Fitch Ratings-Hong Kong/London/Singapore-06 January 2017: Support from the IMF has helped to mitigate external liquidity risks and reduced the medium-term default risks in several frontier markets that entered into new programmes in 2016, Fitch Ratings says. However, potential improvements in sovereign credit profiles will depend on each country’s level of compliance with IMF conditions, and implementation risks are often high.
In the two years leading up to their IMF loans, Fitch took negative rating action on five of the eight sovereigns that entered Standby Arrangements or Extended Fund Facilities in 2016 – Iraq, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Suriname and Tunisia. Egypt’s Stable rating Outlook in the run-up to its programme reflected existing reform efforts before the IMF became involved. Jamaica signed a successor agreement in November 2016, and will treat the available funds as precautionary. It had been upgraded by Fitch earlier in the year after making progress on reducing the fiscal deficit and strengthening international reserves accumulation under its previous IMF programme. Cote d’Ivoire, which had been upgraded in 2015, signed a successor agreement in December 2016.
Two net commodity exporters – Iraq and Suriname – were among those that experienced negative rating actions before turning to the IMF. These sovereigns were among the commodity exporters that accounted for two-thirds of Fitch’s emerging-market downgrades in the last two years. In Iraq and Suriname, the drop in global commodity prices opened up wide fiscal and current-account deficits.
A lack of currency flexibility was also a factor in pushing some frontier markets into IMF agreements. Egypt, Sri Lanka and Suriname all ran down foreign-exchange reserves at unsustainable rates trying to resist currency depreciation in a global environment of US dollar strength. However, they have allowed more flexibility since beginning discussions with the IMF, which has helped reduce pressure on their external balance sheets.
Political upheaval has also been a theme. Iraq is involved in ongoing conflict with the Islamic State group, while government instability has paralysed parliament and led to mass protests. Egypt and Tunisia went through political revolutions in 2011, and both are still dealing with underlying tensions and security risks.
IMF loans should alleviate external liquidity pressures and reduce the risk of sovereign default, particularly where IMF assistance has been supported by other multilateral assistance or has improved access to global bond markets. However, all of these countries still have either large current-account or fiscal deficits, or both. Reducing these vulnerabilities will be key to stabilising or improving their ratings.
Jamaica provides one example of how an IMF programme can be credit positive. Pakistan also managed to stabilise its economy after a period of loose fiscal and monetary policy during its three-year IMF agreement that ended in 2016. However, without sustained commitment from the authorities, long-standing weaknesses may remain unaddressed, and there is a risk that governments will back away from reforms in the face of public opposition. An example is Suriname, where a severe recession and inflation has contributed to the partial reversal and stalling of key reforms, delaying the second programme disbursement.
Mongolia, Zambia and El Salvador have announced their intent to seek IMF assistance, highlighting that further IMF loans are likely to be agreed with several other frontier markets in 2017. Conversely, the Angolan government last summer broke off talks with the IMF over a potential loan. The IMF halted disbursements to Mozambique last year after the government revealed previously undisclosed debt.
Senior Director, Sovereigns
+852 2263 9910
Fitch (Hong Kong) Limited
19/F Man Yee Building
68 Des Voeux Road Central
Senior Director, Sovereigns
+1 212 908 0277
Senior Analyst, Fitch Wire
+44 20 3530 1588
Senior Analyst, Fitch Wire
+65 6796 7232
Media Relations: Leslie Tan, Singapore, Tel: +65 67 96 7234, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org; Wai-Lun Wan, Hong Kong, Tel: +852 2263 9935, Email: email@example.com.
The above article originally appeared as a post on the Fitch Wire credit market commentary page. The original article can be accessed at www.fitchratings.com. All opinions expressed are those of Fitch Ratings.
Copyright © 2017 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY 10004. Telephone: 1-800-753-4824, (212) 908-0500. Fax: (212) 480-4435. Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch’s factual investigation and the scope of the third-party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third-party verifications such as audit reports, agreed-upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third- party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch’s ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third-party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward-looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected by future events or conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed.
The information in this report is provided “as is” without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers.
For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no. 337123) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale clients only. Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001