Coface launches a new "business climate" rating


The need for the new "business climate" rating

In assessing country risk, most ratings consider a country's overall liquidity and solvency. Coface has always been distinguished for basing risk assessments on its own microeconomic experience. Besides the macro-financial and macro-political outlooks, payment experience on companies is thus included among the factors considered in determining Coface @ratings for countries and sectors. To improve the accuracy of corporate credit risk assessments, however, Coface has sought to give greater consideration to the business environment. In assessing credit risks it is indeed equally important to know whether a company's accounts faithfully reflect its actual financial situation and whether the legal system can provide fair and efficient recourse in case of payment default. By making a new business climate rating available to everyone from 2008, Coface wishes to share its experience in measuring the true business climate in all countries worldwide. The new rating is underpinned by the Coface worldwide network and expertise rooted in its experience with risk underwriting, business information, and receivables management.


How Coface developed the new rating

The new rating is intended to assess overall business environment quality in a country. More specifically, it reflects whether corporate financial information is available and reliable, whether the legal system provides fair and efficient creditor protection, and whether a country's institutional framework is good for companies.

Like Country @ratings, the new ratings fall on a scale with seven levels in increasing order of risk where A1 represents least risk:
A1, A2, A3, A4, B, C, D.


The business climate rating comprises two modules

1/ The core of the new rating rests on the Coface experience with the quality of information available on companies and the legal protection given to creditors. The module was developed based on the responses by Coface entities worldwide to a questionnaire covering:

- the quality and availability of financial information (legal framework for financial statement publication, availability, accessibility, and reliability of corporate accounts, and so on)
- creditor protection and debt collection efficiency (rating grids for summary legal procedures, ordinary legal procedure, court costs, bankruptcy procedures, for example)


The above ratings may be compared to other sources like the "institutional profiles" database maintained by the French Ministry of Finance and validated by an internal committee to ensure homogeneous and consistent responses.



2/ The above ratings based on the Coface experience is supplemented by a module on institutional framework quality. This module reflects the quality of institutions whose strengths and weaknesses can affect companies. The parameters considered include, for example, public service effectiveness (government, education, health, infrastructures), regulatory quality, respect for the law, and extent of corruption. The calculations are bases on data from external sources notably including:

- the government effectiveness indicator maintained by the World Bank Institute based on the quality of public services provided and on civil service efficiency
- the HDI, or human development index, a composite statistical index created by the United Nations to rank countries according to their qualitative development based on the average of three quantitative indices reflecting respectively health/life expectancy, knowledge or education level, and standard of living
- an infrastructure quality index (energy, transport, telecommunications) published by the World Economic Forum in its "Global competitiveness report"
- a regulatory quality indicator (World Bank Institute) that reflects the possible existence of policies contrary to the smooth running of a market economy (like prices controls or poor bank oversight), and the apparent influence of local regulations on foreign trade and the business climate.
- a rule of law indicator (World Bank Institute) reflecting the confidence of economic agents in their judicial system, legal system efficiency and transparency.
- an indicator of corruption (World Bank Institute) reflects the apparent extent of corruption, defined as misappropriation of public property for private purposes.
The new business climate rating will henceforth be a component of Country @ratings beside macro-economic and political data and the Coface payment experience.


