Agence France Locale

Transcription

1 CREDIT OPINION 8 November 17 Semiannual update Update Summary RATINGS Agence France Locale Domicile France Long Term Debt Aa Type Senior Unsecured - Fgn Curr Outlook Stable Long Term Deposit Not Assigned Please see the ratings section at the end of this report for more information. The ratings and outlook shown reflect information as of the publication date. Analyst Contacts Yasuko Nakamura VP-Senior Credit Officer yasuko.nakamura@moodys.com Sebastien Hay VP-Sr Credit Officer sebastien.hay@moodys.com Claudia Silva Associate Analyst claudia.silva@moodys.com Alain Laurin Associate Managing Director alain.laurin@moodys.com Nick Hill Managing Director Banking nick.hill@moodys.com Agence France Locale Agence France Locale's (AFL) BCA of a reflects the agency's view that (1) the entity's fundamentals are robust; () its governance structure provides a sound operating base; and () AFL will be able to ensure sustainable loan origination activity, a stable funding structure and adequate solvency, provided the bank continues to adhere to its own operating policies and internal rules. Although business is taking off at a slower pace than initially anticipated, we believe that AFL s business model is viable. Nonetheless the real test of AFL's long term viability lies with its ability to continue to attract new members and to break-even within the next two years or so. The issuer and senior unsecured ratings of Aa/Prime-1 reflect (1) the a standalone credit strength, () the application of our advanced Loss Given Failure (LGF) analysis, resulting in a two-notch LGF uplift from the adjusted BCA of a given the significant volume of senior debt, and () government support uplift of one notch reflecting a high support assumption, incorporating the joint and several guarantee provided to AFL's creditors by all the member local authorities up to their respective outstanding loans at AFL and a moderate support from the central government. The CR Assessment of Aa(cr)/Prime-1(cr) assigned to AFL is three notches above the BCA, reflecting the substantial volume of bail-in-able liabilities protecting operating obligations. Exhibit 1 Rating Scorecard - Key Financial Ratios Agence France Locale (BCA: a) Median a-rated banks % 5% % 15% 1% 5%.% 7.7% % -4.1% -5% 9.%.% Funding Structure: Market Funds/ Tangible Banking Assets Liquid Resources: Liquid Banking Assets/Tangible Banking Assets -1% Asset Risk: Problem Loans/ Gross Loans Capital: Tangible Common Equity/Risk-Weighted Assets Solvency Factors (LHS) Source: Moody's Financial Metrics Profitability: Net Income/ Tangible Assets Liquidity Factors (RHS) 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% % % 1% %

2 Credit strengths» A recently created institution owned by, and dedicated to the financing of French local authorities;» The loan portfolio is of high quality;» Adequate total capital unlikely to be lower than 15%;» Liquidity and market risks are expected to be limited if AFL follows its own internal rules;» Large volume of senior debt resulting in issuer and senior unsecured debt ratings benefiting from a very low loss-given-failure, resulting in a two-notch uplift from the BCA;» Assumption of high government support reflects the several guarantee by the member local authorities, resulting in one notch uplift for the issuer and senior unsecured debt. Credit challenges» AFL's long term viability hinges on its ability to continue attracting new members and to break-even within the next two years or so. Rating outlook The outlook on AFL s long-term issuer and senior unsecured ratings is stable as we do not anticipate any significant changes in the bank's risk profile as long as we believe the bank s business model is viable. Factors that could lead to an upgrade Although unlikely over the outlook horizon, an upgrade of the BCA could be contemplated when AFL has built up a stable franchise, increased its market share, generated sustainable profits and accumulated capital that will support its growth. Due to the still limited market share of AFL, an upgrade of the BCA will likely not result in an upgrade of the long-term issuer and senior unsecured rating unless the Government of France s rating is upgraded. Factors that could lead to a downgrade The factors that may lead to a lower BCA include any evidence that AFL's business model's viability is challenged. This may be evidenced by the bank's inability to (1) increase its membership and build up a loan portfolio that would enable AFL to break-even in the new tow years or so ; () raise funding at a cost that would allow it to originate competitive loans; or () follow the credit and funding policies initially contemplated. A significant deterioration in asset quality or operating deficiency, or a deterioration in France' macro profile (currently Strong+ ) could also trigger a downgrade of AFL's BCA. AFL's long-term issuer and senior unsecured rating could be downgraded if (1) its BCA is downgraded; or () the probability of parental or government support declines; or () the French sovereign is downgraded. This publication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history. 8 November 17

