Rating agencies, competent authorities, scientists and market participants provide information on credit ratings issued by rating agencies. It allows decision makers, investors or issuers, to assess the performance and reliability of credit ratings for different agencies, asset classes, geographical regions and time horizons over a given time period.
The Munich investment boutique Quant IP is launching a new tranche for private investors for its equity fund Quant IP Global Innovation Leaders Fund. This gives investors the opportunity to invest small sums in the fund or to take out a savings plan. “We want to give self-decision makers the opportunity to invest in our successful strategy and create an offer with which consultants can also reach customers with savings plans,” says Lucas von Reuss, founder and managing director of Quant IP.
The new tranche comes 15 months after the launch of the Quant IP Global Innovation Leaders Fund. The global equity fund was able to achieve a performance of almost 12 percent in this period, outperforming its benchmark MSCI World by around 6 percentage points *. The fund achieved this with comparatively lower fluctuations and thus confirmed the good results from the back test.
So far, the fund has mainly attracted independent asset managers. “We are convinced that our approach will also convince private investors – who doesn’t want to invest in the most innovative companies in the world?” This is how von Reuss sums up the fund’s basic investment idea. At Quant IP, these are identified on the basis of patent data that is quantitatively evaluated. Stock selection and portfolio construction are rule-based on the basis of the Quant IP Innovation Score, which summarizes several indicators that measure innovation growth, quality and efficiency.
Structurally, the focus in the broadly diversified portfolio is on the IT and healthcare sectors. The fund tends to be overweight in Japanese stocks and holds fewer US stocks than the benchmark. The stocks of the Japanese online group Z Holdings, the Google parent Alphabet and the computer manufacturer HP are currently heavyweights.
AvP Deutschland GmbH is an example of a rating dilemma: The company is too small to belong to the group of companies closely monitored by recognized rating agencies automatically, and too large to be ignored as a risk.
Until recently, the company had comparatively good ratings therefore: Credit Index 2.5, Risk Score 70 and an International Score B, indicating a Probability of Default of only 0.34 %. The default risk was reckoned to be medium. The business connection was rated “acceptable”. By end of 2018, due to the existing profit and loss transfer agreement, equity remained unchanged at EUR 3,191 thousand. The capital structure is balanced; the equity ratio was 22.9% with constant equity (previous year 19.9%).
On September 14, 2020, BaFin appointed Ralf R. Bauer as a special commissioner at AvP Deutschland GmbH. BaFin has given him sole management responsibility. On September 15, 2020, the special commissioner filed for bankruptcy at the insolvency court of the Düsseldorf district court for AvP Deutschland GmbH. The annual average number of employees was 60 (based on the fiscal year from January 1 to December 31, 2018).
For public pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, medical supply stores and other service providers, AvP Deutschland GmbH takes on the billing of prescriptions to the statutory cost carriers, such as AOK, BEK, DAK, TK, etc. in the context of German statutory health insurance.
The situation regarding new functions of the “Elektronische Gesundheitskarte” (electronic health card) was still unaffected by changes in the year 2018. The company’s dependence on the development of legal framework conditions is considerable. The e-prescription must not become a plaything of lure offers, advertising terror and discount battles on the patient’s cell phone. Something like this is conceivable with “apps” that want to access them before redeeming the e-prescription and promise the patient supposed advantages. These can be online platforms or mail order data dealers, for example. The Patient Data Protection Act (PDSG) passed in summer 2020 is intended to exclude influencers and advertising in this context.
AvP Deutschland GmbH expected competitive market conditions in Germany to continue. The specific business risks were primarily in competition with other billing service providers. In addition, products such as the aid contract database, ScanAdhoc, in particular with Pharma-Control, but also other services such as a. Clearing and the Dialog Center worked on maintaining a technological and service-oriented role.
Fundamental risks lay in the default rate of the company’s customers. Should the company’s customers, due to a changed interest situation, decide not to carry out any more business in the area of factoring, this leads to falling income and thus possibly to a worsening of the company’s financial situation.
For the company, due to the business model it operates, there were market price risks in the area of loan interest from the refinancing banks. Given the interest rate level in 2018 and the market forecast, the company correctly expected no significant increase in market interest rates in the medium term. According to 2018 financial statements, liquidity risks were also not discernible to the management due to the regular monitoring of all incoming and outgoing payments as well as income and expenses.
