2006-2 and 2006-3 CPDO notes was misleading and deceptive and involved the publication of information or statements false in material particulars and otherwise involved negligent misrepresentations to the class of potential investors in Australia, which included Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd and the councils, because by the AAA rating there was conveyed a representation that in S&P’s opinion the capacity of the notes to meet all financial obligations was “extremely strong” and a representation that S&P had reached this opinion based on reasonable grounds and as the result of an exercise of reasonable care when neither was true and S&P also knew not to be true at the time made."[27]

In conclusion, Jagot found Standard & Poor's to be jointly liable along with ABN Amro and Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd.[27]

Antitrust review

[edit]

In November 2009, ten months after launching an investigation, the European Commission (EC) formally charged S&P with abusing its position as the sole provider of international securities identification codes for United States of America securities by requiring European financial firms and data vendors to pay licensing fees for their use. "This behavior amounts to unfair pricing," the EC said in its statement of objections which lays the groundwork for an adverse finding against S&P. "The (numbers) are indispensable for a number of operations that financial institutions carry out – for instance, reporting to authorities or clearing and settlement – and cannot be substituted.”[28]

S&P has run the CUSIP Service Bureau, the only International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) issuer in the US, on behalf of the American Bankers Association. In its formal statement of objections, the EC alleged "that S&P is abusing this monopoly position by enforcing the payment of licence fees for the use of US ISINs by (a) banks and other financial services providers in the EEA and (b) information service providers in the EEA." It claims that comparable agencies elsewhere in the world either do not charge fees at all, or do so on the basis of distribution cost, rather than usage.[29]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

S&P Global Ratings

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
S&P Global Ratings is the credit ratings division of Inc., functioning as a provider of independent assessments of the creditworthiness of governments, corporations, and instruments, with over one million ratings outstanding and more than 150 years of financial analysis experience. Its ratings, expressed on a scale from AAA (highest) to D (default), serve as benchmarks for investors assessing default risk and influence global capital flows, borrowing costs, and regulatory requirements for financial institutions. Tracing its origins to Henry Varnum Poor's 1860 publication of railroad investment manuals and the 1941 merger of Poor's Publishing and Standard Statistics Company, S&P Global Ratings has evolved into one of the dominant "Big Three" agencies alongside Moody's and Fitch, covering sectors from sovereign debt to municipal bonds and influencing over $46 trillion in rated debt. Its methodologies incorporate quantitative models, qualitative factors, and, increasingly, environmental, social, and governance considerations deemed material to . The agency's analytical output, including criteria for rating U.S. governments and utilities, underpins market transparency but operates under an issuer-pays model where rated entities compensate for services, raising inherent incentives for leniency to secure mandates. Notable achievements include maintaining global respect for its thought leadership and benchmarking role, yet S&P Global Ratings has been embroiled in controversies over rating accuracy and conflicts of interest, most prominently its assignment of high investment-grade ratings to subprime mortgage-backed securities from 2004 to 2007, which masked underlying risks and amplified losses when mass downgrades ensued amid the . In 2015, it settled U.S. Department of Justice and state claims for $1.5 billion without admitting wrongdoing, acknowledging flawed practices that prioritized revenue over rigorous analysis. Subsequent SEC enforcement includes a $2.5 million penalty in 2022 for conflict-of-interest rule breaches and a $20 million fine in 2024 for record-keeping failures in off-channel communications, underscoring persistent compliance challenges in an industry criticized for oligopolistic influence and self-regulation.

History

Founding and Early Development

The origins of S&P Global Ratings trace to the mid-19th century efforts of , who in 1860 published History of Railroads and Canals in the , a detailed analyzing the financial and operational status of emerging transportation during America's industrial expansion. This work emphasized the causal links between capital investment, management efficacy, and enterprise viability, providing investors with empirical assessments absent in prior anecdotal reporting. Poor subsequently founded Poor's Publishing, which from 1868 issued Poor's Manual of the Railroads of the , annual volumes compiling balance sheets, capital structures, and mileage data for over 1,000 railroad entities by the 1890s. These manuals established a for standardized financial disclosure, enabling risk evaluation based on verifiable metrics rather than promoter claims. Complementing Poor's railroad-centric focus, the Standard Statistics Bureau emerged in 1906 under Luther Lee Blake to aggregate real-time data on non-transportation corporations, utilizing card-index systems for efficient retrieval of securities statistics. Incorporated as the Standard Statistics Company, it prioritized industrial and utility firms, expanding by 1916 to include systematic bond evaluations that graded creditworthiness using numerical scales derived from ratios and projections. By the , the firm had initiated bond ratings and launched rudimentary indices tracking 233 companies, reflecting a shift toward broader market amid post-World War I economic volatility. The pivotal consolidation occurred in 1941 when Paul Talbot Babson acquired Poor's Publishing and merged it with Standard Statistics, creating Standard & Poor's Corporation headquartered in . This union integrated Poor's transportation data depth with Standard's corporate breadth, yielding unified services in credit assessment and indexing that covered approximately 90% of U.S. equity capitalization by the . Early outputs included expanded bond ratings—encompassing corporates, municipals, and sovereigns—and the precursor to modern indices, fostering institutional reliance on issuer-pays models where fees from rated entities funded independent analysis, though later scrutinized for potential incentive distortions.

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Expansion

In 1941, Poor's Publishing merged with Standard Statistics Company to form Standard & Poor's Corporation, consolidating expertise in financial publishing and statistical analysis of securities. This merger expanded the scope of credit ratings by integrating Poor's bond rating services—initiated in 1916—with Standard's broader data on and bonds, enabling more comprehensive coverage of U.S. corporate and municipal issuers. The 1966 acquisition of Standard & Poor's by McGraw-Hill Companies for an undisclosed sum integrated the ratings business into a diversified and firm, providing enhanced resources for and distribution. Under McGraw-Hill ownership, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services grew its analytical capabilities, introducing credit ratings in 1975 and expanding methodologies to cover international debt markets amid rising global capital flows. Subsequent organic expansions included establishing international offices, beginning with in the 1980s, to assess non-U.S. sovereigns and corporates as cross-border financing increased. By the early 2000s, the division rated issuers in over 100 countries, reflecting adaptation to while maintaining U.S.-centric origins; this footprint supported revenue diversification beyond domestic bonds, which historically dominated fee income. No major divestitures or further entity-level mergers directly altered the core ratings operations until the 2016 corporate restructuring.

Restructuring and the Formation of S&P Global

In September 2011, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. announced plans to separate its business from its operations, including Standard & Poor's, into two independent publicly traded companies, responding to investor pressure to unlock value by focusing each on distinct markets. The split aimed to allow the unit, encompassing credit ratings, market data, and indices, to operate without the drag of the education segment's slower growth and regulatory scrutiny. By 2013, McGraw-Hill completed the divestiture of McGraw-Hill Education to for approximately $2.5 billion, enabling the remaining financial services entity to rebrand as McGraw Hill Financial Inc., with a sharpened focus on its core businesses such as S&P Ratings Services, S&P Capital IQ, and . This restructuring reduced the company's exposure to education's cyclical revenues and positioned McGraw Hill Financial as a pure-play financial information provider, trading under the NYSE ticker MHFI. On February 4, 2016, McGraw Hill Financial disclosed intentions to rebrand as Inc., citing the need to distance from the McGraw-Hill legacy tied to and leverage the globally recognized Standard & Poor's brand, which originated in 1860 and was acquired by McGraw-Hill in 1966. The change, approved by shareholders on April 27, 2016, marked the formal formation of [S&P Global](/page/S&P Global), with its ticker shifting to SPGI and encompassing divisions like (formerly Standard & Poor's Ratings Services), emphasizing credit ratings, benchmarks, and analytics. This rebranding streamlined operations amid post-financial crisis reforms and enhanced market perception of focus on high-margin .

