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
Fed’s new liquidity rule spells more pain for regional banks
Limit on HTM assets follows move to deduct unrealised losses from capital buffers
Ruled out: can regulators settle the pre-hedging debate?
Market participants are at odds over the practice and whether regulation or principles can settle the score
SEC streamlines overhaul of stock trading rules
Tick size and access fee rules simplified from first draft, but Peirce still questions rationale
Supervisors use generative AI to tame ‘chaotic’ data
Officials merge credit databases with unstructured reports to sharpen bank oversight, explains Banco de España ex-deputy
EU banks fear loss of NSFR repo relief
European Commission must decide by next June; other jurisdictions adopted softer calibration
Running the numbers on Barr’s Basel III endgame revisions
Fed vice-chair’s plan to ease capital requirements for big banks still lacks critical details
Endgame manoeuvre: US banks put SLR reform back in spotlight
Plan to ease Basel III brings renewed focus to impact of leverage ratio on US Treasury market
Regulators want to fix AT1s. Investors want restraint
Tweaking the instrument that regulators love to hate may be the only way to prevent its abolition