And so the focus shifts to the quietest neighborhood on the block: “The negative [Moody’s] outlook on the province [of Ontario] reflects the softening economic outlook, Ontario’s growing debt burden, and the extended timeframe to achieving a balanced budget.” What’s next: someone dares to question the stability of Canadian banks which as we it turns out may have a few hundred billion in hyper-rehypo assets (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (re-pledged $72 billion in client assets), Royal Bank of Canada (re-pledged $53.8 billion of $126.7 billion available for re-pledging)) pledged there… and there… and there… and so, ad inf.
The change in the outlook reflects Moody’s assessment of risks surrounding the province’s ability to meet its medium term fiscal targets given the recent slowdown in provincial economic growth and the resulting risks to the province’s ability to stabilize the recent accumulation in debt.
“The negative outlook on the province reflects the softening economic outlook, Ontario’s growing debt burden, and the extended timeframe to achieving a balanced budget,” said Moody’s Assistant Vice President Jennifer Wong, lead analyst for the Province of Ontario.
The province’s Fall 2011 statement, released in November, revised its forecasts down for provincial growth in 2011 and 2012 to 1.8% and 1.8% from 2.4% and 2.7%, respectively. The provincial economy is particularly affected by the moderation in US growth, given its higher export share relative to other Canadian provinces and the high proportion of international exports (roughly 80%) destined for the US.
The province set out in its 2011-12 budget a plan to return to fiscal balance in 2017-18. Moody’s has highlighted that the extended period of fiscal consolidation presents an element of risk in achieving the planned consolidation path, and a risk to stabilizing and reversing the recent deterioration in the province’s financial position. At March 31, 2011, Ontario’s net direct and indirect debt, at roughly 200% of consolidated revenues, was at the high end of the spectrum for Canadian provinces, whose ratings remain in the narrow range of Aaa to Aa2.
The slowdown in provincial economic growth presents a challenge to the already lengthy planned consolidation path, particularly given the strong expense growth seen in recent years. Expense growth leading up to the recent downturn was relatively robust, highlighting the challenge ahead. Indeed, expense growth averaged 7% annually in the five years to 2007-08, with health expenses having grown at an average of 8%. The fiscal plan presented in the 2011-12 budget assumed expense growth of roughly 2% annually for the duration of the plan.
Nevertheless, Moody’s reports that Ontario’s high investment-grade rating reflects high debt affordability and the high degree of fiscal flexibility inherent in the institutional framework governing the way Canadian provinces operate. The current low interest rate environment has enabled the province to issue long-term debt bearing historically low coupons. While the proportion of revenues consumed by interest payments has increased with the recent accumulation in debt, this remains manageable given the province’s fiscal flexibility. Moreover, the province’s large and diversified economy and growing population provides access to a broad and productive tax base and, as such, remains a source of credit strength.
While Ontario retains sufficient fiscal flexibility inherent in the institutional framework to adjust its fiscal outcomes, thereby improving its financial position, difficult policy decisions are required.
“We believe that increased fiscal discipline will be required to sustain debt affordability,” said Ms. Wong. “If a credible plan to address the fiscal imbalance and stabilize the debt burden is not implemented in the next provincial budget, expected in March 2012, downward pressure on the province’s Aa1 rating would emerge.”
Moody’s P-1 rating on Ontario’s commercial paper program remains unchanged.
The Province of Ontario is Canada’s largest province, representing approximately 40% of national GDP. The province’s population measured approximately 13.2 million in 2010.
WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATING UP/DOWN
A rating upgrade is unlikely in the near term given the current context of continued consolidated deficits and debt accumulation.
An inability to address continued consolidated deficits and to stabilize the debt burden over the medium term would put downward pressure on the rating. Further downward revisions to growth would also place pressure on the province’s ability to achieve medium term fiscal targets and would place negative pressure on the rating. Finally, if debt affordability were to deteriorate due to higher-than-expected increases in debt levels or a significant rise in interest rates, the province’s fiscal flexibility would be reduced, exerting downward pressure on the rating.
The methodologies used in this rating were “Regional and Local Governments Outside the US”, published in May 2008, and “The Application of Joint-Default Analysis for Regional and Local Governments”, published in December 2008.
Please see the Credit Policy page on www.moodys.com for a copy of these methodologies.
Although this credit rating has been issued in a non-EU country which has not been recognized as endorsable at this date, this credit rating is deemed “EU qualified by extension” and may still be used by financial institutions for regulatory purposes until 31 January 2012. ESMA may extend the use of credit ratings for regulatory purposes in the European Community for three additional months, until 30 April 2012, if ESMA decides that exceptional circumstances arise that may imply potential market disruption or financial instability. Further information on the EU endorsement status and on the Moody’s office that has issued a particular Credit Rating is available on www.moodys.com.
For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt, this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody’s rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation to the rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider’s credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer onwww.moodys.com.
Information sources used to prepare the rating are the following :
parties involved in the ratings, parties not involved in the ratings, public information, and confidential and proprietary Moody’s Investors Service information.
Moody’s considers the quality of information available on the rated entity, obligation or credit satisfactory for the purposes of issuing a rating.
Moody’s adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a 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.