Organizational Structure and Operations

Parent Company Integration and Divisions

S&P Global Ratings operates as one of the core business segments of its parent company, Inc., a multinational financial and provider headquartered in . Established following the 2016 rebranding of McGraw Hill Financial to , the Ratings segment maintains structural independence to comply with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations as a (), featuring dedicated analytical teams, internal controls, and oversight committees to mitigate conflicts and ensure rating integrity. This separation includes "in-business" management functions and a Ratings Risk Review group that monitors methodology adherence and internal processes. Integration with the parent enables synergies in data access and technology infrastructure, such as leveraging Market Intelligence's datasets for enhanced research without compromising rating autonomy through regulatory-mandated firewalls. S&P Global's merger with IHS Markit expanded these capabilities, incorporating advanced analytics into the broader ecosystem while Ratings continued to focus on credit opinions across over 1 million outstanding ratings in 128 countries as of recent reports. S&P Global structures its operations into five principal segments, each contributing to the company's revenue and strategic focus on essential intelligence for capital markets: S&P Global Ratings (credit assessments), S&P Global Market Intelligence (data and software solutions), (benchmarking and indices), S&P Global Commodity Insights (energy and commodities data), and S&P Global Mobility (automotive and transportation analytics). In 2024, these segments collectively supported S&P Global's financial performance, with Ratings emphasizing issuer-paid models amid ongoing scrutiny of potential conflicts. The company announced in April 2025 an intent to spin off the Mobility segment as a standalone entity to optimize focus, though Ratings remains integral to the core portfolio.

Revenue Model, Issuer-Pay System, and Inherent Conflicts

S&P Global Ratings primarily generates revenue through fees paid by issuers for services, including initial ratings and ongoing . Under the issuer-pays model, adopted industry-wide in the as a shift from the prior subscriber-pays system where investors funded access to ratings, issuers compensate the agency directly for solicited ratings on their debt obligations. This structure accounts for the bulk of Ratings' income, with fees typically structured as an upfront payment for the initial assessment—often scaled to the size and complexity of the issuance—plus annual fees to monitor ongoing creditworthiness. Unsolicited ratings, which are not commissioned by the issuer, are issued without fee but represent a minority of output and are often derived from public data. The issuer-pays system introduces inherent conflicts of interest, as the agency's financial dependence on issuers creates incentives to favor higher ratings that encourage repeat business and deter "rating shopping" by competitors. Empirical analyses of historical data show that following S&P's adoption of issuer-pays, its ratings became systematically more lenient compared to the pre-shift period, converging with only after such bonds became eligible for issuer-paid fees, suggesting causal pressure to inflate assessments for revenue-generating products. This dynamic contributed to broader market distortions, notably in the where overly optimistic ratings on products—paid for by issuers—exacerbated by underestimating default probabilities. Further evidence from post-crisis studies indicates persistent ratings inflation in corporate credits under issuer-pays, driven by the economic reality that unfavorable ratings could lead issuers to switch agencies, thereby threatening future revenues. Regulatory scrutiny has highlighted these conflicts, including a 2022 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement action against S&P for violating conflict-of-interest rules under the Reform Act. The SEC found that S&P failed to adequately manage communications between commercial and analytical staff, leading to a $2.5 million penalty despite S&P's of internal policies like firewalls and disclosure requirements. While S&P maintains safeguards such as independent oversight committees and prohibitions on analyst compensation tied to revenue generation to mitigate biases, critics, including academic researchers, argue these measures do not fully counteract the structural incentive misalignment, as evidenced by comparative leniency in paid versus unpaid ratings. Proponents of , such as subscriber-pays alternatives, contend that reverting to investor-funded models could restore objectivity, though S&P asserts the current system enhances market efficiency by aligning incentives for timely, issuer-initiated ratings.

Rating Methodologies and Scales

Core Credit Rating Criteria for Corporates and Issues

S&P Global Ratings determines credit ratings for corporate issuers and their debt issues through a methodology that emphasizes the interaction between business and financial risks, implemented via quantitative models and qualitative judgment. The core framework assesses a corporate entity's business risk profile (BRP) and financial risk profile (FRP), each scored on a 1-6 scale (1 being strongest, 6 weakest), which are mapped against a predefined matrix to derive a preliminary stand-alone credit profile (SACP). This SACP serves as the foundation for the issuer credit rating (ICR), with potential adjustments for factors like group or government support. The approach, outlined in the 2013 general corporate criteria and refined in subsequent updates including the corpengine model launched in January 2024, prioritizes forward-looking cash flow and leverage analysis over historical data alone. The BRP evaluates the stability and predictability of a company's operating performance, incorporating industry dynamics, competitive positioning, and external vulnerabilities. Key factors include industry risk (e.g., cyclicality, , and technological disruption), competitive advantages (such as , brand strength, and pricing power), operational predictability ( quality, , and event risk), scale and diversification (geographic and product breadth), and (political, economic, and legal stability in operating jurisdictions). For instance, entities in defensive industries like consumer staples may score higher (1-2) due to inelastic , while those in volatile sectors like commodities often fall to 4-6 unless offset by superior positioning. This profile reflects the entity's ability to generate sustainable earnings before financial charges, with scores calibrated against peers using empirical benchmarks from rated universes. The FRP focuses on the entity's financing structure and capacity to meet obligations, emphasizing balance sheet strength and liquidity buffers. Primary considerations encompass capital structure (debt levels, maturity profile, and fixed-charge coverage), financial policy (aggressive vs. conservative leverage targets), liquidity (cash holdings, access to credit lines, and funding flexibility), and profitability metrics (e.g., funds from operations to debt above 20% for strong profiles, debt to EBITDA below 2x). Ratings adjust reported figures for off-balance-sheet items, hybrids, and pensions to ensure comparability; for example, a score of 1 requires minimal leverage and robust coverage ratios exceeding medians for 'BBB' peers, while 6 indicates high distress risk with ratios like FFO/debt under 5%. Empirical data from historical defaults informs thresholds, with weaker profiles more vulnerable in downturns. BRP and FRP scores are integrated via a matrix that allows limited offset—strong business risk (1-2) can support moderate financial weakness (up to 3-4), but weak profiles (5-6) in either dimension typically cap the SACP at speculative grade ('BB' or below). The resulting ICR represents the issuer's overall capacity to honor senior unsecured obligations, assuming no extraordinary support. For specific debt issues, ratings derive from the ICR with notches for subordination (e.g., one to three levels below for junior debt), security (potential uplift for collateral), or structural features like covenants and guarantees, ensuring the issue rating reflects incremental default risk relative to the issuer. This notching, guided by recovery studies showing senior unsecured recoveries averaging 50% in defaults, maintains consistency across global corporates while accounting for legal and priority differences.

Sovereign and Public Finance Rating Approaches

S&P Global Ratings' rating , established in its December 18, 2017, criteria, evaluates a government's ability and willingness to meet financial commitments through five interconnected key factors, each scored on a 1-6 scale (1 being strongest). These factors are institutional and governance effectiveness, which assesses the stability of political institutions, policymaking predictability, and adherence to the ; economic structure and growth prospects, incorporating levels, diversification, productivity trends, and long-term growth potential; external position and flexibility, examining current account sustainability, reserve adequacy, external liquidity, and debt servicing capacity; fiscal policy and budget flexibility, reviewing primary balance outcomes, net general government debt relative to GDP, and capacity for revenue or expenditure adjustments; and monetary policy and inflation pressures, analyzing independence, effectiveness, and records. Scores are aggregated quantitatively, with weights varying by country context (e.g., higher emphasis on external factors for emerging markets), and mapped to alphanumeric rating categories (AAA to D), subject to qualitative overrides for geopolitical risks or exceptional fiscal reforms. The approach emphasizes forward-looking projections, typically over a three-to-five-year horizon, grounded in empirical data such as IMF fiscal statistics and World Bank governance indicators. For entities—such as subnational governments, municipalities, and public utilities—S&P applies tailored criteria that link ratings to the ceiling while evaluating stand-alone profiles. International ratings incorporate institutional framework ( autonomy and legal protections), economic fundamentals (local revenue base and growth drivers), (budgetary performance and flexibility), and debt affordability (including contingent liabilities from public-private partnerships). Ratings rarely exceed the level absent strong tax-raising powers or dedicated revenues, reflecting causal dependencies on national fiscal transfers and macroeconomic stability. In the U.S. context, where ratings cap sub-sovereign ones only in extreme scenarios, the methodology for rating governments (updated September 12, 2019, and consolidated further) assesses five core elements: (population, , and sector diversity, with thresholds like unemployment below 5% signaling strength); (policies for reserves and long-term planning); budgetary results (operating balances as percent of expenditures, targeting positive or breakeven); (cash-to-expenditures ratios above 10-15% for investment-grade); and debt and liabilities (net debt-to-revenue under 150% for higher ratings, adjusted for obligations). These are scored qualitatively and quantitatively, yielding an via interactive factors (e.g., weaker offset by superior ), with for revenue volatility from property taxes or grants. Empirical benchmarks draw from U.S. Census Bureau data and state financial reports, prioritizing causal links like demographic shifts to fiscal strain over narrative policy assessments.

