China DCM scores: decent idea, poor execution

Chinese regulators are planning to rate the bond underwriting ability of securities firms. That may appear a sensible solution to an exchange bond market that has become cutthroat and chaotic. But the proposed solution is too vague to have much impact.

  • By Rebecca Feng
  • 22 Oct 2019
Email a colleague
Request a PDF

The Securities Association of China (SAC) is planning to give every domesticsecurities firm with more than three years of experience in bond underwriting a score of ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’. The process will start next May and the results will be made public. The scheme will cover all bonds issued by non-financial companies in the exchange market.

The evaluation will be based on five criteria: the number of people in a firm’s DCM team and their years of experience, the revenue from and volume of bonds underwritten in the past year, how well each firm complies with regulations, the quality of its risk control systems and finally (because why stop there?) how well the firms support “national-level strategies” such as the Belt and Road Initiative.

It makes some sense for regulators to try to clean up the market. Chinese banks have an all-too-familiar obsession with league tables, causing them to do anything ─ including abandoning such absurd notions as fees and syndication ─ to win business.

In April, Citic Securities and China International Capital Corporation acted as the joint lead underwriters on China National Nuclear Power’s Rmb7.8bn ($1.1bn) convertible corporate bond trade. The trade was one of the very few that disclosed underwriting fees. Together, the two joint lead underwriters charged the issuer only Rmb2.48m —0.03% of the underwriting amount.

By including bond underwriting revenue as a criterion, the new rating mechanism may help the regulator cool off the growingly fierce competition. But a crucial detail is missing from the new scoring guidelines. It remains unclear what disadvantages securities firms will face if they are rated ‘C’ and what preferential treatments they will receive if they are rated ‘A’.

It is not the first time Chinese regulators chose to not specify the consequences of the various ratings they assign to market participants. Since 2009, SAC has been giving a more general rating to each securities firm annually. The ratings range from triple-A to ‘E’.

On paper, these scores help the regulators provide differentiated treatment to securities firms. Those with higher scores will have an easier time obtaining licences and face fewer visits from the regulators. While those with low scores will have to go through more regular inspections and may have a harder time getting certain licences.

But three onshore DCM bankers told GlobalRMB that these ratings do not play much of a role when issuers hire securities firm to underwrite bond deals. One banker said that while issuers may care about their relationship with certain securities houses in the long-term, in the short-term, they only care about how cheaply a deal can get done.

As a result, some lower-rated firms have managed to grab more deals than their high-rated peers, Wind data shows. For example, Guorong Securities is ranked ‘C’, the lowest possible rating without being categorised as “at-risk”, and is number 34 of the volume league table. Immediately below Guorong is A-rated Caitong Securities, which has underwritten nine fewer bonds than Guorong. 

These rankings, since they are to be made public, only provide a “name and shame” effect on securities firms. Will they do any more than that? Will repercussions or fines follow? No-one knows.

Financial regulations should curb uncertainty, not create it. To make these ratings count, the Chinese regulators should give market participants a clear picture of how they are linked to concrete punishments or rewards.

  • By Rebecca Feng
  • 22 Oct 2019

Panda Bonds Top Arrangers

Rank Arranger Share % by Volume
1 Bank of China (BOC) 18.86
2 Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) 14.39
3 China Merchants Bank Co 14.21
4 China Merchants Securities Co 8.85
5 Agricultural Bank of China (ABC) 5.90

Bookrunners of Asia-Pac (ex-Japan) ECM

Rank Lead Manager Amount $bn No of issues Share %
  • Last updated
  • Today
1 China International Capital Corp Ltd 3.17 12 17.43%
2 Morgan Stanley 2.81 6 15.46%
3 CITIC Securities 1.85 5 10.20%
4 China Securities Co Ltd 1.51 2 8.30%
5 Citi 1.18 4 6.47%

Bookrunners of Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) G3 DCM

Rank Lead Manager Amount $bn No of issues Share %
  • Last updated
  • Today
1 Citi 3.59 16 8.36%
2 HSBC 3.24 28 7.54%
3 JPMorgan 2.54 13 5.92%
4 RBC Capital Markets 2.22 5 5.17%
5 Barclays 2.03 16 4.74%

Asian polls & awards

  • GlobalCapital China 2019 awards winners: Part III

    In the final part of GlobalCapital China’s awards announcement, we discuss the key innovation of 2019, and reveal the individual that has made the greatest contribution to reforming and internationalising the Chinese onshore market.

  • GlobalCapital China 2019 awards winners: Part II

    In the second part of GlobalCapital China’s awards announcement, we reveal the winning banks across Panda bonds, G3 bonds and ABS, as well as the best bank for securities services and the most impressive law firm.

  • GlobalCapital Asia capital markets awards 2019: Investment banks

    In the fourth and final instalment of GlobalCapital Asia’s capital markets awards announcements, find out which firms have been named the Best Asian Investment Bank and the Best Investment Bank in the region for 2019.

  • GlobalCapital China announces 2019 awards winners: Part I

    GlobalCapital China, previously GlobalRMB, is pleased to announce the winners of its annual capital markets awards, honouring the banks, companies and individuals that have made the biggest contribution to bridging the gap between China’s markets and the rest of the world. In part one of the awards, we reveal the most impressive issuers in the FIG, corporate and SSA categories.

  • GlobalCapital Asia capital markets awards 2019: Bonds

    In part three of GlobalCapital Asia's awards results announcements, we reveal the winning bond deals across a variety of categories. In addition, we also name the Best G3 Bond House, Best High Yield Bond House and the winner of the Best House for SRI Financing.