S&P alters its core earning methodology
Standard & Poor’s has reacted to criticism of its corporate rating methodology by changing its system for evaluating corporate earnings in the future. The New York-based rating agency will focus on core earnings – roughly defined as after-tax earnings generated from a company’s principal business or businesses – as the basis for its corporate equity analysis. The agency said the methodology was introduced to create greater transparency in corporate ratings.
Excluded from this definition are impairment of goodwill, gains and losses from assets sales, pension gains, unrealised gains or losses from hedging activities, merger and acquisition related fees and litigation settlements
“A number of recent high-profile bankruptcies have renewed investors’ concerns about the reliability of corporate reporting,” said David Blitzer, Standard & Poor’s chief investment officer. “Once there are more generally accepted definitions, it will be much easier for analysts and investors to evaluate varying investment decisions.”
Leo O’Neill, S&P president, said the new analysis was widely supported in the analyst community. But one analyst questioned how popular the new methodology would prove with managers at US corporations. Sales/leasebacks, for example, have often been a way for airlines to boost earnings in depressed cycles and therefore manage the volatility of the industry. He was also concerned how analysts will view profitable hedging strategies that, if not implemented to boost revenues, may improve earnings all the same.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs
FSB chief defends global non-bank regulation drive
Schindler slams ‘misconception’ that regulators intend to impose standardised bank-like rules