Long-Term, Short-Term, and Specialized Scales

S&P Global Ratings assigns long-term credit ratings to evaluate an issuer's or obligation's capacity to meet financial commitments over horizons generally exceeding one year, using a global scale from 'AAA' (highest) to 'D' (default), with plus (+) or minus (-) modifiers applied to categories from 'AA' to 'CCC' to denote relative standing within each major rating level. Ratings from 'AAA' to 'BBB-' denote investment-grade status, reflecting adequate to extremely strong capacity with varying susceptibility to adverse economic conditions, while 'BB+' to 'B-' indicate speculative grade with substantial vulnerability, and 'CCC+' to 'C' signal highly speculative status dependent on favorable business or economic conditions, with 'SD' for selective default on certain obligations and 'D' for payment default or distressed reorganization.
RatingDescription
AAAHighest capacity to meet commitments; extremely strong
AA+ to AA-Very strong capacity; somewhat susceptible to adverse economic changes
A+ to A-Strong capacity; more susceptible to adverse economic changes
BBB+ to BBB-Adequate capacity; currently vulnerable to adverse business or economic conditions
BB+ to BB-Faces major ongoing uncertainties to service debt; speculative
B+ to B-More vulnerable to nonpayment than speculative obligations; faces major ongoing uncertainties
CCC+ to CCC-Vulnerable to nonpayment and dependent on favorable business, financial, and economic conditions
CCHighly vulnerable to nonpayment; default appears probable
CHighly vulnerable to nonpayment; typically used when payments are in arrears or bankruptcy is petitioned
SDSelective default on some obligations
DIn payment default or similar distress
Short-term credit ratings assess capacity to honor financial commitments due within 12 months or less, employing a scale from 'A-1+' (strongest) to 'D', without modifiers except for the top 'A-1+' subcategory. 'A-1' and 'A-1+' reflect strong to extremely strong capacity, 'A-2' satisfactory but somewhat susceptible, 'A-3' adequate yet more vulnerable, 'B' speculative with regard to short-term commitments, 'C' currently vulnerable to nonpayment, and 'D' or 'SD' indicating default.
RatingDescription
A-1+Highest category; extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments
A-1Highest category; strong capacity to meet financial commitments
A-2Susceptible to adverse economic conditions; capacity somewhat susceptible
A-3More vulnerable to adverse economic conditions than A-2 or A-1
BRegarded as having significant speculative characteristics for short-term obligations
CCurrently highly vulnerable to nonpayment
SDSelective default on some obligations
DIn default
Specialized scales encompass special-purpose ratings tailored to distinct financial instruments or risks, such as recovery ratings (numerical 1+ to 6, estimating post-default recovery amounts from highest to negligible), fund quality ratings (using 'f' suffix on the standard long-term scale to gauge portfolio quality), and fund volatility ratings ('S1+' to 'S5' for return volatility, distinct from assessment). ratings append an 'sf' identifier to the core scale for securitizations like asset-backed securities, emphasizing transaction-specific cash flows over issuer creditworthiness, while insurer financial strength ratings apply the long-term scale to claims-paying ability but incorporate insurance-specific factors like reserving adequacy. National and regional scales, prefixed for specific markets (e.g., 'il' for ), map broadly to the global scale but prioritize relative risk within that jurisdiction, serving as special-purpose tools for local investors.

Governance and Risk Assessment Frameworks

The Corporate Governance Score (CGS) is an assessment tool developed by S&P Global Ratings to evaluate a company's practices and their alignment with the interests of financial stakeholders, such as shareholders. Introduced in 2000, the CGS provides a numerical rating on a scale from 1 (weakest) to 10 (strongest), derived from qualitative and quantitative analysis of publicly available information, company disclosures, and, where applicable, non-public data obtained through direct engagement. The methodology emphasizes four primary pillars: ownership structure and control, which examines concentrated ownership risks and control mechanisms; shareholder rights and stakeholder relations, assessing protections for minority shareholders and equitable treatment; financial transparency and information disclosure, evaluating the quality, timeliness, and reliability of financial reporting; and board structure and , reviewing board composition, independence, and oversight effectiveness. Each pillar receives a subscore, which is aggregated into the overall CGS, adjusted for country-specific governance norms to account for varying legal and regulatory environments. Related metrics include pillar-level scores, which offer granular insights into governance strengths and weaknesses, and regional benchmarks that contextualize scores against peers in similar markets, such as emerging economies where CGS was frequently applied. These scores were not direct inputs to ratings but informed investor assessments of -related risks to . In some cases, CGS evaluations were supplemented by country governance profiles, highlighting systemic factors like legal protections or enforcement quality. Over time, the CGS has been succeeded or complemented by tools like the GAMMA score in certain markets, with transitions noted as early as the mid-2000s for select issuers, reflecting evolutions in S&P's modeling toward greater emphasis on value destruction potential. Despite this, legacy CGS assessments remain referenced in historical analyses of quality.

GAMMA and Management Evaluation Criteria

S&P Global Ratings incorporates management and governance assessments into its credit analysis for corporate entities, recognizing their influence on operational effectiveness and . Under criteria updated on January 7, 2024, these factors are evaluated qualitatively as "strong," "satisfactory," "fair," or "weak," potentially adjusting the stand-alone credit profile (SACP) by up to three notches in either direction. The assessment emphasizes management's ability to execute strategy, manage risks, and align incentives with creditors, drawing on empirical evidence of past performance rather than solely structural features. This approach simplifies prior methodologies by prioritizing observable outcomes over checklists, addressing criticisms that governance scores historically overemphasized form over function. Key evaluation criteria include and execution, where is scored based on its track record in adapting to market changes and delivering sustainable returns; for instance, consistent underperformance relative to peers may signal weak , leading to a downward adjustment. practices are scrutinized for their realism and integration into decision-making, with evidence from stress events or internal controls informing the rating; overly optimistic risk models or failure to mitigate known vulnerabilities can result in fair or weak designations. Incentive alignment evaluates compensation structures and board oversight, focusing on whether they discourage excessive risk-taking, as supported by data linking misaligned incentives to higher default rates in empirical studies incorporated into S&P's framework. Complementing these credit-specific evaluations, S&P's Governance Services previously offered the GAMMA score—standing for Governance, , Metrics, and Analysis—as a standalone for non-financial companies. Introduced around 2008, GAMMA rated entities on a 1-10 scale (10 indicating lowest ), analyzing components such as influences, rights, transparency, board effectiveness, and financial disclosure quality to gauge potential erosion of . While GAMMA provided a quantitative benchmark for practices, its integration into ratings has evolved, with the 2024 criteria shifting emphasis toward causal impacts on metrics over isolated metrics, reflecting lessons from financial crises where strong failed to prevent deterioration due to execution flaws. As of 2024, GAMMA scores are less prominently featured in Ratings' outputs, supplanted by the streamlined and modifiers that prioritize verifiable outcomes.

Notable Sovereign and High-Profile Ratings Actions

2011 U.S. Sovereign Downgrade and Fiscal Policy Implications

On August 5, 2011, S&P Global Ratings lowered the long-term sovereign of the from AAA to AA+, marking the first such downgrade in the nation's history and assigning a negative outlook to signal potential further reductions absent policy changes. The action followed intense political negotiations over raising the federal statutory , which S&P viewed as emblematic of broader governance challenges in addressing fiscal imbalances. S&P's rationale centered on empirical projections of escalating public , with federal held by the public expected to approach 80% of GDP by the end of 2011 and continue rising under baseline scenarios without sufficient offsets. The agency criticized the recently enacted for providing only about $2.1 trillion in planned deficit reduction over a —insufficient to stabilize dynamics or restore fiscal space for future crises—while noting that had elevated the debt ceiling process into a recurring mechanism that heightened default risks and eroded investor confidence in U.S. . S&P emphasized that sustained AAA ratings require not just economic strength but also effective policymaking to manage deficits through a mix of spending restraint, entitlement reforms, and revenue enhancements, which U.S. leaders had failed to commit to credibly. Although S&P later acknowledged a $2 trillion calculation error in its initial projections related to the Budget Control Act, the agency maintained that the downgrade decision would have remained unchanged due to persistent underlying fiscal and political risks. The downgrade carried direct implications for U.S. by spotlighting the unsustainability of unchecked amid structural imbalances, such as rapidly growing mandatory outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and outpacing revenue growth. It implied that without bipartisan consensus on comprehensive fiscal consolidation—potentially including base broadening and means-testing of entitlements— trajectories would impair effectiveness and increase vulnerability to shocks, as higher borrowing costs could compound deficits in a self-reinforcing cycle. In policy debates, the event amplified calls for medium-term budgetary frameworks to prioritize growth-enhancing reforms over short-term stimulus, though implementation remained limited, with subsequent debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding S&P's warned thresholds by the mid-2010s. The negative outlook underscored that must prioritize causal drivers of accumulation, such as demographic pressures and , over procedural maneuvers like debt ceiling standoffs, which S&P deemed counterproductive to credible commitment.

