Local Fund Management

Some local governments also use the notation to assess their client image from financial institutions.
Representing a significant market potential, and a limited risk of default, local authorities have benefited from the years 1990 positive effects of competition between banking intermediaries:

* Commoditization of credit to local authorities;
* Lowering the cost of credit;
* Strengthening innovation in the development of formulas to simplify the method of debt management and financing tailored to different aspects of local budgets.

With the strengthening of financial independence and their need for funding, the decentralization offers new opportunities and banks are continuing their efforts to penetrate while searching for a quality signature.

The landscape of local funding has therefore changed with the advent of increased competition between the banking intermediaries and diversification of the offer. The complexity of the financial environment for local communities contributes to the professionalization of their financial functions that adopt progressive methods of reasoning of private management to optimize and streamline the management of debt:

* Arbitrage rate to reduce the risk of exposure;
* Active management of cash;
* Tighter budgetary control which requires the identification of commitments vis-à-vis third parties and to book, upstream, the necessary funds;
* Taking into account the multi-annual dimension of public management in local part of a prospective approach.

These developments are a key factor in terms of financial innovation. The banks have set up the financing products (cash management, lending short-term interest rate hedging ...) and services (value of active management of debt, project financing, investment of windfall ...) enabling them meet the new budget and financial practices of local communities.

The rise of the finance function in different directions with a strong accounting is also an important vector of disintermediation. Funding for local government being deregulated, they can raise funds directly in financial markets. New financial instruments of capital markets are, therefore, supplements or alternatives to traditional bank financing. Faced with disintermediation of financing local authorities, banks offer services in financial engineering and step up their financial activities in addition to traditional banking activities.

It should however be noted that the financial instruments are much more complex than the traditional bank loan, they can be handled only by large communities that have the expertise and responsiveness necessary to make the most of market opportunities. The disintermediation is to funding of local remains generally high banked.

Financial Management

The recent decentralization movement thus results in the management by local authorities of new economic functions in a new accounting and budgetary framework. The resources that these functions will induce change in level as the budgets that structure.
Local authorities must seek new funding to implement investments related to the exercise of their economic function, despite a high savings capacity.


With a self-borrowing, local governments must make a tradeoff between own resources and resources of loans to finance their investments. The bond acts as an adjustment variable whose magnitude depends on both the level of savings and the relative level of debt earlier.

After several years of moderate changes, it appears that the dynamism of local public investment began in 2003 continues at an annual growth of 8% for 4 years. Local communities continue to invest heavily:

* The election cycle is conducive to investment communal;
* While nearly 70% of public investment is devoted to building and public works, costs in construction and public works experience sustained growth;
* The transfer of responsibilities will encourage communities to support heavy investments (railway equipment, road investment ...).

This increase in investment volume is characterized by a need for increased funding. This results in increases in taxation and an increased reliance on borrowing, facilitated by a context of interest rates still low. In late 2006, the amount of the debt of local authorities is around 111 billion Euros, equivalent to 6% of GDP. This proportion is low in light of European commitments on debt: according to the Maastricht Treaty, the debt cannot exceed 60% of global GDP. In addition, the "financial valve" that is the fiscal autonomy increases the flexibility of local authorities in terms of borrowing.


The principles governing the development of local budgets (principle of annual, principle of unity, and rule of balancing the budget ...) require local management framed.
Therefore, despite important differences, the level of risk and solvency of all local authorities is excellent.

Credit Rating Agencies the heart of global financial systems Part.III

In the United States is the SEC that accredits the rating agencies can note issuers, a special status, the NRSRO. It is now held by the five main rating agencies that represent 98% of the U.S. market. The two challengers were able to obtain this status, a prelude to any attempt to internationalize, in 2003 for the Canadian DBRS (Dominion Bond Rating Services) and 2005 to the American AM Best, which specializes in rating companies insurance.