The Coface Business Climate @ratings for 150 countries

A1
BUSINESS
CLIMATE
Country
@rating
A2
BUSINESS
CLIMATE
Country
@rating
Germany
A1
A1
Chile
A2
A2
Australia
A1
A1
Cyprus
A2
A2
Austria
A1
A1
Czech Republic
A2
A2
Belgium
A1
A1
Estonia
A2
A2
Canada
A1
A1
Greece
A2
A2
Denmark
A1
A1
Hong Kong
A2
A1
Finland
A1
A1
Hungary
A2
A3
France
A1
A1
Israel
A2
A4
Ireland
A1
A1
Italy
A2
A2
Japan
A1
A1
Luxembourg
A2
A1
Netherlands
A1
A1
Malta
A2
A2
New Zealand
A1
A1
Portugal
A2
A2
Norway
A1
A1
Slovakia
A2
A3
Singapore
A1
A1
Slovenia
A2
A1
Spain
A1
A1
South Korea
A2
A2
Sweden
A1
A1
Taiwan
A2
A1
Switzerland
A1
A1
United Kingdom
A1
A1
United States
A1
A1
A3
BUSINESS
CLIMATE
Country
@rating
A4
BUSINESS
CLIMATE
Country
@rating
South Africa
A3
A3
Brazil
A4
A4
Bahrain
A3
A3
Bulgaria
A4
A4
Botswana
A3
A2
India
A4
A3
Costa Rica
A3
A4
Jordan
A4
B
Croatia
A3
A4
Morocco
A4
A4
Kuwait
A3
A2
Mexico
A4
A3
Latvia
A3
A3
Namibia
A4
A3
Lithuania
A3
A3
Oman
A4
A3
Malaysia
A3
A2
Panama
A4
A4
Mauritius
A3
A3
Romania
A4
A4
Poland
A3
A3
Trinidad and Tobago
A4
A3
Qatar
A3
A2
Tunisia
A4
A4
Thailand
A3
A3
Turkey
A4
B
United Arab Emirates
A3
A2
Uruguay
A4
B
B
BUSINESS
CLIMATE
Country
@rating
Algeria
B
A4
Argentina
B
C
Armenia
B
C
Cape Verde
B
B
China
B
A3
Colombia
B
A4
Dominican Republic
B
B
Egypt
B
B
El Salvador
B
B
Jamaica
B
C
Kazakhstan
B
B
Lebanon
B
C
Peru
B
B
Philippines
B
B
Russia
B
B
Saudi Arabia
B
A4
Senegal
B
B
Sri Lanka
B
B


C
BUSINESS
CLIMATE
Country
@rating
D
BUSINESS
CLIMATE
Country
@rating
Albania
C
D
Angola
D
C
Azerbaijan
C
C
Bangladesh
D
C
Benin
C
B
Belarus
D
D
Bolivia
C
D
Burundi
D
D
Bosnia Herzegovina
C
D
Cambodia
D
D
Burkina Faso
C
B
Central African Republic
D
D
Cameroon
C
B
Chad
D
D
Ecuador
C
C
Congo
D
C
Gabon
C
B
Cuba
D
D
Georgia
C
C
Democratic Republic of Congo
D
D
Ghana
C
C
Djibouti
D
C
Guatemala
C
B
Ethiopia
D
C
Honduras
C
C
Guinea
D
D
Indonesia
C
B
Haiti
D
D
Iran
C
D
Iraq
D
D
Ivory Coast
C
D
Kyrgyzstan
D
D
Kenya
C
C
Laos
D
D
Lesotho
C
B
Libya
D
C
Macedonia
C
C
Malawi
D
D
Madagascar
C
C
Mozambique
D
B
Mali
C
B
Myanmar
D
D
Mauritania
C
C
Nepal
D
D
Moldova
C
D
Niger
D
C
Mongolia
C
C
Nigeria
D
D
Nicaragua
C
D
Papua New Guinea
D
B
Pakistan
C
C
Rwanda
D
D
Paraguay
C
C
Sao Tome
D
C
Serbia
C
C
Sierra Leone
D
D
Syria
C
C
Sudan
D
D
Uganda
C
C
Tanzania
D
B
Ukraine
C
C
Togo
D
C
Venezuela
C
C
Turkmenistan
D
D
Vietnam
C
B
Uzbekistan
D
D
Zambia
C
C
Yemen
D
C
Zimbabwe
D
D


Business Climate @ratings (BC) compared with Country @ratings

In most cases — 93 countries, or 62 per cent of the 150 countries rated — the Business Climate and Country @ratings are identical

For 39 countries, or 26 per cent of the 150 countries, Coface rated the Business Climate (BC) lower than the Country. This often concerns African or Middle Eastern countries, which in most cases enjoy real financial solidity and dynamic economies linked to rising raw material prices. Their business environment may nonetheless be sub-par (uneven application of the law that lends uncertainty to debt collection, lack of transparency of corporate accounts, widespread corruption).The good performance of these economies underpinned by natural-resource export earnings may sometimes even have a lulling-effect on implementing reforms intended to strengthen institutions. Good economic performance thus does not always contribute to improving the business environment. The case of India, with a BC @rating a notch below the Country @rating, and especially that of China, with a BC @rating two notches below the Country @rating, are characterised by a persistent gap between their booming economies and their deficient legal and institutional environments for companies. In certain countries with an overall A1 Country @rating, like Luxembourg and Hong Kong, the business climate only warrants an A2 @rating due to difficulties in obtaining financial information on companies.