European Sovereign Downgrades, Including (2025)

On October 17, 2025, S&P Global Ratings lowered its unsolicited long-term foreign and local currency sovereign credit ratings on to 'A+' from 'AA-', and the short-term ratings to 'A-1' from 'A-1+', while assigning a stable outlook. The agency cited heightened risks to budgetary consolidation, stemming from persistent political instability that has undermined institutional effectiveness in enacting fiscal reforms. This unscheduled action highlighted 's slow progress in deficit reduction, exacerbated by the suspension of pension reform measures aimed at controlling spending. S&P projected France's general government deficit at 5.4% of GDP for 2025 and 5.3% for 2026, well above targets, with gross rising to 121% of GDP by 2028 from 112% at the end of 2024. forecasts were revised downward to 0.7% for 2025 and 1.0% for 2026, reflecting subdued momentum amid fiscal constraints and external uncertainties. The downgrade underscored vulnerabilities from a fragmented political , including following recent elections and policy reversals, such as commitments to suspend unpopular increases, which S&P viewed as increasing long-term fiscal pressures. Market reactions included a decline in French bond prices and a rise in yields, with 10-year futures slipping as investors priced in elevated borrowing costs and pre-2027 election uncertainties. This action followed ' downgrade of in September 2025 and contrasted with Moody's decision on October 24, 2025, to maintain France's Aa3 rating but shift its outlook to negative, citing similar political and fiscal risks. In the broader European context, S&P's move on occurred against a backdrop of narrowing sovereign rating spreads across the , driven by earlier upgrades for countries like (to 'BBB+' in April 2025) and , amid shared fiscal strains from high deficits and debt levels. However, no other S&P downgrades of European sovereigns were recorded in 2025, distinguishing 's case as tied to acute domestic political dysfunction rather than region-wide deterioration. S&P emphasized that while peers faced comparable challenges, 's institutional framework showed reduced capacity for sustained , potentially prolonging divergence from stronger-rated economies like .

Other Key Sovereign Actions and Market Reactions

In June 2016, shortly after the United Kingdom's referendum vote to leave the , S&P Global Ratings downgraded the country's long-term sovereign from AAA to AA, reflecting heightened institutional, economic, and external risks stemming from uncertainties. The decision contributed to immediate currency market turbulence, with the British experiencing additional depreciation against major currencies amid broader investor flight to safety. UK gilt yields, however, showed limited immediate upward pressure, as markets had partially priced in the political shock, though longer-term borrowing costs rose modestly in subsequent months due to perceived fiscal strains. On August 14, 2025, S&P Global Ratings upgraded India's long-term from BBB- to BBB with a stable outlook, marking the first such improvement in 18 years and citing sustained economic resilience, robust GDP growth averaging over 7% annually, and progress in fiscal consolidation under structural reforms. The upgrade signaled enhanced creditworthiness amid India's demographic advantages and policy discipline, prompting positive responses from Indian authorities who highlighted its alignment with ongoing efforts to bolster external balances. Market reactions included expectations of lower borrowing costs and increased , with the action coinciding with a wave of upgrades that year, where positive rating changes outnumbered downgrades by a significant margin. In February 2025, S&P affirmed Argentina's foreign currency rating at CCC with a stable outlook, acknowledging reform efforts under the Milei administration but underscoring persistent high , challenges, and external vulnerabilities despite initial fiscal tightening. Bond markets reacted with cautious optimism, as Argentine spreads narrowed temporarily by around 100 basis points in the weeks following, reflecting bets on continued measures amid a of repeated defaults. These actions illustrate S&P's emphasis on and execution in volatile emerging economies, where rating changes often amplify capital flow shifts, with downgrades historically correlating to heightened tail risks in GDP growth projections.

Regulatory Framework and Systemic Influence

Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO) Status

S&P Global Ratings has maintained its status as a (NRSRO) since the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) first formalized the designation in 1975, initially recognizing Standard & Poor's (S&P) alongside as one of the two pioneering agencies whose ratings were deemed reliable for regulatory purposes, such as determining net capital requirements for broker-dealers. This early informal acknowledgment evolved under the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006, which required NRSROs to register formally with the SEC; S&P completed this process on September 24, 2007, affirming its role in providing statistically sound credit ratings accepted by regulators for capital adequacy, investment restrictions, and other financial oversight functions. As of August 2025, S&P Global Ratings remains actively registered as an NRSRO, filing annual certifications via Form NRSRO that detail its outstanding credit ratings—numbering in the millions across global issuers—and updates on methodologies, personnel, and compliance with SEC rules. The agency's NRSRO status encompasses all five statutory classes of credit ratings: (i) financial institutions, issuers of debt or equity securities; (ii) insurance companies; (iii) corporate issuers; (iv) issuers of asset-backed securities; and (v) issuers of government securities, including obligations of U.S. states and municipalities, enabling its ratings to influence regulatory capital calculations under frameworks like and U.S. banking rules. The NRSRO designation imposes ongoing obligations, including transparent methodology disclosures, management of conflicts of interest, and prohibitions on certain practices like unsolicited ratings for regulatory use, as reinforced by post-2008 reforms under the Dodd-Frank Act, which aimed to mitigate over-reliance on NRSRO ratings following documented failures in assessments. S&P Global Ratings has faced SEC enforcement actions tied to its NRSRO compliance, such as a 2022 settlement for $20 million over undisclosed conflicts in municipal ratings and a 2015 cease-and-desist order for inaccurate commercial mortgage-backed securities criteria representations, yet these did not result in revocation of its status, underscoring the SEC's emphasis on remedial measures over delisting for established agencies. Empirical reviews by the SEC, including the 2024 Staff Report on NRSROs, continue to validate S&P's operational scale and investor acceptance, with the agency issuing over 1.2 million ratings as of its latest filings, though critiques persist regarding the oligopolistic dominance of the "Big Three" NRSROs (S&P, Moody's, and Fitch), which control approximately 95% of the U.S. market.

Integration into Financial Regulations and Oversight Challenges

S&P Global Ratings, as a designated (NRSRO) by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has its credit ratings incorporated into various financial regulations to assess and determine capital adequacy requirements for banks, insurers, and other institutions. Under the and III frameworks, the standardized approach for relies on external ratings from NRSROs like S&P to assign weights to exposures; for instance, AAA to AA- rated sovereign exposures receive a 0% risk weight, while lower grades escalate to 50% or 100%, directly influencing banks' regulatory capital calculations. This integration extends to U.S. rules under the , where NRSRO ratings inform investment-grade determinations and net capital rules for broker-dealers. Despite these embeddings, oversight challenges have persisted, particularly following revelations of rating inaccuracies during the , where S&P and peers assigned high ratings to subprime mortgage-backed securities that later defaulted en masse, exacerbating systemic losses. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 responded by establishing the SEC's Office of Credit Ratings (OCR) for dedicated NRSRO supervision, mandating enhanced disclosures, internal controls, and conflict-of-interest mitigations, such as separating rating analysts from sales functions. However, the issuer-pays model—where issuers fund ratings—continues to incentivize leniency, as evidenced by ongoing SEC examinations revealing compliance gaps in methodologies and record-keeping under Rule 17g-2. Regulatory efforts to diminish overreliance, including Dodd-Frank's removal of certain NRSRO references from statutes and promotion of internal risk assessments, have proven incomplete, with ratings retaining authority in capital rules and triggering events like collateral calls. Pro-cyclical effects remain a concern, as synchronized downgrades by S&P and others can amplify market stress, as seen in the 2011 European sovereign debt turmoil, underscoring limitations in SEC enforcement despite annual examinations of NRSROs. Critics argue that heightened liability under Dodd-Frank Sections 932 and 933 has not fully deterred errors, given the agencies' oligopolistic market power and resistance to structural reforms like public funding. Empirical studies post-reform indicate persistent variations in rating stability, questioning the amid regulatory dependence.