By establishing a syndicated loan, the company had strengthened its cooperation with a banking consortium with a contract term of 3 + 1 years. The financial risks lay in the company’s high transaction volume and the variable interest rates on the billing accounts. Changes in interest rates had a direct impact on the amount of interest paid. This risk was countered by using interest rate hedges (SWAPs). The company saw essentially no default risks because the billing fees to be paid by the pharmacies can be taken directly from the incoming payments from the cost units on the billing account.
By May 31, 2019, in accordance with Section 322, Paragraph 3, Clause 1 of the German Commercial Code, the auditing company stated “that our audit did not lead to any objections to the correctness of the annual financial statements and the management report.”
The rating of group companies is particularly difficult. The interdependencies between companies can be complex. The accounting rules are not suitable for providing the information required for rating complicated corporate structures with sufficient up-to-date information.
Stock instruments issued or to be issued and / or traded on certain stock markets may be the subject of ratings. Stock ratings reflect the risks associated with the creditworthiness of the issuer and the stock market liquidity of an instrument. However, they do not address the risk of loss associated with price changes and other market conditions, nor do they consider the reasonableness of prices for their market value. Ratings assigned at national level cannot be compared across borders and are assigned using national rating scales.
Such equity ratings are usually the result of regulatory intervention by the state to prevent investors and issuers from being harmed by malpractice on the stock exchanges. The requirement to issue equity ratings is therefore to be understood in some states as a reaction to regulatory requirements. To the extent that such requirements do not currently exist or are not applicable, share ratings are based on market practice.
Financial instruments affected by equity ratings include, but are not limited to, common shares issued by financial and non-financial companies. The equity rating method does not apply to shares issued outside of a public offer by private funds or other investment instruments, or to preference shares, as these are accessible through their own methodologies.
Stock ratings are about the elements to be valued as part of the stock rating process. Stock ratings are supplemented by analytical considerations regarding the issuer’s credit rating. The equity rating methodology should therefore not be viewed in isolation, but should be read in the context of the global criteria reports of ratings for financial and non-financial companies.
Share ratings are also referred to as buy, sell or hold recommendations. A strong buy recommendation can be expressed, for example, by a double plus ++ and a simple buy recommendation by a simple plus +, vice versa in sales recommendations minus – and double minus –. If the rater gives neither a recommendation to buy nor to sell, the recommendation “hold” e.g. can be expressed by a circle symbol o.
Analyst opinions expressed as buy and sell recommendations are as fast-paced as the stock market itself, as the Corona crisis recently showed: If the price of a share falls, the sell recommendation can quickly turn into a buy recommendation.
Because buy and sell recommendations depend on daily market price fluctuations, equity rating repair does not refer to the question of whether a stock is over- or undervalued.
Rating repairs therefore relate to the awarding of share ratings, which give investors an independent opinion on the creditworthiness of the issuer and the liquidity risk associated with their shares. The purpose of such stock ratings is to provide an estimate of the liquidity risk an investor takes when purchasing a particular stock security in order to measure, in a timely manner, how easy or difficult it will be to sell those instruments if the investor so decides.
The analysis includes evaluating the stock’s historical stock market behavior in relation to presence and traded volumes, as well as the relationship between the movements of the stock and the financial situation of the company and the industry in which it operates.
Creditworthiness and market liquidity risk are the most important factors in the equity rating for which evidence can be produced. At national level, equity ratings are therefore based on two types of analysis: issuer creditworthiness and market liquidity risk. The combination of these two factors leads to the determination of a company’s equity rating.
The purpose of a stock rating is not to assess the risk of default on such stocks. Shares are equity securities and they represent ownership, not just a claim. Therefore, they cannot be in default. Because stocks do not have specific payment obligations, the stock rating is about the likelihood that the issuer will continue to operate. Conceptually, equity ratings indicate that the more creditworthy an issuer is, the greater the likelihood that its shares will continue to be traded throughout the business cycle. In the current case of the bankruptcy of Wirecard, a company listed in the German stock index DAX, it would have been the task of a stock rating to signal the probability of such an event by a low rating.
Stock ratings reflect risks related to the creditworthiness of the issuer and the market liquidity of the stock. For the reasons outlined, however, they do not deal with the risk of losses associated with changes in share prices and other market conditions, nor with the adequacy of the market price of a particular security. Equity ratings are therefore notsuitable as trading signals, for example to buy and sell a stock within a few hours. Equity ratings are also not the basis for trading Contracts for Difference (CFDs). Under no circumstances does such analysis result in a recommendation to buy or sell a particular security. Share ratings are therefore not a special form of share price estimates, nor are share prices used to determine forecasts of liquidity risk.