3 Key indicators Exhibit Agence France Locale (Consolidated Financials) [1] Total Assets (EUR million) Total Assets (USD million) Tangible Common Equity (EUR million) Tangible Common Equity (USD million) Tangible Common Equity / Risk Weighted Assets (%) Net Interest Margin (%) PPI / Average RWA (%) Net Income / Tangible Assets (%) Cost / Income Ratio (%) Market Funds / Tangible Banking Assets (%) Liquid Banking Assets / Tangible Banking Assets (%) ,77, ,86 1, , , CAGR/Avg [1] All figures and ratios are adjusted using Moody's standard adjustments [] Basel III - fully-loaded or transitional phase-in; IFRS [] May include rounding differences due to scale of reported amounts [4] Compound Annual Growth Rate (%) based on time period presented for the latest accounting regime [5] Simple average of Basel III periods presented [6] Simple average of periods presented for the latest accounting regime. Source: Moody's Financial Metrics Profile Created in 1, AFL is a credit institution dedicated to the financing of French local authorities1. The institution's governance is based on a two-tier structure model:» AFL, the operational entity, is 99.99% owned by Agence France Locale - Société Territoriale. AFL provides loans to local authorities and also raises funds in the capital markets. AFL is regulated by the French prudential supervisory authority (ACPR).» Agence France Locale - Société Territoriale, fully-owned by the local authorities, which undertakes the strategic management and vets new members. As of end-june 17, the number of members (local authorities) was 7. Each member provides a guarantee up to its AFL s outstanding loan and on a joint and several basis (Members Independent On-Demand Guarantee, or Members guarantee). AFL security holders benefit also from a guarantee from Agence France Locale - Société Territoriale (Societe Territoriale Independent On-Demand Guarantee, or ST guarantee). Detailed rating considerations A recently created institution owned by, and dedicated to the financing of French local authorities AFL is owned by, and dedicated to the financing of French local authorities. The members currently represent circa 1% of the total outstanding debt of the French local government sector. AFL's business is limited to the financing of its members up to 5% of their respective borrowings outstanding. AFL aims to progressively broaden its member base with a targeted membership of 5% of all local authorities over a 1-year horizon. Origination is restricted to the French local governments under its narrowest definition, i.e. excluding hospitals, satellites, semi-public companies ("societes d'economie mixte") but also local authority associations ("syndicats de communes"), a positive feature given their strong creditworthiness. AFL's long-term loans will also be limited to financing its customers' investments. The entity's remit consists in providing the French public sector with stable and competitive financing with simple and transparent products. It also intends to ensure stable and reasonable funding costs by building a well-diversified and international institutional investor base, whose confidence towards AFL stems from a very low-risk and simple business model. The loan portfolio is of high credit quality The average quality of AFL's portfolios is high and we expect it to remain so going forward given the very restricted scope of customers, and in light of the historical performance of these borrowers. We believe that the current member pool reflects the average credit risks 8 November 17