Publications, Research, and Analytical Outputs

Criteria Documents and Methodology Publications

S&P Global Ratings maintains a comprehensive library of criteria documents and publications that articulate the analytical approaches, assumptions, and models employed in assigning ratings to issuers, securities, and transactions across sectors including corporates, sovereigns, financial institutions, and . These publications serve to promote transparency in the rating process by detailing quantitative metrics, qualitative assessments, and analyses used to evaluate creditworthiness, ensuring methodological consistency while adapting to evolving market conditions. The criteria are structured hierarchically, with general criteria applying broadly—such as methodologies for group ratings, hybrid capital, or determining ratings-based inputs for unrated entities—and sector-specific guidelines addressing unique risks, for instance in utilities, broker-dealers, or commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS). For example, the CMBS rating , updated on July 26, 2024, incorporates loan-to-value thresholds, net operating income stress tests, and adjustments for property types to assess underlying collateral performance. Similarly, the U.S. governments , revised on September 9, 2024, consolidates prior state and local frameworks, emphasizing fiscal metrics like volatility and burden alongside institutional factors. Updates to these documents occur periodically to reflect regulatory changes, empirical performance reviews, or market feedback, with S&P inviting public comments on proposed revisions to enhance robustness and address potential biases in model assumptions. In , criteria for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), published July 26, 2024, outline cash flow modeling and synthetic tranche evaluations, building on post-crisis refinements to and risks. Corporate criteria tables of contents, as of October 13, 2024, reference hybrid capital assumptions and general criteria integrations, underscoring a through-the-cycle orientation that prioritizes long-term default probabilities over cyclical fluctuations. Methodologies incorporate both issuer-paid and unsolicited ratings principles, with explicit guidance on stand-alone profiles (SACPs) to mitigate conflicts from the issuer-pays model, as detailed in criteria for determining SACPs and ratings. Empirical validations, such as historical default studies, inform revisions, though critics note that pre-2008 overreliance on quantitative models in criteria contributed to rating inaccuracies, prompting subsequent qualitative overlays and stress-testing enhancements. These publications are accessible via S&P's regulatory disclosures portal, supporting investor and regulatory compliance under frameworks like the NRSRO designation.

Economic Outlooks, Sector Reports, and Data Services

S&P Global Ratings' economic division produces macroeconomic forecasts and risk scenarios integral to the ratings process, drawing on global data to assess growth, inflation, and policy impacts. These outlooks are issued quarterly, covering regions such as the U.S., , and emerging markets, with projections updated based on evolving indicators like GDP, labor markets, and trade policies. For instance, the Global Economic Outlook for Q4 2025 forecasted stronger-than-expected global activity but narrowing growth drivers, attributing resilience to prior fiscal stimuli while citing U.S. labor market weakening and potential escalations as headwinds. The U.S.-specific Q4 2025 outlook anticipated below-trend GDP expansion amid policy shifts, with high-tech investment as a counterbalance to softening dynamics. Sector reports from S&P Global Ratings analyze credit trends within industries, informing ratings through evaluations of growth, flows, leverage, and sector-specific risks. Covering over 4,600 global corporates, these reports highlight cross-industry patterns, such as recovering interest coverage ratios in the midyear 2025 Industry Credit Outlook, where fundamentals improved for many sectors despite lingering rate pressures. and utilities sectors receive dedicated coverage, including presale reports and criteria applications that assess regulatory, operational, and financing challenges. Reports often project medium-term trajectories, like stable credit conditions in energy transition segments balanced against commodity volatility. Data services integrate ratings outputs with analytical tools, enabling users to access historical and real-time information for modeling and decisions. Platforms such as RatingsDirect serve as the primary repository for ratings, publications, and associated market data, supporting workflow integration for institutional clients. RatingsXpress extends this by providing structured feeds of current and archived ratings data, facilitating quantitative analysis of creditworthiness across issuers and securities. These services emphasize transparency in methodologies, with over 1 million outstanding ratings tracked for governments, corporates, and .

Empirical Performance and Accuracy Metrics

Historical Default Rates and Predictive Validity Studies

S&P Global Ratings annually publishes detailed studies on global corporate default and rating transition data, drawing from its database spanning decades, typically from 1981 onward for long-term ratings. These reports calculate average one-year default rates and cumulative defaults over multi-year horizons by rating grade, demonstrating a monotonic increase in default probability as ratings decline. For instance, in the 2024 Annual Global Corporate Default and Rating Transition Study, covering data through 2023, the global speculative-grade ('BB+' or lower) default rate averaged 3.9% for the trailing 12 months, up slightly from 3.7% in 2022, with 145 total defaults recorded in 2024, of which 60% were distressed exchanges primarily in the consumer/services sector. Historical averages across investment-grade categories show near-zero defaults for 'AAA' (0.00%) and 'AA' (approximately 0.02%), rising to 0.06% for 'A' and 0.29% for 'BBB', while speculative grades exhibit higher rates: 'BB' at 1.08%, 'B' at 4.31%, and 'CCC/C' exceeding 24%.
Rating GradeAverage 1-Year Default Rate (Historical, 1981–2023)5-Year Cumulative Default Rate (Approximate)
AAA0.00%0.00%
AA0.02%0.10%
A0.06%0.50%
BBB0.29%1.48%
BB1.08%6.19%
B4.31%16.67%
CCC/C24.57%>50%
These figures derive from cohort analyses of rated issuers, excluding withdrawn ratings to avoid , and highlight sector variations, with energy and utilities showing elevated defaults during commodity cycles. Sovereign default rates, tracked separately, remain rarer, with cumulative averages under 1% for 'A' or higher over 10 years, though issuers face higher volatility. Empirical studies affirm the predictive validity of S&P ratings, particularly for medium- to long-term horizons, using metrics like the Accuracy Ratio (equivalent to the area under the ROC curve), which measures between defaulters and non-defaulters. Research spanning 1980–2020 data finds S&P ratings achieve Accuracy Ratios of 0.70–0.85 for one- to five-year default predictions, outperforming naive benchmarks and aligning closely with realized defaults in stable periods. Post-2008 reforms, ratings have shown enhanced , with default probabilities more tightly correlated to fundamentals like distance-to-default and accounting metrics, reducing errors in through-the-cycle assessments. However, short-term (under one year) accuracy lags market-based measures like CDS spreads, as S&P's conservative, point-in-time adjusted prioritizes stability over rapid revisions, potentially delaying signals during rapid deteriorations. Independent validations, including regulatory reviews by the SEC and ESMA, confirm S&P transition matrices—probabilistic models of rating migrations to default—exhibit statistical robustness, with observed defaults tracking implied probabilities within confidence intervals for most grades, though speculative-grade forecasts underperform in recessions due to higher-than-expected distressed restructurings. Academic analyses of S&P's corporate ratings from 1981–2006, using binary classifiers, rank their default prediction above random but below optimized alternatives, attributing limitations to issuer-paid model incentives rather than methodological flaws. Overall, while not infallible, S&P's empirical track record supports their utility in regulatory capital models, with cumulative defaults validating the ordinal ranking of risk across grades.

Comparative Accuracy with Peer Agencies

Empirical studies assessing the default prediction accuracy of S&P Global Ratings relative to and typically measure discriminatory power using metrics such as accuracy ratios derived from cumulative default distributions or comparisons, which evaluate how well ratings separate defaulters from survivors. For corporate and obligors, S&P and Moody's exhibit broadly comparable performance, with no definitive superiority across methodologies; analyses of 1,927 globally rated borrowers as of , tracked through , showed that relative accuracy depends on the probabilistic ranking method employed, as both agencies produce well-calibrated predictions but vary in spread and refinement. A 2016 study of ten-year default forecasts further indicated that demonstrated greater discriminatory spread and dominated S&P under modified orderings for non-identical obligor sets, though both maintained calibration by aligning predicted probabilities with observed defaults. In , particularly residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), S&P displays superior discriminatory power across short-, intermediate-, and long-term horizons compared to Moody's, Fitch, and DBRS, achieving better balance between early default signals and false positives despite issuing relatively lenient ratings. DBRS, the most conservative among these agencies, exhibited the lowest predictive power and minimal incremental value for jointly rated issues. Fitch's performance aligns closely with Moody's in contexts, where inter-agency agreement rates exceed 80-90% on ordinal scales, implying similar empirical validity, though S&P tends to assign higher average ratings, potentially reflecting methodological differences in quantitative thresholds rather than inferior foresight. Overall, peer comparisons reveal no systemic outperformance by S&P, with accuracy metrics like Gini coefficients or area under the ROC curve clustering in the 0.70-0.90 range across agencies for investment-grade and speculative-grade cohorts, influenced by asset class, horizon, and post-crisis model refinements. Variations often stem from trade-offs between timeliness (S&P's relative strength) and through-the-cycle stability (Moody's edge in some long-term forecasts), underscoring that agency ratings serve as ordinal guides with comparable but imperfect validity.