The information required to carry out the risk analysis and assign ratings is obtained from various sources such as the issuer, industry data and other relevant sources. For the specific analysis of the liquidity of the share, the statistical data are obtained from market sources that are required to be able to calculate the relevant stock market indicators.
The analysis usually includes five years of company history and financial data. The information required to assess the creditworthiness of the issuer can be requested directly from the issuer or obtained indirectly through agencies. Once the necessary information has been collected and checked, an analysis can be carried out using a uniform method.
If criminal energy is involved – as allegedly in the case of the Wirecard company – the stock rating cannot easily detect the counterfeit. Rating agencies emphasize that the information received from the issuer or its representatives will not be reviewed or verified (again). While ratings look to the future, auditors’ attestations are there to confirm that the company’s report agrees with the facts it finds.
In order to counter fraud cases like WorldCom, Enron and now apparently also at Wirecard and to give warning signals to investors, a forensic rating is required. Forensic ratings typically deal with individual offenses, unlike criminology, which examines the basics of criminal behavior. The concept of “forensic science” – like the concept of “credit rating” – often does not meet the criteria for scientific research in the narrower sense. It is understandable that forensic ratings are predominantly carried out using methods that are well established, standardized and as undisputed as possible. Innovation and creativity must be severely restricted for reasons of comparability and fairness. The scientific principles of objectivity, reliability and validity also apply to criminal investigations. It is very important to ensure the highest possible quality standard as with every rating.
Rating also does not replace the work of the auditor, because the auditor’s report is the overall opinion of an auditor after the audit of the annual financial statements. In it, the auditor assesses the conformity of the annual financial statements and the management report with the accounting regulations applicable to the company. An assessment is only made as to whether the situation of the company has been correctly represented, but no prognosis of the company’s creditworthiness and the liquidity of the share is given. A holistic assessment of the economic situation, which also requires a considerable degree of industry knowledge, is generally not carried out. The auditor’s report may only be issued after the material examination has been completed.
For securities without historical stock market information such as a first stock offer or with insufficient information, the analysis can practically only be based on the creditworthiness of the issuer. After approximately one year of trading and records of stock exchange transactions, equity liquidity is included in the analysis.
The issuer’s creditworthiness is expressed in its issuer default rating or its long-term national scale rating. Depending on the type of company, these are calculated according to the respective methods for non-financial – e.g. Chemical companies, technology companies) and financial companies (e.g. banks and insurance companies).
As with credit ratings, the purpose of credit analysis is to classify the likelihood that a company will meet its financial obligations (or in other words, the risk of default). The company’s operational and financial profile, its overall creditworthiness and thus the long-term rating of the issuer are good approximations of the risk of a company’s future cash generation capacity.
The equity rating includes qualitative and quantitative variables to measure the operational and financial risks of an issuer and to determine its credit profile in accordance with the concepts contained in the global rating methods for financial and non-financial companies.
As already indicated, an ex-post analysis is carried out to assess exchange liquidity, which is naturally dynamic and is based on the monitoring of certain relevant market indicators for measuring the liquidity of a share.
The world’s stock exchanges are very different. What is relevant for investors is the quality of the paper on the stock exchange where it can trade. Therefore, stock ratings are placed in the context of the country’s stock exchange. The analysis may include elements that reduce liquidity, e.g. for example, the series of a particular share that grants greater rights to another series of that security. The relative importance of the individual risk factors can vary. As a rule, indicators that indicate the low liquidity of a particular stock limit their rating to the lowest range on the scale.
The trading history of the share, the percentage of free float and the development of market capitalization and daily trading volume are factors that influence the assessment of the liquidity level of the share. The liquidity of a security is measured by the recent development of these and other stock market indicators, but essentially by the presence of the security on the market. Although the rating depends on the recent performance of the equity liquidity indicators, the track record of the indicators being assessed is critical to determining a rating.
The market presence is the main measure that is taken into account when determining market liquidity. The number of days on which an instrument has been processed in relevant amounts within the last 180 working days plays a role here. This indicator provides a measure of the number of days on which transactions relevant to a share were registered.
The number of days on which an investor would have been able to get out is important for assessing the liquidity of a share. Companies in which transactions are recorded almost every day have a high stock exchange presence, which speaks for a high level of liquidity.
Market capitalization – and thus indirectly the share price – also plays a role in the share rating, because it reflects the market value of a stock corporation at a certain point in time. The market capitalization is calculated by multiplying the share price by the number of shares. By looking at the market capitalization, there is a ranking that the companies rank according to their market size. Rapid, frequent and unilateral changes in market capitalization reflect the trend and volatility of market value over a period of time.