For 17 countries, 11 per cent of the 150 countries involved, Coface rated the Business Climate higher than the Country. This concerns countries with relatively satisfactory business environments but which present financial weaknesses often linked to large current account deficits (Hungary, Turkey, Croatia, Slovakia) or relatively high political risks — in the more classic sense of the term (Lebanon, Israel, Bosnia).



The "BRIC" country example: Brazil, Russia, India, China





Brazil's strengths (BC@rating: A4) include the ready availability of business information, a satisfactory legal environment for collection purposes, a very capable workforce, and acceptable regulatory quality for business. Deficient infrastructure remains, however, the country's main weakness.

In India (BC@rating: A4), financial information is available for large companies but not for the smallest companies. Consolidated accounts are also hard to obtain for groups. The legal environment is satisfactory although not always favourable to creditors. Procedures are drawn out. Infrastructure deficiencies remain the main weaknesses for companies.

In China (BC@rating: B) financial information is difficult too obtain and often opaque. The reliability of accounts is poor in some cases. The protection provided by the legal environment is particularly limited for foreign creditors. Infrastructure is relatively satisfactory and the workforce relatively well trained.

In Russia (BC@rating: B), the general skills level is also a strength. The civil service is relatively efficient but the rule of law and the legal environment offer little security to creditors. Poor law enforcement undermines the business climate. Transparency as regards financial information and ownership remains very inadequate.



Business climate rating definition

The new rating is intended to assess overall business environment quality in a country. More specifically, it reflects whether corporate financial information is available and reliable, whether the legal system provides fair and efficient creditor protection, and whether a country's institutional framework is favourable to intercompany transactions.


A1The business environment is very good. Corporate financial information is available and reliable. Debt collection is efficient. Institutional quality is very good. Intercompany transactions run smoothly in environments rated A1.
A2The business environment is good. When available, corporate financial information is reliable. Debt collection is reasonably efficient. Institutions generally perform efficiently. Intercompany transactions usually run smoothly in the relatively stable environment rated A2.
A3The business environment is relatively good. Although not always available, corporate financial information is usually reliable. Debt collection and the institutional framework may have some shortcomings. Intercompany transactions may run into occasional difficulties in the otherwise secure environments rated A3.
A4The business environment is acceptable. Corporate financial information is sometimes neither readily available nor sufficiently reliable. Debt collection is not always efficient and the institutional framework has shortcomings. Intercompany transactions may thus run into appreciable difficulties in the acceptable but occasionally unstable environments rated A4.
BThe business environment is mediocre. The availability and the reliability of corporate financial information vary widely. Debt collection can sometimes be difficult. The institutional framework has a few troublesome weaknesses. Intercompany transactions run appreciable risks in the unstable, largely inefficient environments rated B.
CThe business environment is difficult. Corporate financial information is often unavailable and when available often unreliable. Debt collection is unpredictable. The institutional framework has many troublesome weaknesses. Intercompany transactions run major risks in the difficult environments rated C.
DThe business environment is very difficult. Corporate financial information is rarely available and when available usually unreliable. The legal system makes debt collection very unpredictable. The institutional framework has very serious weaknesses. Intercompany transactions can thus be very difficult to manage in the highly risky environments rated D.



DISCLAIMER : The present document reflects the opinion of COFACE Country Risk and Economic Studies Department, as of the date hereof and according to the information available at this date; it may be modified at any moment without notice. Information, analysis, and opinions contained herein have been elaborated from numerous sources believed to be reliable and serious; however, COFACE does not guarantee in any manner whatsoever that the data contained herein are true, accurate and complete. Information, analysis, and opinions are provided for information purpose only and as a complement to material or information which shall be collected otherwise by the user. COFACE does not have any procurement obligation but only obligation of means and shall incur no liability whatsoever for losses arising from the use of or reliance on the information, analysis and opinion herein provided. This document together with analysis and opinions furnished are the valuable intellectual property of COFACE; you may download some of the data for internal use only, provided that you mention COFACE as author and you do not modify or alter such data. You may not use, extract or reproduce the data in whole or in part, for making any public statement or for any other commercial purpose without our prior written consent. You are invited to refer to the legal notice provided on COFACE web site.