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
Foreign banks can swerve US Basel op risk capital charges
New proposal offers category III and IV banks op-out from regime, but intragroup trades penalised
BoE’s Bailey expects global consensus on FRTB internal models
Isda AGM: UK is reviewing proposals from US and EU regulators before finalising its IMA rules
DRW chief slams ‘ridiculous’ OCC stablecoin rule
Isda AGM: Wilson warns week-long redemption freeze would deter use of Genius Act coins as cash leg of tokenised repo
Dealers push for more revisions to Basel III endgame
Isda AGM: Goldman, JP Morgan bankers want changes on cross-product netting, CVA and default risk charges
StanChart: UK, EU should copy US ‘commercial’ Basel III
Isda AGM: Exec warns divergent Basel III rules will push trading into less-regulated entities
NBFI oversight ‘no longer adequate’, say BdF economists
Researchers call for stronger supervision of non-bank sector ‘before risks actually materialise’
Why Brexit still stirs up trouble for cross-border business
As EU erects another obstacle, banks consider ways around it – or exit strategies
Can US regulators keep Collins happy with one capital stack?
Legal experts say Basel III endgame redraft retains spirit if not letter of the floor