Through-the-Cycle Rating Stability and Empirical Validations

S&P Global Ratings adopts a through-the-cycle (TTC) methodology for its credit ratings, aiming to assess long-term by incorporating forward-looking projections of economic cycles and obligor-specific vulnerabilities, rather than reacting solely to current conditions. This approach seeks to enhance rating stability by smoothing out temporary fluctuations in financial metrics, with the agency explicitly stating that TTC ratings require the ability to forecast cyclical variability in an obligor's performance. Sensitivity to cyclical factors varies by industry, with more sectors like utilities exhibiting less volatility in ratings than cyclical ones such as commodities. Empirical studies validate that TTC methodologies, as employed by S&P, achieve higher initial stability than point-in-time (PIT) ratings by deferring changes until evidence of persistent deterioration emerges, thereby reducing noise from short-term economic swings. For instance, S&P's transition matrices, which track rating migrations over periods like one to five years, demonstrate lower one-year downgrade rates in stable economic environments compared to PIT benchmarks, supporting claims of reduced procyclicality. However, validations reveal limitations: TTC ratings can produce "cliff effects," where delayed adjustments lead to abrupt downgrades during severe downturns, as agencies eventually incorporate accumulated adverse trends. Further empirical evidence from (ESMA) analysis of S&P and peer agencies shows that rating changes intensify during economic contractions, with S&P exhibiting more frequent and severe downgrades in bad times than in expansions, indicating that ratings are not fully insulated from cycles despite TTC intent. A study examining corporate ratings finds that while S&P separates trend from cyclical components to some extent, residual procyclicality persists, as evidenced by higher default correlations with rating levels during recessions. In terms of , TTC ratings underperform PIT in short-term default discrimination but align better with multi-year default rates, per IMF simulations using agency-like data, though real-world application shows trade-offs in accuracy for stability. Overall, S&P's TTC framework empirically supports moderate stability gains, but validations highlight inherent tensions between stability and timeliness, with no evidence of complete cycle-neutrality.

Controversies, Criticisms, and Substantiated Defenses

Role in the 2008 Financial Crisis: Incentives, Models, and Regulatory Reliance

Standard & Poor's (S&P) played a pivotal role in the 2008 financial crisis by assigning high investment-grade ratings, particularly AAA, to large volumes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) backed by subprime and Alt-A mortgages, which masked underlying risks and facilitated their widespread adoption by investors and institutions. Between 2000 and 2007, structured finance products, including these securities, accounted for at least 40% of S&P's revenues, with the agency's structured finance earnings rising from $1.1 billion in 2002 to $2.5 billion in 2007. As housing defaults surged in 2007, S&P issued mass downgrades, including 498 RMBS and CDO tranches in July 2007 (averaging four notches each) and a total of 3,389 RMBS and 1,383 CDO tranches by January 2008, contributing to $1.9 trillion in downgraded RMBS and CDO securities from 2007 to 2008 and exacerbating market liquidity freezes. Approximately 90% of 2006 subprime RMBS tranches received AAA ratings from S&P, with 83% of those triple-A RMBS later downgraded and 73% falling to junk status by 2008, reflecting a profound misassessment of default correlations and housing market dynamics. The issuer-pays model, under which securities issuers compensated S&P directly for ratings, generated inherent conflicts of interest, as the agency prioritized securing and retaining business amid from peers like Moody's. This structure incentivized leniency, with internal pressures to deliver ratings that met issuers' needs for marketable securities, as evidenced by S&P's "can-do" approach to high-volume deals often completed in under 90 minutes despite limited loan-level data access. intensified the issue, as agencies vied for in the booming sector, leading to ratings inflation to avoid losing clients; one S&P analyst noted the "threat of losing business… tilted the balance away from an independent arbiter of risk." While some analyses attribute overrating partly to overconfidence in rather than solely deliberate corruption, the revenue dependence—S&P earned $1.3 billion from in 2007 alone—undermined analytical rigor, fostering a cultural shift post-2000 toward short-term profits over long-term accuracy. S&P's rating models for subprime RMBS and CDOs relied on flawed assumptions, including stable or rising housing prices, low correlations among defaults, and historical data from periods without nationwide downturns, which failed to capture the systemic risks of correlated subprime failures. These models, while sophisticated, incorporated untested extrapolations for novel structured products, overemphasizing diversification benefits and underestimating delinquency rates—subprime delinquencies reached 25% in stressed scenarios that models dismissed as improbable. Pre-crisis, 80-95% of subprime and MBS tranches were rated AAA by agencies including S&P, but post-crisis data showed 44.3% of S&P's subprime tranches from 2005-2007 downgraded by March 2008, highlighting model brittleness when housing prices declined nationally rather than regionally. Agencies like S&P adjusted inputs to achieve desired outcomes without fully disclosing sensitivities, contributing to the of safety for trillions in securities. Regulatory frameworks amplified S&P's influence by embedding ratings, including those from S&P, into capital adequacy rules and investment standards, treating them as objective proxies for risk. Under Basel II accords implemented from 2002, banks held AAA-rated MBS with minimal capital—$1.60 per $100 versus $16 for lower-rated assets—enabling leveraged accumulation of mortgage exposures, while SEC rules since 1975 mandated NRSRO ratings for funds and broker-dealer nets capital. This reliance discouraged independent risk assessment, as investors and regulators deferred to S&P's AAA imprimatur, fostering ; only 56% of triple-A structured securities retained their ratings after five years historically, yet pre-crisis embedding ignored such instability. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that CRA failures were "essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction," as overreliance magnified the impact of model breakdowns and misalignments into . In the aftermath, S&P settled U.S. Department of Justice claims in for $1.375 billion over allegedly misleading RMBS ratings from 2004-2007, without admitting wrongdoing, amid accusations it prioritized over accuracy. Reforms under Dodd-Frank aimed to mitigate conflicts and reduce regulatory dependence on ratings, though the issuer-pays model persists, underscoring ongoing vulnerabilities in assessment. Empirical reviews post-crisis validated that while agencies adjusted methodologies—S&P revised RMBS criteria multiple times after —pre-crisis optimism in models and incentives revealed causal links to the bubble's inflation and burst.

