Open MarcoGER opened 1 year ago
Hi Marco,
Great idea!
The translation from ratings to CQS is comparable to the translations into rating scores, which is already a feature of pyratings
.
According to the link provided, there are more than 25 rating agencies listed. I expect not all of them to be relevant in practice. That is, I suggest to support the main rating agencies, i.e. Fitch, Moody's, S&P, and DBRS.
The long- and short-term translation tables should look as follows:
Moody’s | S&P | Fitch | DBRS | CQS |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aaa | AAA | AAA | AAA | 0 |
Aa1 | AA+ | AA+ | AAH | 1 |
Aa2 | AA | AA | AA | 1 |
Aa3 | AA- | AA- | AAL | 1 |
A1 | A+ | A+ | AH | 2 |
A2 | A | A | A | 2 |
A3 | A- | A- | AL | 2 |
Baa1 | BBB+ | BBB+ | BBBH | 3 |
Baa2 | BBB | BBB | BBB | 3 |
Baa3 | BBB- | BBB- | BBBL | 3 |
Ba1 | BB+ | BB+ | BBH | 4 |
Ba2 | BB | BB | BB | 4 |
Ba3 | BB- | BB- | BBL | 4 |
B1 | B+ | B+ | BH | 5 |
B2 | B | B | B | 5 |
B3 | B- | B- | BL | 5 |
Caa1 | CCC+ | CCC+ | CCCH | 6 |
Caa2 | CCC | CCC | CCC | 6 |
Caa3 | CCC- | CCC- | CCCL | 6 |
Ca | CC | CC | CC | 6 |
C | C | C | C | 6 |
D | D | D | D | 6 |
Moody’s | S&P | Fitch | DBRS | CQS |
---|---|---|---|---|
P-1 | A-1+ | F1+ | R-1 (high) | 1 |
R-1 (mid) | 1 | |||
P-2 | A-1 | F1 | R-1 (low) | 2 |
P-3 | A-2,A-3 | F2,F3 | R-2 (high) | 3 |
R-2 (mid) | 3 | |||
R-2 (low) | 3 | |||
R-3 | 3 | |||
NP | B,C,D | R-4,R-5,D | 4 |
Hi Andreas,
great library, thanks. I realized that your calculations are similar to determining the credit quality step (CQS) under the Solvency II regime. It might be a useful feature to calculate that CQS according to official Solvency II regulation as for example illustrated here: https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/joint-committee/jc-2021-39-final-report-amendment-its-ecais-mapping-solvency-ii.pdf
Best regards, Marco