The free float relates to shares that are not held by majority or long-term shareholders. Free float in stock corporations means the total number of shares available for exchange trading. The higher this percentage, the more liquid the share should be. When the trading volume is recorded, the total value of the transactions in a share is taken into account.
The average daily trading volume is determined by the presence on the stock markets and the market capitalization and reflects the monetary value of the average daily transaction volume for a specific security in a specific period. The trading volume is calculated by the number of securities traded in a period multiplied by the price of each transaction. The total volume traded by an issuer is compared to the total volume traded by the entire market.
Share ratings express the “option character” of a company’s shares. According to the option price theory, the shareholder can also be modeled as a buyer of a purchase option. By paying a premium – the share price – the buyer receives the right, but not the obligation, to continue operating the company. If the value of all the assets of a company falls below the value of the creditors’ claims against the company, the shareholder does not have to replenish equity, but can leave the company to the creditors for liquidation as part of an insolvency procedure.
Since the company’s credit rating also includes the risk of default, it characterizes the option character of the share. The lower the share rating, the greater the option character of the share.
An umbrella fund is a collective investment scheme that exists as a single legal entity but has several distinct sub-funds. Whether umbrella or common investment funds have performed better over a period of ten years, was the key question in a recent study. According to the study, common investment funds are on average better performers More than 150 fully convincing funds of funds were identified. More than 800 funds of the four largest, globally investing mixed fund categories were considered.
In each of the four peer groups, common investment funds achieve on average more performance than funds of funds. The biggest performance difference between umbrella and common investment funds lies in the peer group “Mixed funds globally balanced”: While the almost 100 common investment funds return an average annual return of 5.5%, the 71 funds of funds of this peer group generate on average only 4.6%, a performance difference of at least 0.9% p.a. over a period of ten years.
The lowest performance differences are shown by the funds of the peer group “Mixed Funds Global Dynamic”. Almost no difference is measurable here (individual title funds are marginally ahead). All funds average 6.6% p.a. in the past ten years.
The differences in volatility are comparatively low, since a fund of funds is a multi-manager investment, a pooled investment fund that invests in other types of funds. In other words, its portfolio contains different underlying portfolios of other funds.
In two of the four peer groups considered, the single-title funds are even slightly ahead. This means that they have lower volatility on average. Only in the “Mixed Funds Global Conservative” peer group – which combines mixed funds with low-risk profiles – did fund of funds show a perceptibly lower volatility of 4.4% on average of 3.5% than common investment funds.
That funds of funds achieve less performance is due to the additional cost burden expected. However, despite the broader diversification, they offer hardly any appreciable volatility advantages. One explanation: common investment funds already have a broadly diversified portfolio. Even further diversification through funds brings little diversification benefits.
Nevertheless, more than 150 funds of funds create a top rating. Even though fund-of-funds concepts in the multi-asset sector have less performance in the average analysis presented here and hardly any volatility advantages, there are still numerous funds of funds that deliver convincing results.
Out of around 550 funds of funds in the four peer groups examined, 154 currently hold a top rating (equivalent to a ratio of 28%). Funds with a top rating usually outperform the respective peer group average.
It is noticeable that in three of the four comparison groups considered, the top rating quota of the funds of funds is higher than that of the individual-unit funds. This is most evident in the peer group “Mischfonds Global Dynamik”, in which 37% of the funds of funds hold a top rating. The single-title funds in this group only reach a top rating of 26%.
Deciding on investment and financing means choosing between alternatives. Every investment and financing decision is a choice between alternatives. There are worse alternatives, better ones or equally good or equally bad ones. The classification of the decision options we call rating.
One focus of our work is on credit ratings. The credit rating we record is an opinion on the economic ability, legal obligation and willingness of an economic entity to meet its payment obligations in full and on time in the long term. The judgment is expressed in terms of scales and symbols commonly used internationally and in the financial systems of more than 110 countries in the world.
RATING EVIDENCE does not award ratings according to idiosyncratic criteria and is not a rating agency, but instead started in 2004 to research evidence-based ratings. In particular, this includes information from the following sources: rating agencies, banks, credit insurers, credit bureaus, research firms, analysts as well as the rated organization itself.
As market economies face a greater or lesser risk of default, all market participants have a priori probabilities of default and bankruptcy. These a-priori probabilities can be corrected upwards or downwards by taking data from the above-mentioned sources and mapped onto generally accepted rating scales. Depending on the evidential value of the data collected, the rating thus determined results in varying levels of evidence, which are expressed by RATING EVIDENCE on the basis of a percentage (0% for no to 100% for complete evidence).