4 of the French public local sector and assume that the future composition of the portfolio will remain in line with the current risk profile, as membership increases. Adequate capital unlikely to be lower than 15% AFL's regulatory minimum Common Equity Tier 1 ratio (CET1) is set at 1.5% (under the standardised approach) and the leverage ratio at.5%, a higher target than the level achieved by most European peers. We believe that the risk that AFL's solvency fall below the 1.5% threshold is low, absent any unexpected rise in credit costs. As of end-june 17, AFL's CET1 ratio was 6.% and its regulatory leverage ratio stood at 4.%. Borrower concentration is high, so the default of a single borrower would have a material impact on AFL's net income and solvency. This credit risk is inherent to the public-sector financing business and AFL will have to manage it, as do its European peers. Concentration is nevertheless constrained by the relatively high risk- weight of the French local authorities (%) in the calculation of large exposure limits. We believe that similar to the other French and Nordic specialised lenders, the high asset quality strongly mitigates concentration risk. Liquidity and market risks are likely to be limited, if AFL continues to follow its own internal rules If AFL observes the rules set out in its internal policy, we do not expect any major issue to arise from liquidity or funding. AFL has complied with the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and net stable funding ratio (NSFR) minimum requirements from day one. AFL will manage its liquidity according to the following rules, once the business has reached its cruising pace: (1) the liquidity portfolio should represent at least 1% of the net cash outflow over the following 1 months ; and () the balance sheet must be match- funded, with a maturity gap between assets and liabilities no greater than one year. Liquidity is structurally good in the ramp-up phase because long-term financing is raised in advance of lending and thanks to the absence of significant repayments occurring over the outlook horizon. We expect market risks to remain limited for AFL as interest rate risks are hedged against EURIBOR. This hedging strategy requires extensive use of derivatives and the related collateral posting needs will have to be closely monitored to avoid unexpected cash outflows. AFL's long-term liability hinges on its ability to break-even within the next two years or so AFL began business in 15 and is still currently in its ramp-up phase. However, business is taking off more slowly than initially anticipated due to (1) the initial delay in obtaining a banking license and the European Commission s approval; () the relatively low demand for loans from the regional and local government (RLG) sector; and () increased competition among French lenders. Since inception, AFL has increased its membership to 7 members at end-june 17 (17 at end-december 16). We believe that AFL s ability to break even within the next two years or so is key to ensuring its long term viability. We expect AFL to still record a net loss in 17 (the full-year result was a net loss of.4 million), although the bank's net loss in H1 17 was relatively limited to 7. thanks to 1.6 million net gain on sales of investment securities. Over the first-half of 17, loan portfolio grew by 19% to 1.1 billion. The bank still needs to increase the size of its loan portfolio to break-even. This also implies that further capital is needed, which the bank can only achieve through attracting new members. The achievement and timing of break-even will therefore depend on (1) the pace at which AFL will be able to extend loans to its current members; () its ability to continue to attract new members and increase its capital base; and () the competitive environment, which will drive the level of margins. Based on the revised business plan provided by AFL and incorporating the more competitive environment and continued low interest rates, we believe that the institution will not be able to break even before 19. If however AFL were to significantly deviate from this revised plan, which is not the most likely scenario, we could reconsider the current BCA, eventually incorporating the likelihood of a run-off. Under this scenario, we believe that the company would be able to honour its commitments using its own resources, thereby avoiding the activation of the members' guarantee, thanks to its committed capital, which represents approximately ten times its annual cost base, and the matched-funded nature of the balance sheet which enables the timely repayment of the outstanding debt. 4 8 November 17

5 Structural and support considerations Loss Given Failure Despite its ownership and public mandate, AFL falls within the scope of the EU Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive (BRRD), which we consider to be an Operational Resolution Regime. We therefore apply our Advanced Loss Given Failure (LGF) analysis to AFL's liability structure. We believe that AFL's senior unsecured debt are likely to face very low loss-given-failure. This is underpinned by the current substantial volume of senior unsecured debt relative to total liabilities. This results in a two-notch uplift above the BCA. Government support considerations The joint and several guarantee, which the member local authorities provide up to their respective outstanding loan amounts, represents the external source of support for AFL's creditors should the entity be unable to fulfil its obligations on its own. We believe that this' guarantee amply covers AFL's credit risks, which are very limited given the high quality of the loan book. As we would generally expect AFL's lending policy to prevent the weakest borrowers from taking large amounts of debt, the most creditworthy members would also have to take a high share of the costs if the guarantee were to be activated. At this stage of AFL's development and its current limited market share, we believe that direct support from the French government remains moderate, essentially reflecting its willingness to avoid reputational damage to the French sovereign and the local public sector that would result from a default of AFL. As a result of the members' guarantee and the moderate support assumption from the central government, our government support assumption for AFL's long-term ratings is high, reflected in one-notch uplift. Counterparty Risk Assessment CR Assessments are opinions of how counterparty obligations are likely to be treated if a bank fails and are distinct from debt and deposit ratings in that they (1) consider only the risk of default rather than both the likelihood of default and the expected financial loss suffered in the event of default and () apply to counterparty obligations and contractual commitments rather than debt or deposit instruments. The CR assessment is an opinion of the counterparty risk related to a bank's covered bonds, contractual performance obligations (servicing), derivatives (e.g., swaps), letters of credit, guarantees and liquidity facilities. AFL's CR Assessment is positioned at Aa(cr). The CR Assessment, prior to government support is positioned three notches above the Adjusted BCA of a, based on the cushion against default provided to the senior obligations represented by the CR Assessment by subordinated instruments. The main difference with our Advanced LGF approach used to determine instrument ratings is that the CR Assessment captures the probability of default on certain senior obligations, rather than expected loss, therefore we focus purely on subordination and take no account of the volume of the instrument class. We assume a high government support assumption for the CR Assessment but due to the proximity between the sovereign rating and the CR Assessment prior to government support, this support does not result in any uplift. 5 8 November 17