This demand for self-regulation has led rating agencies to overhaul their practices in methodology and ethics. Indeed, quantitative approaches too opaque and often resulted in "very good" ratings of financial players to hidden risks, or having issued bonds such as "structured finance" in spite of the risks associated with the nature of these products.

So in March 2007, it revised its rating methodology for banks by reducing the inclusion of state support or supervisory authorities in order to avoid masking the credit risk inherent in each bank. In June of that year, S & P revised its criteria for assessing securitization vehicles financing leveraged to take into account the loan contracts with very lightweight protection clauses.
On June 25, 2007, the French Banking Commission released the list of ECAI distinguishes seven actors: the Bank of France, Coface, DBRS, Fitch Ratings, Moody's, S & P and Japan Credit Agency. This status enables credit institutions to use the notations of ECAIs mentioned above for France to determine regulatory capital requirements arising from Basel 2 regulations.

The market for credit ratings is changing in light of internal innovations, new regulations and fears of investors. This cache of new players those focus on different goals in the field.

Credit Rating Agencies the heart of global financial systems Part.II

The market for credit ratings in recent years is subject to much criticism. Indeed, it is the issuers that pay the agencies questioning the independence of these. How to be neutral given that the issuer needs only a single note? It will tend to compensate the agency assigning the highest rating. The multiple criteria analysis are, for obvious reasons of confidentiality, never disclosed which increases the opacity a little more of the rating process that can be conditioned on the purchase of related services commonly known as "notching."

By focusing on the area of credit institutions, that summarizes the scoring of key players reveals a strong tendency to align the ratings (all these establishments are located in the first five layers). This convergence makes difficult the choice of investors who may consider not having to provide a rating scale commensurate with the risks involved.

The three leaders in the market for credit ratings are today: Standard and Poor's, Moody's and Fitch Ratings. This virtual monopoly is that international organizations and regulators, the market is fragmented and anticompetitive. In addition, there may be twenty years since the ouster of the firms of smaller sizes, mainly through mergers and acquisitions process which may eventually become a disincentive to impartiality and innovation.


The existence of a thriving market and strongly oligopolistic have IOSCO to react on the limits of the rating agencies through the publication of a code of Conduct "IOSCO CRA Code". CESR has meanwhile called for a self-supervised after which the rating agencies have indicated their willingness to collaborate.

In January 2006, the European Commission considered the establishment of a regulatory framework to oversee the activities of rating agencies superfluous, and therefore formally requested in May 2006 at CESR to produce an annual report on the consideration by rating agencies the principles set out by IOSCO (quality and integrity of the rating process, independence and avoidance of conflicts of interest, transparency and relevance of the ratings, confidentiality of information).

Credit Rating Agencies the heart of global financial systems Part.I

The key player in financial markets over the last twenty years, the CRAs (Credit Rating Agencies) best known under the name of credit rating agencies have become indispensable in providing a double service: an evaluation of the financial solvency of debt issuers (states, local governments, financial institutions, insurance companies, businesses) and participating in the decision support by assessing the financial risk of bonds. These services, summarized in a note, reflect on their own assessment of an agency and its analysts and may result in the case of a "downgrade" or "upgrade" significant repercussions on the costs loan, refinancing or the share price of a company.


Appeared in the United States, the financial rating has grown exponentially due to the internationalization of the markets. The notation is a service agency charged by the issuer and allows investors to compare the financial situation of both sectors to facilitate access to foreign markets and to rapidly assess the overall financial situation of a company. This note is an indicator of default risk, which complements the analysis from audit firms and analysts for investment banks. It allows the emitting structure to negotiate its interest rates for financing bank or bond issues.


Despite common customers and investors, the rating system is not uniform between each agency, even if harmonization has often been stressed. Each agency therefore has its own rating system that distinguishes mainly long-term debt and short-term, and divided into several layers that distinguish investment grade (High Grade) to speculative grade (speculative grade) addressed the latter mainly to investors seeking a high level of performance.