Sovereign Debt Rating Disputes: Political Backlash vs. Fiscal Realities

S&P Global Ratings' sovereign debt assessments have periodically triggered intense , particularly from governments facing fiscal pressures, as downgrades highlight vulnerabilities in debt trajectories and policy frameworks. In such instances, officials often attribute rating changes to external interference or methodological flaws rather than underlying economic indicators like persistent deficits, elevated debt-to-GDP ratios, and institutional constraints on . These disputes underscore a tension between short-term political incentives to deflect responsibility and the long-term imperatives of fiscal , where empirical metrics—such as interest payment burdens relative to and growth potential—drive rating decisions. A prominent case occurred on August 5, 2011, when S&P downgraded the ' long-term sovereign rating from AAA to AA+ with a negative outlook, citing the federal government's projected budget deficits averaging 6.2% of GDP through 2021, a rising debt burden exceeding 80% of GDP, and eroding political willingness to address fiscal imbalances amid debt-ceiling . The agency emphasized that extraordinary measures to avoid default had become routine, signaling weakened effectiveness in stabilizing public finances. U.S. Treasury Secretary dismissed the action as based on a $2 calculation error and questioned S&P's credibility, while President Obama linked it to Republican intransigence without acknowledging bipartisan failures in entitlement reform or revenue measures. Critics, including congressional leaders from both parties, accused S&P of , yet subsequent analyses affirmed the downgrade's alignment with deteriorating fiscal metrics, as U.S. debt-to-GDP surpassed 100% by 2012 amid unchecked spending growth. Similar patterns emerged during the sovereign debt crisis from 2010 onward, where S&P's downgrades of countries like (to selective default in 2012), , and intensified market turbulence and drew rebukes from European policymakers. EU officials and the charged rating agencies with procyclical behavior that amplified contagion, particularly criticizing S&P's 2011 warnings on potential downgrades for 15 nations ahead of key summits, which they deemed untimely and destabilizing. For instance, faced scrutiny over its AA rating amid stagnating growth and fiscal slippage, with downgrades reflecting structural rigidities in labor markets and pension systems that hindered deficit reduction below 3% of GDP as required by criteria. Despite claims of overreach infringing on national sovereignty, sovereign ratings correlated empirically with default probabilities, as evidenced by 's eventual of over €200 billion in debt, validating concerns over unsustainable borrowing paths unsupported by primary surpluses or productivity gains. More recently, on October 17, , S&P downgraded France's sovereign rating from AA to A+, an unscheduled move attributing the change to political fragmentation that elevates risks to budgetary consolidation, with public debt projected at 112% of GDP and deficits persisting above 5% amid stalled reforms. French Finance Minister Eric Lombard contested the assessment's emphasis on instability following no-confidence votes and pension reform concessions, arguing it overlooked economic resilience, while bond yields rose sharply in response. This episode illustrates recurring dynamics: governments prone to fiscal expansion via welfare commitments and ad-hoc spending face rating pressures when volatility impedes credible consolidation plans, as France's demonstrated, contrasting with northern European peers maintaining stronger fiscal buffers through disciplined policies. Empirical validations of such ratings persist, with lower-rated sovereigns exhibiting higher borrowing costs and slower adjustment, underscoring that backlash often prioritizes control over addressing causal drivers like entitlement growth outpacing bases. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, S&P Global Ratings faced significant legal scrutiny over its ratings of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), along with several states, filed a civil lawsuit in February 2013 alleging that S&P issued fraudulently inflated ratings to secure business from issuers, prioritizing revenue over analytical integrity in violation of federal fraud statutes. This culminated in a $1.375 billion settlement in February 2015 with the DOJ and state attorneys general, resolving claims that S&P's knowingly flawed models and conflicts of interest misled investors, contributing to billions in losses. S&P did not admit wrongdoing but agreed to the payment, which included compensation for affected public entities and pension funds. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also pursued enforcement against S&P for related misconduct. In 2015, the SEC settled charges that S&P violated securities laws by issuing misleading ratings on certain CDOs while altering methodologies to appease issuers, resulting in a $58 million penalty alongside the DOJ resolution. More recently, in September 2024, S&P Global Ratings agreed to a $20 million to settle SEC allegations of failing to maintain required records of business communications, including the use of unmonitored personal devices and off-channel messaging for credit ratings discussions from 2019 to 2023. The SEC order highlighted systemic lapses in compliance with recordkeeping rules under the Securities Exchange Act, though it acknowledged S&P's remedial efforts such as enhanced monitoring and training. Antitrust investigations have targeted S&P's market practices, particularly given the concentrated structure of the credit ratings industry dominated by the "Big Three" agencies. In January 2009, the launched a probe into Standard & Poor's and other major raters for potential violations of competition rules, examining whether coordinated rating actions or information-sharing distorted competition in and corporate assessments. The inquiry focused on abuse of dominant position but did not result in formal charges against S&P, amid broader criticisms of the issuer-pays model fostering anti-competitive behavior. Separately, in March 2025, German antitrust authorities initiated an investigation into S&P Global's Platts division—though overlapping with ratings data services—for possible in wholesale fuel price assessments, raising concerns over benchmark manipulation that could indirectly affect rated energy sector instruments. These probes underscore ongoing regulatory wariness of ratings agencies' influence on capital markets, though of widespread antitrust harm remains debated due to the analytical nature of ratings rather than overt price-fixing.

ESG Integration Backlash and Methodological Adjustments

In August 2023, S&P Global Ratings ceased publishing numerical ESG scores alongside its credit ratings, citing investor feedback on confusion over their distinct role from core credit analysis and amid escalating political scrutiny from Republican-led states. The decision followed criticisms that explicit ESG scoring introduced subjective, non-financial criteria into ratings, potentially penalizing issuers in fossil fuel-dependent sectors or conservative jurisdictions without clear ties to default risk. U.S. lawmakers, including those from and , argued such metrics reflected ideological biases rather than empirical creditworthiness, prompting objections to their application in municipal and state bond ratings. A multistate probe, led by Missouri and joined by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in September 2022, investigated S&P's ESG incorporation under consumer protection laws, alleging it could mislead investors by conflating governance risks with extraneous social and environmental activism. Texas hailed S&P's 2023 policy shift as a direct outcome of these efforts, which exposed risks of politicized ratings eroding market confidence in agency independence. Critics maintained that ESG factors, while sometimes material (e.g., climate-related liabilities), were often selectively applied, correlating with lower scores for energy firms despite stable historical default rates in those sectors. Post-adjustment, S&P retained qualitative ESG assessments within methodologies—integrating them only when demonstrably linked to financial outcomes like regulatory costs or reputational damage—but eliminated standalone scores to enhance transparency and avert misuse as de facto boycotts. The firm emphasized no alterations to underlying criteria for evaluating ESG's impact, shifting instead to narrative disclosures of risks, which proponents viewed as restoring focus on verifiable fiscal metrics over aggregated ESG indices prone to data inconsistencies across providers. This recalibration aligned with broader empirical skepticism toward ESG's predictive power for defaults, as studies showed limited correlation between high ESG scores and reduced events beyond traditional fundamentals.