6 Rating methodology and scorecard factors Exhibit Agence France Locale Macro Factors Weighted Macro Profile Strong + Factor Historic Macro Ratio Adjusted Score Credit Trend Assigned Score Key driver #1 Solvency Asset Risk Problem Loans / Gross Loans.% aa1 aa1 Quality of assets Capital TCE / RWA 7.7% aa1 aa Expected trend Profitability Net Income / Tangible Assets -4.1% caa caa1 Expected trend a Key driver # Combined Solvency Score Liquidity Funding Structure Market Funds / Tangible Banking Assets 9.% caa baa Term structure Market funding quality Liquid Resources Liquid Banking Assets / Tangible Banking Assets.% a baa1 Quality of liquid assets Expected trend a at-failure (EUR million) 9,7 71,71 % at-failure Combined Liquidity Score Financial Profile Business Diversification Opacity and Complexity Corporate Behavior Total Qualitative Adjustments Sovereign or Affiliate constraint: Scorecard Calculated BCA range Assigned BCA Affiliate Support notching Adjusted BCA ba Balance Sheet in-scope (EUR million) 9,7 71,71 Other liabilities Senior unsecured bank debt Equity Total Tangible Banking Assets 6 1% 8 November 17 baa a Aa a-baa1 a a % in-scope.9% 9.1%.% 1%.9% 9.1%.% 1%

7 Debt class Counterparty Risk Assessment Senior unsecured bank debt Instrument class Counterparty Risk Assessment Senior unsecured bank debt De Jure waterfall De Facto waterfall Notching LGF Assigned Additional Preliminary LGF notching Rating Instrument Sub- Instrument SubDe Jure De Facto Notching Guidance notching Assessment volume + ordination volume + ordination vs. subordination subordination Adjusted BCA aa (cr).%.% a1 Loss Given Failure notching Additional Preliminary Rating Notching Assessment aa (cr) a1 Government Support notching Local Currency Rating 1 Aa (cr) Aa Foreign Currency Rating --- Source: Moody's Financial Metrics Ratings Exhibit 4 Category NO PB Outlook Baseline Credit Assessment Adjusted Baseline Credit Assessment Counterparty Risk Assessment Issuer Rating -Dom Curr Bkd Senior Unsecured ST Issuer Rating -Dom Curr Moody's Rating Stable a a Aa(cr)/P-1(cr) Aa Aa P-1 Source: Moody's Investors Service Endnotes 1 Under the banking law of 6 July, 1 AFL's mandate consists in financing local authorities. The AFL was granted a banking license as a specialized credit institution on 1 January 15 Except for the borrowers of whom outstanding debt is below than EUR 1 million. 7 8 November 17

8 17 Moody s Corporation, Moody s Investors Service, Inc., Moody s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, MOODY S ). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY, INC. AND ITS RATINGS AFFILIATES ( MIS ) ARE MOODY S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MOODY S PUBLICATIONS MAY INCLUDE MOODY S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES. MOODY S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY S ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. MOODY S CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY S PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided AS IS without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moody s publications. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY S. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Moody s Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody s Corporation ( MCO ), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to Moody s Investors Service, Inc. for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,5 to approximately $,5,. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS s ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at under the heading Investor Relations Corporate Governance Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy. Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY S affiliate, Moody s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN AFSL 6969 and/or Moody s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN AFSL 8569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to wholesale clients within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 1. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a wholesale client and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to retail clients within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 1. MOODY S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors. It would be reckless and inappropriate for retail investors to use MOODY S credit ratings or publications when making an investment decision. If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser. Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. ( MJKK ) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody s SF Japan K.K. ( MSFJ ) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization ( NRSRO ). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. and respectively. MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY, to approximately JPY5,,. MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements. REPORT NUMBER 8 8 November