+632-8651-6524 ratings@crisp.com.ph

CRISP Rating Process

The credit rating process at CRISP officially begins with a written rating request from the debt issuer or its duly certified representative. CRISP management assigns a team of credit rating analysts to review the documents and information submitted by the prospective issuer.

Ratings assigned by CRISP are based on data submitted by the issuer. These include the company’s audited financial statements for at least three fiscal years, feasibility studies, and historical and projected market share data. CRISP analysts are expected to conduct a field visit to help assess the issue’s market and meet the management team of the project proponent.

CRISP management may opt not to conduct a field visit if documents are submitted and management meetings are deemed adequate to assess the proposed project.

When the issuer submits, presents, and discusses all the necessary documents or information, CRISP analysts proceed to convene a rating committee to present their report, analysis, and rating recommendation.

After deliberation, members of the rating committee assign a rating to represent their assessment of the factors that may affect the creditworthiness of the project proponent.

The CRISP analyst assigned to the issue communicates the results of the rating committee’s deliberations and discusses them with the issuer or its authorized representative about the factors that led to the decision. Issuers can appeal a rating decision by the committee and submit new information not previously provided to CRISP. The committee reviews the appeal only if new information is submitted. Based on this new information, the rating committee may or may not change the previous rating assigned to the issue.

Unless a written request for confidentiality is submitted in advance, all ratings will be publicly released. When confidentiality is requested, such a rating will be considered a private shadow rating that can only be used by the issuer for internal purposes. However, if the issuer cites or causes the rating to be cited or any part of it in any publication, CRISP will publish the rating and treat it as a regular rating.

CRISP Rating Timeline

    This timeline outlines the key steps and estimated durations involved in the credit rating process conducted by Credit Rating and Investors Services Philippines, Inc. The process ensures thorough evaluation, transparent communication, and timely delivery of credit ratings to issuers and investors.

    Initial Engagement and Mandate (Day 1)

    1. Issuer contacts Credit Rating and Investors Services Philippines, Inc. to initiate the rating process.
    2. Rating agreement is signed, list of documents is given to the prospective bond issuer
    3. Information Gathering (Day 2–Day 15)
    • Issuer submits relevant documents (financial statements, business plans, management profiles, etc.).
    • CRISP analysts review documentation and may request additional information.
    • Management Meeting & Site Visit (Day 16–Day 18), or day and time as agreed by the issuer and CRISP.
    • Meeting with the issuer’s management team for clarifications and insights.
    • Site visit (if applicable) to assess operations.
    • Analysis & Rating Committee Preparation (Day 19–Day 24)
    • Analysts conduct detailed financial, business, and industry analysis.
    • Draft rating report prepared for Rating Committee review.
    • Rating Committee Meeting & Decision (Day 25)
    • The committee reviews the findings, discusses the risks, and assigns a preliminary rating.
    • Communication of Rating to Issuer (Day 26)
    • The issuer is notified of the rating outcome and the rationale behind it.
    • The issuer is allowed to appeal or provide further information.
    • Finalization and Publication (Day 28)
    • If there is no appeal, the rating is finalized and published.
    • Rating is disseminated to investors and other stakeholders.
    • Ongoing Surveillance (Post-Rating) while the bonds are outstanding, or as agreed by the issuer and CRISP
    • Continuous monitoring of the issuer’s creditworthiness.
    • Annual or ad hoc review as required by changes in financial or business conditions.

    Notes

    • The timeline above is indicative and may be adjusted based on complexity, responsiveness of the issuer, and regulatory requirements.
    • Expedited reviews or appeals may alter the duration of specific steps.
    • All communications and disclosures are carried out in accordance with prevailing data privacy laws and recognized industry’s best practices.