References

  1. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/general/en/documents/easset_upload_file26202_994814_e.pdf
  2. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/products/credit-ratings
  3. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/credit-ratings/about/understanding-credit-ratings
  4. https://www.lseg.com/en/data-analytics/financial-data/reference-data/sp-global-ratings
  5. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/esg-in-credit-ratings
  6. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/ratings-criteria
  7. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/credit-ratings/criteria-models/us-governments
  8. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/credit-rating-controversy
  9. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/sp-reaches-15-billion-deal-with-us-states-over-crisis-era-ratings-idUSKBN0L71C1/
  10. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022-205
  11. https://investor.spglobal.com/news-releases/news-details/2024/SP-Global-Ratings-Reaches-Settlement-With-SEC/default.aspx
  12. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-114
  13. https://www.spglobal.com/en/our-history
  14. https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/railroads/business-analysts.html
  15. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/fixed-income/sp-standard-poors/
  16. https://swotanalysisexample.com/blogs/brief-history/spglobal-brief-history
  17. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en
  18. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/mcgraw-hill-to-split-into-two-listed-companies-idUSTRE78B1Y6/
  19. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mcgraw-hill-plans-to-shed-family-name-after-128-years-1454581801
  20. https://www.companieshistory.com/mcgraw-hill-cos/
  21. https://investor.spglobal.com/news-releases/news-details/2016/McGraw-Hill-Financial-Changes-Name-to-SP-Global-Inc-2016-4-27/default.aspx
  22. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mcgraw-hill-financial-changes-name-to-sp-global-inc-300258712.html
  23. https://www.cfo.com/news/minus-mcgraw-hill-moniker-sp-is-all-finance/661848/
  24. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1650548/000165054824000007/SPGR_Ex4.Dec2024.pdf
  25. https://www.maalot.co.il/Publications/PAR20240130105927.pdf
  26. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/credit-ratings/about/transparency
  27. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/about
  28. https://investor.spglobal.com/news-releases/news-details/2022/SP-Global-Completes-Merger-with-IHS-Markit-Creating-a-Global-Leader-to-Power-the-Markets-of-the-Future/
  29. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPGI/profile/
  30. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/corporate/en/annual-reports/2024/SPGI_2024_Annual_Report_Financial_Performance.pdf
  31. https://investor.spglobal.com/news-releases/news-details/2025/SP-Global-Announces-Intent-to-Separate-Mobility-Segment-into-Standalone-Public-Company/default.aspx
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X1200061X
  33. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/ratings/en/documents/pdfs/guide-to-credit-rating-essentials_2024.pdf
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228203856_The_Issuer-Pays_Rating_Model_and_Ratings_Inflation_Evidence_from_Corporate_Credit_Ratings
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165410114000020
  36. https://jfin-swufe.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40854-021-00263-z
  37. https://www.sedaexperts.com/post/getting-rid-of-issuer-pay-will-not-improve-credit-ratings
  38. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/240107-credit-rating-model-corpengine-corporate-methodology-model-engine-for-corporate-credit-ratings-s12885054
  39. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/ratings/en/documents/pdfs/041019_howweratenonfinancialcorporateentities.pdf
  40. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/mi/en/documents/general/RatingsXpress-Scores-and-Factors-Case-Analysis--Final-March-2021.pdf
  41. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/10906146
  42. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/public-comments/1210-ZA18/00001attachment.pdf
  43. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/504352
  44. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/ratings/en/documents/pdfs/021519_howweratesovereigns.pdf
  45. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/8950072
  46. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/8343660
  47. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/sectors/us-public-finance
  48. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/products/financial-strength-rating
  49. https://katten.com/files/21830_The_Ratings_Game.pdf
  50. https://csringreece.gr/files/research/CSR-1290006852.pdf
  51. https://kase.kz/en/information/news/show/1046642/
  52. https://cbonds.com/news/452367/
  53. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/12906720
  54. https://www.maalot.co.il/Publications/MT20240214173305.PDF
  55. https://library.acadlore.com/JCGIRM/2014/1/1/JCGIRM_01.01_14.pdf
  56. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/240119-new-management-governance-scores-assigned-to-72-issuers-in-the-north-american-real-estate-sector-s12968998
  57. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/6802837
  58. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/files/sp-downgrades-us-credit-rating.pdf
  59. https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/publications/pub_assets/pdf/re/2011/d/reader-exchange.pdf
  60. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/united-states-loses-prized-aaa-credit-rating-from-sp-idUSTRE7746VF/
  61. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/type/HTML/id/3460740
  62. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sp-cuts-frances-rating-aa-1-heightened-risks-budgetary-consolidation-2025-10-17/
  63. https://www.politico.eu/article/france-downgraded-by-sp-as-budget-uncertainty-remains-elevated/
  64. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-20/french-bond-futures-slip-after-snap-s-p-downgrade-on-budget-risk
  65. https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/10/20/french-bond-prices-decline-after-unexpected-sp-downgrade
  66. https://www.reuters.com/business/moodys-revises-frances-outlook-negative-stable-political-instability-risks-2025-10-24/
  67. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/13473230
  68. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/euro-zone-sovereign-ratings-diverge-least-since-debt-crisis-2025-09-19/
  69. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/27/sp-cuts-united-kingdom-sovereign-credit-rating-to-aa-from-aaa.html
  70. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-36644934
  71. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/s-p-takes-various-rating-actions-on-16-euro-zone-sovereigns-idUSTRE80C2CN/
  72. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/view-sp-global-upgrades-indias-sovereign-credit-ratings-bbb-2025-08-14/
  73. https://www.livemint.com/economy/finance-ministry-reacts-s-p-global-upgrades-india-sovereign-credit-rating-bbb-amid-donald-trump-tariff-dead-economy-jibe-11755169067726.html
  74. https://www.janushenderson.com/en-gb/investor/article/chart-to-watch-em-sovereign-ratings-upgrades-outpace-downgrades/
  75. https://cbonds.com/news/3272739/
  76. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/13441142
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104244312500085X
  78. https://www.arenaco.com/dans-views/rating-agencies-are-playing-new-versions-of-the-same-old-games/
  79. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/ru/regulatory/content/form-nrsro
  80. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/content/form-nrsro
  81. https://www.sec.gov/data-research/statistics-data-visualizations/nationally-recognized-statistical-rating-organizations-nrsros
  82. https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/office-credit-ratings/current-nrsros
  83. https://www.sec.gov/files/jan-2025-ocr-staff-report.pdf
  84. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-596-8650?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  85. https://www.sec.gov/files/2020-annual-report-on-nrsros.pdf
  86. https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/CRE/20.htm
  87. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp517.pdf
  88. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/speech-jessica-kane-2020-02-24
  89. https://business.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/documents/center-rutgers-financial-institutions-research-DoddFrankCreditRatings.pdf
  90. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2024/34-100907.pdf
  91. https://academic.oup.com/cmlj/article/17/3/334/6609964
  92. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/s-p-global-inc-15-05-2023
  93. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/credit-rating-agency-reform-is-incomplete/
  94. https://www.fsb.org/work-of-the-fsb/market-and-institutional-resilience/post-2008-financial-crisis-reforms/reducing-reliance-on-credit-ratings/
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426621002351
  96. https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/072711gellert.pdf
  97. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/13159307
  98. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/13194797
  99. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/200604-table-of-contents-s-p-global-ratings-corporate-criteria-s5475113
  100. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/type/PDF/id/3448944
  101. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/economic-research
  102. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/global-economic-outlook-q4-2025-global-resilience-battles-us-policy-unpredictability-s101647254
  103. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/topics/outlooks
  104. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/sectors/corporates
  105. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/sectors/infrastructure
  106. https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/solutions/products/ratingsdirect
  107. https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/solutions/products/ratingsxpress
  108. https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/spglobalratings/
  109. https://maalot.co.il/Publications/FTS20250331162126.pdf
  110. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/fixed-income/investment-grade-bonds/
  111. https://www.firstlinks.com.au/default-rate-study-risks-bonds
  112. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/250324-default-transition-and-recovery-2024-annual-global-sovereign-default-and-rating-transition-study-s13448189
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169207011001014
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426624002516
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X22001507
  116. https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/consultations/2016/02/esma_vr_cra_ratingagenturexpertra_annex1.pdf
  117. https://w4.stern.nyu.edu/finance/docs/pdfs/CreditRiskPaper_29Nov2013.pdf
  118. https://publications.aaahq.org/accounting-review/article/92/4/53/3893/When-Do-Differences-in-Credit-Rating-Methodologies
  119. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=450600
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016517651630177X
  121. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5336104
  122. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/4765458
  123. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247884358_A_Point-in-Time_Perspective_on_Through-the-Cycle_Ratings
  124. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1364.pdf
  125. https://www.uni-ulm.de/fileadmin/website_uni_ulm/mawi.inst.060/lookintru.pdf
  126. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3127545
  127. https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf
  128. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=faculty_articles
  129. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr449.pdf
  130. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-14428930
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1042443118301847
  132. https://www.france24.com/en/business/20251018-s-p-cuts-france-s-credit-rating-to-a-over-political-instability-risking-deficit
  133. https://www.cnbc.com/2013/02/05/us-sues-sp-over-mortgagebond-ratings.html
  134. http://waters.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/justice-department-targets-sp
  135. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-and-state-partners-secure-1375-billion-settlement-sp-defrauding-investors
  136. https://press.spglobal.com/2013-02-05-Standard-Poors-Says-DOJ-Civil-Lawsuit-Is-Unjustified-And-Without-Legal-Merit
  137. https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Ib95154f7ad4511e498db8b09b4f043e0/DOJ-Fines-S-P-and-Investigates-Moody-s-for-Pre-crisis-MBS-Ratings?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  138. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sp-global-ratings-reaches-settlement-with-sec-302237236.html
  139. https://www.euractiv.com/news/standard-poor-s-hit-by-eu-antitrust-probe/
  140. https://energynews.oedigital.com/energy-markets/2025/03/06/germany-investigates-argus-media-and-sp-global-regarding-fuel-pricing-concerns
  141. https://fortune.com/2023/08/08/ratings-agency-esg-grading-borrowers-esg-credit-risks-political-backlash-woke-capitalism/
  142. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/10/sp-global-drops-esg-scores-amid-political-backlash/
  143. https://cei.org/blog/sp-global-downplays-its-esg-ratings-will-rival-ratings-firms-follow-suit/
  144. https://sto.idaho.gov/About/Current-News/ArticleID/78/Idaho-Officials-Object-to-S-Ps-Use-of-ESG-Criteria-in-State-Credit-Ratings
  145. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/paxton-launches-investigation-sp-globals-use-esg-factors-credit-ratings-potentially-violating
  146. https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/texas-ag-paxton-joins-probe-into-sp-globals-use-esg-credit-ratings-2022-09-28/
  147. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/major-company-reverses-esg-credit-rating-practice-victory-texas-efforts-against-improper-political
  148. https://texasscorecard.com/state/sp-global-ends-esg-credit-ratings-following-ag-investigation/
  149. https://www.callan.com/blog-archive/esg-credit-indicators/
  150. https://www.environmental-finance.com/content/analysis/surprise-as-s-and-p-drop-esg-scores-from-credit-ratings.html
  151. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1059056025002199
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.